Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason
Your source says that Catholics don't read the bible, but the irony of that is that most Christians don't either.. Furthermore, most don't even have a formal education concerning their religion or the Bible.. They also don't seem to realize that the Church in many sects of Christianity reside on confirmation bias, fraudulent references, and corrupt Greek texts etc.. Take for example that your source discusses unauthorized translations and questionable translations that were "anti-Catholic", as in those that don't conform to their sectarian denomination among 33,000 + others.. Worse still, the corrupt Greek translations exist in the NT when they reference much of the OT due to the differences in the grammar between Hebrew and Greek, or in other cases dealing with Latin.. As an example we notice that many Christians believe Emmanuel (*Immanuel) was a prophecy of Jesus and his virgin birth when in fact he was no such thing. Thus in speaking of such Prophecies, one of the worst is of course in Matthew regarding Jesus's birth from a virgin.
Matthew 1:22-23 :
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.This is quote mining Isaiah 7 and 9 to construct a prophecy of Jesus. Never-mind the word Almah actually means "Young Woman" to which Matthew incorrectly translates into Greek "Virgin" by using Greek Grammar. Worse still Immanuel was not Jesus or a prophecy in regards to him, he was the son of Isaiah to whom was among the 3 signs (children of Isaiah).. (I)Emmanuel was born in chapter 8. Hence Isaiah was prophesying his own children, and prophesying Immanuel to take and hold stewardship of the throne of David in relation to the turmoil of his time. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out and realize that the whole story of Jesus is made up.. Emmanuel would also have been Canaanite and theophory of the Canaanite God EL (El is with us) with his relation to the land of Canaan as that of his land., and I will provide you the academic sources as your source would so demand..:
That is Isaiah 7 in a nutshell..It was present tense to that era, and was later edited and revised.. But that's not the important part, the following is:
Isaiah 7:1-8:15, although set in the time of king Ahaz, apparently dates from the reign of Ahaz's son Hezekiah some thirty years later, and its purpose was to persuade Hezekiah not to join with other kings who intended to rebel against their joint overlord, Assyria. Isaiah points to the dreadful consequences that followed for Judah's northern neighbours, the kingdom of Israel and Aram-Damascus (Syria) when they rebelled in the days of Ahaz and brought the Assyrians down on themselves. In the event, Hezekiah ignored Isaiah and joined the rebels, and the prophet's warning came true: the Assyrians ravaged Judah and Hezekiah barely escaped with his throne. A century later, in the time of Josiah, the prophecy was revised to present Ahaz as the faithless king who rejected God's promise of protection for Jerusalem and the house of David, with the result that God brought Assyria to devastate the land until a new and faithful king (presumably Josiah) would arise.
^ Sweeney 1996, p. 159.
Isaiah 7-8 mentions three children with symbolic names: Shear-jashub, meaning "a remnant shall return"; Immanuel, "God is with us"; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "the spoil speeds, the prey hastens".These 3 children are the 3 signs. and it deals within Isaiah's own time period as we can note the following to which tells us that the children are most likely that of his own:
^ Barker 1996, p. 506.
Isaiah 8:18 informs the reader that Isaiah and his children are signs ("Here am I, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion"). The meaning of these name-signs is not clear: Shear-jashub has been variously interpreted to mean that only a remnant of Ephraim and Syria will survive the Assyrian invasion, or that a remnant of Judah will repent and turn to God, while in Isaiah 10:20-23 it seems to mean that a remnant of Israel will return to the Davidic monarchy.
Finlay 2005, p. 178-179.
Again, this is present tense to the termoil of their time to which carries over to chapter 9 where the child is born:
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
This can only be in reference to (E)Immanuel, not the other children or Jesus for that matter.. Hence "IS born" and not will be born some day off into the 700 year future. The NT is a really bad copy missing important segments of Isaiah. Furthermore, The woman in Isaiah was likely Isaiah's own wife, or a mistress.. And the word there is referenced not as a virgin, but rather as a young woman of marriageable age. The woman in Isaiah is correctly denoted in Hebrew Grammar as a young woman. Strong's translation admits this.. :
Yoel explains as follows
You form the feminine by adding heh
Yeled (boy)/Yaldah (girl)
Kelev (male dog)/Kalbah (@!$%#)
Eved (male servant)/Avdah (female servant)
Melekh (king)/Malkah (queen)
---->Elem (young man)/Aalmah (young woman)
The few variations in melech/malkah and kelev/kalbah are only phonetic. It is the same letter used, but the pronunciation goes from soft to harsh when the female ending is added.
Thus the proper Hebrew words are as follows:
Betulah -> means virginStrong's entry for 'aalmah (5959) states that it is the feminine of 'elem' (5958).<--- Pay close attention to that because that actually determines what is actually said in Isaiah. . That entry also lists "lad, young man, stripling" but accurately mentions nothing of virginity.
Aalmah - > means young woman
There is another word which can mean 'young woman' to which is "Naarah", and as you can see that proper Herbrew grammar for directly citing a virgin is "Naarah betulah" to which could also have been written as "aalmah betulah":
In Deuteronomy 22:25 we have 'naarah betulah' to mean ' young woman who is a virgin'.Betulah (virgin) is not used in Isaiah what-so-ever, and you do not find this above phrase in Isaiah. The correct translation is thus "Young Woman". Christians literally have no academic citation to note she was a virgin, much-less any that could pin her as an actual prophecy to the Virgin Marry. The writers of the NT often quote mined the OT to make up such prophecies, and Matthew quote mines Isaiah and incorrectly translates aalmah into virgin in Greek grammar in order to make up said prophecy in reference to Jesus. Thus unlike the Hebrew term aalmah, the Greek term for maiden can mean either a young woman of marriageable age, or a virgin as a proper definition of the term. And of course Matthew finds it more miraculous to assume a virgin birth, and likely so to compete with other pagan mythologies in the geopolitical environment. Those to the likes of the Mithras ect..
However, when it comes to religion, uncomfortable facts are woefully ignored because they rest entirely on confirmation bias as does the church.. We see this not just in Christianity of course, but also with Flat Earthers, Consipacy buffs, the Ancient Aliens pseudo-documentary followers, and all sort of other crank cults etc.. Though those who are POE, likely do it out of either the fun of it, or to profit off the ignorance and gullibility of those that would give them money..., kind of like the Church and Mega Churches..