REFUTING "Isaiah 7:14 The Virgin Birth Prophecy"

DontNeedChrist:

This thread is a response to the topic found here: Topic: Religion

The fact is, christian MIS-translations of Isaiah 7:14 tamper with the wording. The following is what it REALLY says in the biblical Hebrew:

"Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman IS WITH CHILD and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel."

Another variation:
"Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman IS WITH CHILD, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel."

What do the christian MIS-translations say?
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." - KJV

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." - NIV

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." - NKJV

Notice the difference. Notice the tampering. Notice the last one (NKJV) capitalizes the word "son." This misleads the reader into thinking the child is divine but Hebrew has no capital letters.

The Hebrew word הָרָה֙ (harah) found in verse 14 means PREGNANT (IS WITH CHILD). Why would Isaiah point to THE young woman (not A young woman) WHO IS ALREADY PREGNANT and refer to her as a virgin? She was obviously NOT a virgin.

So all the endless and exhaustive twisting and maligning of the words "ha almah" and "ha b'tulah" are irrelevant. The young woman is harah הָרָה֙ (WITH CHILD).

The MIS-translations attempt to confuse and force the jesus-virgin-birth narrative into a verse where it never existed in the first place.

There is no prophecy of a virgin-birth anywhere in the Tanakh. THE young woman (ha almah) WAS ALREADY PREGNANT. Case closed.

Zanjan: The translation of a single word would sound reasonable if it wasn't in a prophecy with a future story to go with it.

Oddly, the Quran agrees that Mary was a virgin - untouched by any man when she conceived Jesus. God can do anything and probably will to test the people. Even stranger, Baha'u'llah also says this story is true........not just one word, but the whole story.

Zanjan: Add some science. Many animals in nature can reproduce without fertilization, given the right circumstances. Humans are mammals but not known to reproduce this way. Scientists tested this decades ago, soon as they had the knowledge and means.

In a test tube, they successfully got a human egg to multiply cells without fertilization, resulting in a viable zygote. Of course, they had to destroy it because they weren't going to implant it. This was published in scientific journals. Meanwhile, we still understand this doesn't happen under normal circumstances. God can change the circumstances if there's an important purpose.

Surely you can understand why there's no technical explanation in the New Testament or any other scriptures.

DontNeedChrist:

Zanjan said:
"The translation of a single word would sound reasonable if it wasn't in a prophecy with a future story to go with it.

Oddly, the Quran agrees that Mary was a virgin - untouched by any man when she conceived Jesus. God can do anything and probably will to test the people. Even stranger, Baha'u'llah also says this story is true........not just one word, but the whole story. "

#1 - There is no "future story" to go with it and you don't specify what that story is. If one reads the verse IN CONTEXT, the prophecy was the amount of time it would take for the child to learn good from bad would be the time King Ahaz's enemies would be defeated which DID happen. The prophecy also states the child will be named Emmanuel by his mother yet jesus was obviously not given that name.

#2 - Mary named her son jesus which isn't even a Hebrew name. Xtians claim since Emmanuel means "G-d with us," it alludes to jesus but that's forced because he simply was not given that name so its meaning is irrelevant. Emmanuel was a completely different person born over 700 years before jesus.

#3 - It doesn't matter what the qu'ran says. It doesn't matter what the book of mormon says. It doesn't matter what the new testament says. It doesn't matter what the vedas says. What other religions' scriptures claim AFTER THE FACT have no bearing on this Jewish/Hebrew passage. It's all Monday morning quarterbacking.

DontNeedChrist:

Zanjan said:
"Add some science. Many animals in nature can reproduce without fertilization, given the right circumstances. Humans are mammals but not known to reproduce this way. Scientists tested this decades ago, soon as they had the knowledge and means.

In a test tube, they successfully got a human egg to multiply cells without fertilization, resulting in a viable zygote. Of course, they had to destroy it because they weren't going to implant it. This was published in scientific journals. Meanwhile, we still understand this doesn't happen under normal circumstances. God can change the circumstances if there's an important purpose.

Surely you can understand why there's no technical explanation in the New Testament or any other scriptures"

--------------

There was no such science in existence in those days. Unsubstantiated claims were made. They can either be believed or dismissed. The concept of G-d impregnating a virgin is pagan and not exclusive to xtianity. It's prevalent in various mythologies prior to jesus' birth.

Going back to the original Hebrew, Isaiah pointed to a young woman that both he and Ahaz knew and in that day and prophesied the woman WHO WAS ALREADY PREGNANT would give birth to a boy, name him Emmanuel and the time it took the child to learn right from wrong would be the timestamp for Ahaz's incoming enemy kings to be destroyed. It's not messianic. It's not about jesus. Science has nothing to do with it. Why would jesus who is supposedly sinless and G-d or the son of G-d need to learn to differentiate between good and bad? Read the verses before and after. Read the chapters before and after. Read the entire Book of Isaiah. Read the entire Tanach IN CONTEXT.

These are all desperate attempts to retrofit jesus into the Tanach and a close examination of the HEBREW renders the claims unjustified.

Zanjan: #1, #2, and #3

A prophecy has a story that is intended to be fulfilled. Prophecies, as opposed to projections, aren't meant to be understood until AFTER they're fulfilled. AFTER the fact is more important than before the fact because the purpose of a prophecy is to serve as a divine confirmation.

Isaiah was a long-distance Prophet - that is, His prophecies reached thousands of years into the future. It's very common for normal people to accurately foresee events within 2-5 years time. They don't get called prophets for that observation.

Anyone who knew King Ahaz knew he was a doubter who shot himself in the foot. He didn't defeat his enemies, he just wasn't harassed by them. He died at age 36; while his son succeeded him, he lost his kingdom. Refer to "the dial of Ahaz".

When the Lord gives people a SIGN, it's something unusual, not normal or common. It stands out, being recognized as a rare and mysterious event, not caused by the hand of humans.


A person can be a young female and a virgin at the same time. She can be a virgin 30 minutes before she conceives, if by normal means. In application, one word can serve two or more meanings, which is very normal. This gives you latitude to twist things however you like.

The text says "He shall be called Emanuel". That's a *title* for the child, which means "God with us". Never has any scriptural prophecy given the actual birth name for a Revelator because it's a test. All Revelators have title names. One has to recognize the Revelator on their own.

The NT says Mary named her child. "Jesus" was a common Jewish name in the ancient Holy Land but it wasn't spelled out in the English. It was spelled and pronounced differently in Latin and Greek as well.

DontNeedChrist:
Zanjan:
"A prophecy has a story that is intended to be fulfilled."

Yes, it was fulfilled when the young pregnant woman gave birth to the child and named him Emmanuel over 700 years before jesus' birth. It was fulfilled.

Zanjan:
"Isaiah was a long-distance Prophet - that is, His prophecies reached thousands of years into the future."

True. Isaiah prophesied things that would happen centuries later but also prophesied about short-term events. In this particular case, the prophecy was fulfilled in Ahaz's time so he could witness his enemies be defeated. Xtians like to call this a "dual prophecy" but there is no such concept in Judaism. It was fulfilled in both Isaiah's and Ahaz's time.

Zanjan:
"When the Lord gives people a SIGN, it's something unusual, not normal or common."

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In this case, it was simply showing a time frame in which Ahaz would see his enemies defeated. It would take around the time it takes for a child to learn right from wrong. This does not apply to jesus. All "signs" do not have to be unusual. That has no basis in fact. Isaiah even says in the next chapter that his children are signs.

8:18 - "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for SIGNS AND FOR TOKENS OF ISRAEL, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.

Most likely Emmanuel was a son of Isaiah born over 700 years before jesus.

Zanjan:
"A person can be a young female and a virgin at the same time. She can be a virgin 30 minutes before she conceives, if by normal means. In application, one word can serve two or more meanings, which is very normal."

The HEBREW word used in this passage is harah הָרָה֙ (WITH CHILD). That rules out virginity immediately. Isaiah pointed to a young woman who was a contemporary of both he and Ahaz. A woman WITH CHILD. Already pregnant. No reason to refer to her as a virgin. This is common logic.

Zanjan:
"The NT says Mary named her child. "Jesus" was a common Jewish name in the ancient Holy Land"

WRONG. The name jesus is not a Hebrew name. And it has no meaning. This shows ignorance of Hebrew in general.

The song and dance performed around Isaiah 7 is all a distraction. Read and learn the original Hebrew then all the superfluous arguments and semantics evaporate.

Zanjan: "The concept of G-d impregnating a virgin is pagan and not exclusive to xtianity. It's prevalent in various mythologies prior to jesus' birth."

This is true. The Jews had succumbed to pagan perspectives several times so they could certainly relate to those traditions. Where do you think the pagans got their ideas from in the first place??? They ripped them from God's religions and re-dressed them.

Yet it is one thing to describe a dynamic using any visual you prefer, and quite another for an event to occur as literally described. The appearance of the Reveltor is often described as a creature of wild fantasy, having parts of animals and metals - that would be horrifying if it was literally true. People would run away in panic.

For example, the words "child" and "pregnant" can be used metaphorically. We use a turn of phrase frequently in conversation. However, when God speaks, it's a different matter because each letter of a Divine Word has a creative force.

"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". The spiritual power is the cause, the effect plays out on the physical pane. The science wasn't necessary back in ancient times - one trusted God to know how to do things they couldn't.

Back then, nobody asked how God created the sun, moon, and stars - they were satisfied with their existence. Like turning on a light switch in a room - you don't stand around examining and discussing the light.

The question at hand is: Could it be literally possible for a human virgin to physically conceive without fertilization. Atheists wanted to know. The answer is, yes.

DontNeedChrist:

Honestly have no idea what you're talking about in this last post. You were coherent for a while there. Maybe take a break.

DontNeedChrist:

What, no response zanjan?

DontNeedChrist:

...

kylieMcNulty: I'm Native so not Jewish not Christian but a virgin birth isn't impossible if: for a virgin to get pregnant, one of her eggs would have to produce, on its own, the biochemical changes indicative of fertilization, and then divide abnormally to compensate for the lack of sperm DNA.

Traditionally a virgin is a person that has not had sexual intercourse. That is what they tell us but a real virgin is

Virgin women do not need to have an unbroken hymen.

Sorry I take a figure into the story which is a perfect match to show women don't need to have sexual intercourse to be able to give birth like Lilith and sorry i mention her but Lilith gave birth by eggs so not like we are used to.

artificial fertilization, fertilize a female without she has a need for sex so she can be a virgin and still become pregnant but that is something many forget and think without sex no child so no virgin if she had a child and that is wrong because it is possible to get a child even you never had any sex

DontNeedChrist:

Your point is noted but the Hebrew word הָרָה֙ (harah) that Isaiah used in verse 14 means PREGNANT (IS WITH CHILD) so the woman in question was not a virgin and there's no reason to think she was. It's clearly either an intentional or unintentional MIS-translation.

shadowline: If anyone is sincerely wondering why Christianity sees Isaiah 7:14 as a foreshadowing of the virgin birth of Jesus (rather than just wanting to attack and tear down someone else's beliefs) it is because, first, Christianity accepts the Septuagint as Scripture and for that reason sees its use of the Greek word for "virgin" is a sanctioned interpretation of the original Hebrew word. As exegesis clarifies, translation can clarify.

Second, Christianity believes that the coming of Jesus shed new light on the Hebrew Scriptures and showed that the language of God featured images, typologies, and forecastings which occur whether the passage is a specific prophecy of the coming of the Messiah or not. Because in Christianity the Messiah is the heart of the story, he is found to be pervasive in Scripture, often in ways that were not detected before he came.

This isn't an argument for, just an explanation. And since we live in a modern, pluralist society based in tolerance, I'm sure it will be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered.

DontNeedChrist:

Appreciate the input and respect the angle you're coming from. Just to clarify, this isn't an attempt to attack beliefs. What this simply boils down to is the language in which the source was written in by Isaiah.

Hebrew.

So any translation into any other language is irrelevant. The saying "lost in translation" comes into play here 100%

Christianity can justify its stance using other languages however much they want but it altars the original intent. That's just plain fact. Beliefs, faith and the like are on the sideline and often become a sideshow.