I THINK YOU SHOULD STOP TEACHING THAT MARY WAS A VIRGIN WHEN SHE GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS THE CHRIST THAT IS SCIENTIFICLY IMPOSSIBLE

-- PUNKER (greg_pisahov@hotmail.com), February 13, 2005

Answers

Response to VIRGIN GIVING BRITH

Many people think lots of things but that doesn't mean the Church is going to bend to your will. Of course it's not scientificly examinable, it NEVER will be. That's why it's called the MIRACULOUS BIRTH! :)

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), February 13, 2005.

Response to VIRGIN GIVING BRITH

Of course it's scientifically impossible! So is calming the sea, walking on water, changing water into wine, curing leprosy by a command, curing congenital blindness with mud, feeding 5,000 people with a handful of food, raising the dead, rising from the dead, and many of the other things Jesus did in the presence of hundreds of witnesses. That's why they are proof of His divinity. And that's why the virgin birth was described by the prophet Isaiah more than 700 years before it happened, as the sign that would signal the coming of the Messiah into the world.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 13, 2005.

Paul M.

The Jewish version of the translation from Hebrew for Isiah 7:14 says:

Therefore the L-rd Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Comments on the two different translations (from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html:

There are a number of difficulties with this passage. As many have noted, the Hebrew word translated as "virgin" in this verse is "almah," which is more accurately translated simply as "young woman." The Hebrew word "bethulah" means "virgin." In the book of Isaiah, "bethulah" appears four times (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5), so its author was aware of the word. In the New American Standard translation of the Bible, all other appearances of "almah" are translated simply as "girl," "maid," or "maiden" (viz: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8).

Unless you think Proverbs 30:19 should read (excuse me for this!):

The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, The way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a virgin maiden.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 13, 2005.

Pat Thompson, I don't know you, so I don't know if you claim to be a Catholic or not. I hope that you don't, because no Catholic posting here should be so ignorant as to argue that the "almah" of Isaiah 7:14 means "young woman" and not "virgin." To be frank with you, your sarcastic, triumphalistic, snotty attitude does you no favors. You need to learn to approach this and everything else here with a heck of a lot of humility, since you are so very wrong.

All right. First things first.

You say, The Jewish version of the translation from Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14 says: "... the young woman ...".

Two problems there.
First, it is not "THE" Jewish version, but "A" Jewish version. There are plenty of Jews in the world today who acknowledge Isaiah's "almah" as meaning "virgin."
Second, as Catholics, we don't look to modern Jewish translations to find out what the key O.T. words mean. We already know what they mean, from ancient Jews (Jesus and the Apostles). Your Jewish translator who used "the young woman" is wrong to think that Jesus is not his Messiah. I am not going to look to him for something of lesser importance.

Let's move on.

Hinted at in my previous words is the fact that we Christians have, from Apostolic Tradition (the Oral Word of God) the fact that Isaiah was speaking of a "virgin." Now, since Apostolic Tradition is the font from which the New Testament (the Written Word of God) sprang, it is inerrant. Therefore, we know that Isaiah's "almah" is properly translated as "virgin." St. Jerome, acquainted with Apostolic Tradition, consulting Jewish experts, and working with ancient Hebrew and Greek texts in the Holy Land, rendered the word as "virgo" (virgin) in his Vulgate.

Let's go on again.

The dispersed JEWS of Jesus's time had their Greek translation of the Bible, known today as the Septuagint. Isaiah 7:14, in that translation, has "parthenos," which means VIRGIN (not merely any "young woman"). Now someone may try to argue that the Septuagint, being a translation, has errors, and that rendering "almah" as "parthenos" is an example of such an error. WRONG!!! We know that it was not an error by looking at the Greek of Matthew 1:23, where the evangelist quotes the Septuagint, including the word, PARTHENOS. Since the New Testament is inerrant, and since the New Testament says "parthenos" (virgin), we can deduce, without the possibility of being wrong, that Isaiah's "almah" meant "virgin."

Pat, you also say, Unless you think Proverbs 30:19 should read (excuse me for this!): The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, The way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a virgin maiden.

From the link you provided, I can see that you were starting with a quote from the New American Bible (which has "of a man with a maiden"). Into this you inserted the word "virgin," instead of rewording it as "of a man with a virgin." You are apparently asking about this verse because the Hebrew text has "almah."

I will respond.

First, this verse is from a book different from Isaiah. Second, the dispersed Greek-speaking Jews did not render THIS "almah" as "parthenos," but used a different word in the Septuagint (and St. Jerome did not use "virgo" here). Third, the English word "maiden" carries the connotation of "virgin" anyway. (A synonym for "hymen" is "maidenhead.") The NAB could have had "of a man with a virgin" without causing a stir. Therefore, I find your comment about Proverbs 30:19 to be puzzling and even irrelevant.

Looking forward to your posting with a new attitude. KeG

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 13, 2005.

I am well aware that the word in question can be translated either as "young woman" or "maiden" or "virgin". However, if you look at the word in the context it is used, there is certainly no confusion about the correct translation. Isaiah is speaking of a sign by which the world will recognize the Messiah. Such a sign would have to be something pretty noteworthy, something out of ordinary, indeed something absolutely unique. What kind of a sign would it be if some young woman had a baby?? It happens every day! If a virgin had a baby though, that would be something noticeable, something out of the ordinary, something scientifically impossible, a sign for all peoples.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 13, 2005.

weren't the words virgin and young women synonymes in those days?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 14, 2005.

No, sdqa. Contrary to popular belief, our generation did not invent fornication. And most young women in those days were married.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 14, 2005.

Interestingly enough, my husband and I attended a Catholic bible study Sunday evening..the subject matter was the book of Matthew. The priest said quite emphatically that the book of Matthew, when telling about the prophecy of Isaiah, used the incorrect wording..that the book of Isaiah said "a young woman" and Matthew says "a virgin"..

The priest said that people ought not to get hung up on that at all, since it is but a very small part of ALL of the many prophecies concerning Christ. He said that what IS clear is that the Blessed Mother was, indeed a virgin..so if anybody got it "wrong" it was Isaiah and not the gospel of Matthew. His point was that ONE was a prophecy, and ONE was fact.

He likened it to the FACT that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the Savior, the Messiah being "born" of the House of David..when in actuality, Jesus was not literally "born" of the line of Joseph, as in conceived via Joseph, but adopted by him..so legalistically, Jesus was "of the House of David" but not "born" into it. The prophecy WAS fulfilled, but not exactly as it was written.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 14, 2005.

KGreen -

Thank you for your response, I will have to read it over again tomorrow and respond.

In the meantime a few easy clarifications:

• You are correct, I am not Catholic. I am here to learn more about Catholics and their religion (and by extension how they treat people with different points of view). Being Jewish I am particularily interested in peoples' view of the Christian Old Testament. From my point of view the translation that Paul M quoted was incorrect. More about that tomorrow, however.
• You'll notice in my original change to Proverbs 30:19 I used the <s> HTML tag to strikethrough the word "maiden" which I replaced with the word "virgin". When you copy and pasted the text it lost the strikethrough. The text read "The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, The way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a virgin"
• I'm VERY comfortable being called "sarcastic, triumphalistic, [with a] snotty attitude" by someone who knows me or has at least taken the time to understand me and what I am saying. I can assure you I won't be learning a "heck of a lot of humility" from responses such as yours (but I'm willing to give you a second chance, third chance...).
• If you have a minute, could you provide a link or two to support your view that "There are plenty of Jews in the world today who acknowledge Isaiah's "almah" as meaning "virgin."
• Finally, I realize from your response that I struck a nerve (and looking back and doing more research I realize that of course I did). This may actually be exactly what I'm trying to understand in my time on this forum: The Catholic relationship with the Christian Old Testament.

Again, tomorrow I will repond more fully to your specific points on the translation.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 14, 2005.

@ Lesley ,

first of all , I don't believe in their existence , but suppose it has exist , who is the real father ?? 'cause (2000 years ago) To make kids you got to have intercourse or loud & clear said: you got to have sex !!

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 15, 2005.

Laurent: Whose existance don't you believe in? If you do not believe in God Himself, then certainly you cannot possibly believe that the Creator of the entire universe is fully more than capable of doing anything he chooses to do and that we, as mere humans with finite minds do not have the capacity to comprhend His methods.

If you do believe in God, but are saying that you don't believe in the possibility of Mary having a virgin birth, then you limit God.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.

From the "Christian Scripture Study Series"..the Gospel of Matthew, Rev. William A. Anderson,Ligouri Publications 1999..page 11.

" Matthew sees the plan of God as always moving forward. What God has planned and foretold throughout the Old Testament will now reach its fulfillment in Christ. The birth of Jesus now becomes the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy of Isaiah (7:14).

When Matthew speaks of the fulfillment of prophecy from the Old testament, he inserts a new message into events that have already been fulfilled. The words of Isaiah came from a historical situation in Israel when Ahaz, a ruler of the Northern kingdom, planned to join forces with the Assyrians in a fight against their powerful neighbors. God, thorugh the prophet, became irritated with Ahaz and told him that a woman would conceive and bear a child called "Emmanuel", which means "God is with us". The child would be a symbol that God doies not need outside support, but will continue to be with the people by raising up others to follow in the line of Ahaz. Matthew applies this prophecy to the birth of Jesus and uses the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which has changed the word "woman" to "virgin". The birth of Jesus proclaims to the world that "God is with us."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.

KGreene - Here is your chance to show us all how you define humility.

Part 1: Apparently you should have done your research before saying "no Catholic [...] should be so ignorant as to argue that the "almah" of Isaiah 7:14 means "young woman" and not "virgin.". I'm the first to admit that I am ignorant of many things, but Pope John Paul II?!

Here are some quotes for you to consider:

HOMILY OF JOHN PAUL II - Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City Saturday, 23 January 1999

It is the night when the Son of God came into the world in Bethlehem, as foretold by the prophets and as we have heard in the first reading: "The Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel" (Is 7:14). These words, spoken many centuries ago, were fulfilled on the night when the Son conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary entered the world.

A "New Anthropology" from the Spirit General Audience — May 23, 1990

The analogies which have been proposed between this passage and other accounts from the ancient world and especially Old Testament writings never refer to the most important and decisive point, that is, the virginal conception. That constitutes an absolutely new element.

Part 2: About the translation from Hebrew... I look forward to your response with a link or two to support your view that "There are plenty of Jews in the world today who acknowledge Isaiah's "almah" as meaning "virgin."

If you don't want to accept the most up to date understanding of ancient texts (as quoted by the Pope), that is your decision; but does that mean if I tell you that 4+7=11 you won't beleive me since I'm Jewish? I don't know you well enough to feel comfortable asking you this, but based on your first response, I too will be frank with you and suggest you consider the strength of your faith if you fear it won't withstand the truth.

I will leave it up to you to decide how to fit your view of the "inerrant" New Testament, and the version of the Christian Old Testament, quoted by the Pope.

Part 3: This is really the main point, which I believe Lesley's Priest explained better than I could.

(I'm sure) There are plenty of cases in the Christian New Testament that describe the Virgin birth. I don't understand why the Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 is such a big deal. It is a book of the Christian Old Testament... Christian's have supplemented it with the New Testament. You don't celebrate Passover, for instance...

- - - - - - - - -

Final point It is none of my concern what you believe, and why. I don't need you to see the world in the same way that I do, my religion even has a well defined set of rules for the salvation of non-Jews. I'm not here to convert anyone. Like I said, I'm here to understand more about the Catholic religion, and I certainly have, based on Lesley's responses, as well as the Vatican Web pages on this.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 15, 2005.

italics off. (Sorry for that.)

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 15, 2005.

Catholic.com (Isaiah 7:14)

-- ale (a@lurk.er), February 15, 2005.

Thanks ale... an interesting read for sure, and an interesting looking web-site in general.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 15, 2005.

KGreene? Anyone seen KGreene around?

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 20, 2005.

I am in that oint in life when I will know all of the answers to these questions. I was born, raised a Cathlic until age 7 when my mother died, then my Lutheran father introduced my to Missouri Synod Lutheranism. I have been married for 54 years to one who was a virgin, Yes we did have a child. Then I was asked to donate blood for a client of mine and now I am an Honorary Jew. I do not know where you are going, but I know where I am, and when I get there I will rejoice.

-- Harry Juech (hjuech@aol.com), February 24, 2005.