Hello again Andii.

     You are totally right about there being a Greek OT, the Septuagint.  Actually, I know that there was a Greek OT- I am trying to figure out why the heck I said there wasn’t, But for some reason I just wasn’t thinking!!  And you’re also right- my face is pretty red at the moment.  However, I still hold on my thoughts about the original language of the NT, neither of us knows, or can prove, what the original language was, an educated guess is the best we can come up with.

     I’ll try to keep this reply fairly short, and I want you to know that most of my comments/observations come from my own personal knowledge and understanding.  I do not have a Doctorate in Theology, or any other kind of educational degree.  But I don’t believe that one is necessary either, to understand scripture.  Obviously, from my rather sizeable mistake above, my understanding is not perfect, nor do I claim that it is.  And as I said in another post here, my beliefs in general, will not waver, and I suspect that yours won’t either.  These issues I bring out aren’t intended to convert anyone, but mostly, I want to hear what you all have to say, and I want to give my 2 cents worth as well, and like you said about your friends’ believe about the virgin-birth, that you disagree but can see the logic in their arguements, I’m also looking for that same understanding from all of you.  Not that I’m right, because we will most likely disagree about that in the end, but that you can see where I’m coming from, and that, though you disagree, my position holds a degree of logic, and it does make some sense to you.

     About the Hebrew Matthew, one is on the edge of my mind, I’d type in "Hebrew Matthew" and look online.  The other is called the "Dutile Matthew".  (Doo-Ti-Lay.)  As far as proving that one of these was the original, again, my beliefs on this are heresay, and I admit it.  I cannot prove it, just like you cannot disprove it, since neither of us knows for certainty, what the original language of the NT was, we can only assume what it was, or make an educated guess, and as great of a guess as it may be, it is a futile point to argue about since the proof for either side is nonexistant.  Is it or are they translations of Greek, or Aramaic?  Nobody can say.  Nobody can’t say.  But, what motive would someone have for translating this/these documents into Hebrew from Greek/Aramaic, especially if, as you say, Hebrew was virtually nonexistant at the time period??

     But, you were right about one thing- the Septuagint was used mostly, by HELLENIZED Jews, like Paul for instance.  However you were wrong also- when you claimed that most Jews of the period were Hellenized, and spoke Greek, since it was the common language then.  It wasn’t the common language, from the standpoint that everyone used it, it was common from the standpoint that th Romans used it, and were in control of the region at the time.  I need to point out also, that there were not millions of Romans all over the place.  Herod was not Jewish, he was a king, placed by Rome, and he was a puppet.  They required him, (and other "governors") to rule the region, and report to them, but he had his own armies, and they were not Roman armies.  There were always contingents of Roman centurions patrolling the areas, but not entire armies all the time.  Therefore, I believe that Aramaic was the more common language than Greek.  But you were right again, when you said that alot of Jews spoke Aramaic, but most of them were not bilingual, because most of them were uneducated.  But many of the scholars and scribes probably did read and write Greek as well, but again- out of the Jews who were serious about their "faith", alot of them did know Hebrew, and weren’t willing to trust the Greek OT, only the Hebrew.  That group, that knew Hebrew, was mainly comprised of the leaders of the various sects of Judaism at the time, and were not in the majority by a longshot- I’m just trying to point out that Hebrew was not totally unused.  Among the Jews of the period, Aramaic was the common language, and Greek came next, and Hebrew comprised a smaller third party.  As far as the NT being origonally written in Greek- it is possible.

     Now on to defend my comments on the word "almah", verses the Greek version.  You may be right about that entire arguement- but my point still holds, because even if our current English versions stem from a Greek Septuagint OT rather than the Hebrew OT, if the Hebrew was the original OT, which it was, then the Greek can not be trusted OVER the Hebrew.  The Hebrew word, IS Almah, and the Greek is a Greek word.  OK- so the Greek word used in translation of Almah was more often accepted to mean "virgin".  You may even be able to prove that point- but that doesn’t change the fact that "almah" is not meant to automatically be taken that way.  If that woman’s virginity were of key importance to the passage, then the writer WOULD have used "bethulah", but he did NOT.  Therefore it was not important enough to the writer of the passage that you percieve her as a virgin.

     If I am trying to tell you a story that included a woman, then if her virginity is of any real importance to the story, I would only use ONE word to describe her, the word "virgin".  If I used girl, lady, woman, young woman, WHAT EVER- your idea of her being a virgin would not be based on fact, but on your own supposition, and if the information about that woman were seriously LIMITED in the passage where I mentioned her, as is the case in Isaiah 7:14, you would not have any justification in believing she was a virgin, but ironically enough, Christianity has done JUST that.  And ONLY in the last 500 YEARS!!!!

     In closing- if you are right in saying that the event, a "virgin"-birth, came first, and THEN the prooftexting, then there is NO prooftext for the VB, and hence you should at least be able to admit, that my entire claim here, that Isaiah 7:14 is not a reference to Jesus, is a legitimate claim!  If Matthew (or whomever wrote the book) was "searching" for a passage that "seemed" to support HIS belief in a VB, and he DECIDED to use Isaiah 7:14, then wouldn’t it be fair to say that not only COULD he be wrong, but in light of the context of the passage that he HAS to be wrong??  If Immanuell lived while Israel was still a nation, then how could Immanuell be Jesus, who lived over 700 years later??