As @Mojo said, it's probably best to just stop the argument rather than making a space for us to argue further.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Female Vs Male Homosexuality
- Thread starter Maegirl
- Start date
Nope, not even close. It is not clear. It does however leave with only two interpretations. You chose, chose the interpretation that fits your personal narrative. I see both sides, however, I believe it is discussing anal sex. That is in context with the second verse.
You are putting words in my mouth there. I did NOT say they were my enemies. I said that I reject them (from fellowship and I will not support them) as His enemies because of those words of Yeshua I referenced.
We were told our enemies would be those of our own households, and because of differences we might have and our own failings those enemies of ours might not be His.
As YHWH has never had a problem killing even Israelites when they were doing wrong....I trust He can and will order the world as He sees fit. He is the just judge.
As Ish said in his comment that I can't find, "YHWH (he actually wrote G-d) sees". I agree completely and believe He sees the hearts too. There are no miscommunication issues (or excuses either) with Him.
My apologies if I misquoted you. I will include your exact words.
Regardless, my encouragement about loving enemies and loving our neighbor still stands. Jesus did say that those who are not for him are against him, but that applies to more than just one group.
I've met you personally and find it hard to believe that you or anyone in your family would mistreat anyone or act with malice towards anyone, but the tone at which you speak about these matters can come across as malicious towards this one group. It may not be your intent, but it can be construed that way. I will leave it at that.
This is not meant for just you, but anyone else who wants to reply to this thread about anything other than the topic will be deleted, including a reply to this post. It's been derailed enough.
Last edited:
So to make sure I'm understanding correctly, the underlying Hebrew in this passage is the same in all versions; it's just a question of whether it should be translated virgin or young women? And you contend it could mean either one?
Please do move this discussion to another thread.
Which topic?
Yes, there are no known Hebrew variances for this verse [my claim is based by referencing my copy of the Dead Sea scrolls in Hebrew,and the critical apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
I think contextually, in Jewish society in those times a "young maiden" was almost always a virgin.
So an Israeli reading this verse when it was written IMO would have understood the nuance that "maidens are usually virgins" in a righteous society, and in order for this to be a "sign" that would be the case (how is it a 'sign'if a married woman gets pregnant?)
I have met virgin Filipinas in their 40's, but in SBH (Standard Bib. Heb.) one could not call them 'almah "maiden," we would be forced to classify them 'betulah "virgin." An 'almah could range anywhere from post-puberty to say young twenties. The focus is on the "marriageable" part of the word + youth.
Translators, like the LXX (Septuagint) have to choose the best available word in the target language.
I used to on occasion do live interpreting for American Rabbis and Russian-speakers (before English study was en vogue there); often there would be several choices coming into English that would flash in my mind and I'd just pick the closest fit. Sometimes I had to use 3 or more English words to express a 1 or 2 word Russian thought; even if 1 word would translate exactly there is cultural baggage or insight.
Probably, one would not have had to clarify to Israelis in Isaiah's time that a 'virgin' is implied. In a Western, Christian society, however, to suggest that the word does not translate "virgin" comes across as an attack on Christianity.It is not; it's just linguistic stuff. ***edit*** though anti-missionaries these days lean too heavily on the simple gloss 'maiden'*** end edit***
If the Hebrew had written betulah the text could have included that an 8 year old would conceive; 'almah is just the right word here so that the wise would understand the prophecy in context.
shalom
This is the way I have always heard it explained. Rabbi Mizrahi is notorious in his anti missionary tactics for trying to mislead with almah as being a disqualified for the virgin status of Mary. He doesn't account for the changing understanding of the word in modern Hebrew for that of antiquity where almah was essentially presumed to be a virgin as in reference to other assumed virgins in scripture (is it Rachel?)
Remember that a house with two or more women and one man to work is going to involve close contact, or a lot of use of shared space. I like the idea that a man needs to decide everyday matters- which could include a shared bed at least occasionally. Remember as well- that second and successive wives will be younger and not familiar with the wisdom, theology and guidance that the head of household has.
Yoseph Mizrachi is also a notorious exaggerator "10 million sins a second!!!" haha. He often puts forward a minority position in Judaism that Christians will not inherit the world to come; this is not the majority position. He also refuses to debate Messianics, instead preferring to debate hair stylists
I heard the Russian guy rebuke Mizrachi one time when Mizrachi was putting down "J.C." The Russian guy correctly presented the majority position among Azhkenazi that Yeshua was a righteous Jew and not to be mocked. Mizrachi backed down...