Isaiah 7:14

[Dicky Underpants]

Thanks, but the word 'pregnant' is an adjective describing a woman who has already conceived,. If we were referring to a future event, then rather than say "the woman will become pregnant" (which would require an extra verb, 'become') we would say "the woman will conceive" which is the natural way of saying it. Here the adjective is used, so the woman has already conceived.

Gordon Bennett! We would say either in English. But we are talking about ancient Hebrew.

Preaching from undiluted Strong’s Dictionary or Concordance is typically a dead end. It is a tool, but does not provide a message from God.
What Strong does do is to show how a word was translated into one English version (KJV, NASB, ESV),

https://openoureyeslord.com/2016/08/16/strongs-concordance-a-good-tool-gone-bad/

[Spud]

It's talking about a young woman who is pregnant. By definition she wasn't a virgin.

Looks as though you agree that she is, rather than will become, pregnant. And as Isaiah 54:4 shows, she has not yet been married.

Note that there is no acknowledgement in the story that this was a miraculous event.

There is a pun on almah involving the word 'above' in 7:11 (lə·mā·‘ə·lāh - as high as heaven above) which suggests a miraculous sign.

It's just a sign telling Ahaxz the timescales on which his enemies will be vanquished.

That's now the only bit left that needs explaining

[Spud]

Gordon Bennett! We would say either in English. But we are talking about ancient Hebrew.

Ok, got that, but there are 15 other OT instances of 'pregnant' and they are all women who are currently pregnant, never future pregnancy. The only case where there is a future pregnancy it uses the verb 'to conceive'. (Three times in judges 13 and once possibly in Isaiah 33.)

[Maeght]

Just to answer my question to Sassy in #62:
I've checked the Hebrew, and it's not "will conceive" (Strongs 2029 - verb) but "is pregnant" (Strongs 3030, adjective).
So it's not talking about a virgin who will conceive, which wouldn't be a sign, but a virgin who is pregnant.

Or a young woman who is pregnant. This is what we have been talking about and is just going back over old ground.

[Maeght]

It's a reasonable assumption, as we would expect more information if she was pregnant the natural way, since it was normal for Israelites to wait until marriage.

It is still an assumption. You shouldn't conclude that the person referred to has to be a virgin.

[jeremyp]

Gordon Bennett! We would say either in English. But we are talking about ancient Hebrew.

Most modern Bible translations use the present tense.

This is the NRSV

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted

Some of the foremost experts on ancient Hebrew came up with that. Frankly I would trust them just as I trust their use the phrase "young woman" rather than "virgin".

[Sassy]

Thank you Sassy for confirming what I said in the OP. 'Almah' is correctly translated 'virgin'. Isaiah 54 shows that it means a young woman who has not yet married or had children, and therefore in Isaiah's mind the almah is a virgin. The question is, does  Isaiah 7:14 imply that she will still be a virgin at the time she becomes pregnant? Could he have meant a virgin who would shortly become pregnant?

I believe the use of the word 'maiden' shows at the conception she was a virgin. Did Joseph and Mary have sexual relations after the conception and before the birth I do not know.
i cannot see that affecting Jesus.

[Maeght]

I believe the use of the word 'maiden' shows at the conception she was a virgin. Did Joseph and Mary have sexual relations after the conception and before the birth I do not know.
i cannot see that affecting Jesus.

You may believe that but that doesn't mean it is correct.

[Spud]

Most modern Bible translations use the present tense.

This is the NRSV

Some of the foremost experts on ancient Hebrew came up with that. Frankly I would trust them just as I trust their use the phrase "young woman" rather than "virgin".

'Young woman' is certainly a correct phrase. But if we are allowed to use more than one word, why not 'unmarried young woman', which agrees with the usage of 'almah' as a girl who is physically mature enough to marry but has not yet done so?

[Maeght]

'Young woman' is certainly a correct phrase. But if we are allowed to use more than one word, why not 'unmarried young woman', which agrees with the usage of 'almah' as a girl who is physically mature enough to marry but has not yet done so?

From Wikipedia

'A sign, in this context, means a special event which confirms the prophet's words.[9] Ahaz's sign is to be the birth of a son to an almah, who will name him Immanuel, "God is with us", but the significance of the sign is not the identity of the child or his mother (scholars agree that "almah" refers to a woman of childbearing age and has nothing to do with virginity) but the meaning of his name ("God is with us") and the role it plays in identifying the length of time before God will destroy the Ephraimite-Syrian coalition (before the child learns right from wrong).'

[Spud]

From Wikipedia

'A sign, in this context, means a special event which confirms the prophet's words.[9] Ahaz's sign is to be the birth of a son to an almah, who will name him Immanuel, "God is with us", but the significance of the sign is not the identity of the child or his mother (scholars agree that "almah" refers to a woman of childbearing age and has nothing to do with virginity) but the meaning of his name ("God is with us") and the role it plays in identifying the length of time before God will destroy the Ephraimite-Syrian coalition (before the child learns right from wrong).'

I would agree with that, except the bit in bold, because the usage is consistent with unmarried status.

[Maeght]

I would agree with that, except the bit in bold, because the usage is consistent with unmarried status.

So you agree that the significant part of 'the sign' is the time period being referred to?

And you disagree with scholars?

[Spud]

From Wikipedia
(scholars agree that "almah" refers to a woman of childbearing age and has nothing to do with virginity)

I'm not sure if this adds to the force of my argument, but to say that it has nothing to do with virginity seems to impose a modern cultural interpretation onto it. In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman who was found to have slept with a man would have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:21).

[Maeght]

I'm not sure if this adds to the force of my argument, but to say that it has nothing to do with virginity seems to impose a modern cultural interpretation onto it. In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman who was found to have slept with a man would have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:21).

I'm sure the scholars are aware of this.

You said you agreed that the significant part was the time period. No reason i can see to see it as some prophecy about a future virgin birth referring to Jesus.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure if this adds to the force of my argument, but to say that it has nothing to do with virginity seems to impose a modern cultural interpretation onto it. In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman who was found to have slept with a man would have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:21).

What a prick your god is.

[Spud]

I'm sure the scholars are aware of this.

You said you agreed that the significant part was the time period. No reason i can see to see it as some prophecy about a future virgin birth referring to Jesus.

'Young woman' could include a married young woman. 'Maiden' or 'damsel' convey the not-yet-married characteristic, so I think they would be better.

Yes I agree about the time period of the sign, but I haven't fully thought about that aspect, so haven't ruled out that it could apply to birth that was in the distant future.

[jeremyp]

'Young woman' is certainly a correct phrase.

The correct phase in this case.

But if we are allowed to use more than one word, why not 'unmarried young woman'

Because there is no reason to infer that in the context of Isaiah 7. The prophecy is not about the woman who is pregnant, it's about the enemies of Ahaz and Judah.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure if this adds to the force of my argument, but to say that it has nothing to do with virginity seems to impose a modern cultural interpretation onto it. In Hebrew culture an unmarried young woman who was found to have slept with a man would have been stoned (Deuteronomy 22:21).

And there's no indication in the passage that the woman was stoned. There's nothing in the passage to indicate anything unusual about the pregnancy, nor would we expect there to be because it is not about the woman or the child.

[Spud]

The correct phase in this case.

Not specific enough as it doesn't take into account that where the context is unambiguous, the word almah always refers to an unmarried young woman or adolescent girl.

Because there is no reason to infer that in the context of Isaiah 7. The prophecy is not about the woman who is pregnant, it's about the enemies of Ahaz and Judah.

We infer it from the other usages, since here it is ambiguous. The woman and the name Immanuel are significant. She is prompted to call her son that because while he is still an infant, living in poverty because of the invasion, a deliverance happens.
Matthew interprets this as a foreshadowing of the birth of the one who would save his people from their sins. If only God can do this, then in the person of Jesus, God is with us in the fullest possible sense.

[Maeght]

Not specific enough as it doesn't take into account that where the context is unambiguous, the word almah always refers to an unmarried young woman or adolescent girl.We infer it from the other usages, since here it is ambiguous. The woman and the name Immanuel are significant. She is prompted to call her son that because while he is still an infant, living in poverty because of the invasion, a deliverance happens.
Matthew interprets this as a foreshadowing of the birth of the one who would save his people from their sins. If only God can do this, then in the person of Jesus, God is with us in the fullest possible sense.

The woman's virginity or otherwise is irrelevant if she is just being used to indicate a time period. The writer of Matthew may have interpreted it that way but he isn't necessarily correct and I see no reason to think he was beyond trying to look for things to support his view of Jesus.

[jeremyp]

Not specific enough as it doesn't take into account that where the context is unambiguous, the word almah always refers to an unmarried young woman or adolescent girl.

No it doesn't.

We infer it from the other usages, since here it is ambiguous. The woman and the name Immanuel are significant.

Only to Ahaz and Judah

She is prompted to call her son that because while he is still an infant, living in poverty because of the invasion, a deliverance happens.

Where did you get the idea that she was living in poverty?

Matthew interprets this as a foreshadowing of the birth of the one who would save his people from their sins. If only God can do this, then in the person of Jesus, God is with us in the fullest possible sense.

OK. But it is not a prophecy, it is Matthew retconning the passage. And he also used the Septuagint, hence his mistake in writing "virgin".

[jeremyp]

I see no reason to think he was beyond trying to look for things to support his view of Jesus.

The gospel writers practically admit it on several occasions. Sometimes they even report Jesus deliberately taking actions to fulfil prophecy.

[Spud]

No it doesn't.Only to Ahaz and Judah

Wasn't it to do with perpetuating the line of Davidic kings?

Where did you get the idea that she was living in poverty?

Verses 21-22.

OK. But it is not a prophecy, it is Matthew retconning the passage. And he also used the Septuagint, hence his mistake in writing "virgin".

The Septuagint writers must have used 'parthenos' for a reason - they do not always use it when translating almah, iirc.

[Gordon]

Spud

Do you think many people care about this anecdotal stuff, that seemingly lacks any provenance whatsoever, or that it even matters?

[jeremyp]

Wasn't it to do with perpetuating the line of Davidic kings?

Only in the sense that Judah was under threat from external forces.

Verses 21-22.

There's nothing about the woman living in poverty in those verses.

The Septuagint writers must have used 'parthenos' for a reason - they do not always use it when translating almah, iirc.

They were probably as confused as you are about the Hebrew.