Talk:Isaiah 7:14

Organization

This article needs better organization, particularly in the Christian Interpretation section. Nimrand 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Very poorly written article

It only adds to the confusion. Not to mention that "almah" does not simply mean "young woman", but "maiden" or "damsel" and is derived from a root meaning "hidden, secret", which is reminiscent of the Biblical terminology "she knew not a man". The term used explicitly for "young woman" is "na'arah". The bottom line is, "Almah" NEVER refers to a woman who has been married and known for a fact to have been "deflowered". If the Almah has in fact conceived by natural means, it happened on the quiet with someone to whom she may have been engaged, but while still under the protective care of her family. The article could have used another way of showing that the phrase in question does not automatically imply a virgin birth, but it did not. Rather, it takes on the form of a sectarian polemic. The article is of poor quality, confusing, and lacking in credibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 31 October 2007

This article is basically the result of extracting content from the article on Immanuel that didn't belong there. This topic is obviously controversial, so it is likely that some will disagree with it no matter what we do. But there is serious room for improvement for it as is. If you can provide sources for the information you just provided and can incorporate it into the article (or at least post the citation here so someone else can), it will no doubt help the article.Nimrand 23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew word na’arah refers to a woman just out of minority, not just any “young woman”. JCSalomon (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

~ Actually almah is used to refer to someone known to have been deflowered. In proverbs, Solomon talks about things that leave no visible trace and one of them is when a man lays with an almah...~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've tagged the "Hebrew Translation" section because the section is essentially arguing for the Jewish translation of the verse rather than maintaining a Neutral POV.Nimrand 22:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the Septuagint rendering of this passage. Before Christianity arose, the Septuagint was widely used and accepted among Jews, yet it uses the unambiguous "parthenos" in this verse. Wesley (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article seems to be advocating the traditional Jewish interpretation, bear in mind the possibility that that translation is in fact the most accurate one. But by all means add scholarly evidence for the Christian version. JCSalomon (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the accuracy of the Jewish interpretation. My point is that the accuracy of that translation/interpretation is clearly disputed, and so the section should provide a balanced presentation of all notable translations/interpretations, along with any arguments for/against such translations and interpretations. Nimrand (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this article, and found it not only poorly written but misleading readers as to the possible use of the words at issue. I added a little balance and organization.Daniel1212 (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

~ I want to add a quick septuagint comment. There was more than one Septuagint. 1. The one written by Jews is NOT the one used by Christians. We know this because the one written by Jews did not include translations of Isaiah. It only included the Pentateuch. Later Christians translated the rest of the Prophets. The word "parthenos" does not appear to be unambiguous because the Jewish translation of the Septuagint refers to Dinah as a "parthenos" after she has been raped. So, she clearly is not a virgin, but is a "parthenos" in their translation. I can look more on this later and post it here or in the article. ...and if anyone can tell me how to retrieve a lost wikipedia password I can even log in...~

Article appears biased

I only scanned it but the article appears to put undue weight on the Jewish side of a debate. It is both longer in lines of text, but also there is a section contradicting the Christian view but no section contradicting the Jewish view. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, then please add more relevant, well-sourced content to those sections that need it. 69.249.104.253 (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If by weight you mean the number of words employed in defense of each stance, you are right. However, the Christian section does nothing else than contradict the Jewish interpretation, therefore all arguments used to reject the Jewish interpretation should be found inside the Christian section. The argument is as this: thesis, antithesis, refutation of the antithesis. In this kind of chiasm, the nucleus is the Christian stance (therefore it gets the emphasis). Again, each reader may have a previous allegiance to one of the religions, so the chance that the article would change deeply-held beliefs is very small. All a true believer would do is take offense at the cunningness of the opposite side and stick to his/her own preconceived notions. Truth hurts, ouch! Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a footnote on botulism, since people who think that the Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth may get dangerous ideas from the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I think it looks great. It is clearly written and shows a neutral pov. It presents the Jewish side. It presents the Christian side. Excellent work. ~ affinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

language bias

The article, especially in the opening paragraph, needs to mention that the controversy mainly occurs in the English translation, not in all languages, as stated in [1]. Otherwise, if the editors feel that this is a major issue in most translations, they need to cite other language sources properly. On the least, readers who read this comment must be aware that some/all of this controversy doesn't happen in every Bible translations other than English. Bennylin (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Septuagint portion

The Christian portion describes the Septuagint as having been written by Jews hundreds of years before Jesus.

Extant evidence, which has convinced scholars (of all persuasions) that today’s LXX is not the original Septuagint, which was a mid-3rd century B.C.E translation into Greek of only the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), commissioned by King Ptolemy II of Egypt, and which was carried out by 72 of the most learned, bi-lingual Jewish scholars of the time. Rather, the LXX is a Church rendered Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The evidence includes: Historical accounts (the writings of Josephus and St. Jerome, the Letter of Aristeas); Scriptural items (statements in the Talmud, errors of omission in the LXX); Linguistic data (comparative linguistic analysis of the Greek in the LXX vis-àvis; the Greek spoken in the 3rd century B.C.E) 6 Babylonian Talmud, Tractate HagiGAH, Folios 14b-15a. 7 From Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polem

~affinity~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)