Commonly misunderstood Biblical terms

wolfsbane

I would like to open a thread that draws attention commonly misunderstood Biblical terms. Additions will be welcomed, but here's a starter:
Saints: this term correctly refers not to a special category of Christian often referred to as such (St. Paul, St. Peter, etc), but all Christians.

It simply means 'holy ones', to distinguish them from their unconverted neighbours.

Schuhart

I've a feeling this thread will very quickly end up simply running into a wall of theological disputes, as I take it the meaning assigned to certain words reflects how some draw meaning from the text. But here goes:

The word 'almah' used in Isaiah 7:14 does not clearly indicate on its own that a woman is a virgin. Hence, the Old Testament promises the Messiah is to be born to a young woman, and not to a virgin.

Fanny Cradock

Your probably right, redrick!

Bduffman

Schuhart wrote: »

The word 'almah' used in Isaiah 7:14 does not clearly indicate on its own that a woman is a virgin. Hence, the Old Testament promises the Messiah is to be born to a young woman, and not to a virgin.

What an earth-shattering prediction that was

JimiTime

Bduffman wrote: »

What an earth-shattering prediction that was

I think your line above is a good arguement for it meaning virgin IMO.

BrianCalgary

Schuhart wrote: »

I've a feeling this thread will very quickly end up simply running into a wall of theological disputes, as I take it the meaning assigned to certain words reflects how some draw meaning from the text. But here goes:

The word 'almah' used in Isaiah 7:14 does not clearly indicate on its own that a woman is a virgin. Hence, the Old Testament promises the Messiah is to be born to a young woman, and not to a virgin.

Because a young woman was a virgin in those times. So being born of a virgin is correct.

Schuhart

JimiTime wrote: »

I think your line above is a good arguement for it meaning virgin IMO.

Except I’ve a feeling that the phrase is ‘the young woman shall conceive’, with a suggestion that the writer may have had a particular young woman in mind – so the word might not be quite as superfluous as it looks. (Which I understand is part of the scholarly argument on this point.)

Always willing to cloud an issue, I’d recall myself the phrase in the book of Job about ‘man that is born of a woman is of few days’ etc. Apart from Adam, has there ever been a man who was not born of a woman? Imputing virginity because the language doesn’t look tidy when Isaiah is translated seems like a bridge too far.

That said, I feel it does illustrate how individual words are assigned a meaning based on how people take meaning from the text – throw in a few more disputed words and this thread will be like swimming in treacle.

And now, like the Sunday World photographer, I will make my excuses and leave.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Because a young woman was a virgin in those times. So being born of a virgin is correct.

In fairness, Brian, all I can take from that statement is that you concede the core point - that the OT does not clearly state that the birth will be to a virgin. I'm not a scholar - but enough folk with relevant expertise seem confident that virginity is not encompassed by the term.

Biro

Sticking to what I understood the topic to be, in that it's pointing out common misunderstandings, then I'd like to add one that'll probably be of no benefit to the people who read this forum, but bugs me when it's misused all the same.
Immaculate Conception - This is Mary. She (as far as Catholic's are concerned) was born without sin, original or otherwise. It has nothing to do with her becoming pregnant with the Son of God, or the Announciation by the Angel, or any other things that are suggested by the way people use it out of context.

Puck

Biro wrote: »

Sticking to what I understood the topic to be, in that it's pointing out common misunderstandings, then I'd like to add one that'll probably be of no benefit to the people who read this forum, but bugs me when it's misused all the same.
Immaculate Conception - This is Mary. She (as far as Catholic's are concerned) was born without sin, original or otherwise. It has nothing to do with her becoming pregnant with the Son of God, or the Announciation by the Angel, or any other things that are suggested by the way people use it out of context.

Not really a Biblical term though, since the immaculate conception is absolutely nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Biro

Puck wrote: »

Not really a Biblical term though, since the immaculate conception is absolutely nowhere to be found in the Bible.

My bad, annoys me none the less!

wolfsbane

Biro wrote: »

Sticking to what I understood the topic to be, in that it's pointing out common misunderstandings, then I'd like to add one that'll probably be of no benefit to the people who read this forum, but bugs me when it's misused all the same.
Immaculate Conception - This is Mary. She (as far as Catholic's are concerned) was born without sin, original or otherwise. It has nothing to do with her becoming pregnant with the Son of God, or the Announciation by the Angel, or any other things that are suggested by the way people use it out of context.

As Puck says, the (supposed) Immaculate Conception of Mary is nothing to do with the Bible - but I sympathise with your frustration nevertheless. It surely confuses the issue when people think you mean the immaculate conception of Christ.

JoeB-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schuhart View Post
The word 'almah' used in Isaiah 7:14 does not clearly indicate on its own that a woman is a virgin. Hence, the Old Testament promises the Messiah is to be born to a young woman, and not to a virgin.

What an earth-shattering prediction that was

JimiTime wrote: »

I think your line above is a good arguement for it meaning virgin IMO.

Yes, maybe at first glance...

but what if the complete line was something like..
'and the messiah will be born to a woman.. who has red hair and a penchant for fine wine'...
in which case the word 'woman' has no particular importance.