• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Must we believe in the virgin birth?

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I affirm the virgin birth and would vehemently defend the doctrine, BUT do we really believe salvation is by Grace through faith, or don't we?

Is it really by Grace through faith and affirmation of X number of key doctrinal truths? I believe a true Christian can be duped into not affirming this doctrine and still be saved.

interesting...

Is really the ONLY "essential/cardinal" Christian truth must affirm is that we are sinners, saved by faith alone, grace alone by God?

that a Christian SHOULD adhere to all other doctrines, but THAT one is the ONLY essential one in sense of heaven/hell?
 

jaigner

Active Member
I'm not always a big AM fan, but in this instance, I tend to agree with him.

I believe it is an essential.

Baptism, however, is not. Not even close. It's time Baptists grew to recognize that.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I have heard numerous times in diverse places by various people that the in Isaiah 7:14 the most accurate translation is "young woman" not "virgin".

Whatever, Christ was Christ not because Mary was or was not a virgin. Christ was Christ because he was Christ.

Note before knee jerk reactions. I did not say Mary was not a virgin. I simply said that people who know a whole lot more about Hebrew than I say the most accurate translation is young woman.

Well you can't dismiss Mary's statement to the angel as recorded by Luke:

Luke 1:34, KJV
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I tend to believe she was, but it is not of primary importance as Jesus was Jesus because he was Jesus. I am who I am because it is me, not my mother. No one is saved or lost believing that Mary was or was not a virgin.

Denial of the Virgin birth calls into question the veracity of Scripture, not a trivial matter!
 
I tend to believe she was, but it is not of primary importance as Jesus was Jesus because he was Jesus. I am who I am because it is me, not my mother. No one is saved or lost believing that Mary was or was not a virgin.

Faulty Logic....

The Second Person of the Holy Trinity was named Jesus according to the instruction given to Joseph and Mary. The name, really Joshua, means something like God's Salvation. Jesus is the Lord's Christ in that He came into this world to be the salvation offered to man. He did this through the incarnation. God became flesh- fully God...fully man, dwelt among us, was tempted like us but without sin, died for our sins, and conquered the grave. All of those important truths show us that Jesus is the Christ and they require the incarnation...they are not possible outside of it. Thus to deny the virgin birth is to deny the incarnation. The second person of the Trinity cannot be the Jesus of Scripture if he was not fully God and fully man, nor could he fulfill the various office prophesied in Scripture.

To deny the virgin birth is to deny the Jesus who is the Christ!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I affirm the virgin birth and would vehemently defend the doctrine, BUT do we really believe salvation is by Grace through faith, or don't we?

Is it really by Grace through faith and affirmation of X number of key doctrinal truths? I believe a true Christian can be duped into not affirming this doctrine and still be saved.

Skandelon

I agree that any Christian can be misled. That is not the problem. The problem is that denial of the Virgin birth is becoming commonplace in some groups. That is dangerous!
 

mandym

New Member
I affirm the virgin birth and would vehemently defend the doctrine, BUT do we really believe salvation is by Grace through faith, or don't we?

Is it really by Grace through faith and affirmation of X number of key doctrinal truths? I believe a true Christian can be duped into not affirming this doctrine and still be saved.

Informal fallacy it has nothing to do with salvation by grace.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Skandelon

I agree that any Christian can be misled. That is not the problem. The problem is that denial of the Virgin birth is becoming commonplace in some groups. That is dangerous!

I agree. All doctrinal errors can become dangerous, but the question was whether or not it was essential to salvation, or if one could be a true believer and not affirm this doctrine. That is all I was addressing.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Faulty Logic....

The Second Person of the Holy Trinity was named Jesus according to the instruction given to Joseph and Mary. The name, really Joshua, means something like God's Salvation. Jesus is the Lord's Christ in that He came into this world to be the salvation offered to man. He did this through the incarnation. God became flesh- fully God...fully man, dwelt among us, was tempted like us but without sin, died for our sins, and conquered the grave. All of those important truths show us that Jesus is the Christ and they require the incarnation...they are not possible outside of it.

I agree.

Thus to deny the virgin birth is to deny the incarnation.

I respectfully do not see it that way.

The second person of the Trinity cannot be the Jesus of Scripture if he was not fully God and fully man, nor could he fulfill the various office prophesied in Scripture.

To deny the virgin birth is to deny the Jesus who is the Christ!

I believe you missed my point. But that is all right. Christ was Christ because of who Christ was ... not because of his mother. If you insist on his mother, then you are agreeing with the Catholics in their statement of Mary the mother of God. That I disagree with.
 

Tom Butler

New Member
If Mary was not a virgin, the implications are enormous.

First, of course, it calls into question the veracity of her statement that she knew not a man.

Second, it calls into question her impregnation by the Holy Spirit.

Third, it leaves the question unanswered: who, then, is the father of Jesus? Was it Joseph? If the father is Joseph, then there is no way Jesus could have avoided inheriting a sinful nature. That's calls into question the scripture which says he was without sin.

And, when Jesus spoke of the Father, was he speaking of God the Father the same way we speak of our Father in heaven? If he is, then we have more problems.

That said, I don't think it's required to believe in the virgin birth in order to be saved because I don't find such in the scriptures. But having been taught it, it's a serious matter to reject it.

As I said, rejecting such a doctrine means you must reject other doctrines that are linked to it, including the veracity of scripture and the sinless nature of God the Son.
 

Zenas

Active Member
I have heard numerous times in diverse places by various people that the in Isaiah 7:14 the most accurate translation is "young woman" not "virgin".

Whatever, Christ was Christ not because Mary was or was not a virgin. Christ was Christ because he was Christ.

Note before knee jerk reactions. I did not say Mary was not a virgin. I simply said that people who know a whole lot more about Hebrew than I say the most accurate translation is young woman.
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14.
That is truly a sign--a miraculous occurence. What kind of sign is a young woman bearing a son? It happens every day. So the so called experts on Hebrew have translated something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
If Mary was not a virgin, the implications are enormous.

First, of course, it calls into question the veracity of her statement that she knew not a man.

Second, it calls into question her impregnation by the Holy Spirit.

Third, it leaves the question unanswered: who, then, is the father of Jesus? Was it Joseph? If the father is Joseph, then there is no way Jesus could have avoided inheriting a sinful nature. That's calls into question the scripture which says he was without sin.

And, when Jesus spoke of the Father, was he speaking of God the Father the same way we speak of our Father in heaven? If he is, then we have more problems.

That said, I don't think it's required to believe in the virgin birth in order to be saved because I don't find such in the scriptures. But having been taught it, it's a serious matter to reject it.

As I said, rejecting such a doctrine means you must reject other doctrines that are linked to it, including the veracity of scripture and the sinless nature of God the Son.

Well said Tom!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That is truly a sign--a miraculous occurence. What kind of sign is a young woman bearing a son? It happens every day. So the so called experts on Hebrew have translated something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Well put. Crabtownboy is dead wrong.

The Hebrew word there is almah. I have checked every single instance of the word in the Hebrew OT, and ever single time it can be easily translated as "virgin." Plus there are times when it must mean "virgin," and cannot mean just a "young woman."

Furthermore, in the NT Matthew translates almah in Isaiah with the Greek word parthenos, which must be translated as "virgin." That's all it means. The idea that the Hebrew almah means "young woman" sometimes comes from liberal scholars. Any evangelical who follows that is ignoring the linguistic evidence.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Well put. Crabtownboy is dead wrong.

The Hebrew word there is almah. I have checked every single instance of the word in the Hebrew OT, and ever single time it can be easily translated as "virgin." Plus there are times when it must mean "virgin," and cannot mean just a "young woman."

Furthermore, in the NT Matthew translates almah in Isaiah with the Greek word parthenos, which must be translated as "virgin." That's all it means. The idea that the Hebrew almah means "young woman" sometimes comes from liberal scholars. Any evangelical who follows that is ignoring the linguistic evidence.


Wouldn't this be a case of ones theological views driving what would be acceptable to translate the passage as being?

reminds me of the old Greek lexicon by Thayers...

Even though believe that he was one who denied jesus was deity, he still gave the Greek words with those meanings in his lexocon, so that was what a real scholar would do, or a translator!
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wouldn't this be a case of ones theological views driving what would be acceptable to translate the passage as being?
I agree.

reminds me of the old Greek lexicon by Thayers...

Even though believe that he was one who denied jesus was deity, he still gave the Greek words with those meanings in his lexocon, so that was what a real scholar would do, or a translator!
Haven't used Thayer's in years since there are better ones nowadays, but I think you are right that he was a true lexical scholar, and called it like it was with little of his aberrant theology intruding.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well put. Crabtownboy is dead wrong.

The Hebrew word there is almah. I have checked every single instance of the word in the Hebrew OT, and ever single time it can be easily translated as "virgin." Plus there are times when it must mean "virgin," and cannot mean just a "young woman."

Furthermore, in the NT Matthew translates almah in Isaiah with the Greek word parthenos, which must be translated as "virgin." That's all it means. The idea that the Hebrew almah means "young woman" sometimes comes from liberal scholars. Any evangelical who follows that is ignoring the linguistic evidence.

John, you may be right. I said that I believed that Mary probably was a virgin. My statement was that I have heard people who know much more than I say it could be translated otherwise.

I have found the following:

The Hebrew term almah (עלמה) or plural: alamot (עלמות) is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl. For theological reasons, the meaning and definition of this word (especially the definition of "virgin") can be controversial, particularly when applied to Isaiah 7:14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

With respect to the Hebrew noun ‘almah,[2] the editors of HALOT[3] list among its meanings: "marriageable girl," "a girl who is able to be married," and "a young woman" (until the birth of her first child). The basic meaning is a woman (the age is less important) ready (able) to be married. The span of life covered by this term is poorly defined and quite long, ranging from the onset of puberty to the birth of a woman's first child.[4]

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/isaiah7.14

English Translations Of Almah

The texts which indicate that almah can be translated as maid[en] or girl are found in six out of the seven occurrences of the word. The New American Standard Version of the Bible (considered the most literal of all translations4), translates almah in these occurrences as:

Gen. 24:43 "maiden," Ex. 2:8 "girl," Ps. 68:26 "maidens," Prov. 30:19 "maid," Sol. 1:3 "maidens," Sol. 6:8 "maidens."

Then, here at Isaiah 7:14, the passage reads:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." (NAS Isaiah 7:14)

The immediate problem that the critic sees, is that in this passage the word "virgin" translated from the Hebrew word almah does not mean "virgin." The critic will usually cite the Revised Standard Version of the Bible to make their point:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman [almah] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (RSV)

This translation is further collaborated by the James Moffatt Bible, the Jewish Publication Society Bible, and the Koren Jerusalem Bible (etc..) which also renders almah as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. The critics assertion is further backed up by reputable lexicons like the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. Biblical scholar Gesenius writes of the meaning of almah:

"a youthful spouse recently married...the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys..."5

This definition of almah is by far the majority scholarly definition (see footnote6). In response to this, Norman Geisler in his magnum opus The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, writes:

"There is difficulty with the claim that almah refers to someone who is married. Not once does the Old Testament use ‘almah’ to refer to a married person."7

This same line of defense is given by Christian apologist Gleason Archer in his well known book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, he writes:

"Yet it is also true that in the seven occurrences of almah in the singular throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the word never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste."8

As there are difficulties "with the claim that almah refers to someone who is married" (Geisler/Archer), there are also difficulties with the claim that almah refers only to a virgin. The critics usually cite Proverbs 30:19 in response to apologist claims. Kenneth E. Nahigian of the Secular Web is one such critic, he writes in his article "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy?:"

"...one verse does seem to use 'almah in reference to a nonvirgin. This is Proverbs 30:19, which listed four things too marvelous to understand: the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man with a maiden ( 'almah). To say the least, "the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20, NAB). It seems odd that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not lea

English Translations Of Almah

The texts which indicate that almah can be translated as maid[en] or girl are found in six out of the seven occurrences of the word. The New American Standard Version of the Bible (considered the most literal of all translations4), translates almah in these occurrences as:

Gen. 24:43 "maiden," Ex. 2:8 "girl," Ps. 68:26 "maidens," Prov. 30:19 "maid," Sol. 1:3 "maidens," Sol. 6:8 "maidens."

Then, here at Isaiah 7:14, the passage reads:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." (NAS Isaiah 7:14)

The immediate problem that the critic sees, is that in this passage the word "virgin" translated from the Hebrew word almah does not mean "virgin." The critic will usually cite the Revised Standard Version of the Bible to make their point:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman [almah] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (RSV)

This translation is further collaborated by the James Moffatt Bible, the Jewish Publication Society Bible, and the Koren Jerusalem Bible (etc..) which also renders almah as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. The critics assertion is further backed up by reputable lexicons like the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. Biblical scholar Gesenius writes of the meaning of almah:

"a youthful spouse recently married...the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys..."5

This definition of almah is by far the majority scholarly definition (see footnote6). In response to this, Norman Geisler in his magnum opus The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, writes:

"There is difficulty with the claim that almah refers to someone who is married. Not once does the Old Testament use ‘almah’ to refer to a married person."7

This same line of defense is given by Christian apologist Gleason Archer in his well known book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, he writes:

"Yet it is also true that in the seven occurrences of almah in the singular throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the word never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste."8

As there are difficulties "with the claim that almah refers to someone who is married" (Geisler/Archer), there are also difficulties with the claim that almah refers only to a virgin. The critics usually cite Proverbs 30:19 in response to apologist claims. Kenneth E. Nahigian of the Secular Web is one such critic, he writes in his article "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy?:"

"...one verse does seem to use 'almah in reference to a nonvirgin. This is Proverbs 30:19, which listed four things too marvelous to understand: the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man with a maiden ( 'almah). To say the least, "the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20, NAB). It seems odd that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace."
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I agree.

Haven't used Thayer's in years since there are better ones nowadays, but I think you are right that he was a true lexical scholar, and called it like it was with little of his aberrant theology intruding.

that is why i have stayed with my ole BAGD greek lexicon 2nd edition, as read and heard that the the 3rd edition revised, BDGD greek lexicon, went off into too much accomodating to modern views on ways words should be seen as meaning!

Wished I had picked up a Bauer first edition lexicon, saw it used for 10.00!
 
Top