A bible question

[blackbelt1961]

Only those who were there at the time can know for certain which is the case. For the rest of us it's a matter of faith and interpretation.

what about the witness of the Holy Spirit that confirms to the believer that its an actual factual event?

 

[revsdd]

what about the witness of the Holy Spirit that confirms to the believer that its an actual factual event?

The witness of the Holy Spirit is a matter of faith and subjective experience that can't be proven. Which doesn't mean it isn't real; just that it's belief and faith more than knowledge.

 

[blackbelt1961]

The witness of the Holy Spirit is a matter of faith

I guess your right, until it actually happens to you

and subjective experience that can't be proven.

agreed

Which doesn't mean it isn't real; just that it's belief and faith more than knowledge.

I wouldn't say more than knowledge , since the Spirit does witness a knowing to believers , I guess belief and faith turn into conviction.

Maybe i'm being to picky with the wording, maybe its just a stronger faith im not to sure, but Faith for me has turned into something different or something much stronger, since the Presence of the Holy Spirit in my life 10 yrs ago,

 

[Luce NDs]

Perhaps just a figment of the abstract ... an old expression for the darkness of a'mon'sol ... the Shadow character or persona non grata ... for those not appreciating creative psyches ... or a denied dimension of mined ... eL Dorado? Kind 've like a moonie hiding behind a cloud in: Hear that Lonesome Whip Poor Wile ... I love reading into adepts of lyre IHCs!

They are kind of reclusive compared to forward humanity without humility ... Trumps supporters as houses of cards?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Almah is a broad word that generally speaking means a young, unmarried woman. Whether she's had sex or not is largely irrelevant, although I would argue that the moral norm in that society would be that an almah was expected to be a virgin.

Not in the hebrew community

As Gord points out, it's the Septuagint (which was translated by Jewish scholars) who chose the Greek word "parthenos" as the translation of "almah." Parthenos does mean "virgin."

Both the Hebrew word Almah and Bethulah are translated as Parthenon/Parthenos which actually means Vestal. not virgin. Yet the two words are clearly not the same. So it can only mean they had a hard job translating Almah because there isn't a literal translation, for that word.
I would suggest they translated it to latin or aramaic and then to greek. And not finding a suitable Greek word settled for the next best.

Since the Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars, then it must be possible for Jewish scholars and rabbis to believe that Isaiah 7:14 is referring, in context, to a virgin.

No. Not unless they were Greek scholars too. and were fluent in Ancient Greek. Which I doubt. give the context of proverbs and the knowledge of their own language they would not make such a faux pas. Unless the person or persons whom were guiding them in the Greek language, misunderstood the meaning of Almah or Bethulah. Or they themselves misunderstood the meaning of the Greek word Parthenos.

This from Rabbi Singer http://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/

Your pastor’s contention that “every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin” is incorrect and misleading. This is not the first time that I have come across a Christian leader who has made this erroneous assertion; and each and every time I encounter this wild contention, I am puzzled as to why these apologists do not do their research before making this claim. This is especially the case in our modern age where computer technology has made it possible to quickly and easily perform exhaustive word studies. I will briefly explain your question for my readers who are unfamiliar with this subject.

For nearly two millennia the Church has insisted that the Hebrew word almah עַלְמָה can only mean “virgin.” This is a vital position for defenders of Christianity to take because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” The first Gospel quotes this well known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus. The stakes are high for Christendom. If the Hebrew word alma does not mean a virgin, Matthew crudely misquoted the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

He makes the very same point as I.

 

[revsdd]

Not in the hebrew community Both the Hebrew word Almah and Bethulah are translated as Parthenon/Parthenos which actually means Vestal. not virgin. Yet the two words are clearly not the same. So it can only mean they had a hard job translating Almah because there isn't a literal translation, for that word.

Thank you for basically saying what I just said. Almah is a hard word to define, for the simple reason that it can be translated in different ways.

I would suggest they translated it to latin or aramaic and then to greek. And not finding a suitable Greek word settled for the next best.No. Not unless they were Greek scholars too. and were fluent in Ancient Greek. Which I doubt. give the context of proverbs and the knowledge of their own language they would not make such a faux pas. Unless the person or persons whom were guiding them in the Greek language, misunderstood the meaning of Almah or Bethulah. Or they themselves misunderstood the meaning of the Greek word Parthenos.

Thank you for all your suggestions. You've made a lot of suggestions here and noted a variety of possibilities.Which is what they are. Suggestions and possibilites.

This from Rabbi Singer http://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/
He makes the very same point as I.

I agree with Rabbi Singer: any pastor who suggests that "every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin" is clearly wrong. Nor did I ever suggest or even hint that "every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin" Almah (and it masculine counterpart elem) doesn't actually appear very often in the Bible. And I'm happy to acknowledge that when it does it means "young unmarried woman (or man.)" I merely noted the possibility that it could be translated as "virgin" as I also noted that the translation "young woman" was a very strong translation based on the common usage of the word. In fact I'll go a step further. To translate it is "virgin" is actually wrong. Substituting the word "virgin" for "young woman" is more of an interpretation, which has some cultural and contextual support but is not an accurate translation of the word. The word means "young unmarried woman." So it's more accurate to say that the word has been rendered "virgin" by some ancient scholars. I would say again that the absolute insistence that it cannot refer to a virgin is more of a response to Christian teaching by Jewish scholars (such as Rabbi Singer) than any ancient Jewish understanding of the word. Which doesn't make Singer wrong - it simply points out that he is a modern Jew who interprets the word as modern Jews interpret it for a variety of reasons.

So, all things considered, I'm not sure why you're taking issue with me, since we seem to agree on far more than we disagree on as regards the word "almah."

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Not taking issue with you. Just anybody who would suggest that Almah means Virgin because it doesn't. In no way, shape, or means.
It doesn't matter whether you are a modern Jew or an ancient one. Solomon clearly defines it in Proverbs 30: 18-20
So I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was singling you out.

 

[revsdd]

Not taking issue with you. Just anybody who would suggest that Almah means Virgin because it doesn't. In no way, shape, or means.
It doesn't matter whether you are a modern Jew or an ancient one. Solomon clearly defines it in Proverbs 30: 18-20
So I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was singling you out.

As I've said I agree that it doesn't literally mean virgin. Culturally or contextually, however, it could be interpreted that an "almah" would be a virgin. That's all I'm saying. But you're right about the literal translation.

As for Proverbs 30:18-20, you surprise me.

First, it's really quite doubtful whether Solomon wrote that so I'm surprised you attribute it to him.

Second, the author doesn't actually define "almah" in that verse. He just uses "almah" according to the most common way - "young woman."

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Then I suggest you read the link I supplied fro Rabbi Singer.

 

[Luce NDs]

Vestal ... something to do with a'priori fire ... now who would set a'mon on a pyre ... and after he might be roasted because of the resulting circumstances ... a'post'olic (a'posteri?), or just svasti awakening to the twist, crank and vortex in Cyrillic form ... a swirl of words on pyre as a song? Kerygma?

Probably something to do with the relationship and alchemy between succubus and incubus ... leading to anima's as laid out! Something to ponder as animus ... the thoughtful part!

Much to be laid out to flawed humans for them to learn uncertainty from the stories ... and thus the ongoing nature ... cause the eternal liked it? Albeit often ignored, or denied leaving a void ...

 

[revsdd]

Then I suggest you read the link I supplied fro Rabbi Singer.

I read it shortly after you posted it. So what? Singer decides to ignore the text, which clearly identifies Agur son of Jakeh as the author of what we call Chapter 30, and claims solomonic authorship for Chapter 30. Wow. OK. He doesn't take the text very seriously, does he.

As far as Singer defining "almah," I don't see him "defining" it. His discussion of vv. 19-20 is interesting, but to me not convincing, because I don't see the requisite relationship between the two verses. In other words, I'm not convinced that the "young girl" of v. 19 is the "adulteress" of v. 20. I just don't see the vital linkage between the two verses. I tend to see the adulteress of v.20 as a contrast to the young girl of v.19 rather than as the same person. Nor do I think that the young girl of v. 19 is necessarily a virgin. It's not clear at all from the text. She might be; she might not be. The adulteress clearly isn't.

Singer is exactly what I've mentioned. He's part of an organization (Outreach Judaism) that is specifically an aggressive response to Christian teaching. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that; I'm just saying that the nature of the organization defines how they'll approach certain subjects (as does my identity as a Christian admittedly influence me) and perhaps lessens their credibility by clearly indicating their bias. Outreach Judaism and its supporters will find the best way possible to challenge, question and raise doubts about Christianity from a Jewish perspective. Consider this paragraph:

For nearly two millennia the Church has insisted that the Hebrew word almah עַלְמָה can only mean “virgin.” This is a vital position for defenders of Christianity to take because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” The first Gospel quotes this well known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus. The stakes are high for Christendom. If the Hebrew word alma does not mean a virgin, Matthew crudely misquoted the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

First of all it's clearly not "vital" for defenders of Christianity to insist upon the translation of "almah" as virgin - since I know many Christians (including myself) who quite cheerfully acknowledge that "almah" doesn't literally mean "virgin," even in Isaiah 7:14. It means "young unmarried woman." So where he gets how "vital" this is for defenders of Christianity I'm not sure. The stakes really aren't all that high for Christianity - only for absolute literalists. I don't have any particular problem believing in the virgin birth, but I also don't consider the virgin birth as vital to my personal faith, and if it were ever proven that Mary wasn't a virgin nothing significant of what I believe about Jesus would be challenged. I'll acknowledge that absolute literalists and fundamentalists would take a different approach. Also, Matthew's Gospel doesn't crudely misquote anything. Actually, Matthew quite accurately quotes the Septuagint. Rabbi Singer may not like what the translators of the Septuagint did with Isaiah 7:14, but it was the version of the Scriptures that was in the widest circulation among the Jews of that era. So Matthew doesn't crudely quote anything. He accurately quotes the Septuagint, which Singer may consider a crude translation - but that's not Matthew's fault.

 

[Jaebius]

Red herring.

The crux of the passage would be the covenant made with one's eyes and not if one is selective in who they were eyeing.

Translators have options. Knowing which Hebrew word and which is the most litural translation doesn't much impact upon Jae's interpretation.

If Jae was saying porn is okay so long as it isn't of virgins then the literal translation would be a red herring to the passage and such a selective interpretation would be more an abuse of scripture than fair use of it.

The covenant with the eyes is no looking. Specifically no looking at anyone I am not married to. And more specifically no leering at other women.

Think about Trump having a similar covenant with his hands. There would be much less outrage and fewer women stating that his talk is more pragmatic than theoretic.

The best translations will always be more accurate. Less accurate isn't automatically untrue.

You had me on, "Like" until your comment about Trump. Allegations of misconduct do not make them true. He'll be suing all the women who made the allegations post-election.

 

[GordW]

You had me on, "Like" until your comment about Trump. Allegations of misconduct do not make them true. He'll be suing all the women who made the allegations post-election.

what about the fact that he is on tape admitting that he does it (which is largely what prompted the allegatins to come forward) And the threat to sue is very childish, though not as bad as threatening his oppositoin to try and ensure she is imprisoned.

I presume you also assume Bill Cosby is innocent?

Back on topic.

Jesus will later say that adultery is committed as much with the eyes as with the body, which would seem to flow with the Job verse. I submit that the sexual experience of the person is irrelevant to the point that Jesus makes. And indeed the sexual experience (or lack of it) is generallly irrelevant to anyone other than the person and those with whom she/he is intimate

 

[Jaebius]

what about the fact that he is on tape admitting that he does it (which is largely what prompted the allegatins to come forward) And the threat to sue is very childish, though not as bad as threatening his oppositoin to try and ensure she is imprisoned.

There is no excuse for the comments that he made years ago on tape. I have already said here on WC2 that they cannot be defended. He has expressed regret for those comments. As horrid as making those comments is, it does not necessarily mean that he ever actually did anything. His promise to sue people who he feels have slandered his character is not childish, and, in the opinion of many, Hillary Clinton rightly belongs behind bars.

I presume you also assume Bill Cosby is innocent?

Back on topic.

Jesus will later say that adultery is committed as much with the eyes as with the body, which would seem to flow with the Job verse. I submit that the sexual experience of the person is irrelevant to the point that Jesus makes. And indeed the sexual experience (or lack of it) is generallly irrelevant to anyone other than the person and those with whom she/he is intimate

 

[GordW]

There is no excuse for the comments that he made years ago on tape. I have already said here on WC2 that they cannot be defended. He has expressed regret for those comments. As horrid as making those comments is, it does not necessarily mean that he ever actually did anything. His promise to sue people who he feels have slandered his character is not childish, and, in the opinion of many, Hillary Clinton rightly belongs behind bars.

Your right, childish was the wrong word. BLatant intimidation is the better term for both the threat to sue and the threat to interfere in the judicial process.

BUt anyway, John's equation was an accurate equivalency to the topic, based on Trumps recorded statements and the ensuing allegations.

 

[BetteTheRed]

What I find interesting is the assumption that a young unmarried woman would, necessarily, be a virgin, because the rules said so.

We generally defy your 'rules'...

 

[Luce NDs]

What I find interesting is the assumption that a young unmarried woman would, necessarily, be a virgin, because the rules said so.

We generally defy your 'rules'...

Thus satyrs begin and copious additions are made ... one should approach such production with caution ... it could cost yah ... especially if they are all committed to haute education at expensive institutions!