Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | translate OT "with respect to the NT" | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 111906 | ||
Kalos I agree and I also think NET Bibles position is wrong. It appears they threw the baby out with the wash water. In an effor to keep testament purity they discounted the NT and to some degree the theological development that Isaiah was building. EdB |
||||||
2 | translate OT "with respect to the NT" | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 111915 | ||
Dear Ed and Kalos: My first inclination was not to step into the arena on the Isaiah 7:14 passage, but I have, perhaps all too unwisely, changed my mind. It was, to my recollection, the Revised Standard Version which among modern translations became the vanguard in its substitution of the traditional term "virgin" with "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. For this, among other departures from the traditional, the RSV and its sequel, the NRSV, have become the brunt of severe criticism which has been levied upon them by various theologically conservative schools. Hence, the RSV and other translations of a similar stripe, deservedly or not, have come to be considered translations by and for the liberal main-liners and were rejected, by and large, by the conservative wing of Protestants. ..... I claim no expertise whatever in biblical Hebrew and thus proceed in the argument that follows with this considerable disclaimer. From my readings, however, I've learned that the Hebrew noun in question in Isaiah 7:14 is 'almah' and that the Hebrew definite article 'ha' that precedes it is indicative of a specific woman, not just any woman, and that the proper English article would be 'the' and not 'a.' Moreover, a comparison of other instances where the word occurs (e.g., Gen. 24:43; Prov. 30:19 and Song 1:3 and 6:8) suggests strongly that the prophet chose this term to indicate that the young woman in view was indeed a virgin. By the way, in all foregoing passages cited in parentheses, the New King James and the English Standard Versions both translate 'virgin' in every instance. Furthermore, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew 'almah' as 'parthenos' in the Greek, which means 'virgin,' as in Matthew 1:23. ..... Speaking of the word traditionally translated 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14, John MacArthur writes, "This prophecy reached forward to the virgin birth of the Messiah, as the New Testament notes (Matt. 1:23). The Hebrew word refers to an unmarried woman and means 'virgin' (Gen. 24:43; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3, 6:8), so the birth of Isaiah's own son (8:3) could not have fully satisfied the prophecy. Cf. Gen. 3:15." ...... I've read considerable pieces of material over the years on this issue from among those who embrace the 'virgin' translation and those who opt for the 'young woman' or 'maiden' translation. It is my considered opinion and the one to which I have clung for a number of years that 'virgin' is the translation that better satisfies the meaning that the prophet writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit had in mind in Isaiah 7:14. The argument for 'young woman' is not without a measure of merit and foundation, but I feel that stronger by far is the argument for 'virgin." .... The only translation of 'maiden' or 'young woman' that I could truly accept in this passage would be one in which the terms were preceded by the word 'chaste.' Says Charles Ryrie: "The Hebrew word that is here translated 'virgin' is found elsewhere in the Old Testament in Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8, and in those instances refers only to a chaste maiden who is unmarried." (Ryrie Study Bible). Of course, a "chaste maiden who is unmarried" is, by definition, a virgin. --Hank | ||||||
3 | translate OT "with respect to the NT" | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 111937 | ||
Hank I agree but I think the more conclusive evidence is. Matthew a Jew and probably at least knowledgeable in Hebrew believed Isaiah was talking about a "virgin" or he would have never quoted this verse clearly using the word virgin in his writing. Also Matthews peers of the day must have understood this verse the same way or surely they would have raised an issue with his use of the word virgin. Also if Isaiah 7:14 wasn't talking about a virgin then Matthew also can be accused of misquoting or modifying scripture to suit his purpose. That act alone would stand in conflict with our understanding of the scripture and how it was given to man. To me to believe that Matthew took literary license and changed a quote of the Old Testament to support a New Testament doctrine would say scripture was thus humanly manipulated and that would weaken the support of the doctrine that scripture was divinely inspired. EdB |
||||||