Talk:Immanuel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed Fix

I propose that this article be renamed to "Isaiah 7:14", and that the introduction be re-written accordingly. That seems to be what the topic of this article really is. I also think an article should be created for Immanuel to discuss the concept of the word and its entymology. But, this article isn't it. Please comment. Nimrand 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you'll note that "Isaiah 7:14" already redirects to this article. Nimrand 17:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Content Moved

I moved much of the content of this article into the Isaiah 7:14 article since editors continued to add content that focused on that verse rather than the topic of this specific article. Hopefully, now, this article can be expanded with focused information. Nimrand 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Biased

This article did not give me the definition of Immuanuel. It merely presented an argument against the Immanuel prophesy. I agree that this articles neutrality should be questioned and edited.

Not NPOV, Not relevent

This article, while thourough, is neither NPOV, or on topic

Yoiu17 05:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My previous statement, "Still not NPOV", is still valid. This article is not NPOV as the whole part about 'almah' reads like anti-Messianic propaganda. It doesn't relate, and is not NPOV. I believe this article does need an NPOV tag, as well as a clean up. And no, marking a badly written article not NPOV is not trolling or vandalism. However, constantly reverting tags because you like the POV yourself, is. Garnet avi 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? --Wafulz 06:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. It seems you did revert after POV tags were added. Sorry I sound a little short. Everytime I read this article it makes me mad how obviously badly written it is, and frustrated that I can't rightly fix it. I will come back to it in a few weeks, when I have time, to try to fix it, but now the tags serve to tell anyone that comes that they might take a crack at it. The tags are important because it would be better if a history or religion expert fixes it up as my advanced eduacation is mostly in biology. I can tell what doesn't belong, but I can't write an article as well as someone more aware of the subject. Well, aside from my rambling, the point is that I think the tags here are important. Please leave them on until the issue with this article is resolved. Garnet avi 09:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article makes no sense! I read the first paragraph that tells me the meaning of the word. Then I jump into the next section that is titled "The meaning of Almah". What is "Almah"? I thought the article about the word "Immanuel"! If I were an uninformed reader and was reading this article, I would have no idea what the connection was between Immanuel and Almah until I read the whole article thuroughly, which is unlikely because its organization is so poor that its almost incoherent at times. Frankly, while the information about the translation of Almah is probably factual, it just isn't relevant, and its presence makes the article POV. It should be removed, along with the counter-arguments presented in the Christian interpretation section. If someone wants to make a seperate article about the debate over the words that Christians translate as "virgin", then please do. And it can be linked to from this article provided that its relevance is explained in an apporpriate way. But, this article should be about the word Immanuel, and discussions about the virgin birth are only loosely related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 05:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Okay, I see part of what happened. A major part of this article got cut. I reintroduced a section that was deleted a week or so ago. Ironically, it was probably the most relevant section of the article, and it provides the context that is needed for much of the rest of the article to make sense. If someone still feels it should be deleted, please state why. The article still needs a significant re-write. I want to stress that this article should be about the word Immanuel and not the Almah controversy, which currently dominates most of the article. The article should explain the history of the word, its entymology, and explain what the word means to Christians and Jews, repsectively. To stay on topic, the important information is what the word Immanuel means to these groups of people. The article doesn't need to go in depth about why each side's interpretation is 'correct', particularly since the controversy isn't over the word Immanuel itself and that controversy has already been covered in a number of other articles, and could easily have an article of its own, anyway. I think people's tendency is to want to focus on this issue because its controversial and, subconsciously, they want to push their POV, but the debate just isn't that relevant and it hurts the article. Nimrand 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Request Rewrite

Upon reading this article I immediately noticed the strong Anti-missionary(Anti-Christian) slant of the article. Although space is provided for a Christian side to be presented, the format is designed to strongly favor the anti-missionary stance of some in Judaism. I think that this article needs a major re-write that honestly and objectively shows both sides of the interpretation of Immanuel. Of course within the limits of an objective and useful encyclopedia. I did some minor editing but much more is needed and I believe that a major re-write is necessary that fairly represents both sides and that a different format should be used that is not so prejudiced towards a strong Anti-Missionary propaganda stance but that will present both sides fairly. Obviously this encyclopedia article should not be used as forum for spreading certain religious or biased views but rather the subject should be treated objectively and honestly.

Mighty Angel 10:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Major Re-Write

I have just made a major re-write of this article in order to conform with NPOV. I will be adding links to show both sides of the arguments and both the Christian and the traditional Judaism point of view and hopefully present a less biased and more balanced objective picture.

Mighty Angel 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The article, as I have read it, does not seem to have an anti-Christian slant, nor does inserting Messianic theology make it better or more neutral. Please draft changes to this article here before adding them to the main article, as what you have added and removed is not completely appropriate. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Christian ( Anti-missionary) Bias

There is a strong Anti-Christian(Anti-Missionary) Bias here in some areas such as the articles Messiah and Immanuel. I would surely not recommend certain articles such as these as being unbiased here in this encylopedia.You have not shown the full breakdown and etymology Of Immanuel. You have not shown the Greek source of the word Emmanuel and why it is spelled this way rather than Immanuel. You have given a massive discussion of the Anti-missionary side of the Almah Controversy. You want to totally ignore the position and view of Messianic Jews in this article.One only needs to go to an Antimissionary site to get this same type of material. And throwing the Christian interpretation section down at the bottom and doing it in such a way you did is highly biased. Is this an Anti-Missionary encyclopedia? If so, I have better things to do with my time.

Shalom, Joe

Mighty Angel 14:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this "you have not X... you have not Y... you want Z..."? These two sections, mainly "Judaism and the Hebrew Bible" and "Christian interpretation" are representing two different points of view, and the viewpoint that you take issue to is that of Judaism (and is very clearly marked as such). What W:NPOV is about (for religion) is "presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past." If you want to discuss Messianic views, feel free to create a subsection of "Christian interpretaton," but do not destroy the other interpretations that are currently up there. I agree that some "cleaning up" is necessary, however by "cleaning up" I don't mean tabula rosa. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Are the changes that I have just made a bit beter? אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. This does help and I do appreciate your doing some improvements on it, but I believe that a lot more clean up is needed and additions to make a proper balance of the article. This near the beginning of the article for example looks very unattractive to the eye when you look at the page: ʿImmanuʾel ʿImmānûʾēl , that is these little boxes in Immanuel.

Mighty Angel 16:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't seem to see any boxes in Immanuel. Perhaps it's the encoding you're viewing the page with? Make sure it's set to UTF-8. Most of the section I've been able to NPOV in step with Wikipedia's standards (marking positons as positions and using appropriate language to outline it. Perhaps the Christian interpretation section should be next? :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 01:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

I have done some minor clean up removing the boxes from the words Immanuel, and correcting "harah" and "karat" and showing the actual Hebrew. I hope this meets with your approval.

Mighty Angel 01:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. :-) See comments above. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 01:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Interpretation Section

Yes, I agree that this section really needs an update next and a lot of additional material added to it.

Mighty Angel 12:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is currently the way the Christian Interpretation Section looks like:

In the King James Bible, the relevant verse runs like this:

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

However the New English Translation or NET Bible renders the same verse in this way:

Isaiah 7:14 “For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.”

There is thus considerable dispute about the precise meaning and application of this verse, but most Christians believe it to be a prophecy of the birth of Jesus, who is therefore sometimes called Immanuel or Emmanuel.

.............................................. Here are some of my proposed changes and additions:

I would begin the Christian interpretation starting with Matthew 1:23 since this is the basis of the Christian belief and then refer back to Isaiah 7:14 in both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint perhaps starting like this:

In the Christian New Testament the following is written:

Matthew 1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (KJV)

Greek Textus Receptus

ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος

I would mention how the Greek word εμμανουηλ was transliterated into English as Emmanuel. And also how the Greek word for virgin παρθενος parthenos is used in the Greek text. I would also refer back to the Septuagint where παρθενος parthenos is used in Isaiah 7:14 instead of the regular Greek word for "young woman" Neanis.

One can then refer back to Isaiah 7:14

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (KJV)

One could then show the Greek Septuagint reading as well as the Hebrew if desired.

One can mention that many Christians believe that Immanuel/Emmanuel refers to Jesus and that they believe that He was/is God manifest in the flesh and thus called "God with us"

You may also want to incorporate some of this which I had written for another site somewhere into the body of this article:

Immanuel (Hebrew עמנואל or עמנו אל) as found in the Hebrew Text of the Book of Isaiah of the Old Testament consists of two Hebrew words: אל (El, meaning God) and עמנו (Imanu, meaning with us) and therefore has the meaning "God with us." It also appears as Εμμανουηλ (Emmanuel) in Isaiah 7:14 of the Greek Septuagint, and is most notably found in Matthew 1:23.

These are a few of my ideas but this is all I have time to suggest for now. The Hebrew word "almah" would also need to be discussed in light of Christian interpretation.

Joe

Mighty Angel 13:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The plan sounds pretty good to me :-) Write up a draft and post it on the page and then we can make minor revisions if/as necessary. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 13:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Interpretation Draft

The Christian interpretation of Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 is based on the following scriptures in the Christian New Testament where the conception and birth of Jesus Christ are described:

(Matthew 1:20-23 KJV) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (22) Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, (23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Based on these scriptures many Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Immanuel prophesied of in Isaiah 7:14 and that He is "God with us". Many also believe that Jesus was born by means of a Virgin Birth and through the power of the Holy Spirit rather than through normal conception by man.

On translating the Greek Textus Receptus of Matthew 1:23, there is little problem in translating the Greek word "parthenos" as virgin which is the usual Greek word for virgin:

(Matthew 1:23 Greek Textus Receptus) ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος

It is from the transliteration of the Greek text that the spelling Emmanuel was introduced for the Hebrew name Immanuel.

Upon examination of the Greek Septuagint text at Isaiah 7:14 one can also find the word 'parthenos" rather than the usual Greek word "neanis" for "young woman" strongly indicating that a Virgin Birth is prophesied of.

However, the use of the Hebrew word "almah" in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible has stirred controversy among a number of scholars and in fact has produced what is known as The Almah Controversy. This has resulted in variations between Bible translations,with some translations using "young woman" as does the New English Translation or NET Bible:

Isaiah 7:14 “For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.”

And a number of translations use the word "virgin" as does the King James Bible:

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Mighty Angel 00:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Another Vote

I read this article and was about to come on the board and say "Wow, this needs a rewrite". It is detailed but jumbled up. The Jewish Attack on the Christian Position is presented BEFORE the Christian position is presented. Very weird... almost like its paranoid. I do not say these things to offend anyone. I just did an article on almah and was running around linking to it. I mention the controversy about Isaiah 7:14, but do not go into details like Virgin Birth and this page do. Probably because its just me writing and I am not trying to argue with myself about a POV! And I am not sure what cleanup has been done so far, but I think that there is still a ton of work to do with regard to the stong POV stuff in here. It just vibrates with POV tension.

I would suggest that the opening paragraph refer MAINLY to Isaiah 7:14 (which, by the way, redirects to Immanuel) and only mentions Matt 1:23 as quoting Isaiah.

The next section would provide a detailed but very neutral description of Isaiah 7:14, with a translation that gives 'almah as "either 'young woman' or 'virgin'" so we do not just fly right into the controversy.

A third section, if it is possible to find the information, would discuss the significance of the name Immanuel in Rabbinic or other literatures. (For example, has the name been given any Messianic significance in the last 2500 years other than by Christians?) If there is no substantial record of significance then this section should not exist.

The Fourth Section would provide the Christian twist on the passage, setting up the debate.

A fifth section, perhaps called "Controversy" would detail the various arguments in the form of a summary table, with footnotes to sources of detailed argumentation. (I do not think wikipedia should be an argument forum but presenting a CONCISE SUMMARY of both sides of the debate on the various key issues along with linked references would be a reasonable thing to do. One thing to avoid: Argument by Proxy. This should not be a "One side says this... Second side counters... Then first side says... " and so on kind of article. Instead, the section should not try to "win" for one side or the other, but simply and objectively present both sides in a brief, easy to digest manner. Links could take people to the detailed grinding arguments that have been raging for 2000 years now. --Blue Tie 06:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me add also, that some of wording is simply too assertive. For example it says The word [almah] is not used in Hebrew to refer to a virgin. The word for virgin is [betulah]. My research tells me that this is wording is too strong. I think it is ok to have strong wording but it should be clearly presented as the position of ONE SIDE of a debate rather than presented as eternal truth. Too much POV in this article. --Blue Tie 06:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Textual discussion?

Now that things have settled down with this article for a few weeks, I'd like to propose an additional section to discuss the variations on how the Hebrew word/words are presented in the texts for the three places they appear (7:14, 8:8 and 8:10), comparing the LXX, the Massoretic text and 1QIs. If there is no objection to having a section on this, I'll draft the text and post it here first for comments. Thanks! Akradecki 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish tradition?

Another question I'd like to bring before the group...in the second line of the section titled "Meaning of "almah" there is the statement "Jewish tradition says...." without source citation. In order to keep NPOV, I think it would be appropriate to bring up that this was not the case with at least some throughout tradition, as evidenced by the use of the Greek word "parthenos" in the Septuagint translation, and as noted in the Christian section, "parthenos" clearly is a Greek word meaning "virgin". To remain NPOV, it seems to me that we are obligated to our readers to at least acknowledge this variation in Jewish tradtion. It would probably also be helpful to find/add a citation for the statement "Jewish tradition says...." Thoughts anyone? Akradecki 22:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Still Not NPOV

This article is purposed at disambiguation of "immanuel", the word and concept. It is not about this "Almah controversy" or purporting a specific religion. Rewrite it to start with an explaination of the etymology and history of the concept. Something like "This word was used in Isaiah for this, then used in greek to mean this". You only discuss relevent debates (still in NPOV) after you actually explain what it is. The goal here is that an alien who had learned English, but knew no Earth culture, could understand the term, without "learning" Christians are stupid and deluded or Jews are stubborn and picky (this is sarcasm, so don't have a seizure). The article is confusing and badly written. I'm marking it NPOV noncompliant. Maybe someone who grasps complex concepts will redo this the right way. I'd do it, but I wouldn't have looked this word up if I knew enough to do so. Garnet avi 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the proper tag should be {{cleanup}}. --Ezeu 05:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely lacking sense

I was just trying to figure out why I had heard the word Immanuel to refer to Jesus when I found this article. I know nothing about hebrew or theology, but I can tell the article is extremely bad written. Instead of first stating that the name is used to refere to Jesus in Mathew and then arguing whether this is valid or not, it starts with the interpretation of the word Almah. As I said before I know nothing about hebrew or theology, so I had to read the article twice to figure out why there where discussing the meaning of Almah in an article about the word Immanuel. asinthior 14:17, 7 Dicember 2006 (UTC)

Not NPOV

I just read this article for the very first time and very obviously it's not NPOV and a bit anti-Messianic. I'm a very open minded Christian who loves History but here we're a bit off the track. The article should be a bit more balanced and more professional, it needs to be started from scratch. Verblyud

Linking Emmanuel College, Carrara

I was wondering if I should post a link to the Emmanuel College Wikipedia page from here, as I saw the Emmanuel College Cambridge was. Perhaps someone could help me?

Frodo 11011 10:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Better

This article is much better than it was last time I commented on it. It is brief, but addresses the meaning of the term rather than the debate behind the verses it appears in. Thank you for your work, and anyone who thinks it needs more, please be careful. Garnet avi 23:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Most of the content was moved to the article on Isiah 7:14. Unfortunately, it hasn't been improved much since it was created.

Nimrand 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Stub or disambiguation?

Is this a stub for expansion? As it is now this is nothing more then a disambiguation page. If any attempts at expansion will be reverted, what is the point of having Emanuel (disambiguation)? -- SECisek (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the recent addition to the article because it basically asserted the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as fact, and presented a number of arguments to that effect. This is a highly contentious issue between the Christian and Jewish traditions, and therefore such assertions are clear violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If you wish, please rephrase the content appropriately before reintroducing it to the article. Nimrand (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It made no such assertion and info was added under a heading that clearly stated Christian usage. Add a section on Jewish usage. NPOV means all POVs are fairly represented, not all POVs are equally repressed. I will work on the text. -- SECisek (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I guesss I wont since I see you reverted it again with out bother to discuss. Are you spoiling for an edit war? -- SECisek (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted my reasons for reverting it on the discussion page before reverting it a second time.Nimrand (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish usage

I was going to stub in the section myself, but a google serch turns up nothing other then Reform congregations and people who have it as a proper name. Can somebody point me to a website describing traditional Jewish use of the term. -- SECisek (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I swapped the Christian and Jewish usage sections because it made more sense to put the Christian usage first - more filled in, alphabetical, other pages (Emanu-El) more focused on the Jewish usage. I also added a note on the Emanu-El page at the top to link to Immanuel and Emanuel more clearly. I will try and do more work on the Jewish usage at some point. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Isaiah 7:14 article might give you some leads. From that text "Jewish tradition states that the "young woman" was in fact Isaiah’s wife and the birth of the child is recorded later in Isaiah 8:3."Nimrand (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

New Jewish Usage Post

The new posting on the Jewish interpretation strikes me as a strong statement without any reference. To say anything in Judaism is simply divided into groups doesn't appear to based on any facts. The subsequent post may be true, but without any reference or citation, how can anyone be sure it isn't just one person's personal opinion. A NPOV is more than saying "I'm right." The poster seems very confident about his posting (see his post on my User Talk), so I am certainly going to avoid a revert back-and-forth and simply placed these citation tags. I encourage the poster Mateek to cite his entries to give them greater force (and perhaps to tone down the rhetoric - asking for citations and removing postings without them is standard appropriate encyclopedic editing). I look forward to finding out on what his interpretation is based. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Mateek responded to my comments within the body of my post. Without seeing the original post it is quite difficult to understand to what he is replying, so I have reposted my original post above and his full response (including my words) below.) JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The new posting on the Jewish interpretation strikes me as a strong statement without any reference. To say anything in Judaism is simply divided into groups doesn't appear to based on any facts. [I don't think the existence of divided groups in Judaism is worth discussing. Calling that unfactual is insulting. Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] The subsequent post may be true, but without any reference or citation, how can anyone be sure it isn't just one person's personal opinion. [Does common reading comprehension need citation? Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] A NPOV is more than saying "I'm right." [You're the Reform Jew Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)] The poster seems very confident about his posting (see his post on my User Talk), so I am certainly going to avoid a revert back-and-forth and simply placed these citation tags. [I appreciate your flexibility. Whoever created this article should be heavily applauded for explaining the two-word make-up of the source of this article. Mateek (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)) I encourage the poster Mateek to cite his entries to give them greater force [1st Citation: I only know of two branches of understanding. If an author knows of more, feel encouraged to add to this group of understandings. 2nd Citation: Finding citation in a woven text from a body of work known to contain secret codes, containing names and unthreatening references, may be difficult, but is a worthy endeavor. 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)](and perhaps to tone down the rhetoric - asking for citations and removing postings without them is standard appropriate encyclopedic editing). I look forward to finding out on what his interpretation is based. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest or investment in getting into an argument over this issue. Wikipedia requires citations for factual statements made in an article. The less known the statement, the more it requires a citation. "Common reading comprehension" does require citation when it comes to biblical interpretation. There are 70 faces to each verse of Torah, Jewish tradition says. If this is one of the metaphorical "70", find someone else who said the same thing in a book or article or even a web site and cite it. I will leave this article to others to edit these comments and find appropriate citations for them. - JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the unsourced material added by an anonymous user (or is by Mateek?) about 3 opinions in Judaism. There was ample time for the person who added to provide sources but none were provided. The added material is not found in standard Jewish commentaries. Googling produces some Christian missionary pages that seem to mention such ideas but these then belong in the Christian section. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Mateek is resorting to tricks and performing the occasional anonymous edit to revert back to his nonsense and issue threats, guys please help. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

According to his website he believes he is a Biblical prophet. tsk tsk Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Source on the Jewish Interpretation

I got this source from the Isiah 7.14 article: The Second Jewish Book Of Why by Alfred Kolatch 1985. Based on how it is used in the Isiah 7.14 article, it would seem to support the original text of this article that keeps getting overwritten by Mateek. I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't know what exactly it says. But, if someone has access to a copy, it might be a helpful citation for this article. Also, it seems to me that the idea that Immanuel is an "End of Days" prophet is, at best, a minority viewpoint, since I've yet to see any citation of it and it hasn't even been proposed on any of the other articles that cover this subject. Nimrand (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In The Second Jewish Book of Why, pp. 66-67, Kolatch reviews some theories on Isaiah 7:14 in the context of the question "Why Do Jews reject the Christian dogma of the virgin birth?" Kolatch takes a common approach: alma doesn't mean virgin, the definite article implies an already pregnant girl standing there, betula is the word for virgin, etc. While this is in obvious sympathy the Jewish interpretation section as it previously was, it mostly shows Mateek has a minority opinion.

Since we have been asking for citations from reputable sources on this posting since April 15 without any response but reverts, sockpuppetry, and a whole lot of nastiness, I am going to remove the statements and I encourage other users to help me keep them off the page unless reputable citations are included. Should 3-revert violations continue, we should continue the process already in place to respond to them. JerseyRabbi (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try find some stuff to add to the section like more detail on Rashi with references as well as other views, if I remember the Ramchal had a different view to Rashi interpreting almah as meaning in particular a harem wife making Immanuel a son of Ahaz whereas Rashi instead equates the almah with the "neviah" (prophetess/prophets wife) mentioned a few verses later. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Minority opinions seem to be encouraged by Wikipedia, but not by this group. I resent being involved by obvious clowns in regards to VIRGIN or A DIFFERENT WORD. I think the Sockpuppets are right here. MY IP'S SHOWED UP INSTEAD OF MY SIGNATURE TWICE, BY A WORN OUT WIKIPEDIA COOKIE, AND INNOCENT OMMISION of my signature. I'm interested in how JersyRabbi got involved again suddenly when I filed a 3RR Noticeboard post against Kuratowski's Ghost. Meanwhile, Immanuel couldn't be a 'End of Days' prophet? The two-literal-word name couldn't be esoteric or semantic, in an Isaiah text woven into the past and future? Does anybody dispute the use and presence of the future tense in Isaiah? Mateek (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not cloud the issues. The alternate Jewish opinions that are at the subject of the debate have been unreferenced since day one. References have been requested since day one. Where are the references? Saying your opinion is right and that others are wrong still leaves your post unreferenced. Please find legitimate references for your post. Without such support, any opinion can be removed otherwise Wikipedia becomes a giant blog of unsourced, unverifiable claims. Please post legitimate reputable references. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Reference, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:When to cite for guidelines on this matter. JerseyRabbi (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To Mateek's point about encouraging minority opinions, a consequence of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is that articles must acknowledge notable minority opinions. But, that does not mean that it must give those opinions equal weight to that of majority opinions, or that it must acknowledge all possible opinions. In any case, all opinions must be cited to, at the very least, establish their notability.Nimrand (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR complaint

This article has been discussed at the 3RR noticeboard. I am concerned about possible sockpuppetry, so if anyone notices any more policy violations in the editing of this article, please let me know directly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Sockpuppets are right here. MY IP'S SHOWED UP INSTEAD OF MY SIGNATURE TWICE, BY A WORN OUT WIKIPEDIA COOKIE, AND INNOCENT OMMISION of my signature. I told EdJohnston he failed miserably as an Admin, if he even was one, because he had the authority to just step in and give Wikipedia readers a better understanding. Instead, he's helped make Jews look foolish, or simple minded, for coming up with only one interpretation without regard for present day common usage of the word. One reply he made to me was, "It does not take rocket science to be sure you are logged in to Wikipedia under your own name when you file a 3RR report..." I was. A cookie must have worn out. When I hit 'Save' an IP appeared by itself. I haven't logged myself out EVER in the middle of editing. Mateek (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Isaiah

Not a user but wanted to point out that the article beginning with Isaiah didn't write the book of Isaiah is pretty irrelevant to the article itself. Kind of ridiculous to start the article with pointless stuff like that. Edit: It also seems the person who wrote the beginning actually has never done any research on Isaiah but rather repeated the opinions of a liberal scholar as opposed to taking an unbiased view. The Isaiah controversy should be restricted to the Isaiah article, not brought here as it just confuses and is irrelevant. 100.40.30.59 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.30.59 (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)