but also the record of Luke 1:35 in view of the following:
It is quite clear, according to the New Testament of The HOLY BIBLE, that the earthly mother of Jesus - namely, Mary - was not merely a maid or young woman, but (quite frankly).....a bonafide and actual virgin - sexually.
The word "virgin" is not to be relegated by demented, warped, twisted-nutcase heretics to whatever far-out and off-the-wall similes, metaphors, allegories, or symbols supposedly representing something or someone other than exactly and only what the typical dictionary definition is regarding that certain particular characteristic of a female human described as a bodily-sexual: "virgin," which is: virginity.....and NOTHING else!
Such is nonmistakably obvious not only regarding the record of Matthew 1:23 in all the listed English Bible translations and the inerrant Scrivener/Trinitarian Greek Text shown below:
Plainly from basic rational and reasonable logic, all younger-women virgins are younger women, but not all younger women are younger-women virgins, with the dictionary definitions of the word "virgin" applying when in agreement with the overall canonical-Scriptural definitions of "virgin." Such a crucial distinction is vital for a proper understanding of the Lord's will pertaining to whether the words "younger widows" should be used for the correct English-language rendition of First Timothy 5:14 or rather the KJV words "younger women" are instead appropriate:
Every English translation portrayed for Isaiah 7:14 above - except the RSV, BBE, and JPS - displays the word "virgin" associated with Strong's word number 05959.....leading one to quickly conclude that "the majority rules," and the three discrepant translations mentioned above are errant aberrations concerning at least this particular passage of Scripture (for whatever cause and not reason).
However, let's see if the seemingly non-errant non-aberrant English translations consistently have 05959 translated "virgin" or apply some other Strong number to the word "virgin."
First considered is Genesis 24:16:
The AVRLE (i.e. the Authorized Version [a.k.a. King James] Red Letter Edition) and the NKJV (new King James Version) have that word "virgin" instead associated with Strong's number 01330 and NOT Strong's number 05959! Most every translation shown above does have the word "virgin" (or euphemistic equivalent) for that passage.
So ARE there two DIFFERENT Hebrew words for "virgin?"
What IS obvious is that THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM there!!!
The next passage is Genesis 24:43:
Now we have all sorts of words - some intrinsically descrepant against the others - for the selected inferior-gendered person referred to in the Scriptural passage (e.g. young woman, virgin, girl, and damsel).
Of course, "damsel" and "girl" could be considered somewhat synonymous, although there is ONLY ONE BEST English word to use which the present Body of Christ should agree upon for non-confusing unity....whether that is: "damsel" or instead (and not including): "girl." [And "damsel" is pathetically archaic and silly-sounding for modern usage].
The word "maiden" - however - is in a significantly DIFFERENT category (even though it is remotely but NON-applicably and NON-directly related).....in that "maiden" refers to a young "maid," which specifically implies servitude of some female-gendered human person.
In strange non-explainable reversal, the AVRLE and NKJV in the Genesis 24:43 passage are back to associating Strong word number 05959 instead of 01330 with the word "virgin."
Why???
WHY is the word "virgin" back to Strong's word number 05959 and not Strong's word number 01330 which new latter number (01330) they had then associated with the word "virgin?"
At this point, it behooves the reader to not be tempted to dismiss all this extremely-detailed and very-narrowly-focused Bible study as "a hang-up" or "obsession" or "trifles" or "missing the overall point" or "tedious nitpicking."
Remember what was stated earlier pertaining to that:
Plainly from basic rational and reasonable logic, all younger-women virgins are younger women, but not all younger women are younger-women virgins, with the dictionary definitions of the word "virgin" applying when in agreement with the overall canonical-Scriptural definitions of "virgin." Such a crucial distinction is vital for a proper understanding of the Lord's will pertaining to whether the words "younger widows" should be used for the correct English-language rendition of First Timothy 5:14 or rather the KJV words "younger women" are instead appropriate:
Both the AVRLE and the NKJV are this time associating Strong's word number 05959 with the word "maid" (in the case of the AVRLE) and the word "maiden" (in the case of the NKJV)!
Remember that the AVRLE and NKJV had Strong's word number 01330 associated with the word "virgin" for Genesis 24:16. Then for Genesis 24:43 they had Strong's word number 05959 associated with the word "virgin." Now in Exodus 2:8 they have Strong's word number 05959 associated with the words "maid" and "maiden!"
One final passage considered is Job 31:1:
This time the AVRLE is back to associating Strong's word number 01330 with the word: "maid" and the NKJV for the first time associates that number with the words: "young woman."
Now, notice in ALL the passages shown above, the RSV [Revised Standard Version] ALWAYS associates Strong's word number 01330 with "virgin" while ALWAYS associating Strong's word number 05959 with "young woman" or "girl"!!!
Expedient it is to once again employ brute logic to insure correct understanding of what is transpiring here:
Close examination of the differences in Hebrew alphabet lettering between Strong's word number 01330 compared with Strong's word number 05959 reveals whether or not Strong's numbering system is caprecious. Hopefully the reader will seriously peruse and study that.
Moreover, it certainly would be nonsensical to have two different Strong word numbers for our one-and-only six-lettered (and only 6-lettered!) English word "virgin!" IF (and a big IF!) there were one or more different English alphabet-lettered words for "virgin" meaning NOT 'essentially' but instead exactly THE SAME THING, it would be reasonable (indeed absolutely necessary) for Strong to have given different numbers to the two or more differently-alphabet-lettered English words conveying the PRECISE idea and concept of "virgin" (IF that was possible!) -- while it would be totally ridiculous to give different Strong numbers to the EXACT alphabet letters "v i r g i n."
And synonymns have an entirely different set of alphabet letters compared to each other, and thus a different Strong number would be required for each of them.
With that info established, which English translation: the RSV.....or instead the AVRLE or NKJV.....is correct for Isaiah 7:14?
If you, the inquisitive quasi-scholar, need more enlightenment and verification, compare the exact English word discrepancies in the following passages of:
Genesis 24:16 (whether or not Rebekkah should be called a "virgin" for Word 1330)
Genesis 24:43 (whether or not Rebekkah should be called a "virgin" for Word 5959instead)
Exodus 2:8 (whether or not Moses' sister should be called a "girl" for Word 5959)
Job 31:1 (whether or not the gal mentioned should be called a "virgin" for Word 1330)
Isaiah 7:14 (whether or not the gal mentioned should be called a "virgin" for Word 5959)
taken from an interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible displaying the inerrant ben-Asher Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament edited by Jay P. Greene published by Hendrickson Publishers of Peabody Massachusetts:
