> Whata fascinating exchange of ideas. I cannot imagine anyone in any Anglican seminary even knowing what they are on about-let alone caring. How times change! GDVW+ > > > Brothers+ > > In preparing for Advent and Christmas messages, I came across some old > correspondence on a discussion list regarding Isaiah 7:14 and the > Messianic Prophecies. > > This particular exchange reminded me of debates I heard nearly a > half-century ago in regard to Isaiah 7:14. > > The bit below is not a conservative-liberal or a Bible-believer versus > agnostic-atheist debate. Below is the relatively recent correspondence > between two Bible believing very conservative Christians. Both believe > the Incarnation and the Virgin birth, but differ in regard to > translating Isaiah 7:14. > > George has his theology down and knows what Isaiah 7:14 means. Wayne > believes as George does, but is wrestling with his integrity as a > translator. Both try hard to be nice. > > I suspect that among our parishoners there are many who have no clear > idea of what is involved and have no idea of what they are missing, > which I will explore in another post. > > Charles+ > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > From "Wayne " > Date : 19 Dec > >>Wayne wrote - some time ago -> >I bought the new translation, "The >> Message, of the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible." The translator, Eugene >> Peterson, finesses the issues in Isaiah 7:14 rather well, I think: "A >> girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a > son and name him lmmanuel ["God-With-Us"]." > ---------------------------------------------------------------> > George wrote: > >>Wayne, I understand that the authors of Isaiah 7:14 intended >>compenatration, called by some "dual fulfillment." > ----------------------------------- > > Wayne > Yes, I know this position. I think it was basically what I was taught > growing up in church and at Bible school, that is, if I was even taught > that there was any possibility other than that Isaiah was > prophecying only about the virgin birth of the messiah. > > Your understanding is a fair one, but it is, IMO, not one which we > should translate for Isa. 7:14, and I know you haven't stated that. I > think it is fair enough to translation the verse so that it can > allow for dual fulfillment, but I think Isaiah himself was only > prophecying about a boy to be born who would be a sign to King Ahaz. > > I also believe that the HS chose to modify that original authorial > intent in Matt. 1:23 to make the OT passage christological, and the HS > had that right. Many other NT quotes from the Hebrew Bible have the > same christological customization. That still doesn't change how we > need to translate the OT passage, IMO. I have come to believe that each > passage in the Bible needs to be translated according to original > authorial intent. Translating OT passages on the basis of NT > interpretation goes beyond the scope of translation, IMO, into the the > sphere of application. > ------------------------------------ > > George >> Peterson's translation does not deal with the distant aspect of the >>prophecy but makes it sound like Isaiah and the Holy Spirit were >> speaking only of Mahershalahashbaz. > ------------------------------------ > > Wayne > This is my current understanding of Isa. 7:14 within its context. As a > translator, I cannot look forward in time several hundred years and > translate from that POV. (But I should add that if I see sufficient > evidence within the Isaiah context that Isaiah was likely giving a dual > prophecy, I'd definitely want to buy that interpretation. I just don't > want to be guided by my personal theology, rather than "the facts" of > the OT passage, which I must limit myself to as a translation.) > -------------------------------------- > > George >> The expression "presently a virgin" eliminates Mary the Mother of >> Jesus >>because she was not yet born at the time of Isaiah's writing. >> Actually, I think Peterson does finesse the issue quite well in that >> he uses both words suggested by differing exegetes. I think he >> finesses it better than he translates it, I'm afraid! > --------------------------------------- > > Wayne > It could be. I suspect he was trying to avoid the problems that the RSV > and other translations have faced when they translated almah only as > 'young woman.' I'm not sure NavPres, a conservative publisher, would > have accepted that as the primary translation. > > It's tough translating for English speakers! > > Have a good week, George, > Wayne > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to > <faithandlife-unsubscribe@...> ----------------------------------------- This Advent Season our sponsors are selling goods and services you don't want to miss! Support our sponsors with your purchase by clicking here. http://www.catholic.org/clife/advent/specials.php This email was sent using FREE Catholic Online Webmail. Please tell your family, friends and children about COL Webmail! http://webmail.catholic.org/