Answering Jewish Questions

Somebody contacted Striving for Eternity from a Jewish background and claims he has undeniable proof that the Bible, or at least the New Testament, could not be written by God. Is he right? We're going to address that on Apologetics Live.

Apologetics Live Introduction and the Day's Jewish Questions

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your challenging questions about God and the Bible. I'm looking at the wrong camera. I went up there, but we adjusted it to something a little bit down here, so temporary change, so I got to look down this way now.

But thank you very much for coming in, and as I said in the intro, as the topic today, answering Jewish questions, and we got a lot of them. Actually, six pages is what he ended up sending us. It was originally just one page of some comments, and then he basically said, I'm gonna get back to you with a little bit more, and we got six pages, but it came in so late.

I know I didn't get a chance to look at all of them, Drew. I think you did not as well either. Nope. But we're gonna get through the main one. We'll see. Is this undeniable proof that the New Testament could not be written by God?

That's the challenge.

Drew, I don't know if you and I are up to this. You know, the thing about it, yeah, it's these are nothing new, right? It's the same objections that are brought by atheists as well when they try to disprove the Bible and show contradictions, so it's nothing new.

It isn't, but you know, maybe for some it's the first time they're gonna hear it,.

But let's start before we dive into that. First off, thank you very much for last week. You and your co-hosts from A Matter of Theology, or is he just the host, and you're just... I don't get it. It's just the two of you started it together, now it's just Chris Hough.

Whatever. You guys got into a fight. I don't get it. Anyway.

Basically, I started it. I founded it. I brought him on. I turned it over to him, and then I...

Because you weren't in a podcast anymore, but you're still podcasting.

Okay, okay. I can't keep up with it. I'm always, I'm in and out. I'm in and out, you know. Yes, so here's the thing. We're going to.

Look into some of these things, but you guys did a great job last week. It was kind of like a long version of A Matter of Theology, so that was cool. Yeah. I did hear you play the comment where someone said that they expected it to be a subpar show because I wasn't here.

Do you really think I'm going to put people in charge of the show, even when they do a complete and utter Matter of Theology takeover of the show? Do you really think I'm going to bring people in that are not of the standard that we have here?

Of course we will. You know, and the crazy thing about that is, is Chris and I aren't strangers to the show. We've been coming on the show for, what, two years maybe, and you know, but that also just shows the loyalty and love that people have for you in this show.

Well, I appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, it's a thing where as we, as we look at things, as we, as we recognize the fact that every one of us that, you know, we have people that have different styles and yet something to offer, and that's, you know, you and Chris are a different style than even you and I.

Yeah. When we're together. It's, it's, and that, that's good. So I thank you guys for doing that while I was gone. Very happy to do it. Even though I would have rather seen both of you there at.

Cruciform Conference, Puritan Evangelism, and Conference Fellowship

Cruciform with me. You know, that's, I, okay, I gotta brag on Cruciform because, you know, I was originally a speaker. I was actually gonna be opening up the conference, but even though I pulled out, I think this Cruciform conference was the best conference that was there, and your message was dynamite.

It was an amazing message on Puritan evangelism, which was really just Puritan open-air preaching, and.

It was great. There's, I mean, I literally was joking that more than half my message was on the cutting room floor, okay? It was, I never even got into, which was a big thing. I, okay, here's, for folks to get a little background, here's, here's what it's like when you're preaching.

I had 20 pages of notes, Puritan quotes and, and notes, and I'm going through and time is just escaping, and I get there and I'm looking, I look at the clock and I go, oh my, I'm like on page five and 20 minutes has gone by.

I gotta skip. So I'm like zip, zip, zip, right through a bunch of the notes. What ends up happening? I skipped over a major thing that I wanted to bring up on Puritan evangelism. So why don't I do it here?

Great idea, Drew. I'm glad you brought that up. So it's what I'm here for. One of the things about Puritan evangelism that I didn't get a chance, or I just should have made like a highlight so I wouldn't forget it, was this.

One of the ways the Puritans evangelized, I mentioned that much of the Puritan evangelism is within the idea of the church because everyone attended church and they were mostly unbelievers and the pastors knew that.

And so they preached in a way that preached the gospel as well. That's one of the ways they evangelized. But the other thing they did, this is a really neat thing, Puritans, some Puritan pastors used to have family booths.

And the way it would be is that the parents had their back to the preacher. So that the children are looking at the preaching and they're looking at their children to make sure they're paying attention.

Neat. But one of the things that the Puritans would do is to, the preachers would meet weekly with each family in the church. And that was their discipleship time, which also includes evangelism. So the the preachers would go house to house and in that process, they would disciple.

So they would basically take the message they preached that week and make sure that the family understood that. And that was a big part of their evangelism as well as they're in someone's house. And so I didn't get time for that.

And there's a whole lot, there was a person who came up to me and said, man, that was so good. Is there any chance I can have your notes? And I'm like, well, because I print a copy just in case my iPad doesn't work.

And I'm like, well, sure, here you go.

Like Mark Driscoll, sign them and give them. Well, no, it's not that. And I mean, I said to the gentleman,.

I just understand that my notes are nothing but quotations from other books and Puritans and things like that. So you don't have anything that's original for me in those notes that I had there.

And so literally 20 pages of just quotations, so. And that, what you're talking about there, that's basically what Richard Baxter talks about in his book, The Reformed Pastor. It was basically his method of discipleship and evangelizing people in his church.

Because I think Richard Baxter had a congregation of about seven to eight hundred people and every day he was meeting with families, catechizing, discipling every single day. That's right.

And so what you end up seeing is, and one thing with this camera angle, as I look at my Bible, it looks, I look like I'm looking far away, but it's just the way it is. Sorry. The reality is, as we think about things, the Puritans did much of their evangelism, you know, in that style of preaching.

And so that's why so much of what I focused on was preaching. But here's the thing, and this is something people don't really think about and realize, is when we look at this and we examine the fact of, okay, let's take a look at, you know, what we have with the Puritans and their preaching style, their preaching of the Scriptures were very evangelistic.

And that's the thing we have to realize. Yeah. That's also how preaching should be, just in general, because part of the command we're given is to do the work of an evangelist. And so when we're preaching, we understand, in our congregations, we have believers, but we also have non-believers, or we have people who think themselves to be believers who are not believers.

And so we have to do the work of an evangelist. Correct.

And so, yeah, you were missed at Cruciform.

You know, next year, you'll have to make sure you're there. I was texting Brandon the whole time.

That is a great conference. I love, you know, what folks may not realize, I'm gonna encourage people to make sure you make Cruciform next year. Here's what Brandon is doing. Brandon is trying to get the next generation of preachers.

The guys who are still young, they're not known yet, but they're probably going to be.

Within five, ten years. Oh, you got Nathaniel Jolly? Yeah, excellent.

He puts himself down, but he is an excellent preacher.

I thoroughly enjoyed his message. And Kevin Hay? Kevin Hay is good. This is the third time I preached with Kevin Hay in like six months, I think. Yeah, because he did the the Cessationist Conference. That's where we first spoke with each other.

He opened that conference, too, didn't he? I think because he defined cessationism.

Amazing. It was awesome. So, I mean, that's the thing. Like, I would encourage you guys to check out Cruciform next year because these are the guys that you're going to be hearing about and and you're going to be listening to and you're gonna get to hear them when you're, when you can get to talk to them in a small setting.

This is what we used to do with our conferences at Striving for Eternity. When we started, we didn't have a green room. That was one requirement. You know, if someone needs a green room, they weren't invited to speak.

And we did a conference where you can get to speak with the speakers. I mean, I remember someone sitting there and he's like, man, I just sat down and had lunch with Phil Johnson. And he was amazed. And the thing that blew him away was Phil walked over and said, can I sit with you?

You know, it wasn't the other way around, so he couldn't believe it. So, yeah, I mean, that's what we we tried to do. And that's what what Brandon's trying to do.

And that's one of the best time, too, is the times where you can have fellowship. Speakers can have fellowship with one another, but then you also have fellowship with the people who are attending there as well.

Yeah, it is a great time.

Yeah. So thanks for the takeover, by the way. You know, just you and Chris did an excellent job, which I expected.

It wasn't a surprise to me just saying you've been listening to us for several years.

So I have you're well vetted. So, no, but it was good. And so what we want to do and folks, if you want to come in, ask questions, I should have said this at the beginning, as I usually do, but I forgot.

But we were here to answer your questions. This is this is hey, these are my office hours. You want to talk to me, ask me anything about God in the Bible or anything else. Just go to Apologize Live dot com.

Scroll down till you see a duck icon. That's for StreamYard. Click on that. Join us so that you can ask your question. That is the way we prefer to do it, even though the person who sent us this email didn't want to come on and do that.

OK, but that aside, let's.

Were you going to say so? No, it's just it's funny.

Yeah. OK, here we go. Jason Cave says, great show last week. See? See? Yeah. I expected it to be a great show. So I I kind of took this gentleman's email and I attempted to summarize at least because he drew, as you saw, we had a couple of back and forth emails where he was kind of giving his questions in pieces.

Right. Which was hard. And that's why I emailed him and said, you know, do you have any like, can you kind of put this together? Which he did. And we have a six page document that I just, you know, didn't get to.

And actually, I meant to start off the show by saying to our audience, some people may be like, Andrew, you're in a T-shirt. We're not used to seeing you in a T-shirt. Some people may know that, you know, my background, I have years of cybersecurity background doing stuff.

With technology. And today is a day where I actually I still am involved with one of the largest Internet providers in the world does a software symposium for about, oh, three or four thousand people.

And I'm involved in helping to run that whole thing. I still am involved with their technical program committee. So today was the day we had that. I literally got home from that, had to rush here. So I'm still wearing my my T-shirt from that software symposium.

And so it's one of the things that identify me. You know, I get the black one. All the volunteers get white. But as a as a chairman of their committee, I get, you know, yeah. So I I'm the reason I'm in a T-shirt is because I literally got home.

Did not I had to grab a quick slice of pizza on the way because there was no time. So just putting it out there for like, it looks so unprofessional of you. Yeah, I figured it was better to be on time in a T-shirt.

Talking about unprofessional.

Like, I mean, I've got a backwards hat on and, you know, flash my tattoos every once in a while.

So I'm going to read through. This is my some cutting and pasting of this person's email. So it's it's not one email. And I'm going to let you know, I'm going to butcher his first name. Probably because I'm really good at butchering names.

English and I are not friends. OK, I'm just saying I joke with people that my first my first language was basic. I moved on to Pascal C, C++, Java, JavaScript, awk. And if you guys anyone that knows what I just said, you're a computer programmer, you have a background in IT and everyone else is just going, whatever, Andrew, I think you're speaking in tongues.

No, I'm not. I mean, they do say English is a really hard language. Yeah, it's hard. I mean, even for people who speak English.

I think Scala is way easier to learn. I'm just saying and Java is much better. But I'm not talking about the drink you have in the morning. So all right. So let me read this. I want it's I'm going to read what I have summarized.

It'll be one page. And actually, I was going to share it, but now I probably won't because it won't look good on the screen. It's too small font. All right. I'll just read this. And then we can we can deal with this.

And this is the first of several objections he actually has needs or has. So. Katie wants me to speak in Hebrew. She's saying, you know, Andrew needs to speak in Hebrew for us. Sure. I will.

Yeah, we are. Well, you know, yeah, there you go. I did it.

Yeah. Your pronunciation was a little off, but but you what. What he just tried to do was you're going to meet chapter six, which was close. Uh. But no cigar. I mean, you want you want to try cleaning that up and we'll give you another shot at it?

No, I'll let you go ahead and take it here. Oh, Israel, our Lord, our God, our Lord is one. Yeah. See, they're just that. Oh, wait, was that that was in English, though? Oh, OK. In Hebrew.

My Israel, I don't know. Sorry, my Israel. I don't know. I don't know. I had. Yeah, I see.

That is what I said. I just didn't say Adonai, I said Yahweh.

Well, and you also didn't have. So the the the the CH sound a little bit stronger than here is here. So you got to get ready to spit. And then you say, hi, it's that's high. You know, that's sort of what I had.

I thought I had.

There you go. Now you got it. It may have been because I just took a drink and my palate was a little.

OK, if that's good, at least it sounded better than, you know, the Hebrew Israelites with their fake Hebrew.

OK, hold on. I'll do it again just for the people. OK, OK. Shema, Israel, Yahweh, Eloheinu, Yahweh, Echad. There you go. OK.

This is a little better. OK, so then we'll have to I'll do something easy to see how your translation is. Baruch atah Adonai. What's that? Um, OK, so this is the way most prayers begin. Right. Blessed is the Lord.

Now you would say Baruch atah Yahweh.

Right. That's awesome. That's the way it would typically because I'm thinking about a prayer. So when I was in the vineyard and we used to take communion, we would say Baruch atah Adonai. No, Baruch atah Adonai.

And then we would go into.

Well, there's a lot of different ones that people would do after that because it would change. But but that's that's the way many of the prayers would start. But all right, let's let's look at this. He says, hello, my name is I think it's and forgive me for.

I know he's going to listen to this because I told him that we would do this. But he supposedly watches. But well, you know, he said my name is Ben Zion. I think Benz, B-E-N-T-Z-I-O-N. So I don't know if the T is pronounced like Benzion or Bent Zion.

But hello, my name is Benzion Eshelberg. I am a Jew from Queens, New York. I have been listening to your podcast and have been struck by some major misunderstandings of the Old Testament. I was wondering if you could answer some of my questions about the misquotes and wrong understandings of the Bible.

As well as obvious contradictions in the New Testament, if it's inspired by God. And by the way, God is G-D. That's one of the things you'll see with Jewish people, they don't want to use God's name in vain, just like we're talking about.

Yahweh versus Adonai. Adonai is replaced when you see it. So when I'm saying Baruch Atah Adonai, it's actually Baruch Atah Yahweh, which is like.

The combination is how you get Jehovah.

Yeah. Well, you'll sometimes see Lord God and it'll be either, you know, Adonai and Yahweh together or Elohim and Yahweh together. So so he says, if it is inspired by God, there can't be even one mistake.

So if you can't answer these questions, the book and all its stories are worthless. I'm really interested in hearing some of your your responses, your answers. So please respond. And I and I asked him, what did I said that I was wrong?

So his response was then this. I didn't mean you particularly, but Christians as a whole. I was particularly surprised with you because I heard you say that you grew up Jewish. Just one example that I remember off the top of my head is that you defend the claim that the virgin birth is prophesied in the Old Testament, even though the word is completely mistranslated.

Your defense was that they were relying on the spittuogen, which was translated by the rabbis. You know full well that only the first five books were translated by the Jews. So why did you say that? Also, why would a book written by the spirit of God need to rely on a translation?

The word clearly doesn't mean virgin. Now, notice he's yet to give us the verse, but he kind of did there, but we'll get to that. OK, so he says this this happens all over the place where verses are mistranslated to take completely out of context to support Jesus.

Would you agree that if anyone claim the if anyone claim the New Testament makes that is demonstrated to be a misquote or mistake from the Old Testament, then we can't rely on any of the New Testament.

How can you if and I don't know what word he meant there, just UTS. How can you how can you if something clearly not the word of God? We can go through many examples, if you'd like. One more for now. How is Jesus the Messiah?

If he isn't from the lineage of David, every Jew in the world knows our lineage follows the father and not the mother. If God is the father, he isn't from David. And although the New Testament tried to trace Mary's ancestry to David, although in a contradictory way, it's irrelevant because it goes by the father.

I was thinking about it. And this is another email. I was thinking about it after I emailed you last night. There are three things I deduced when I see the New Testament misquote or mistake the Old Testament to make it appear to prove Jesus.

One, you can't trust anything the rest of the book in the rest of the book because its author isn't honest to it's clearly not written or inspired by God. If there are mistakes and three, the fact that the author has to manufacture evidence indicates he doesn't have the truth on his side.

Otherwise, why resort to that? I'm curious what positive evidence convinced you to believe in Christianity in light of all the mistakes, lack of evidence and fault, failing to fulfill what the Messiah is supposed to do and complete inconsistencies theologically with the Old Testament.

I don't understand the draw to believe this. So that's kind of the summarization. Let's deal with these if we could one by one. So let me start with that first paragraph he says in here. I was wondering if you can answer some questions about misquotes of the Bible.

He said, if it is inspired by God, there can't be even one mistake. Well, I'm going to agree with that, he brought that up twice. I agree with it. This is an argument I make against Islam with the Koran.

The Koran has errors that are definitional. What do I mean by this? When we when we end up seeing things like in the New Testament, you have a case where there might be two people that would be possessed.

And one author mentions to one author means one. And I think it's more with blind people or you have ten lepers and, you know, whatever it might be.

You have one speaks, but there's not. But, you know, the other nine don't speak. But that doesn't mean ten aren't there. Just one speaks. Right. That's right.

And this that's actually what you would see. One of the things we see in eyewitness testimony, and you could see this in any courtroom, any anyone that does investigations, they will they will end up looking at the fact that.

You're going to have to, Drew, and I see a car accident, I focus, maybe I'm more detail oriented. So I say the officer, well, there were there were three cars. What happened was one stopped short. And because of that, the one in the this car behind them stopped short and the car behind that one slammed into the car in front of him.

So I mentioned three cars. But the officer asked Drew and Drew just says, well, there was there was a car that stopped short and another one slammed right into it. Does that mean there weren't three cars there?

No. It's that Drew was being more specific and focused in on the two that were in the car accident and not the third that wasn't in the accident and kept driving. This happens in eyewitness testimony.

In fact, if you don't have that. People start to question whether it's eyewitness testimony or a manufactured story, in other words, one of the things any good detective does is when there isn't they're trying to find out what happened.

They separate people immediately. Why? So that they can't agree with the story. One of the things that any detective knows, if your stories line up perfectly, someone's been talking. Exactly. Exactly.

Yeah. So you have that happen.

OK, now here's here's another thing. And this this will be helpful for a lot of people. And I've talked to some about this. If you look at the book of Luke and you look at the birth of Jesus and when Jesus had to be presented before the temple and everything, who was Luke's eyewitness account?

It had to be Mary. Because everything that was going on when he when when Jesus being presented at the temple, well, that priest had already died because what do you say? I can now die now that I've seen the Lord, I can now die.

Joseph is is either really old in age or he's probably already passed on. And so the only one left is Mary to give that account of what happened. So Luke, in that moment, has the ultimate eyewitness. And that's the only way he would have gotten that information.

Yeah. And so when we that's the whole thing with eyewitness testimony, there's going to be certain things to look for. In fact, I'll recommend a book on this if you want. Cold Case Christianity from J. Warner Wallace.

Jim wrote this book really as a cold case detective, as one of his. He's a leading expert when it comes to eyewitness testimony as a police detective. So that would be good if you want to learn more about that.

But the Koran has a definitional error. In other words, the Koran refers to the Trinity as the father, the mother and the son. That's a wrong definition. What when in the Koran, it's a law is supposedly speaking and says to Jesus, did I ever say that you are God or your mother is God?

Well, Christians don't believe Mary is God. Even the Catholics who venerate her and give her attributes to deity would deny that she's God. So that's not and most, by the way, most Muslims will turn because there was one cultic group, a very, very fraction of a group of Christianity that was in the area where Muhammad was because they were kicked out of the kingdom of the empire because of their heresy.

And they were in that area that did teach that Mary must be God as well. And so Muslims will always turn to that. Well, if if the writer of the Koran. Is someone who is. Well, all knowing, don't you think he would know that's a fringe group and not the whole group?

Just just saying. So that's a definitional error. You know, when the Koran says that the seed of the man is in the small of the back. And not the testicles, I think an all knowing being would know the difference between the small of the back and the testicle.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he would be. So those are definitional things. So if the if the New Testament. Is misquoting. Has a definitional error. I agree with with him. Benzion, I agree with him.

Then that would disprove the New Testament. So the question is, does it do that? So he's bringing up Isaiah 714. So let's let's read this. So it says, therefore. The Lord himself will give to you a sign.

Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and you shall call his name Emmanuel. Now. This is the passage he's referring to because he's saying it's a misquote. And you're seeing it in his text.

He's saying the word version is a is a mistranslation. So let's let's deal with it. And let me just I know we had the other thing. I'm going to that we had ready to share. And I was all set up. But I'm going to share something else because it'd be more fitting to go.

I'm going to bring this up so folks can see. Now, let me explain what this is. This is on the left. Most of your screen is what's called the spittoon. This is a Greek translation of the Hebrew. The middle that you have there is a Hebrew.

And on the right is the English standard version. So I just read from you to you from the English standard version. Now you see what's highlighted. Those are the so the highlighted ones there are your Greek and your Hebrew and then the English.

All right. And I'm doing this because I want you to see I just I want you to be able to to see what is happening with this as we look at it, OK? Because as we examine this, this is the thing that he's saying, this word in the Hebrew.

I'll bring this up. This is a word study of their of that. And you can see right here, it means a young woman. That is the literal translation of Alma. Now, you could see it's a girl, youthful spouse, recently married.

So someone who's who's recently married, if she's married, she's recently married or a virgin. And so the reason this term can mean a virgin is because it was an unmarried woman. So it was typically if it was speaking of a married woman, she just got married.

So it's one that hasn't consummated. But that and the reason I bring this up is you can see all the different Greek lexicons that will translate it that way. OK, by the way, I'll just show you this is it is used in the Hebrew.

Nine times, at least in the in the ESV, six of those nine are translated as virgin. OK, one, it's it's it's girl, and then one two times it's transliterated. So now some will say, well, yes, you translated it virgin because of the fact that you're trying to prove Jesus.

That's would be, you know, his argument. OK, let's work with that. He's saying that we mistranslated. Now, a mistranslation, by the way, doesn't prove the Bible's not written by God. OK, he's saying it's a mistranslation and that's what proves it's it's not from God.

So. A mistranslation is a translation. We do not argue from translations. Right. We're going to argue from the Hebrew. So. Ben Zion, the question for you to think about is, does the word Alma only mean a young woman?

Could it mean a virgin? Just so you think about, because if it can mean a virgin, if that is within the the the range of meanings of the word, then it wouldn't be a mistranslation. So let's let's continue, why do we he mentions about using the Spituagin, he says, your defense was that you're relying on the Spituagin, which is really a translation by the rabbis.

I'll agree with that. But then he says, you know full well, the first five books were translated by Jews. So why would you say that? Because the Spituagin is actually completely translated. By Jewish people.

So let me explain what the Spituagin is. Spituagin before the time of Jesus, and that becomes very important before the time of Christ, they took the. Hebrew scriptures translated into the regular common language of the day, common Greek, and they translated it really for the Hellenistic Jews.

The Hellenistic Jewish people who did not know Hebrew, but they spoke Greek. So it was a translation, just like we have an English translation today. Many people don't speak Greek and Hebrew. And therefore, we need to translate it into English for people to understand.

And even with that, as English language changes, we update it and come up with better translations. What we find more manuscripts, whether the English language changes, things like this. So I say that to say before the time of Jesus, we had rabbis translating the Hebrew text into Greek.

And that's what the Spituagin is. So if we go back to what we're looking at here, we go back to this and we see this Hebrew word Alma. It ends up being translated into Greek. So let's look that Greek word up and we have that right here.

Now, this is very different because. Pathos is me, it means a virgin or maiden. This one's more specific. So this is not meaning a young woman, but specifically a virgin. And you're seeing as you see the usage, it's a virgin, a chaste person, an unmarried person.

Why? Because it assumes that once they're married, they consummate it. So this has a more specific meaning. And as we look at that, the way at least is translated in ESV, 14 out of the 15 times it's used, it's referring to a virgin where the one time it refers to someone who's chaste.

OK, so now what do we see? Well, what we end up seeing here is that when the rabbis. This these are not Christians, when the rabbis before the time of Jesus were doing the translation, they felt that the most the best word to use was not the Greek word for a young maiden.

Or a young woman, but for a virgin, there's two different words in Greek where there's not two different words in Hebrew, so they were more specific. And this is the thing. These were Jewish rabbis before the time of Christ.

So. Now I'm going to get he makes an argument here that I want to get to in a bit, but where he basically says that we're trying to fit Jesus in. So let's hold that because I'm going to I'm going to flip that on him on Ben Zion.

So the argument that I'm making now, and I want to be clear with this, is not that I think that the Spituagin is inspired. I never made that claim. I don't think it is the argument for the Spituagin. The usage of the Spituagin is the fact that it provides for us the rabbinical thought of the time before Jesus of what that word meant in Greek.

So you take a language that has few words to a language has much many more words and that's more specific. So when they were translating it, they the Jewish rabbis. So Spituagin was was Spituagin is based off the number 70.

The thought is there were 72 rabbis that did this translation. And those rabbis thought the best Greek word was the word we have for virgin and not young woman. So the issue is not based on the version.

What the version does is tell us the thinking. Of the rabbis before the time of Jesus, why? Well, many folks that are Jewish that study the Talmud. Now, let me for our audience that may not know the Talmud.

Maybe you haven't gotten my book. What do they believe you should get that book? And you can you can understand, as it explains, what Jewish people believe, along with several other religions. But in Jewish thinking today, in rabbinic Judaism, you have four authorities.