Let's have a discussion on the virgin birth

No abuse. No derogatory language. No trolling or abuse.

Some scholars indicate rightly that the Hebrew word in Isaiah means young woman not virgin.  No one says it is impossible to translate it virgin.  The Septuagint - an OT Greek translation by Jewish scholars pre Jesus, did translate the word virgin.  

Some scholars indicate that there are better words for virgin if that meant to be the point. 

NT Christian scholars would indicate that the translation of the word in the NT from the OT is confirmed firstly, by the inspiration of the Spirit of God who breathed it out and confirmed its meaning.

Secondly that the Septuagint which was commonly used at that time by Jews and the Christians, including Paul, translated it that way.

thirdly, that the context in the gospels of Matthew and Luke clearly understood it to mean virgin.

Fourthly, though it is acknowledged it may well have other meanings and moreover virgin is not its primary meaning, it is not impossible for it to mean virgin since indeed Jewish scholars have translated it that way.

Here is a summary of what this part of Isaiah is actually about, for any lazy-but-curious readers:

• Ahaz, the king of Judah, is freaking out. He's being besieged by the kings of Israel and Syria. In distress, he asks his prophet, Isaiah, what to do. How does Isaiah reply? "Chill out. There's this pregnant young woman in your kingdom who's about to bear a son. Before the kid knows right from wrong, he'll be eating curds and honey. His name will be Immanuel." In other words, soon the kingdom will see prosperous times again. God's got this. Immanuel means "God is with us."
  

I have said it many times before on this forum that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once  again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about.

Stephen wrote: And one simply has to ask, what good would a child to be born 700 in the future be of any use Ahaz in his hour of need?

 Precisely -- none at all.

Stephen wrote: I have said it many times before on this forum that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once  again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about.

Quite true. Matthew was really preoccupied with fulfillment of scripture.

We all tend to have an egocentric approach to reading. We interpret based on what is useful, meaningful, and inspirational to us. Matthew too was guilty of this. But it's important to remember that the authors of Isaiah were, just like us, more concerned with events closer to home.

No, the Septuagint translated the word as parthenos -- which originally meant "young woman" but eventually came to mean "virgin." This left some ambiguity in its meaning, and that ambiguity is the source of all this confusion. So it may be more useful to say the Septuagint translated the word as maiden, 

What would happen if Jesus and the "virgin Mary" took a Paternity Test. 

Maury would open the envelope and say: "God, you are not the Father!"

The Semantics of the words only become an issue for those trying to say that the NT was not really saying what it was saying and was badly researched.

My point here was simply to point out that the so called gotcha moment against the NT author is not valid. I am not saying anything more or less. 

What makes it valid? It is an argument from silence. Hardly valid in anyone's book

Matthew who was one of Jesus' inner 12 did raise it. Matthew and Luke raised it. Mary raised it. And Joseph her husband knew it to be true.  

Matthew used it as a fulfillment of prophecy in relation to the messiah. Do you think that Jesus raising it again would have helped? I doubt it. People were skeptical in the time it was happened,

God's spirit - which is Holy - would have sanctified the conception. 

Yes, I know for non-believers it all sounds like magic

Gods having sex with women, especially virgins, was definitely a Greco-Roman thing .....

Paul was a Pharisee and trained by very eminent scholars such as Gamaliel.   Paul clearly used it.  and Paul was a leader in the Jewish religion for a significant time before he converted. Surely you would not seriously suggest otherwise? 

Certainly I would, but not from silence -- your argument is based in, and requires, accepting the authority of a text I claim is not authoritative. The gospels include factual errors (things not in accordance with Judaism) and don't have a verifiable provenance that makes me accept their statements. So making some sort of claim about Paul being someone or studying with someone is not really useful because it is not corroborated by any text I would look at as an authority.

It seems like you are arguing from silence.  There are notoriously few therefore we can't rely upon it as a valid source.   

No, the fact that there are few simply means that there are few, and since the only one that might support your contention is the one that is subject to a circular argument of belief (your theology teaches you that the text is true and because it is true you accept your theology) it is of little probative value to anyone else.

Also, it isn't silence as much as a failure of the voice that is out there. I can't rely on something as a valid source if it is an invalid source.

The "Sept uses "virgin" and the Sept, even if full of errors, reflects a correct understanding, then "virgin" even though the text has errors is true". Since there is silence outside of this unreliable source (and on its face, the source conflicts with the earlier material) the conclusion fails.

Even you mentioned above that the young lady probably was a virgin even though it is not necessarily implied within it.  

I was speaking of a different young lady, one whom the text explicitly says is a virgin. But in the case of the Isaiah quote, with no other text to qualify the word, there is no reason to impute virginity to it. If I say that the girl probably had dark hair, that doesn't make "brunette" a valid translation or interpretation of the word almah.

If there were appropriate and legitimate  sources which can categorically say it could never mean virgin then I would concede the argument.

Isn't that waiting for someone to prove a negative, what a word does NOT mean? Instead, why not look at what the word means and how it is used and translated elsewhere to create context -- build meaning instead of assuming meaning and only considering changing if something comes to destroy the preconceived notion.

If I show you a Hebrew dictionary which doesn't include "virgin" as a meaning, will you say "therefore it CAN'T" or will you say "that doesn't say it CAN'T explicitly"? Dictionaries don't list all the things a word cannot mean.

https://www.morfix.co.il/en/עלמה

and "maiden" as a noun (the way it is used in the verse) isn't about sexuality either. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maiden

the word possibly might mean virgin and that no one can categorically rule out virgin, then I think I am on reasonably safe ground.  

But you haven't shown that it "might mean" virgin, only that the translation has it as "virgin" in one case. You are starting with the translation instead of with the Hebrew word. Similarly, I can claim to you that the Hebrew word "ish" 'might mean' tree. I can then pick one instance of "ish" and translate it as "tree" to prove that it can mean that, even though it never means tree and the verse I cite has nothing to do with trees.  But you can't show me that it can be ruled out because that's not how language works -- we learn what words mean, not what they can't be claimed to mean.

An argument from silence is not an argument.

Which doesn't stop you suggesting, surmising, guessing and theorising as to what things Jesus may or may not have said. And it doesn't stop you presenting your conjecture and theorise as biblical fact when it suites you to do so.

the disciple Matthew is credited with writing his gospel.

By whom?  There is absolutely no evidence as to the actual names of the authors of the scriptures . You are lying.

We don't know whether he raised it or not. 

We know that the bible doesn't mention Jesus himself speaking of his Immaculate Conception

Matthew did mention it was prophesied.

 Nope.  The author of Mathews gospel  does not say anything about an Immaculate Conception being part of any prophesy. Stop telling lies.

From the book of Isaiah. 

Nope.  Stop telling lies. Isiah mentions nothing of an Immaculate Conception. Stop telling lies.

the Septuagint records it.  did you miss the memo? oops.

NOPE!  And I notice sarcasm or what you would define as "abuse" creeping in.

  Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded. 

Maybe so.  Which leave only guesswork and conjecture, and hypothesis which you use often when it suites you to do so but never afford others the same curtesy.

shhh don't tell anyone.  I certainly don't care whether he mentioned it or not.

 Well that is all that is left for you to say once your own comments are broken down for the nonsense that they actually are.

The point is that [gospel of] Matthew  and [gospel of]Luke did mention it. 

But they were not members of the 12.  

 You can forget those facts if you like - I know it sucks. But they did. How inconvenient for you? 

They are not facts though are they. This is a perfect example of you presenting your own theories and conjecture as BIBLICAL facts

 And my point was that NONE of the 12 disciples mentioned the Immaculate Conception. And again, the author of 'Matthews gospel is unknown and was not a disciple of Jesus.

Luke however was close associates with many of the disciples and even of Mary, the person in question. 

Wouldn't that be hearsay?

 I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors. 

I am not suggesting you ought to take it as authoritative.  Yet there is no reason for me not take it so.  I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors.  Remember that the Judaism practiced in the NT and the OT for that matter is not the same as it is practiced today.  And just because things in the NT are different from how Judaism is practiced today does not ergo demonstrate a so called error in the gospels.

Circular reasoning is axiomatic reasoning. How do you know the Torah is correct?  I don't think it therefore reduces the probative value.

You have said that the Sept contains errors.  You have not said the Sept only has errors. 

Would you also agree that the Torah has errors?

I also said my highest argument for its use - as virgin is not the Sept, but rather the inspiration of God.  Yes, that doesn't help you. Yet, it does mean a different matter for me - it means I can't simply reject it because someone else says the text is invalid. 

My point was always that the word itself does not exclude virgin from its meaning. 

 I disagree that the gospels contain factual errors. 

Would you like a list of the many factual errors in the gospels?

Understood but from the Jewish perspective there are absolute errors. The one people like to talk about is that the Sanhedrin could not meet at night. It is simple to say "well, things were different then" except it is the version of Judaism that the Pharisees taught which states explicitly that trials can't be at night. So saying Paul was a Pharisee just confirms that he would have pointed out that this trial could not have been at night. Was Judaism "different"? Sure, but it was different within parameters that we have written down. How can anyone brag that any of the characters in the gospels studied with Gamliel and yet discount the existence of the laws which Gamliel and his colleagues taught? If stuff is recorded that is not in accordance with the Judaism taught by the Pharisees (which we still use as our canon of law today) then it must be in error. If you are looking for early records of how things in synagogues operated, you should use the same oral law that the Pharisees did.

Circular reasoning is axiomatic reasoning. How do you know the Torah is correct?  I don't think it therefore reduces the probative value.

I know the Torah is correct because of faith, and that's it. So I don't use it to prove things outside the text to people who don't understand or accept the text because the simplest response would be "but I don't have faith that it is correct." But if someone tries to invoke the Torah and yet not accept that the Torah is authoritative then that seems hypocritical.

You have said that the Sept contains errors.  You have not said the Sept only has errors. 

Well, Jerusalem existed, so the textual claim that it existed is not an error. London exists but that doesn't make the "Harry Potter" books an authority on much else.

Would you also agree that the Torah has errors?

Nope.

I also said my highest argument for its use - as virgin is not the Sept, but rather the inspiration of God.  Yes, that doesn't help you. Yet, it does mean a different matter for me - it means I can't simply reject it because someone else says the text is invalid. 

But that's an important step -- you can acknowledge that you accept the use of virgin because you have faith in the translation in this case, not because there is any textual support elsewhere -- such support would not be necessary by you because you have faith in this particular translational moment. You believe it because it is there and you believe the text in which it is positioned.

My point was always that the word itself does not exclude virgin from its meaning. 

But then you accept that "ish" means tree if anyone claims it simply because it isn't explicitly excluded. The fact is, by looking at other uses and non-uses of the word, it is clear that "virgin" IS excluded.

And from a Christian perspective, there are no errors.  The  trial by Sanhedrin at night is evidence by the Christians that the Jewish leaders knew they were doing the wrong thing. Why we consider it was a kangaroo court. Christians recognize that they would not ordinarily meet at night. So the fact that they did - going against their own law, demonstrated how concerned they were about Jesus.  Paul was not one to lie. And I am not suggesting that Jews ordinarily lied either. I just think that in that particular time - that the Jewish leaders were not going about God's business so much as their own one.  And possibly not even all of them - just a few powerful ones.  I would suggest that even you don't think that every Jewish leader in every time was without corruption.   

So are you saying that the Sept has no value whatsoever in religious discussions? 

The word ish has other meanings apart from tree.  It doesn't exclude certain words so your point has some merit.  Yet the word for maiden - is distinguished from that argument in that it has been translated by some people - dodgy or not - as virgin. And this was accepted for many years without question - UNTIL the Christians used it to support Jesus' amazing birth. Then the critics came out and questioned it. 

but there is no evidence - unless you can point it out to us - that between the time it was allegedly wrongly translated and the Christian claim that it was considered an error.

And from a Christian perspective, there are no errors.  The  trial by Sanhedrin at night is evidence by the Christians that the Jewish leaders knew they were doing the wrong thing. Why we consider it was a kangaroo court. Christians recognize that they would not ordinarily meet at night. So the fact that they did - going against their own law, demonstrated how concerned they were about Jesus.  Paul was not one to lie. And I am not suggesting that Jews ordinarily lied either. I just think that in that particular time - that the Jewish leaders were not going about God's business so much as their own one.  And possibly not even all of them - just a few powerful ones.  I would suggest that even you don't think that every Jewish leader in every time was without corruption.   

This brings up an interesting rhetorical moment. When confronted with a telling of an historical moment which doesn't conform with other documentation, one has the choice -- either to say that the retelling is in error or that the retelling is accurate and it bespeaks something about the people in the story that they didn't follow their own rules. The problem I have is that the entire narrative is so out of sync with Jewish law that one would have to assume a huge conspiracy of willful and intentional transgression by an entire community instead of saying that the retelling is not authoritative. I see the retelling as the problem here instead of casting aspersions on the entire Jewish community. As to the question about the possible corruption of the leaders, it certainly would seem that way by the retelling (but according to Jewish law and lore, the entire basis for the story is flawed and the Sanhedrin being discussed isn't even the Pharisaic sanhedrin) but that seems rather self-serving.

So are you saying that the Sept has no value whatsoever in religious discussions? 

That is a bit of an overstatement. Historically, it is very useful but I think that its value is compromised, by the fact that it is a translation, and one created (in the Jewish opinion) without a divine inspiration and following an agenda which is evidenced by the errors in word choice and in factual errors.

The word ish has other meanings apart from tree.  It doesn't exclude certain words so your point has some merit.  Yet the word for maiden - is distinguished from that argument in that it has been translated by some people - dodgy or not - as virgin. And this was accepted for many years without question - UNTIL the Christians used it to support Jesus' amazing birth. Then the critics came out and questioned it. 

The word "ish" doesn't mean "tree" at all and never does. But following your logic, I can claim it does because no where is there a lexicon that lists all the things it doesn't mean, and since, in at least one case, I can insist that it DOES mean that, it must mean that.

but there is no evidence - unless you can point it out to us - that between the time it was allegedly wrongly translated and the Christian claim that it was considered an error.

I have no idea about the Christian claim about error. I can only look at the Hebrew and speak from a position as informed by the Jewish scriptures. The Jewish view was never that it was an accurate translation. If you state that the Sept was either by or for the Jewish community and they didn't complain then you need to recognize that the text we have of the Sept version of texts after the 5 books of Moses was not by nor for the Jewish community.

The talmud recounts a version of the story of the translation of the Hebrew text to Greek but is only speaking of the 5 books. There is no reason to think that the LXX that we have of any text after those 5 was EVER accepted by the Jewish community. Once that is the groundwork, then wondering whether anyone when the LXX was assembled and revised saw parthenos as virgin (and not maiden, for example) is speculation. Not until the Greek switches to English (another level of translation mediation) and is fixed as virgin can we be sure that the error was codified. So if you discuss the LXX, then you should stick with the Greek and not a later English retranslation.

It's too bad that there are no Jewish documents from the time of Jesus whereas there are many Christian ones. 

It is a little bit like the fact that woman are the first witnesses of the resurrection despite the fact that no one would ever use a Jewish woman to corroborate a story in those times. 

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying.  Is there any place where the Sept is considered not accurate prior to Jesus?  I am not asking whether it was inspired - since I would think that it would need to be either Jewish or Aramaic for that to be the case for Jews. I might be wrong about that.  Just saying that in the 21st century Jews would not consider it to be inspired does not necessarily mean that they thought it was in error back in the day.  It was widespread even in the Jewish community in the 1st century.  Why would any Gentile for instance want a copy of a Jewish bible - even in Greek?  The only people who would have needed it or required it were the Greek speaking Jews wherever they were.  The fact that it appears so widespread surely shows a real demand for it.  

 Many Jews all over the world were wanting the Hebrew text of the Scriptures in their own tongue - which may well have been - and probably was Greek at that time. 

Why then would Jews only want the Talmud in Greek and not the rest of the OT? 

And just for the record - can you confirm whether the first five books - the Torah was seen as inspired or not - despite it being in Greek? 

Did they ever complain that - it was in error or not worth reading?    Yes, they might have agreed it was not inspired - but in error?  If you are able to link back to that time - sources who were complaining about the Greek text then that would be helpful.