New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"

Ping for your amusement.

You wrote:

“Then why did 70 of the best Hebrew scholars translate it as “virgin” in the Septuagint?”

Most likely they believed that was a better translation according to traditional understandings that had developed since the text was originally inspired.

“Why is a the 10th century masoretic text, and a contemporary usage of the word, to be preferred to the septugint which was written by people who spoke Biblical Hebrew everyday and thought the word meant “virgin”?”

Because when you’re using the Masoretic text you use the Masoretic text. The NABRE is not a translation of the Septuagint.

"Because when you’re using the Masoretic text you use the Masoretic text. The NABRE is not a translation of the Septuagint."

That doesn't matter. The Jews who created the septugine were translating the Hebrew scriptures and THEY thought the word in question meant "virgin" as used in Isaiah 7:14, therefore when they tranaslated the word into Greek they chose the specific word for virgin. This becomes more signigicant when one realizes that in the second century both Origen and Tertullian warned that the Jews were changing the wording of their Hebrew scriptures to water down the prophecies of Christ.

You wrote:

“That doesn’t matter.”

Even you suggested it did: “Then why did 70 of the best Hebrew scholars translate it as “virgin” in the Septuagint?”

You are clearly implying that the two (Masoretic text and Septuagint) are not the same. If they are not the same text - and they are not - then they will be translated differently when translated accurately.

“The Jews who created the septugine were translating the Hebrew scriptures and THEY thought the word in question meant “virgin” as used in Isaiah 7:14, therefore when they tranaslated the word into Greek they chose the specific word for virgin.”

As already noted by me: “Most likely they believed that was a better translation according to traditional understandings that had developed since the text was originally inspired.”

The problem is that he word gives no indication of meaning “virgin” when it was first written. What people viewed to mean centuries later does not affect or effect the original text. Texts do not work backword into time. You do realize that, right?

“This becomes more signigicant when one realizes that in the second century both Origen and Tertullian warned that the Jews were changing the wording of their Hebrew scriptures to water down the prophecies of Christ.”

ANd yet there is no evidence Isaiah 7:14 was ever watered down by anyone.

"You are clearly implying that the two (Masoretic text and Septuagint) are not the same."

No I'm not, you are missing the point. The whole issue is what Isaiah wrote down and meant. The best evidence of that is the Septugent because it shows us what the Jews closest in time to Isaiah understood him to have written and meant. Further, the Apostles quoted the word "virgin" here approvingly. ALL of the ancient evidence we have unerringly points to "virgin". The fact that contemporary academics have a contemporary interpretation of a 10th century text pales in comparison to what Jewish scholars of 200 BC understood Isaish to have written and meant. Further, the context of the passage that this would be a "sign" makes no sense if the word is "maiden" but complete sense if it means "virgin". And combined with the warnings of Tertullian and Origen this is powerful evidence that the words of the mesoretic text were intentionally corrupted.

You wrote:

“No I’m not, you are missing the point.”

Are you now saying they are the same? Make up your mind. If the two texts are the same, then one wouldn’t be in Greek while the other is in Hebrew. They are separated by centuries. They uses words with DIFFERENT meanings in a number of cases.

“The whole issue is what Isaiah wrote down and meant.”

He wrote down the word that is known to mean “young woman” - almah. He could have just as easily used “betulah” which definitely means virgin.

“The best evidence of that is the Septugent because it shows us what the Jews closest in time to Isaiah understood him to have written and meant.”

No. They were separated by centuries and using two DIFFERENT LANGUAGES and only Isaiah was inspired. The Septuagint translators were not. I think we can say exactly what I said previously: “Most likely they believed that was a better translation according to traditional understandings that had developed since the text was originally inspired.”

“Further, the Apostles quoted the word “virgin” here approvingly.”

They quoted the verse and not the word. 350 OT verses appear in the NT. 300 of them are from the Septuagint - which makes sense since the Mediterranean world used Greek so often.

“ALL of the ancient evidence we have unerringly points to “virgin”.”

No. All the evidence about the ACTUAL HEBREW TEXT shows almah means young woman.

“The fact that contemporary academics have a contemporary interpretation of a 10th century text pales in comparison to what Jewish scholars of 200 BC understood Isaish to have written and meant. Further, the context of the passage that this would be a “sign” makes no sense if the word is “maiden” but complete sense if it means “virgin”.”

It would be a sign either way. You are reading too much into the text and assuming the birth of the Messiah would only be a sign if He was born to a virgin. The Messiah born at all was a sign. Also, you’re forgetting the sign of His name. That’s included in the verse. Do you think a name is not a sign?

” And combined with the warnings of Tertullian and Origen this is powerful evidence that the words of the mesoretic text were intentionally corrupted.”

Actually not. You have produced no evidence at all that that was the case. Passion on your part is not the same thing as evidence.

“When I was a kid, ‘booty’ meant gold/jewelry/treasure looted by pirates.”

It still means that, in the proper context. I never think of rump-shakin’ when I read it in a pirate story.

“I’m not poking fun at the King James Bible, I’m poking fun at the almost idolatrous attitude that some folks have regarding that particular translation.”

I doubt it rises to the level of idolatry, but you’re right, grounds for defending the King James version must be found on other but it being the one, true path to salvation. For me, its value lies in it allowing you to understand what people have been writing and talking about for the past several centuries.

I heard that the NASB was making some changes and so I was researching to see if this was true, and I stumbled across this forum. Let me tell you that you and circlecity both did great on your debate. It was interesting reading. In reading though, there was a couple of statements that you made that I was wondering about:

The first statement is:

“If the two texts are the same, then one wouldn’t be in Greek while the other is in Hebrew. They are separated by centuries. They uses words with DIFFERENT meanings in a number of cases.”

I agree with what you said here completely. However, your statement still does not negate circlecity’s point that “The best evidence of that is the Septugent because it shows us what the Jews closest in time to Isaiah understood him to have written and meant.” I understand why he stated that you are missing the point. When translating, one must always attempt to travel back to the author’s time and understand what the original intent was. Of course, we cannot always do this, but we go back as far as we can anyway. This is why the Septuagint’s rendering of Isaiah is so significant. This is made even more significant by the fact Matthew 1:23 also translated the passage as “virgin” (“parthenos”).

This shows that the records of the Jews (the ones we possess closest to Isaiah) – and of the Jews who were alive during the time of the Messiah’s birth – as demonstrating that they understood Isaiah 7:14 as foretelling that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. That is what circlecity was arguing, and he is right on his point. Now does this mean that the New American Bible is right to translate the passage as it is?

That is a completely different argument, and one that I haven’t made up my mind on.

This is all interesting, but the second statement that you made really concerned me. In reference to the virgin birth you stated:

“It would be a sign either way. You are reading too much into the text and assuming the birth of the Messiah would only be a sign if He was born to a virgin. The Messiah born at all was a sign.”

This is where I completely disagree with you on. NO, IT WOULD NOT “be a sign either way.” Jesus was either born of a virgin (and fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 7) thereby making Him the Messiah, or He wasn’t born of a virgin and therefore is just another anti-christ. Not only should we have faith in God, and on faith believe in His Word and Power, but as circlecity (and I) demonstrated, the Jews who lived both before and during Jesus’ time also understood the Messiah to be of a virgin; it was to be a miracle from God Himself, which is why there was so much emphasis in Scripture put on it and all of the other prophecies that Christ fulfilled.

You and I were born from a woman. You and I have an earthly father by which we were conceived. However, Jesus did not. He was born of a virgin because His Father was God. Jesus was the Son of God, and the virgin birth both proves and demonstrates that fact. The virgin birth is critical to the Christian belief system.

Your second statement is completely false.