Besides the problems of interpreting the Apocalypse of John, there is another issue that baffles many biblical students; this is the problem of "Bible contradictions.' Many good-willed Christians have tried to do back-flips in trying to "explain away' the many contradictions in the Bible thinking all along their adversaries have the upper hand. As a result, a number of "close readers' of the Bible have taken advantage of this by publishing web-pages that specialize in attacking the Church and its Bible based solely on these contradictions!

I would like to address one particular type of contradiction, namely when a New Testament author quotes (or alludes to) a verse from the Old Testament. The New Testament verse will contradict the OT (Old Testament) with either an historical, chronological or numerical "fact.' Allow me take the liberty of pointing out at least four examples of bible "contradictions' from the Acts of the Apostles, especially in speech that Stephen made before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2-53). In this speech, Stephen gives an interpretation of the history of Israel. Here are four contradictions in Stephen's Speech that stand out like a sore thumb:


Problem One: Where was Abraham when God first spoke to him? Acts 7:2 states that the “… God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, BEFORE (emphasis mine) he lived in Haran …” How does this compare to Genesis 12:1-5?

Problem Two: When did Abraham depart Haran in relation to his father's death? In Acts 7:4 Abraham “… left the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After his father died, God had him move from there to this country in which you are now living.” How does this compare to Genesis 11:26,32;12:4?

Problem Three: How many years of slavery did Abraham's descendents endure in Egypt? In Acts 7:6 Abraham's “… descendents would be resident aliens in a country belonging to others, who would enslave them and mistreat them during four hundred years.” How does this compare to Genesis 15:13, Exodus 12:40, and Galatians 3:17?

Problem Four: How many of Joseph's kinfolk went down to Egypt? In Acts 7:14 “… Joseph sent and invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come to him, seventy-five in all …” How does this compare with Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5, and Deuteronomy 10:22?


What are your observations, comments and explanation for these apparent Bible contradictions? Should those web-page adversaries have us shaking in our shoes? Is there something here beyond the alleged contradictions that may explain the discrepancies as being a situation of our challengers not seeing the forest for the trees? Are they merely shooting blanks and we just don't know it?


Joe

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Joe,

Just a note, before we get into this, to thank you from the bottom of my heart for raising this issue here.

I can't wait to learn more!

Alex

Joe,
Shoot me for sloppiness of thought, but ISTM that hanging your faith in Scripture on the total agreement of accounts of the same events in different books, probably written at different times & intended for different audiences is as silly as expecting the Bible to be a modern _______ (fill in your subject; biology, cosmology, etc.) text.

The expectation of literal accuracy in reportage is a rather modern phenomenon. Time was (in scripture as elsewhere) that it was considered perfectly Kosher to arrange history, quantities, durations etc. in whatever way most enhanced the particular point being emphasized, or just the telling of the tale. To say nothing of the difficulties involved in second and third-hand scribing, or stories committed to paper years or centuries after the events took place. Heck, some of the sequences of events of Jesus' ministry vary from Gospel to Gospel.

Folks looking for reasons to disbelieve can always find plenty of 'em.

Scarlet fish....

Cheers,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Sharon Mech ]

“… hanging your faith in Scripture on the total agreement of accounts of the same events in different books, probably written at different times & intended for different audiences is as silly as expecting the Bible to be a modern _______ (fill in your subject; biology, cosmology, etc.) text.”


Dear Sharon,

Thank you for pointing these problems out. But it was not a matter of hanging one's faith, but a matter of understanding why there are "contradictions&#8217 in Stephen's historical account. Yes, there were scribal errors, different audiences, and the fact that a literal accuracy was not on the minds of many authors, and like you further state, “… it was considered perfectly Kosher to arrange history, quantities, durations etc. in whatever way most enhanced the particular point being emphasized, or just the telling of the tale.”

What I am attempting to address, Sharon, is not what you mentioned above, but something else many tend to ignore. Acts does not have another text like it to compare like we do between the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and John; so we cannot compare between NT books. The "contradictions' I point out, as found in Stephen's Speech, are between a NT text and the Old Testament. What that something else is that many tend to forget is the fact that the early Jewish-Christians primarily used the Septuagint (LXX) for their OT references. It is not an issue of textual problems per se, but one of sources. What did Luke use for his source? How can an intelligent discussion between Byzantine Catholics and evangelicals take place if they are using different texts? - or a Bible with a half dozen or so books missing from its Old Testament section?

In the four quotes above, Stephen's historical account was based on the LXX or Septuagint, the Greek translation or version originating sometime around 250 BC. In one case, the Samaritan Pentateuch was the only one in agreement with Stephen. What does this mean to Byzantine Christians and how it relates to a better interpretation of Scripture? The Old Testament quotations that are quoted in the New Testament are primarily from the Septuagint, a version of the OT that Protestants abandoned since the Reformation. The Jews abandoned it in the first century AD. The reason was the same for both groups: for the Jews, the Christians were using a text that was giving them the edge over the Jews in theological matters. For Protestants, the LXX included books that gave support to doctrines they rejected. Out of sight, out of mind?

First, we still use a text based on the one that Jesus read and quoted and the Evangelists used as their primary source. Second, the problem of having "contradictions' in not only a matter of scribal errors and re-workings of Tradition to fit a new time and need, but a problem of comparing apples and oranges. I guess I was trying to introduce the Septuagint.

BTW, the Sanhedrin didn't get up in arms over any poor historical interpretation on Stephen's part, but rather Stephen's counter-accusations and his labelling them as being "stiff-necked". Pride, and not historical interpretation or one's sources, can have nasty results.


Joe

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Problem one and two: solved by St. Augustine "City of God", Chapter 15 —Of the Time of the Migration of Abraham, When, According to the Commandment of God, He Went Out from Haran.

When, after the record of the death of Terah, the father of Abraham, we next read, “And the Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house,” etc., it is not to be supposed, because this follows in the order of the narrative, that it also followed in the chronological order of events. For if it were so, there would be an insoluble difficulty. For after these words of God which were spoken to Abraham, the Scripture says: “And Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him. Now Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran.” How can this be true if he departed from Haran after his father's death? For when Terah was seventy years old, as is intimated above, he begat Abraham; and if to this number we add the seventy-five years which Abraham reckoned when he went out of Haran, we get 145 years. Therefore that was the number of the years of Terah, when Abraham departed out of that city of Mesopotamia; for he had reached the seventy-fifth year of his life, and thus his father, who begat him in the seventieth year of his life, had reached, as was said, his 145th. Therefore he did not depart thence after his father's death, that is, after the 205 years his father lived; but the year of his departure from that place, seeing it was his seventy-fifth, is inferred beyond a doubt to have been the 145th of his father, who begat him in his seventieth year. And thus it is to be understood that the Scripture, according to its custom, has gone back to the time which had already been passed by the narrative; just as above, when it had mentioned the grandsons of Noah, it said that they were in their nations and tongues; and yet afterwards, as if this also had followed in order of time, it says, “And the whole earth was of one lip, and one speech for all.” How, then, could they be said to be in their own nations and according to their own tongues, if there was one for all; except because the narrative goes back to gather up what it had passed over? Here, too, in the same way, after saying, “And the days of Terah in Haran were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran,” the Scripture, going back to what had been passed over in order to complete what had been begun about Terah, says, “And the Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country,” etc. After which words of God it is added, “And Abram departed, as the Lord spake unto him; and Lot went with him. But Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran.” Therefore it was done when his father was in the 145th year of his age; for it was then the seventy-fifth of his own. But this question is also solved in another way, that the seventy-five years of Abraham when he departed out of Haran are reckoned from the year in which he was delivered from the fire of the Chaldeans, not from that of his birth, as if he was rather to be held as having been born then.
Now the blessed Stephen, in narrating these things in the Acts of the Apostles, says: “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, and come into the land which I will show thee.” According to these words of Stephen, God spoke to Abraham, not after the death of his father, who certainly died in Haran, where his son also dwelt with him, but before he dwelt in that city, although he was already in Mesopotamia. Therefore he had already departed from the Chaldeans. So that when Stephen adds, “Then Abraham went out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran,” this does not point out what took place after God spoke to him (for it was not after these words of God that he went out of the land of the Chaldeans, since he says that God spoke to him in Mesopotamia), but the word “then” which he uses refers to that whole period from his going out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelling in Haran. Likewise in what follows, “And thenceforth, when his father was dead, he settled him in this land, wherein ye now dwell, and your fathers,” he does not say, after his father was dead he went out from Haran; but thenceforth he settled him here, after his father was dead. It is to be understood, therefore, that God had spoken to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran; but that he came to Haran with his father, keeping in mind the precept of God, and that he went out thence in his own seventy-fifth year, which was his father's 145th. But he says that his settlement in the land of Canaan, not his going forth from Haran, took place after his father's death; because his father was already dead when he purchased the land, and personally entered on possession of it. But when, on his having already settled in Mesopotamia, that is, already gone out of the land of the Chaldeans, God says, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house,” this means, not that he should cast out his body from thence, for he had already done that, but that he should tear away his soul. For he had not gone out from thence in mind, if he was held by the hope and desire of returning, —a hope and desire which was to be cut off by God's command and help, and by his own obedience. It would indeed be no incredible supposition that afterwards, when Nahor followed his father, Abraham then fulfilled the precept of the Lord, that he should depart out of Haran with Sarah his wife and Lot his brother's son.

From Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume II

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Good Evening Mr. Thur again,

The Liturgical Press in Collegeville, MN puts out a Pamphet titled" How and Why Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ" by Carolyn Osiek RSCJ and Donald Senior CP. It basically says what you are saying.What we need to ask these folks is why their Churches rejected The Greek Version of the Old Testament? Is Dan out there? Can he tell us what Protestant folks are taught about the rejection of the Greek Version of OT? Also in this above mentioned pamphet I have it states the official Roman Catholic decision finally determining the number of books accepted as inspired scripture was in 1546 at the Council of Trent.Do Eastern Churches accept this also? The reason I ask is because they specifically say Roman Catholic.

Nicky's Baba

“...tell us what Protestant folks are taught about the rejection of the Greek Version of OT?” – "Nicky's Baba'.

Protestants reject the Septuagint because it was not included in the codification of the Canon for and by the first century Jews. The Jews rejected it when they codified the Old Testament because it was written Greek (and this opens an entire new topic of discussion let me tell you!). When reforming the Christian faith, the Martin Luther removed the “Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical” books of the Old Testament and even bemoaned the now famous (or infamous depending on your view of the world) “Epistle of Straw.” Often you will find them included in an Appendix of most Protestant Scriptures.

As for your questions regarding the codification of the Vulgate (Catholic Canon, or Bible), it may be a note of interest to you that in the Latin Vulgate (or Catholic edition of the more popular Protestant translations of the Bible [i.e.: RSV; Catholic Edition, etc.]) the following books are included as Sacred Scripture that are not a part of the Protestant Canon:
Tobit;
Judith;
Additions to the Book of Esther (with a translation of the entire Greek text of Esther);
Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (a.k.a. Wisdom of Jesus of Son of Sirach), Baruch;
Letter of Jeremiah (which is Baruch, Chapter 6);
The additions to the Book of Daniel (The Prayer of Azariah and the song of the three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon);
And 1 and 2 Maccabees.
(Also note that 2 Esdras in the Greek Canon is Ezra and Nehemiah in the Catholic Canon)

Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles that are not a part of the Catholic Canon (Vulgate):
1 Esdras (which is 2 Esdras in Slavonic and 3 Esdras in Appendix to the Catholic Vulgate);
Prayer of Manasseh (in Appendix of the Catholic Vulgate);
Psalm 151, following Psalm 150 in Greek Canon;
3 Maccabees

Books in the Slavonic Canon and in the Catholic Vulgate Appendix:
2 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Slavonic and 4 Esdras in the Catholic Vulgate Appendix [in the Vulgate, Ezra and Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras])

Book in the Appendix of the Greek Canon:
4 Maccabees

Slan go foill,
Donnchadh

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Donnchadh ]

Let me quote a few lines from Dr. George Balla's book, "The Four Centuries Between the Testaments," on the issue of the Septuagint:


"The creation of the Septuagint version of the Bible, the Old Testament in the Greek language, was one of the great literary creations of the intertestamental era." (p.47)

"The Septuagint contains the books which Protestants associate with the Old Testament, plus the fifteen books they call the Apocrypha. The diaspora Jews used this version until early in the first century AD, but then largely abandoned it. The early Christians used this version of the Old Testament for several centuries." (p.48)

"The Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are largely drawn from the Septuagint." (p.49)

These are very positive statements on the Septuagint and any student of the Scripture, especially the New Testament, must take this into consideration. What is refreshing is the fact that Dr. Balla is a Baptist minister. My four Bible 'contradtictions' are just samplers where one can go wrong if one does not take into consideration the 'actual' text used by a NT (New Testament) author. As we proceed on this forum in days to come, we will become more conscious of the intimate relationship between the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament. Cantor Sharon Mech had it right; Marcion had it wrong.


Joe

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Donnchadh,

The Early Christians used the Greek Version of the OT. Since Christians used it for several centuries what was the reason the reformers removed some of the books? Because it wasn't the Hebrew Bible sounds more like an excuse. It was an OK version for the reformers until they decided to reform.

Nicky's Baba

Nicky's Baba,

I wish I knew how to answer your question. I believe the rejection of the LXX has more to do with inconvenient doctrines in them than anything else. After all, Protestants don't usually reject the Churches history until after 325, some even hold to it until after the seventh ecumenical council. I suspect that if they read all of the councils they would reject everything after Chalcedon.

I think the bottom line though is that most Protestants are pragmatists. They believe what they have been taught unless they don't. Then they form a new denomination. They have no real theological reason for their decisions from my experience.

Dan Lauffer

NB:

I never said it was a valid, credible, or otherwise scholarly insight for doing what they did. I am simply stating what many a Protestant Biblical Scholar will tell you. You asked the question and I gave you the reason; I never said it was wise.

You ought to be aware, my dear NB, that I was born and raised a Catholic. Left the Church, as I left Christianity all together. In fact, I did not believe in G-d period. After hitting rock bottom, I came to see that there was a G-d, or life was not worth living anymore. I had brief stays in Judaism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism and am now back in Catholicism. I spent four years of discernment for the priesthood, but learned it was not where I was called. Even though I was raised as a Latin Rite Catholic, I am now attending a Byzantine Catholic Church as opposed to a Latin Catholic Church. I don't know if that will continue, as I may go to a Tridentine Mass community offered by the F.S.S.P. (which is a licit Latin Mass community). I thought about the Orthodox faiths, but I have already left Peter and been disobedient ... I do not wish to be so anymore.

While in Protestantism and Judaism, I learned a few things that I did not know before including a love of Scripture, which was no fault of Catholicism mind you, but rather me. I have a great love and respect for these faith traditions as a result of my time in them. However, I am not a scholar in any/either of them.

There is many a reason why 1st century Jews, who were themselves in fact Pharisees, or rather Pharisaical, rejected the Septuagint. The biggest being that, in their view, G-d's Word was only valid in Hebrew and if there was no known Hebrew text of any certain book, then there was no place for it in the codified Jewish Canon.

In a rather warped, and as you so astutely pointed out, un-scholastic manner this was Luther's reasoning for rejecting the "Catholic books" of the Old Testament. Hence, the answer to your question.

Donnchadh,

You were quite the spiritual traveler. You must be tired.

Nicky's Baba

Well, we Irish believe that all of life is a pilgrimage.

I have fallen and been lost more than I care to admit. But, the pilgrimage is the fire that both hardens and makes ready the steel for the sword.

In truth, this pilgrimage has given me more insight into my own nature, a sinner, than into things spiritual. I am still an infant theologically. I may always remain so. But, then again, aren't we supposed to have the faith of children?

As for the contradictions, well, I have been thinking on this and the only thing I can come up with is my favorite prayer, "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief."

I know that seems rather limited, but I can not offer any better explanation for these, and the countless others, seeming contradictions.

I know that the Scriptures are the valid, inspired, and holy written word of G-d. I know there is wisdom in there that appears contradictory and that I can not quite grasp.

I have ideas on the matter, but this is really what it boils down to for me. Faith matters. All else, while worthy, is simply academic.

"There is many a reason why 1st century Jews, who were themselves in fact Pharisees, or rather Pharisaical, rejected the Septuagint. The biggest being that, in their view, G-d's Word was only valid in Hebrew and if there was no known Hebrew text of any certain book, then there was no place for it in the codified Jewish Canon."


Donnchadh,

Many would contest that as an excuse for dumping the Septuagint. No sooner did the Jews rid of the Greek Septuagint, a number of Greek translations began to pop up because the Jews in the Diaspora needed the Scriptures in a language they could comprehend.

Around 130 AD, Aquila made a Greek translation of the Hebrew text. His major change that has brought on considerable debate is his use of the word "young woman" instead of "virgin" in his translation of Isaiah 7.14. Theodotion, another convert to Judaism, translated the Hebrew text into Greek too around the second century AD. A third Greek translation of the Hebrew text was done by Symmacus in the 3rd century. Jerome thought well of Symmachus.

With this in mind, why didn't they save themselves all that work and go back to the Septuagint, which was already in Greek?


Joe

[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Joe,

What follows is an exchange between my Hebrew Catholic friend and myself regarding the LXX and other issues. I asked her some questions about this very topic and this is what she had to say. I have to admit that she seems to sum up what I best think/feel about the matter, but am woefully incapable of articulating:
---------------------------------------------

daniel, i post this as a new topic, as the other thread is simply too long and convoluted to do so, not to mention the administrative efforts involved in that one.

i believe that you are dead wrong about isaiah's almah and i will post the contents of letter from a friend of mine who's from israel and a good jewish family. she is also a hebrew convert to Catholicism and is part of the Association of Hebrew Catholics headed up by david moss (brother of Catholic answers rosalind moss). i think, but may be wrong, that her dad was even a rabbi … here's her response to the almah question and i wholeheartedly agree with it:

(from me to her)
Here's my questions:

(... questions 1a and 1b, which were over different topics ...)

2a. What is the deal with the word "almah" in Isaiah's book? -- I always understood it to be an accurate translation of virgin, as it is related in Matthew, yet both he and another man who claims to be part Jewish, but now a Christian by faith, but still searching for his home, claim that "almah" of Isaiah means only young girl.

2b. Did you have any problem with this translation of that word in your development into the fullness of your Hebrew faith when you became Catholic?

3. Did you have a problem with the Catholic Bible being based off of the Greek Bible - the Septuagint? Both of these men seem to like to rip into the Septuagint an awful lot. Which, I find weird, as I believe even Jesus quotes, or alludes to it, in the NT.

Here is a quote taken from one of the pieces of those conversations on that board in his own words including spelling and grammatical errors. I hope it helps in giving some understanding as to the nature of the two men as it relates to my questions:

“Before a Christian debates, several things should be understood. Talmudic students spend 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, studying the Talmud solely in its original Hebrew with original Aramaic commentaries. A debate based on translation to them would be utterly laughable beyond imagination, for you will not understand the nuances such as alliteration in Hebrew. Also, they only recognize the Masoretic text as legitimate, not the Greek Septungent which is sensible in Jewish post-Judah Maccabbeean eyes. Using a Greek text (Septungent) to them is like using Benedict Arnold's account of the American Revolution. Christians hurt their cause when they argue that Jesus spoke literally as the Septungent version. Not for amateurs, proceed with caution. Put bluntly, Greek speaking Jews who didn't understand Hebrew were considered fake Jews.”

“In Is 53, in the original Masoretic text, the word is "almah," which even in modern Israeli Hebrew means "young woman," not virgin."

Thanks for your help...it has bothered me ever since I was there and witnessed the debate.

Yours,
Dennis

(her response to me)
Hi Dennis,
I hope I can help with some of your questions. I am not a scholar, but Hebrew is my native tongue, and my understanding of it, and the Biblical traditions may prove valuable.

Jesus' name comes from the Hebrew Yeshua (salvation), so what exactly is wrong in calling him Yeshua if and when you speak Hebrew? In Spanish it is pronounced Hesus, in German Yezu, so? Every language has their pronunciation. Only in Hebrew it comes with a meaning. What other name should there be??? (This should answer 1a and 1b questions).

2a, "What is the deal with the word almah?" You may be too young my dear, but it was not too long ago, that an unmarried young woman was automatically a virgin. So it is with the word "almah" - like the term
a maiden. Maiden seems closer to the combination unmarried/young/pure/e.g. virgin. In other part of Isaiah, the Prophet says "betulah" (virgin) referring to a miracle of a virgin having a baby.

2b, This never bothered my personal development into the fullness of becoming a Catholic. I am used to think of God as Kol Yachol, (one of His names), and this means he "Can Do Anything/Everything". There are times when you don't need to stick your hands into Christ's wounds but accept in faith what you don't understand. Especially when what you DO understand you agree with and trust the giver of news.

3. Trouble with the Septuagint? It is not a Greek Bible. It is a Hebrew bible translated by 70 Rabbis into Greek. The Disciples used it and quoted from it. It was the Bible used by the Eseens, the purist of the period. It is an older version of the Bible, while the Pharisees used a "modern" Bible that didn't have some of the books in it, such as the Books of Maccabees and more. As a Christian one would prefer the Septuagint, since a lot of Jewish understanding regarding the "after life" is explained in the Maccabees, while when eliminating (rather conveniently I think) this book makes the hope that we have in the Kingdom of Heaven baseless.(that is Baseless if you must have OT base to all Christian Faith, rather than Church Traditions).

The Talmud is a study of commentary on the Bible by many scholars. It shouldn't be compared to the Bible, it should be compared to Church teaching of 2000 years. Why compare pares to oranges? And why, pray tell, should a Christian of whatever denomination, want to learn about Christ from the Talmud??? the writing about Jesus in the Talmud (500 years after the event) were not exactly unbiased opinions...the Talmud considered Jesus one of the non-Messiahs who appeared throughout Jewish history.

Again, the rabbis who translated the Bible into Greek were elected from all parts of the then known world, and worked on the Septuagint for years. The fact that the Masoreti is more popular with the Pharisee line of understanding, does not make it more accurate. After all, the Pharisees didn't understand Christ either.

Yes, the "modern" Jew does not accept any biblical books other than those who were written in Hebrew. (This is the excuse why the Macabees were left out of the Bible, it was written in Greek, ergo - not holy...)

Yes, modern Hebrew has the same meaning as ancient Hebrew, especially since today's Hebrew has not been in use for 2000 as a "street language" and did not go through the natural changed a language goes through, such as the meaning of the word gay...but going beyond the language into way of life also helps in understanding the term. A 14 year old girl in 2nd Temple years in Canaan would be a virgin. The term was impolite (too graphic and redundant). The family patriarch would be in charge of making sure that the maiden is never alone or vulnerable. (Or she would lose her marital value).

Hope I helped you in any future arguments (I wouldn't bother though...)a lot of my understanding of the differences between the Mesorati and Septuagint comes from many lectures by Dr. Scot Hahn. I grew up with the Masoretic text. Didn't even know there was another text. The books of Maccabees were considered "exterior books" of the bible.

Beware of what you ask my friend, you may get a loooong answer.
;-)
Ariela
----------------------------------------------

So, I hope you can see that I do not agree with what 1st century Jews did. I only point that out as their reasoning. As I stated with NB, I do not subscribe to it.

One can visit and view the "Jews for Judaism" website to see a more in-depth reasoning of their rejection of “almah” from Isaiah and the entire LXX. I do not agree with it, but in fairness to accuracy, I would encourage you to visit it and read it for yourself. This is where you can see the reasoning for the actions long ago. From there it is only a small leap to see Luther's reasoning, as warped as it was, for eliminating the “Catholic Books” form the Scriptures of the Reformed Church.

I find their reasoning of that time, and the defense of it by them today, to be quite weak. But, I also know that it is one of the three the essential elements of faith that Jews, and even Mohammedans, can not accept: the Divinity of Jesus: Yeshua ha'Messhiac (if I remember correctly).

If they are able to "debunk' the incarnation of the Christ, they can seriously weaken the Christian argument that Jesus is the Christ. Of course the other two issues being the death and resurrection of the Christ. Those three things, more than anything else, are what separates the Jews and Mohammedans from accepting the fulfillment of their faith – in the Jews case – and the true worship/faith of G-d (Allah) – in the Mohammedan's case.

This is all, of course, pretty much what I wanted to talk to you about in the Isaiah thread of Focus on Scripture. And that is that while Isaiah is filled with tons of excellent works of a Messianic/prophetic nature, the key element of Isaiah is, in fact, the almah. For, the entire NT and all of Christian thought hinges on the fact that we hold that Jesus was the Messiah and that he was born of a virgin and that that we know this because it was prophesied by the greatest of OT Messianic prophets – Isaiah himself.

Again, for the record, I hold to the LXX and disagree with the rational of both the Jews and our Reformed brethren.