God Repents?

[mwc]

That's not true though L4A, the Gospel of Matthew didn't exist when the word became virgin. It became virgin in the Septuagint, then to later carry on, ..after the Christ events. So, the Hebrews labeled it virgin, because there was reason needed. Right? Wasn't the Septuagint the main Bible used during early Christianity?

I see. Well, why didn't you just ask this?

 

The Hebrew word ("almah") used in Isaiah 7:14 is also used in Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8. In the LXX the first two gets translated as "virgin" but in Exodus it doesn't.

 

Instead it gets a word that means something more like "damsel" (a slightly older person). This same word (na arah) is used in Deuteronomy 22:27, Ruth 2:5, 1 Kings 1:4, 2 Kings 5:4 and Daniel 11:6. All meaning "damsel, " "maiden," or "betrothed." Something of that nature. An older female.

 

But the important question is what is meant by "parthenos" (the Greek word translated "virgin"). The thing about that word is that it doesn't always mean virgin. Consider it a cultural thing. It could mean what "almah" meant which was someone of marrying age or it could mean virgin. It is open to interpretation. Generally it is a slightly narrower take than "almah" so you may tend toward "virgin" more often than not but that doesn't make it so. I'd have to check but I believe in Acts (the daughters of Philip) are "parthenos" but not necessarily virgins (though I would imagine it's most easily translated that way so maybe locating a male form of this word would help?).

 

If I had more time I'd do more searching but maybe this will get you on your way? This should at least let you know that the ancients didn't translate word for word either.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

I think it's funny that the obvious, even through criticism of the Septuagint, is that this Book was the main book used around Roman areas, through Hellenization period. So, in that, this means that nobody forged, lied, conspired, made their 'own' dogma, etc. They simply trusted their fellow brother Hebrews translations, and believed that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.

 

Actually, no. The predominant translation used was Latin and not the Greek Septuagint. Here is an entry from Wikipedia on the Latin Vulgate:

 

The Vulgate is an early Fifth Century version of the Bible in Latin, and largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of old Latin translations. It became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 13th century it came to be called versio vulgata, which means "common translation". There are 76 books in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate Bible: 46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament, and three in the Apocrypha.

 

Found here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

 

Okay L4A, this makes no sense to me. This is far far later than the Septuagint. I already acknowledged that later the Septuagint was considered a poor translation.

 

Please note that Jerome was commissioned to do the work in 382 AD and he was to revise the OLD LATIN TRANSLATIONS. So by the 4th century, there were already Latin translations in use that were considered OLD.

 

The Septuagint was translated because so many Jews were being Hellenized that they no longer spoke Hebrew or read it with understanding. So a translation into a foreign language became necessary. However, the rabbis and those that respected their faith continued to use the Hebrew. Therefore, despite the Septuagint being a Hebrew translation, it was the common man's version and was not considered on par with the Hebrew. This is is part of the reason why modern translators go to the Hebrew instead of the Greek Septuagint. In many cases, the Hebrew referenced is from the 9th century AD (the Masoretic text). One would think that the significantly older Septuagint (2nd century BC?) would carry much more weight. It does not.

 

Not on par? Yet the historical writings citing that the Jews translated it separately and they all concluded the same translation? This mat be a 'story' of sort by history, yet it is there. I will have to get back to you on a reference to it (about to leave for a bit); but it is there. I say it's a mystery. Maybe those Jewish translators were looking into it through hellenized bifocals so to speak. Hellenization was the including of their deities as well. So, maybe the whole virgin 'symbolics' was in play when they translated it, and assumed Isaiah meant a virgin. Keep in mind as well, they most likely weren't looking at that Isaiah verse as being the prophecy of the Messiah, as supposedly, it was meant for Isaiah's child anyway.

[Looking4Answers]

Okay L4A, this makes no sense to me. This is far far later than the Septuagint.

 

You missed it, I think. :While the Latin Vulgate was much later, Latin translations themselves were much earlier. This is why Jerome was contracted to update the "old Latin" translations.

 

Yet the historical writings citing that the Jews translated it separately and they all concluded the same translation? This mat be a 'story' of sort by history, yet it is there.

 

It is a story. A tradition. The Septuagint, meaning "70," and often abbreviated as LXX (70), was said to have been translated by 70 (some say 72) Jewish translators. According to the story, they each went into different rooms alone, translated for years and then came out. When they each compared their translations, they found them ALL to be perfectly IDENTICAL, thus proving that god was in the translation of the LXX.

 

This never happened, but it helped get a non-Hebrew translation off the ground. This is like the King James only nuts, in my opinion.

[Abiyoyo]

 

Okay L4A, this makes no sense to me. This is far far later than the Septuagint.

 

You missed it, I think. :While the Latin Vulgate was much later, Latin translations themselves were much earlier. This is why Jerome was contracted to update the "old Latin" translations.

 

I think you are speaking about the Received Text of the NT, not the OT. I think....Jerome translated from the original Hebrew, if I'm not mistaking. As far as the Hebrew translation though, whether virgin or young woman is used really makes no difference here, since the deed had already been done so to speak.

[Looking4Answers]

I think you are speaking about the Received Text of the NT, not the OT. I think....Jerome translated from the original Hebrew, if I'm not mistaking.

 

No. I know the difference between the supposed Received Text and what Jerome did. When I stated that Jerome was updating the old Latin, I was NOT saying that he was translating from the old Latin. I was simply pointing out that the church saw the problems with the old Latin texts that were already in existence and they wanted them updated ... a new translation created.

 

Again, read the first sentence from the Wikipedia article I had copy/pasted above:

 

The Vulgate is an early Fifth Century version of the Bible in Latin, and largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of old Latin translations.

[child like faith]

Why would God repent? Did he sin?

 

Who would he repent to? Does God have a God? And if so, does that God have a God?

 

 

Exodus 32:14

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Genesis 6:6

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

1 Samuel 15:35

The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16

The Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough: stay now thine hand.

1 Chronicles 21:15

And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil,

Jeremiah 15:6

Thou hast forsaken me, saith the LORD, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting.

Jeremiah 26:3

If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.

Amos 7:3

The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.

Jonah 3:10

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

 

 

God talks to us simple dumb creatures in a way we are able to understand . if we have diffuculties with a statement are we sure we know the meaning of each word correctly that has been translated into english .also by checking context's both inner outer and also the gramatical historical setting of what is said----------

 

we can tell if it is to be taken .1 Literaly or as a 2 simille a 3 metaphor,4 hyperbole,,rhetorical question,,irony,metononymy or a synecdoche.

 

by doing all this we avoid the higher criticism of the modernist liberal interpetations.

 

one can refer to trusted commentarys of those who have translated and believe in the historical gramatical way of interpeting of scripture

 

such as this on line commentary. ----------------------------------But a person should still do the work of checking them selves . to see if it is so.

 

http://kretzmannproject.org/

[Ouroboros]

God talks to us simple dumb creatures in a way we are able to understand .

Right... he made us that way. We are in his image, so we're just as dumb and stupid as he is.

 

if we have diffuculties with a statement are we sure we know the meaning of each word correctly that has been translated into english .also by checking context's both inner outer and also the gramatical historical setting of what is said----------

If you would use a little more grammar, it would be easier to understand what you're saying.

 

we can tell if it is to be taken .1 Literaly or as a 2 simille a 3 metaphor,4 hyperbole,,rhetorical question,,irony,metononymy or a synecdoche.

It's obvious it's not meant to be figurative language. It doesn't say: "God got angry like a monkey." (simile) And it doesn't say "God, the mule." (metaphor) And it doesn't say "God, he regret what he did and killed a nation... nah, just kidding, he didn't regret anything." (irony) etc.

 

by doing all this we avoid the higher criticism of the modernist liberal interpetations.

BS.

 

one can refer to trusted commentarys of those who have translated and believe in the historical gramatical way of interpeting of scripture

You do understand that some of the people here (not me personally, but others) has a degree in analyzing, reading, and interpreting the scripture?

 

such as this on line commentary. ----------------------------------But a person should still do the work of checking them selves . to see if it is so.

 

http://kretzmannproject.org/

Interesting, look up Gen 6:6 - This is Kretzmann's comment about it:

V.6. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. The utter disgust of Jehovah over the conditions on earth is here expressed in the terms in use among men. So great was the universal wickedness that Jehovah repented of His having made man, who, by the impenitence and the hardness of his heart, was challenging Him to wreak His wrath upon the offenders.

Does he deny or refute that God repented? No. Kretzmann agree that Jehova repented of having made man!!!

 

So what is your point? That the higher criticism intellectuals agree with us?