I fully agree with you that although scripture is fully inspired, our interpretation is not and we must be willing to check and sharpen each other. Great thoughts.

The post shows the absolute necessity for the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not an optional doctrine for without it Jesus could not be our kinsman redeemer. My idea was to draw it out for people so that they too could understand that the virgin birth along with the fact that Eve was taken out of Adam was the only way possible for Jesus to be connected to Adam as his descendant yet without sin because of the virgin birth. People have told me that for the first time they have understood the virgin birth and for that I am grateful.

Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

What I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (almah) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

Merry Christmas to everybody! Jesus lives and His love brings tears to my eyes, you are so wonderful Jesus!