Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Matthew 1:23: new section
Line 39: Line 39:     
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." vs "The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today."  . A day's evil is enough ''for itself.'' [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:47, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
 
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." vs "The bad things that happen today are enough to worry about today."  . A day's evil is enough ''for itself.'' [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:47, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Matthew 1:23 ==
 +
 +
Was Jesus born of a virgin?  In the analysis segment of the translation, it states that Matthew refers to Isaiah 7:14 from the Greek LXX.  The LXX translated the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos.  But while parthenos may mean virgin in Greek, almah in Hebrew means young woman.  Betulah is the Hebrew word used to mean virgin.  In Genesis 24:16, where Abraham's servant was sent to find a wife for Isaac, Rebekah is described as a "maiden [who] was very beautiful, a virgin [betulah] whom no man had known".  (From the JPS Torah Commentary)  The word maiden here is naarah, which Strong's defines as a young, adolescent girl.  It might be assumed that she is a virgin, yet the text further explains that she is a virgin, and then qualifies that with the phrase "whom no man had known".  Nahum Sarna, in the JPS Torah Commentary, writes that even betulah by itself doesn't connote a virgin without a qualifying phrase, as in Gen. 24:16.  He mentions Joel 1:8, where a betulah laments the husband of her youth.  He also cites "an Aramaic incantation text [that] speaks of a 'bethultha' who is pregnant".  When Isaiah wrote that an "almah shall conceive and bear a son", without using any qualifying phrases that even the term betulah seems to require to connote a virgin, can we then say that Isaiah was foreseeing a virgin birth?  Was Matthew reading too much into the Greek word parthenos?  Comments? - Danielitld
38

edits

Navigation menu