Isaiah 65 and 66 Ramblings

I realize this is about six months old, but there is a reason why most Christian translations of Isaiah use "virgin" instead of "young woman."

Matthew quotes the Septuagint, which as mentioned, uses parthenos, usually translated as virgin. Since literalist Christians believe that Matthew was dictated by G-d, that makes that particular passage from the Septuagint inerrant as it stands in the Greek. Hence the Septuagint translation is the correct one, and should be used as a model for the English. This is not my personal take on it--just an explanation.

Matthew was probably not written by anyone named Matthew, and he may not have even been able to read Hebrew or Aramaic, but there's an old tradition that Matthew wrote this gospel for the Jews. Certainly he's more interested in the Jews than the other evangelists (and more anti-Semitic for that matter).

Most Christian translations use a variety of ancient texts, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, and probably some I've forgotten, but most are based on the idea that there was one "true" text that might possibly be recovered by picking and choosing from the existing texts. The particular Hebrew text, the ones that Jews use and invented all the letter checks and counts for, is not thought to be inerrant, as it might have had scribal errors and such inserted before the Jewish scholars got to it. But since all the texts of Matthew make it clear that he was quoting the Septuagint, it's assumed that the Septuagint is inerrant in that passage.

ChristineR said:

I realize this is about six months old, but there is a reason why most Christian translations of Isaiah use "virgin" instead of "young woman."

Click to expand...

Which is WRONG. The word עַלְמָה does NOT mean virgin, it means young woman. The word for virgin is בְּתוּלָה which he would have used had he meant virgin. The word existed in the time of Isaiah, and so he would have used that had he meant virgin.

This is besides the point, because a virgin birth is NOT a Jewish concept, and so there is no reason he would have even thought of something like that (which he didn't, because G-d told him what to say, and it certainly wasn't virgin).

Matthew quotes the Septuagint, which as mentioned, uses parthenos, usually translated as virgin. Since literalist Christians believe that Matthew was dictated by G-d, that makes that particular passage from the Septuagint inerrant as it stands in the Greek. Hence the Septuagint translation is the correct one, and should be used as a model for the English. This is not my personal take on it--just an explanation.

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The Septuagint is not the Tanakh.

Matthew was probably not written by anyone named Matthew, and he may not have even been able to read Hebrew or Aramaic, but there's an old tradition that Matthew wrote this gospel for the Jews. Certainly he's more interested in the Jews than the other evangelists (and more anti-Semitic for that matter).

Most Christian translations use a variety of ancient texts, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, and probably some I've forgotten, but most are based on the idea that there was one "true" text that might possibly be recovered by picking and choosing from the existing texts. The particular Hebrew text, the ones that Jews use and invented all the letter checks and counts for, is not thought to be inerrant, as it might have had scribal errors and such inserted before the Jewish scholars got to it. But since all the texts of Matthew make it clear that he was quoting the Septuagint, it's assumed that the Septuagint is inerrant in that passage.

Click to expand...

The original Hebrew of Isaiah is the accurate one. The copies they found from the 2nd century BCE match exactly our current versions today. Whatever differences are in other versions are errors.

EmilySC said:

The Book of Job -- how is it viewed by Jewish scholars? In the KJV he offers sacrifices for his children but there is little other evidence for me to presume that he is Jewish. I've heard that he may have lived alongside the early patriarchs.

Just looking for a little insight--not trying to be a skeptic.

ESC

Click to expand...

It is thought that he lived at the time of Moses, but it is also thought that he lived later. There is also the opinion that he didn't exist at all, and the book was written to show perfect faith. Job is definitely Jewish. He lives a Torah life according to the text. The book of Job is about Job being tested by G-d at the hands of the satan (yes, "the satan" as it is a title, not a name). He then goes through theological discussions with friends regarding the nature of his suffering, and G-d finally answers him. It ends with his friends only being saved through his merit and being blessed by G-d for a long and full life.

It is an important book. He's definitely Jewish, but the chronology of his life is debated.

Followed you to the other thread.