The Virgin Mary: Maybe Not

Vanguard PCD

Progressive Christian Deist
Jan 27, 2013
825
98
Alabama, USA
✟16,492.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Isaiah 7:14 is the English (KJV) translation that laid the foundation for "the virgin Mary." It states:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The problem is, the Hebrew word for virgin is betulah. That word was NOT used in Isaiah 7:14. The word used was almah, which simply means "young maiden...one who is able to bear children, and mature enough for nuptials." There is no mention of virginity. In short, the 47 scholars working on the KJV (which was done in 1611 CE), made a bad translation.

Before you tie me to the stake and set fire, know this...the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has recently AGREED that the traditional English interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is wrong, and that they are correcting it to reflect the Hebrew more accurately. The Pope/Vatican has yet to rule on their finding/request. According to the USCCB, it should read:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a maiden shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Various translations are following the USCCB's lead. The NASB now includes the footnote for "maiden," and the NIV includes the footnote for "young woman."

Facts are facts, people.
 

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
And the Septuagint translators - who never heard of "Mother Mary" - translated Hebrew alma as Greek "Parthenos" - which truly DOES mean "virgin"

Perhaps the KJV considered the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate - in fact, I'm sure they did - they didn't have as good of manuscripts that we do today, but I think they looked at everything they could.

Question is - WHY did Septuagint translators take a Hebrew word that just meant "a woman of marriageable age" - which carries no connotation of virginity OR non-virginity - and use "parthenos" in the Septuagint?

(I don't think it was because Septuagint translators were Catholic.)
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
parthenos

1) a virgin
a) a marriageable maiden

b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man

c) one's marriageable daughter
2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
a) one who has never had intercourse with women
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
almah

1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

(This is from the Strong's that is part of the BlueletterBible.org
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Lexicon / Concordance for Isaiah 7:14
help-a.gif
close-a.gif

7:14
לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אֹות הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמֹו עִמָּנוּ אֵֽל׃
showCantOff.gif
showVowelsOn.gif



English (KJV)
helpBlue12x12.png
Strong'sRoot Form (Hebrew)TenseTherefore the Lord h136אדני 'Adonay
speaker18x12.png
himself shall give h5414נתן nathan
speaker18x12.png
tense_tag.gif
you a sign; h226אות 'owth
speaker18x12.png
Behold, a virgin h5959עלמה `almah
speaker18x12.png
shall conceive, h2030הרה hareh
speaker18x12.png
and bear h3205ילד yalad
speaker18x12.png
tense_tag.gif
a son, h1121בן ben
speaker18x12.png
and shall call h7121קרא qara'
speaker18x12.png
tense_tag.gif
his name h8034שם shem
speaker18x12.png
Immanuel h410אל 'el
speaker18x12.png
arrow_up1.gif
h6005עמנואל `Immanuw'el
speaker18x12.png

7:14 διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ




i_blank9.gif

copyChkboxOff.gif
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
i_blank9.gif

copyChkboxOff.gif
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
 
Upvote 0

Vanguard PCD

Progressive Christian Deist
Jan 27, 2013
825
98
Alabama, USA
✟16,492.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Both Matthew and Luke call Mary a virgin, and I consider them trustworthy.

No, the English translation of the NT, which is based off the Koine Greek, calls Mary a virgin. The English translation (which started with the KJV) had to follow the OT Isaiah 7:14 prophecy (from the KJV), in order to establish Jesus' story.

The fact that the USCCB, who are Catholic, are saying that it is incorrect should tell you something. Catholics revere Mary to the point of worship.

Whether she was a virgin or not doesn't matter. God can choose whomever He wants to bear His son. He doesn't need human intervention to make it happen. Jesus could have been born to a one-legged Roman prostitute, if that is what God wanted.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
See, I believe there was a REAL CHILD - in the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz - who was a SIGN to King Ahaz about sumpn.

No one suggests that a child back in that time period came about by a virgin birth.

Some have suggested that the Child was one of Isaiah's sons - no proof of that, though.

No proof that either almah or parthenos can definitely be looked at either way as virgin or non-virgin.

I just say there was a real, earlier child from a "non-virgin birth" that was a sign to King Ahaz

Me just playing Advocate's advocate here

Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The New Testament account has far more than a "single word" to establish the state of Mary as "never having had intercourse prior to conceiving Jesus", like, duh, there is the whole story of the dream by Joseph telling him to go ahead and marry Mary because "that that is conceived is of the Holy Ghost"
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

copyChkboxOff.gif
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

copyChkboxOff.gif
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
i_blank9.gif

copyChkboxOff.gif
Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
i_blank9.gif

copyChkboxOff.gif
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

copyChkboxOff.gif
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
i_blank9.gif

copyChkboxOff.gif
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There is no explanation given why Jesus was named Jesus rather than Emmanuel.

As far as vs 25 - I don't know how the Catholics can look at it and say that Mary REMAINED a virgin even after Jesus was born.

I mean, if I said - "we were at a party and nobody turned on the stereo

"till Chaplain Steve got there" -

what

is understood?

That the stereo was turned on after Chaplain Steve arrived, of course.

To me, this is the plain sense of

"knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son"

FIRSTBORN - not only

We see elsewhere where it speaks of Jesus' brothers and sisters

and the ADELPHOS card is played - that "adelphos" CAN MEAN "cousins"

and that "Oh, Joseph could have had other kids by a previous marriage" - so James "the brother of the Lord" MIGHT be a half-brother or a COUSIN -- just

S T R E T C H

things to force it to comply with an idea that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin

which the Bible never said
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,493
27,114
74
Lousianna
✟1,001,611.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, the English translation of the NT, which is based off the Koine Greek, calls Mary a virgin. The English translation (which started with the KJV) had to follow the OT Isaiah 7:14 prophecy (from the KJV), in order to establish Jesus' story.

The Koine uses a term "parthenos" which means virgin. The KJV was not the first English translation.

The Hebrew term "alma" can mean either a woman of marriage age or a virgin. It is chosen since there is a dual fulfilment of the prophecy

SEE
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No, the English translation of the NT, which is based off the Koine Greek, calls Mary a virgin. The English translation (which started with the KJV) had to follow the OT Isaiah 7:14 prophecy (from the KJV), in order to establish Jesus' story.
In the Gospel of Luke Mary self-identifies as a virgin, as below:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary...

...And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.
Luke doesn't even mention Is 7:14. So regardless of whether it was intended to refer to a virgin, Mary obviously was one.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The stereo has been turned on.

I say:

1. There was a non-virgin-birth of a child as a sign to King Ahaz in Isaiah's time.

2. There was a virgin-birth of Christ who was named Jesus instead of Emmanuel, maybe because an angel overruled the old prophecy with a newer instruction.

3. That Mary the mother of Christ was "known" in the biblical sense by her husband Joseph sometime AFTER JESUS WAS BORN according to the Scriptures and that Jesus had real siblings, not just "cousins"; although I am aware that Greek "adelphoi" CAN mean cousins.

1-2-3 -- that's muh story and I'm stickin to it
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jan 22, 2013
71
9
✟7,739.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I believe she was a virgin, and that "almah" is being used to refer to a young girl that has not had sex. I believe otherwise the writer would have referred to her as a woman.

I believe the whole reason that virginity exists physically, and the reason that it is a theme in scripture, is to demonstrate that we each have or had a spiritual virginity that we should be reading about in scripture.

It, like the physical, can be kept, taken, and, with God's power, miraculously restored.
 
Upvote 0

Vanguard PCD

Progressive Christian Deist
Jan 27, 2013
825
98
Alabama, USA
✟16,492.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
if she was not a virgin then she would have intercourse with another man and so Jesus would have sin. this is not a catholic only teaching but a Christians agree on Mary:crossrc: being a virgin

Jesus would be born with sin, if she wasn't a virgin.

That is the typical (and traditional) response. It is also a fabrication by man. It is a ridiculous notion that sin is transferred from mother to child, as if it is attached to the genetic code.

You won't find any verse in the Bible that declares that Jesus was free from sin because of the virgin birth. Don't assume...go find it if you think it exists. Don't take a verse out of context either, and twist it to fit the mold.

The virgin birth is merely the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, as translated into Greek (parthenos) to mean virgin. This carried over into English. Unfortunately the Hebrew (and Judaism) disagree with the Greek-English use of virgin, instead of maiden or young woman. You see, once they translated Isaiah 7:14 to mean virgin (in Greek and English), they HAD to follow suit in the NT, in order to fulfill the prophecy.

Once again, the USSCB as well as various, modern translations, are making the transition away from virgin, and to the more appropriate maiden translation. Just a fact. Does it matter if Mary was a virgin? No...unless you believe in the whole immaculate conception, sinless birth fabrication.

Clear example of how a single theory/story has to grow and expand, in order to cover all the bases and make it fit a certain mold. Get away from tradition and get back to what the Bible actually says, IMHO!
 
Upvote 0
Jul 30, 2013
92
1
✟7,717.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
I believe in the Virgin Birth story.

However, the reason I do may be a little different than your reasons.

I've read enough ancient Mesopotamian texts to become thoroughly convinced that somebody who was probably no more moral than Monsanto is today, was very evidently mucking around attempting to manipulate the human gene pool. They took an existing human being, slit his throat and bled him dry & then used that blood in the attempt to create manageable slaves for "the gods." And yes, I do consider the "deities" responsible for that extremely sick little human DNA experiment to be quite Satanic.

I have always reasoned that it was highly likely that Yeshua's real Daddy (i.e. God) took a very dim view of what the false gods had tried to do. So I think Yeshua's Daddy DID create Jesus "virgin birth" style.

And it is my fondest hope and prayer that when Satan tried to tempt Jesus & found out he couldn't do it, that it scared the crap out of Satan. Because if ANYBODY proved to Satan that God not only KNEW what had been done to our human DNA, but God was also perfectly capable of UNDOING all the nasty things Satan had tried to do to the human gene pool, it was Jesus.

I hope Satan is still sweating bricks over it…
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vanguard PCD

Progressive Christian Deist
Jan 27, 2013
825
98
Alabama, USA
✟16,492.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
And it is my fondest hope and prayer that when Satan tried to tempt Jesus & found out he couldn't do it, that it scared the crap out of Satan.

My position is that Ha-satan was merely performing his God appointed duty as the accuser/adversary, seeing if Jesus would falter or not. If He did, Ha-satan would have "brought Jesus up on allegations before God," for judgment and/or punishment. The same with Job. Ha-satan can't do a single thing without God's permission.
 
Upvote 0