Isaiah 7:14 and the Virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus

Post Reply New Topic

The vocabulary for life stages is almost as messy as kinship terms - and of course the two categories overlap. How often does ":old woman" shift meanings to "wife"? I wrote a paper on the subject at one point.

The categories get VERY vague, with fluctuation influenced by cultural expectations. Which is why it can be hard to know the REAL boundaries in the continuum young woman - maid - maiden - daughter - girl.

A LOT of cultures figure "young unmarried woman" is by default virgin. In some you do not get to be a woman till first child, so the progress is daughter/girl - young woman/virgin - bride - woman.

One reason not to get too heavy on the issue is that we really do not have a full semantic workup on it. `ALMAH is clearly out of Semitic GhLM which runs through young person / servant [tell the boy to bring my elephant gun]. But total range at the critical time? Even with the documentation of Hebrew it just is not available.

And, the possibility also exists that the Septuagint translators were working from a Hebrew original that in fact had the Hebrew word for "virgin" in there, and that Jews later inserted the word for "young woman" in the Masoretic text just to spite the Christians.

Except as I pointed out it does not seem to be thus at Qumran.

Just for the record, I do not personally deny or doubt [any more than I regularly check up on anything I have believed, do believe, or may soon believe] the virgin birth.

Unlike some of what has been thought up around it by the less deep - like the Beam me up Scotty effect - there would seem to be an internal logic to it. Not least to my mind is the handle it gives to the scoffer, like all those neat fossils. Who designed it that the wide way is wide?

Further, although I would not - as with so many things - assert it in a profesional publication, I do believe that the prophecy applies. As Natty Boh has pointed out, and as any linguist has to know or stay out of the kitchen, you are too young to play with knives, prophecies, somewhat more than even the average utterance, are notoriously multivalent even where unambiguous.

The spotlighted word and its translations is not any kind of problem. The fact that the Qumran Isaiah page appears to my blurred vision examining the photocopy to endorse 'LMH as predating a hypothetical Jewish antiChristian conspiracy is no bother. While it is not impossible, I have always thought it EXTREMELY unlikely that people whose respect for the word has them noting what should actually be read in a passage instead of editing what is written would fiddle the prophet for political sectarian reasons.

But if you hare a good crosscultural linguistic background and a believing linguist's view of scriptural "inerrancy" - THAT is another and very long discussion - then the quibbles are just that.

There is VERY little the Christ himself identifies as essential for the following of him. Paul suggests a VERY few more - while leaving the gate open both for those who need more props and those who need but few. The Creed shuts the gate against some important deviationists, but is really very inclusive.

It may not be of interest, but once I was pulled essentially to the minimum belief set for entrance as specified by Jesus, I was led point by point and step by step to Didymist [Awesomely Glorious was bothered when I adopted Thomist, and he has a point] dialectic on other doctrinal issues, including but not limited to Baptism, the Eucharist, the Trinity, the Enemy .. The process is still continuing.

I would contend that yes, one can be validly Christian [though not necessarily acceptable to a particular church] with very limited beliefs, but that as they become relevant to one other points will be made clear.

Kind of like being a linguist - you can start with no lingos, few techniques and almighty little understanding. But we trust we grow.

I can see how Natty wouldn't want to yield just yet on the virgin birth, given how central the Virgin Mary is to Catholicism. Protestants, on the other hand, scarcely give Mary a thought. However, many protestants absolutely want every word of the Bible to be inerrantly true--even if parts of the Bible contradict other parts, both parts have to be true. They will defend the truthfulness of the Bible tooth and nail, and, if finally backed into a corner, will ascribe you to some unpleasant section of Hell for eternity, and argue no longer.

Matthew 1:22-23 reads

Overall I could probably fit in with Catholicism somewhere between the Sarum rite and Thomas More. In some ways not too far from Wesley's Methodists, but they were a bit to methodical and social for my taste. But the Scoville Evangelicals and the inerrancy formulations of Protestant creeds - pretty crude.

As I say, my views on the subject owe a lot to insights from doing Comparative Linguistics and fit rather better with some views on the Church.

Dare I ask - as a Linguist I am aware of the importance of the Audience in communication - whom are you primarily addressing? If trying to convince us, you would need to shift your aim. If talking yourself into or out of something - the lady or gentleman doth protest too much - fine. If keeping the corner of an eye on Awesomely Glorious and others who might be amused, knock yourself out, though I think you need to adjust technique.

But it would be nice to know what the kewpie doll at the end of the ring toss might be.

Hmm, until my pre-caffeine goof this morning, I don't think I'd ever taken a position either way on the virgin birth (not being among the most Marian of Catholics). It's interesting what can slip out.

We have discussed that and other issues off and on.

We may need [I know, I keep saying this stuff, but I yam what I yam] to touch base on how exactly each is tending to interpret "foundatonal". I was of course steering to avoid the big "fundamental" pothole that blemishes about a third of the right lane, but when you swerve things can fall off the cupholder.

Who would be a Didymist linguist?

One wants to distinguish at least:

indispensable component of Christian [hereinafter to be understood as equating to Nicene Christian] faith

indispensable component of the publicly available data informing Christian faith.

proposition that must be true if Christian faith is - so far as in us lies - true.

In my present state - I have not yet discussed this with the symposium, but I may over the next day - I am inclined to put the virgin birth issues NOT in the first category, though I think God logic may well insert it in the third.

But I should be most interested to hear your "foundational" definition and how it applies. This is definitely going at it from an andle and to a depth new to us.

Looking again at Isaiah 7

Jagannath rolls on.

I find it odd that, during the past 2,000 years, no-one has bothered seriously to examine claims regarding Old Testament passages purported to represent prophesies fulfilled by Jesus.

Finally, in the 21st century, members of Wrong Planet are undertaking this important task, to the benefit and glory of mankind in general. The world awaits with baited breath as we fulfill our awesome responsibility.

Until this week, everyone in the world thought that Isaiah 7 was all about Jesus. Now, our superior intellects have liberated the world, and elevated mankind to a new plane of understanding.

Oh, so that's what that din is.