Missing Messiah in the Masoretic? ✝️📖

[@jasonlambert2226]

You guys at Remnant should interview the guys from One for Israel ministries. They go over a ton of material from Rabbinic tradition and overlap quite a bit with your guest here. God Bless

[@princekermit0]

Totally second this idea. I'm sure they would love to talk with you. Another good person to talk to is Dr. Michael Brown. A Christian of Jewish origin, who gave his life to Jesus at age 19. Dr. Michael Brown has written a ton of books, and is a great apologist and defender of the Christian Faith in dealing with those who are Jewish, or no.

[@gwilson314]

To summarize for us laymen, the Masoretic text refers to the Hebrew manuscripts from which the OT is translated in your modern Bible (think KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB). As Hebrew was the original language of the OT, it seems logical to assume that this Masoretic text is the most accurate. But this isn't necessarily the case. The Septuagint (abbr: LXX) was a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT scriptures before the time of Christ, but is also the version of the OT which the NT writers quoted from as well as the scriptures the early church would have had. Because of this, there are places where the NT text citing the OT (such as Matthew quoting Isaiah 42) differ from what the Masoretic Hebrew text renders in that OT passage. So if you read your Bible's recording of Matthew quoting Isaiah, and then turn back to read Isaiah directly from the OT, it won't align 100%. In particular, some of these differences relate to the Messiah and His kingdom. For instance Matthew, quoting LXX, affirms that the Gentiles will hope in the *name* of the Messiah. The Masoretic indicates that the Gentiles will wait for the *law* of the Messiah. It's best to back up and understand the timeline. From oldest to newest, here is the basic history: *Old Testament books originally composed in Hebrew (1500-400 BC). *As originals wear out, copies of Hebrew manuscripts record scripture, preserving it through the ages. *LXX is drafted in 3rd and 2nd centuries BC from Hebrew manuscripts of the day. *Both Greek and Hebrew copies of the OT exist during time of Christ. As Greek was a common language and Hebrew not understood by all, Greek copies of OT were often read/cited. *Following Christ's coming and the spread of Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, the unbelieving Jews copy their own OT texts (in Hebrew). Variants in the text arise. *Unsurprisingly, many of these develop around OT citations/prophecies about the Messiah. *Eventually, the Masoretic text becomes the authoritative OT Hebrew text to Rabbinical Jews. Many modern OT translations use this tradition. As we see, there's nothing special about the Masoretic text being Hebrew that would lead one to prefer it to a Greek translation of the OT (LXX) that is far older. Both the Masoretic and LXX are derivatives from the original, God-breathed writings. With the NT quoting from the LXX version, we have good reason to trust it as well as use it in translations of the Bible that we have in modern English.

[@EndingSimple]

That is a good summary of what was said. But I seem to recall the the original problem with the LXX was that the level of translation was not consistently high through all of the books. It was not all word for word. There were spots where it was more like a dynamic translation of thought for thought instead of word for word, where important details could drop out. I don't think we have a text of the Hebrew the LXX came from, except maybe in the Dead Sea scrolls. But then did the Essene's make their own Hebrew version?

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

Also the masoretic is not based on the original Hebrew text it's based on later modern Hebrew which came from Babylon . The original Paleo Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek with the lxx. By the time the masoretic came out the original Hebrew didn't exist anymore and they didn't use the Paleo Hebrew anymore

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

​@@EndingSimpleword for word doesn't indicate a higher quality of translation. Many ancient manuscripts were thought for thought and are just as accurate in a translation vs a word for word . Word for word doesn't necessarily mean better

[@Keverember]

Just started Bible college through Dr. Michael Brown’s school last week and I was fascinated when I read that the New Testament authors used the Septuagint. I don’t know why, but I had never heard or considered that. This is a well-timed episode for me!

[@ToddParker]

You do need a Part 2. I have read Doug's books, I have also gone further into textual criticism. I believe he is spot on.

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

I love hearing from people have really researched things like this. I wish I could get more people to talk to me about Matthew being originally written in Hebrew

[@skyeart273]

Thank you for this. Looking forward to part 2

[@christianthames2302]

This is actually a very key topic for the end times, because there's a huge movement right now in Orthodox Judaism to convert Christians and make them disbelieve Jesus is the Messiah and they do it by pointing to the OT verses that the NT authors quote and showing how it doesn't say that in the OT. Their argument is that Jesus and the disciples are quoting from a faulty OT and that's why they believed Jesus was the Messiah, but when you look at the "true" Hebrew text, you'll see he isn't. It wouldn't surprise me that when the Antichrist comes, the Jews will believe he's the Messiah, and will try to convince Christians that this is the actual Messiah, not Jesus, and they are going to do so using the corrupted OT.

[@kaylainchrist]

Wow, I had no idea. Sounds like we need to sound the alarm as a Body and make this information known

[@markdurdle7710]

JWs and Mormons are doing similar things too, basically anyone that is against Jesus being God. It is why it is important for Christians to read the Bible everyday, so you are not easily deceived. But the Bible is clear, Jesus will come back to an Israel that knows him.

[@User_Happy35]

You are right they are using that argument to sew doubt in Christians. I was following the KZbin channel of a "Messianic" Jew who recently came out to say he no longer believed Jesus was the Messiah because the apostles in the NT quoted from a "faulty" OT.

[@VoiceTotheEndsOfTheEarth]

@@markdurdle7710 the remnant (those remaining) of Israel. As I understand it from Zechariah 13:8, 2/3 will perish, only 1/3 will remain and they will acknowledge the Messiah as Savior and King.

[@andyloebrown8250]

Excellent. Knowledge is increasing.

[@changedavis4306]

Bible translator team member in West Africa here. I had enough time to listen to exactly half of this episode while I washed dishes, so forgive me if I missed later clarifications. But by the midpoint, I see red flags. For a guy who got hung up on the correct pronunciation of "Theodotian," he certainly didn't have any qualms about mispronouncing Hebrew terms, like טוב. Three things quickly. 1) As someone who reads Hebrew almost daily and works with both MT and LXX, it's hard for me to take this guy too seriously. There are tons of examples where the MT bears the correct, Messianic interpretation. So, if there was a conspiracy to remove those, they did a poor job. 2) What Septuagint does he mean? The original translation of the Torah was finished around 250 BC, not the entire corpus. The LXX with the apocrypha included? Jesus didn't affirm that. He seems to affirm the tripartite Hebrew Canon in Luke 24:27, 44. There's not just one monolithic LXX. 3) Because of that, some parts of the LXX are clear, fairly literal renderings of the original Hebrew. (And we prefer some LXX renderings in our translation.) Other parts appear to be more like loose translations or approximations, far from the rigorous care displayed by the Masoretes. I guess I'd be more inclined to take Woodward seriously if I knew that he had dealt seriously with the Hebrew MT, like Jerome did whom Woodward just kind of dismisses.

[@Keto-m6p]

Fantastic episode.

[@juanesparza3810]

Bravo 👏 What a great episode! I cannot wait for part 2 ❤

[@DanielGMan]

Wow this is so revealing to why so many versions have so many missing key versus

[@PrudenceMcFrugal]

More of this please! This difference always bothered me: Acts 15:16-17 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the *residue of men might seek after the Lord*, and all the Gentiles, *upon whom my name is called*, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Amos 9:11-12 11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12 That *they may possess the remnant of Edom*, and of all the heathen, *which are called by my name*, saith the Lord that doeth this. Those are very different meanings. I assumed Acts had the right interpretation but was confused why it was written so differently in Amos. I'm glad I came across this video!

[@carolynbillington9018]

so very informative

[@kaylainchrist]

THANK YOU!! I’ve always questioned why the scriptures quoted in the NT differed so much when I went back to the actual text in the OT. I also didn’t get why nobody else ever seemed to answer the question 😂 this is awesome. One of the best, eye-opening episodes to date. Does anyone have a link to the Septuagint copy he mentions?

[@OneStepToday]

sometimes NT quotes of OT dont conform to LXX itself, not you need to learn about midrash and jewish practice of treating the scripture with subjective ways

[@BvVb2099]

EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT !!! - Yes, I agree with your general assessment, however there are a few finer points that we need to make. I am not a scholar, but I have studied these things since my childhood. First, however useful it is for us today, Lord Jesus, Paul, the rest of the New Testament writers would have NEVER quoted from the Septuagint ! There is not shred of evidence of that happening. Second, I have found that the authentic Septuagint burned down in a fire at Ptolemy's library in Alexandria. Third, I also read that luckily, a copy of The LXX managed to go to the Greek world, before the fire. Fourth, The Greeks "sanitized" it quite a bit, and that is why we have some strange additions to it that do not add up at all as Scripture. Fifth, and most importantly, The ORIGINAL Septuagint was translated from the ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT, penned down in the PALEO HEBREW SCRIPT, which is some 2500 years older than the Masoretic Text, not to mention that The MT was "sanitized" as well by the Judean scribes. But ALL the mentions of Lord Jesus, Paul and the rest of NT writers are in perfect concordance with the records of The LXX, because it was translated from scrolls much closer to authenticity. It seems that THESE older scrolls were considered as the authentic Hebrew scrolls. I am working on an edition of The Bible and I am making full use of both the records of The Paleo Hebrew, AND the Aramaic Version of The new Testament and a great difference will be seen. Yes, it will look strange at first, But I am sure the honest believers will love it. It is now in a "beta" stage, I will probably be ready by the yearend, but if you want it right now, I can send it to you to compare notes. Pease send me a message to nairelavataoldotcom, subject 2024 Beta Digital Bible and an electronic copy is yours for the asking. But the final copy will be ready by the New Year. Absolutely free. Choicest Blessings !

[@Princessm22]

Waiting for part 2

[@th-bi2vb]

Loved this!

[@dylanmilks]

Wow! What a great conversation!

[@SibleySteve]

Great book, got it for Christmas, page Turner. He nails it. LXX is the apostolic Bible of St Augustine, Justin Martyr, etc

[@Strongtower]

Hey brother. Augustine did not read Greek. He read a Latin translation.

[@voiceone4715]

This seems to indicate the non-corrupted (by anti Jesus Orthodoxy) Septuagint correctly amplifies the role of the Messiah as Yahweh bodily, on earth, fixing for eternity the work of Satan in the human condition.

[@princekermit0]

As an Orthodox lover of Jesus, I register my objection to your fallacious comment about Orthodoxy being anti-Jesus. I am not going to argue or debate about it I just wanted it on the record before God, that when I saw this comment, I rejected it as a lie. May Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners.

[@voiceone4715]

@@princekermit0 thanks for the comment, my post does not indicate orthodoxy is anti Jesus. I’m glad you love him.

[@JERRYSHONDA]

so so long overdue this eye opening video what a treat what a treat radical with stunning impilications

[@jeremyfort]

I appreciate Woodward's appearance to help people understand the role of the Septuigant in the formation of the New Testament scriptures. As a student of the Hebrew scriptures, there are important Semetic language links that help us understand the ancient context of the Hebrew Bible that are utterly lost in the Septuigant. Both the Hebrew and Greek are important to have a full understanding of how our modern English bible came into existence and to understand its context so that we have a fuller understanding of God's word. Perhaps it would be good to invite an Old Testament scholar (i.e., Dr. Mackie, Dr. Imes, Dr. Michael Brown) to ensure we don't bias either the Hebrew or Greek text over each other. Then, we could better understand the role each played. The debate Woodward presents is not new and not easily distilled into a single conclusion. What do you think @TheRemnantRadio, could you line up a guest that is expert in Greek and Semetic languages who could add to this discussion?

[@gwilson314]

No one is saying the problem is the Hebrew text, rather its the Masoretic edits which have altered or amended God's word in certain places. LXX is older than the Masoretic, and is closer to original Hebrew text in many places. I agree having Hebrew experts and honest OT scholars would be welcome in terms of helping us understand the OT scriptures more deeply.

[@romansview3231]

I highly recommend as a resource the "Jewish publication society of America" 5vol set HISTORY OF THE JEWS, by HEINRICH GRAETZ 1893. Long before there were any messianic Christian debates, backs up in detail what Douglas Woodward is talking about. Vol 2 is an excellent detailed history on what went on in the early synagogues between those who believed in Jeshua and the Pharisees. As a Jewish publication it is very detailed about what the early Christians believed as well as the history of the "churches" persecution of the Jews. One of the major stumbling block reason why Jewish people do not want anything to do with "Christianity" today.

[@Gutslinger]

0:45 I noticed that when Paul talks about God's covenant with Abraham, and mentions that it referred to Abrams "seed" singular, not "seeds" plural.. Then I went to the passages mentioned in the footnotes of my Bible, and my Bible used the word "descendants" (plural) instead of "seed" (plural and/or singular). But that difference could probably be blamed on the version of translation that I have (NKJV). The King James Version actually used the word "seed" in Genesis, I believe.

[@BAjr525]

Very interesting! I’m a fan of the Septuagint. I would like to hear more on how the DSS matches up with the Septuagint vs the Masoretic texts. I feel like his answer concerning the DSS was a brush-off.

[@ricksteen935]

I love how you guys dig into this and make it intelligible to those of us that have difficulty with our own language!! I was wondering about something said at around 50 minutes in, it was something to the effect that the rabbis could then use the text to keep everyone bound to their system. The definition of Nicolaitans, “power over”, “laity”? Could this be one of those traditions of men” this thing that Jesus hates back in Revelations 2? My reasoning comes from Abraham listening to Jethro, a pagan , to get advice from, when he neglected to ask God. Ultimately we have God and all of us servants vs a hierarchy system. Thoughts please?

[@robynnbryar1977]

Are there various bible translations to choose from that are based on Septuagint? Wondering what to look for to buy for a home version?

[@LK_Ireland]

Finally, people are talking about the LXX it’s been a companion with my Montex years now!

[@GregVasquez777]

Also in the second century 101- 200 AD, the Jews introduced three... three new greek manuscripts. Theodocian, Aquilla of Sinope and Symmanchus all of which branched waay off from the old Hebrew and Greek. Also I RECOMMEND hugely to read "life and times of Jesus the Messiah" by Alfred Edersheim. He's known as one of the best historian/theologians and based his info on much of the oldest research, and paints a picture of the land of Judaea from culture to politics that will open you eyes and mouth. Things we just don't get in most bible dictionaries. There were like 6 sects of Jews at the time. Many walked around with weapons. They were often against each other and not a united Israel/Judah. Another things I remember learning was there were some Jews that knew the Aramaic/Hebrew but after Babylon there were permanently many Aramaic words, also the Babylonian script itself was then on used for Hebrew. From Nehimiah and Ezra on all the post exile prophets are written in Aramaic. Modern Hebrew still has many thousands of Aramaic words. In the NewTestament there are many Aramaic only words. Raca ῥακά, Talitha cum ταλιθα κουμ 'litte girl arise', Lema Sabaxthani λεμα σαβαχθανι 'forsaken me' an many more. In 1st century, the Jewish synagogs all had the Hebrew text and 'targums' which is the non Aramaic or Hebrew version for the many poor Hebrew readers and some speakers. The Targum was usually read from by a person called the Methurgamem, a translator. It's an amazing book and must read.

[@joeregan.]

For people who would like to read the Septuagint in English, what translation do you recommend? I am looking at the The Orthodox Study Bible for the English translation of the LXX which comes with the NKJV for the new.

[@ME-vi9kq]

Here is what google said... "The Septuagint also formed the basis for the Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian, and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament." Looks like your better off buying the Septuagint in English.

[@Strongtower]

I use the Lexham English Septuagint.

[@fouzyraphael2100]

OSB is the only complete Bible that uses the Septuagint. If you just want to read the Septuagint OT only online, use Brenton Septuagint

[@judyswiderski2682]

Did Jesus Use the Septuagint? David Daniels Book. The Mythical Septuagint. Book by Peter Ruckman.

[@salvadaXgracia]

Lexham English Septuagint. It also contains the Apocryphal books and part of the book of Enoch extant in Greek (the rest is extant in the Ethiopian Bible).

[@mikecollett1173]

The Eastern orthodox have always rejected that new Pharisee Old Testament. Called the Masoretic Text. The Christian Old Testament was always the Greek Septuagint LXX. My 2 new terminologies for academia: POT vs COT.

[@itscoleperkins]

Great episode on the Masoretic Text

[@augsburgbiblechannel9246]

A big question on some of the Isaiah passages is what are the dead see scrolls saying which predate any issues with the rabbis after Jesus

[@leepretorius4869]

51:00 they should start by using the LXX gemlists in Ezekiel 28 and Exodus 28.

[@anthonywhitney634]

This is very interesting, I wonder how common is this view that our O.T. is best represented by the Septuagint.

[@janiceking6955]

I am on my 5th listening of this video, and find it fascinating. Trying to get the timeline and the facts in my head. One question I don't hear the answer to, maybe I missed it.. the discrepancy the Jews use regarding the word used for Mary, young woman or specifically virgin. Was this a change made by the Pharisees who changed the Septuagint?

[@awakenedbyyhuhassembly6015]

There would be three versions mainly they would have used the lxx, a hebrew copy of some kind , Samaritan torah, also the targums orally were being passed down

[@j.sargenthill9773]

Jesus even pointed out how the traditions of the teachers had become opposed to the law of God, making their disciples twice the sons of hell that they were.

[@Gutslinger]

As a layman, let me get this straight: • The Septuigent is an ancient Greek version of the Bible that our current Bible are generally based on? • The Masoretic is an ancient Hebrew version of the Old Testament/Torah that the Jews use today? • The Masoretic text predates the Septuigent? • But the Septuigent supposedly is a copy of a Hebrew text that predates the Masoretic? Perhaps someone can correct me, if or where I'm wrong. I've always seen people mention, discuss, or argue over what is or isn't in Masoretic or the Septuigent, but I've never really had a clue what they were, other than ancient text.. Those arguments were always way over my head.

[@Strongtower]

So basically this guy's argument is that the septuagint was translated from the Hebrew old testament. That Hebrew old testament was changed and is called the Masoretic text.

[@taufgesinntechristen3975]

It should be added that Antiochos IV Epiphanes not only desecrated the temple in 168 BC but also burned each and every copy of the scriptures that he could get a hold of, most certainly those from the temple itself. Thus the manuscripts that the LXX was translated from got destroyed during the Maccabean wars. This most likely led to hastily copied and reproduced manuscripts, which led to the in homoguenous manuscripts in Qumran. The is to certainty on the text of the Bible outside the LXX-tradition. Somehow this incident in 168 gets overlooeked by most scholars.

[@pattis8240]

Did your guest go back to the original languages, or did he do all of his comparisons just between translations?

[@BeBesAllotment]

What happened to the other intro with all 3 of you in it xx

[@5280attitude]

Hi, are there Kivah/Gaza translations still in circulation? Wanna know what to avoid.

[@Gutslinger]

Aye, he's wearing OU Sooners gear. 👀

[@mynorgonzalez2625]

Some scholars argue that the septuagint that was translated by Tolomeu around 200 yrs BC was only the Torah the 5 books of Moses not the whole old testament. If we say that the Greek translations are more trust worthy than the Hebrew I think we're just making up stuff to back up what we already believe.

[@justinfiorenzio7112]

Question here did the early church fathers have some knowledge of the divine name of God in the hebrew

[@salvadaXgracia]

Look up Hebrew scholar Nehemia Gordon. He shows good evidence that it is Yehováh i.e. Jehovah just as the church has believed for centuries all over the world. It is in both Bible manuscripts and rabbinical writings and is evident in biblical names like Jeho-ash and Jeho-ram etc.

[@jaimieolson3796]

What is the best translation/English version of the Septuagint to get?

[@oztheberean]

I won't argue that it's the "best." I will say that many folks vote for the Lexham (LES) It's what I have and it contains the Apocrypha.

[@Proverbs27-7]

Brenton

[@XavierPutnam]

Acceptance of the LXX as inspired scripture basically demands that one reject God's preservation of his words. One had might as well convert to Eastern Orthodox at that point. One cannot accept both the MT and LXX if he takes preservation and basic principles of inspiration (no contradictions or errors) seriously. 2 Timothy 3.

[@princekermit0]

Folly. The New Testiment writers quote the LXX hundreds of times, over/instead of hebrew texts.

[@XavierPutnam]

@@princekermit0 I believe they authoritatively paraphrased the Hebrew text.

[@XavierPutnam]

@@princekermit0 So do you use the LXX for your Old Testament then? Might as well

[@princekermit0]

@@XavierPutnam I compare and read from many texts, but I'm an LXX supremacist over Masoretic.

[@jonburton3517]

I’m sorry but I think this guy is straining some gnats. Not that I don’t think there is some good stuff here, it’s just that those Christian translators that lean more into the Masoretic text seem to have confidence in even its christological references. Just because the Masorites differed on a few verses, doesn’t remove anywhere near the majority of references to the nature of the Messiah pointing to Jesus Christ. This is why it’s good to use BOTH the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. And then refer to all of the other data points we get with the Dead Sea scrolls and more! I see no reason to split hairs here. Like I said there is some interesting stuff here, but nothing that would make me throw a KJV in the garbage over. I definitely don’t prefer KJV because it has other problems lol, but still.

[@lW9497]

If the Rabbis changed everything, it's understandable why modern Jews resist Christ. Modern Judaism is NOT the same as first century Judaism. They don't have the Temple and they don't the text of the same Bible. Of course, modern Judaism has many similarities, but it's fundamental differences illustrated this change.

[@kathrynarnold1966]

It sounds like Essenes lived with a target on their backs... socially disdained, at least.

[@justinfiorenzio7112]

Or Latin & Aramaic

[@MegaVincenzo13]

The Septuagint is the oldest old testament. It is the bible of 1st century Palestine and was the old testament bible of Jesus and the Apostles. No we do not have access to the original texts of the old testament, because they were in the Temple and burned when the Temple was destroyed 70AD. Also the Masoretic text was written in 800 AD. I do agree the changes are mostly related to the Messiah.

[@MegaVincenzo13]

The Septuagint also predicts the actual date of Christ;s birth and that he would be killed and Jerusalem would be destroyed: Daniel 9:25. :"25And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. 26And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.

[@markohakkola5180]

That's why the dead sea scrolls are so important

[@ntlearning]

There were earlier Hebrew texts around before 800 AD. That’s what Trypho was disputing with Justin Martyr.

[@E-pistol]

Prots n' Jews removed books.

[@changedavis4306]

Had time for a little bit more. I'm beginning to suspect Woodward is a good hobbyist, but not a biblical scholar. He's right that the LXX of Isaiah 42 is Messianic, but he misses the fact that the MT is too, just writing it off as "law keeping." Please let us bother to ask in whose Torah will the nations hope? It is clearly the Servant of YHWH's Torah (the new Servant like Moses of the new Exodus with which Isaiah was preoccupied. The same Servant whom Isaiah makes equivalent to YHWH himself [see 52:13]). As an aside we do prefer the LXX of Isaiah 53:11, indicating the Servant's resurrection from the dead more clearly than the MT.

[@matthewmencel5978]

fyi, what we know as "the Septuagint" as a textual tradition in manuscrpt forms literally POST-DATES the NT. itself. Also the LXX was NOT the Bible of the Church in the Near East (The Persian Empire).

[@SiegelBantuBear]

Question should be when was the masoretic text written? This is a discourse that can easily fill you in. Ideally the masoretic texts are accurate. How do we explain why the book of Jeremiah is shorter in septuagint but longer in the masoretic? How and why the books of Daniel and Esther are longer in Septuagint but shorter in the masoretic? Timing of writing is what explains why accounts closed as at that time. Just before Jesus. So i do not think it was by design. Masoretic is not full bible but part of the bible and accurate. Jews got an attitude abt JESUS not being the Messiah but i know saved JEWS who prophess JESUS is the coming Messiah. With this understanding, i don't see any problem.

[@faithfulservantofchrist9876]

I have personally looked into Isaiah 7:14 from the dead sea scrolls that carbon dates to hundreds of years before Christ. Isaiah 7:14 says almah in the Great Isaiah scroll so I can put Justin Martyr to rest he was wrong. Trust me with every fiber of my being I wanted it to be virgin.

[@fouzyraphael2100]

Almah also has to mean Virgin in Jewish context. If they just put virgin it could mean old or young virgin. By putting Almah we ensure that it means specifically young virgin. This is why the Septuagint translated it to virgin - this was by Jews prior to Christ (with no Christian bias). The one who translated that part in the Septuagint was Simeon the Elder - who didn't want to translate it as virgin because he thought it wouldn't make sense - but the Holy Spirit said you will not die until you hold that Immanuel conceived of a Virgin. So he lived a couple hundred of years and held Jesus, so that he would die in peace as in the Gospel of Luke 2 it says.

[@heidibrown997]

Any young Jewish woman was a virgin or she was stoned. It was not an option for her. If her husband found her not have been a virgin on the wedding night he put her away.

[@faithfulservantofchrist9876]

@@heidibrown997 the old wife's tale that if the hymen is broke they had sex is just that an old wives tale and it's false. A hymen can break from physical exercise or activity like riding a horse. There can be virgins with broken hymens and women who have had sex with unbroken hymens. If you Google it you'll see. Remember what Joseph did when Mary first said she was pregnant? He didn't stone her he was going to put her away privately so it wouldn't cause her problems. Most women weren't stoned or killed for having sex before marriage even if they should have been people didn't do it. I believe that she was supposed to be a Virgin but it would have been nice if the text said that instead of us, post-hoc rationalizing it to make it make sense.

[@matthewmencel5978]

the problem is that you can't at one side of your mouth and say that the Masoretic Text is a changed and corrupted with 7:14 as proof and then when demonstrated contrary evidence, then turn around and say "this is further proof that almah means virgin". you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Almah is original and you contend it means virgin (it CAN apply to virgins, but doesn't specifically mean that) OR it doesn't mean that and "virgin" is original reading, thus the origianl must be "betulah" and the MT changed to Almah. Both can't be true. @@fouzyraphael2100

[@davissalaki8703]

Sure, there can be rare exceptions, but the evidence of bleeding from a broken hymen was used under the law as a proof of virginity before marriage. Deuteronomy 22:15-17

[@larrysax5679]

This guy is so wrong and such a deceiver! He plainly lies about yhe OT Masoretic text. He seems to have no clue as how to translated Hebrew.