Does Isaiah 7:14 Prophesize the Virgi...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5210 Aug 2, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Is that your p*** poor pathetic excuse for ignoring the five posts I posted 4 days ago? That lie might fly if I had ignored your posts for 4 days.
Hooah sir (smile)!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5211 Aug 3, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Correcting quote function.
This is all somewhat interesting but if you don’t mind could you show me the relevance to Isa 7:14, which, in case you have not noticed, is not a simple sentence with only a noun and an adjective.
Allen Richards wrote:
Evidence? Documentation? Substantiation? I see nothing “unfortunate” for me, only more logical fallacies. Appeal to authority “30 top scholars!”
<quoted text>
Allen Richards wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion but I have been convinced in the past.
Really sir (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
Do you have a point? I said "scribblings on a public restroom wall!"
Sir, as it relates to Wiki, you explicitly said,“Every article has "Edit this article" links throughout. Anybody can post or change anything, at any time, with no review or controls,” right?

And if so, sir, then please tell us which part of the scribblings on a public restroom wall that you consider to be reliable. And by the way, sir, I wonder which part of the KJV that does not contain more than 15,000 errors that you consider reliable as well (smile).
Allen Richards wrote:
I guess you have forgotten that I have proven that Gesenius did NOT say as you have claimed, multiple times,“the article is prefixed to things well known!” The Hebrew use of the article does NOT automatically make the person or thing “known!”
Sir, I thought that it was peculiar to Hebrew for them to always omit the definite article when the person or thing was to be represented as “unknown.” Yet, you have repeatedly argue that Hebrew prefixed the definite article to the “unknown,” simply because the definite article is prefixed to “almah,” right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
Here, once again, since you seem to have trouble comprehending. Gesenius did NOT say that in all cases “the article is prefixed to things well known!” Here is what Gesenius actually said,
“The Hebrew usage in this respect may be reduced to certain classes; which however for the most part all flow from the one principle, that the article is prefixed to things well known.…Hence, in a manner differing from English usage, the article is put :
a) Before nouns which denote objects and classes or species, of things which are known to all…
b) Before abstract nouns,…. before the names of virtues and vices;…
c) The most frequent use of the article in this manner is after kaph , the particle of comparison…
d) Better known is the use of the article --- as prefixed to collectives…”
(e) the article is used in such cases when a suffix would define the noun more accurately …; as when a woman calls her husband [Gk.], the husband; a slave his master,[Ger] the master….
Note, only is certain classes or categories NOT as you claim in every instance “the article is prefixed to things well known!”
Sir, since your argument appears to be based on the phrase “in all cases” being omitted from the usage of the Hebrew definite article, perhaps, you might refute the following excerpt from Gesenius’ work:

“... there is no noun, which has the article, which both cannot and even ought not to be taken definitely”(GHL, p. 212).

Well, sir, I think that the phrase “no noun” refutes your “in all cases” argument, right (smile)?....

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5212 Aug 3, 2012
....
Allen Richards wrote:
And none of these “classes” apply to “almah” in Isa 7:14!
Well, actually sir, Isa 7:14 is mentioned under paragraph (e), right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
If you keep insisting that the use of the Hebrew definite article somehow makes anything and everything “known” I will keep showing how you are deliberately twisting and misrepresenting what Gesenius said.
Sir, you can simply refute my argument by citing an example of where the definite article is prefixed to a Hebrew word that does not mean definite “in Hebrew,” rather than what it means when it is translated into another language. In other words, sir, the definiteness in Hebrew is not dictated by what the definite article means in another language, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
Begging the question, I have yet to see scholarship which refutes JPS and LXX,“the almah will conceive!” Citing versions is not scholarship.
Sir, there is nothing to beg, especially since the NRVS was produced by 30 of the top America scholars, and contains “scholarship” evidence that was not available when both the JPS and LXX were written, right? But please do not take my word for it, sir, but rather read the following excerpt for yourself:

“The NRSV first appeared in 1989 and has received the widest acclaim and broadest support from academics and church leaders of any modern English translation. It is the only Bible translation that is as widely ecumenical:

The ecumenical NRSV Bible Translation Committee consists of thirty men and women who are among the top scholars in America today. They come from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, and the Greek Orthodox Church. The committee also includes a Jewish scholar.”

In addition, sir, the NRSV of the bible is also based in part on newly available resources that superseded Gesenius’ work, right? But once again, sir, please do not take my word for it, but rather read the following excerpt for yourself:

“The NRSV stands out among the many translations because it is "as literal as possible" in adhering to the ancient texts and only "as free as necessary" to make the meaning clear in graceful, understandable English. It draws on newly available sources that increase our understanding of many previously obscure biblical passages. These sources include new-found manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, other texts, inscriptions, and archaeological finds from the ancient Near East, and new understandings of Greek and Hebrew grammar.”
http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutnrs.html

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5213 Aug 3, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
.... Well, actually sir, Isa 7:14 is mentioned under paragraph (e), right (smile)?
e) Sometimes the article is put before a noun which more accurately would be made definite by a suffix ; comp. De Sacy Gramm. Arabe II.§ 482. 1 ; as when a German woman calls her husband [Gk.], the husband; or a servant his master, the master. So Is. 9: 6 [Hb.], which the Engl. Vers, expresses ; v. 2 [Hb.] for [Hb.] So too is prob. to be explained [Hb.]“almah” Is. 7:14, which, with the Hebrew intpp. And Grotius, I understand as for [Hb.]“almati”

“Almati means “my almah” NOT “the almah.” I have pointed this out to you more than once before but you were incapable of understanding what was being said.

And note “probably,”“so too >>probably<< to be explained almah.” Looks like Gesenius wasn’t too sure about his opinion.

And the earlier Gesenius is not supported by the 1906 BDB based on Gesenius.
Sir, you can simply refute my argument by citing an example of where the definite article is prefixed to a Hebrew word that does not mean definite “in Hebrew,” rather than what it means when it is translated into another language. In other words, sir, the definiteness in Hebrew is not dictated by what the definite article means in another language, right (smile)?
Thank you for your irrelevant, unsupported opinion concerning the definite article in Hebrew. I don’t have to cite anything I have already refuted your arguments from modern up-to-date sources e.g. BDB, Joüon-Muraoka. Oh but that is right you quote Joüon-Muraoka when it suits your purpose the fall back on Gesenius when that suits your purpose.
Sir, there is nothing to beg, especially since the NRVS was produced by 30 of the top America scholars, and contains “scholarship” evidence that was not available when both the JPS and LXX were written, right? But please do not take my word for it, sir, but rather read the following excerpt for yourself:
Logical fallacy, appeal to authority,“30 of the top America scholars.” And which is contradicted by other top American scholars!
“The NRSV first appeared in 1989 and has received the widest acclaim and broadest support from academics and church leaders of any modern English translation. It is the only Bible translation that is as widely ecumenical:
The ecumenical NRSV Bible Translation Committee consists of thirty men and women who are among the top scholars in America today. They come from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, and the Greek Orthodox Church. The committee also includes a Jewish scholar.”
I had to laugh at this only one “Jewish Scholar!”

[QUOTE}In addition, sir, the NRSV of the bible is also based in part on newly available resources that superseded Gesenius’ work, right? But once again, sir, please do not take my word for it, but rather read the following excerpt for yourself:
“The NRSV stands out among the many translations because it is "as literal as possible" in adhering to the ancient texts and only "as free as necessary" to make the meaning clear in graceful, understandable English. It draws on newly available sources that increase our understanding of many previously obscure biblical passages. These sources include new-found manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, other texts, inscriptions, and archaeological finds from the ancient Near East, and new understandings of Greek and Hebrew grammar.”
http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutnrs.html [/QUOTE]

Logical fallacy,“appeal to authority!” Reviews and commendations are NOT scholarship. When you want to argue a specific point show the modern scholarship and “new-found manuscripts”, etc, which support the point.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5214 Aug 3, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir, since the young woman was pregnant (according to the NRSV), the birth of her son was “imminent,” as opposed to 700+ years later, right (smile)?
Begging the question without scholastic evidence!

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5215 Aug 3, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir, please click on the [*] at the following link as it applies to “young woman,” if you would be so kind (smile).
http://bible.oremus.org/
That link is to the home page. No reference to "young woman" and no [*].

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5216 Aug 3, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
…Sir, as it relates to Wiki, you explicitly said,“Every article has "Edit this article" links throughout. Anybody can post or change anything, at any time, with no review or controls,” right?
Once again what is your point?
And if so, sir, then please tell us which part of the scribblings on a public restroom wall that you consider to be reliable. And by the way, sir, I wonder which part of the KJV that does not contain more than 15,000 errors that you consider reliable as well (smile).
Try again, I have NEVER said the KJV has more than 15,000 errors. These two responses are nothing but babbling.
Sir, I thought that it was peculiar to Hebrew for them to always omit the definite article when the person or thing was to be represented as “unknown.” Yet, you have repeatedly argue that Hebrew prefixed the definite article to the “unknown,” simply because the definite article is prefixed to “almah,” right (smile)?
More of your lies! I base my opinion on scholarship, which I have discussed in depth, not assumptions/presuppositions. Please explain the meaning of “represented” in your reply? And reread Gesenius-Kautszch §126 (4) and GHL “Ha”(2) the definite article,. Which are very similar.

The question has been raised (as it has been denied by some, and defended by others) whether
the definite article can ever be used for the indefinite.[in Hebrew] To this it must be replied, that the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the indefinite [in Hebrew]; however, there are many ideas which would be thought of and expressed as definite by the Hebrews, which, from their being taken indefinitely in Greek, German/French [or English], would be without the article just so in the modern languages, great differences are found as to the use of the article in this respect; in French for instance by a peculiar idiom, the article is frequently prefixed in places in which it could not be used in German. Thus in French it is correct to say "nous aurons aujous d'hui htn la pluie, soyez le bien venu, il a la me'moire bonne, l’esprit inquiet" in all of which expressions, the definite article could not in German [or English] be even tolerated.

“Many ideas” of which nouns have the definite article in Hebrew are not even tolerated in English.
Sir, since your argument appears to be based on the phrase “in all cases” being omitted from the usage of the Hebrew definite article, perhaps, you might refute the following excerpt from Gesenius’ work:
“... there is no noun, which has the article, which both cannot and even ought not to be taken definitely”(GHL, p. 212).
Well, sir, I think that the phrase “no noun” refutes your “in all cases” argument, right (smile)?....
Wrong once again. Let us not forget you brought the modern up-to-date Joüon-Muratoka grammar into the discussion. You cite modern scholarship when it suits your purpose and fall back on 100+ year old scholarship when that suits your purpose. You quoted from GHL, p. 212. Let us read the paragraph which follows that quote.

“As to the instances which I formerly brought forward in contradiction to this (Lehrg. p. 655),[Gesenius’ Grammar published 30 years earlier] they may be explained as follows:[Hb.] 1 Sam. 17:34, the lion, as the known and continual enemy of the flock; compare [Gk.]“o lukos”, John 10:12; Arabic [Hb.]; Ex. 2: 15, the well of that district:[Hb.] Num. 11:27, the young man who attended him in the camp ; and in like manner [Hb.] Gen. 14: 13, the fugitive, namely, the one who had escaped. So 1 Sam. 17:8, " behold I am [Hb.]," namely, he who has come forth to challenge you to single combat.”

What Gesenius wrote in his grammar 30 years previously contradicts his position in GHL but there is no additional scholarship which supports that change.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5217 Aug 3, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
.... Sir,“Are you sure that the following passage that you cited is not about Isaiah, rather than Jesus,” if you do not mind my asking?
“The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to provide for those who mourn in Zion — to give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit. They will be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, to display his glory”(Isaiah 61:1-3).
Jesus applied this passage to himself. Disprove that amigo!
Sir, please share with us how the following passage that you quoted had anything to do with Jesus, if you would be so kind:
“Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed”(smile).
“Anointed” in Hebrew is “Meschiach,” which is transliterated in English as “Messiah.” This passage is applied to Jesus in the NT.
Sir, please know that Micah 5:2 does not say that anyone would be born “in Bethlehem,” but rather that “Bethlehem” was a person’s name. However, rather than disagree with my assertion, please read this verse for yourself as follows:
“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days”(smile).
Micah 5:2 does not say any such thing! No reference in the OT or BDB lexicon for a person name “Bethlehem.”

John Gill’s commentary; yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; not Hezekiah, who very probably was now born at the time of this prophecy; nor was he born at Bethlehem, nor a ruler in Israel, only king of Judah: nor Zerubbabel, who was born in Babylon, as … was governor of Judah, but not of Israel; nor can it be said of him, or any mere man, what is said in the next clause: but the Messiah is intended, as the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi confess, and other Jewish writers. The Targum is,

"out of thee shall come forth before me the Messiah, that he may exercise dominion over Israel.''

Jarchi's note is,

"out of thee shall come forth unto me Messiah, the son of David;''

and so he says, "the stone which the builders refused", &c. Psa_118:22; plainly suggesting that that passage also belongs to the Messiah, as it certainly does. Kimchi's paraphrase is,

"although thou art little among the thousands of Judah, of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge, to be ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah.''

The promise in Micah iv. 3 is applied to the times of the Messiah in the Talmud (Shabb. 63 a).
So is the prediction in verse 5 in Shemoth R. 15; while verse 8 is thus commented upon in the Targum:‘And thou Messiah of Israel, Who shalt be hidden on account of the sins of Zion, to thee shall the Kingdom come.’
The well-know passage, Micah v. 2, is admittedly Messianic. So in the Targum, in the Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 3, and by later Rabbis.
Verse 3 is applied in the Talmud to the fact that the Messiah was not to come till the hostile kingdom had spread for nine months over the whole world (Yoma 10 a), or else, over the whole land of Israel (Sanh. 98 b).

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes....

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5218 Aug 3, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir, since the young woman was pregnant (according to the NRSV), the birth of her son was “imminent,” as opposed to 700+ years later, right (smile)?
Logical fallacy, "Appeal to Authority." Just because your pet version says it does not make it true. Let me see some scholarship? Show me something which will prove that the JPS, by Jewish scholars, is incorrect?

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5219 Aug 3, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
Sir, please know that God (spiritually) being with Judah was nothing knew,[sic] especially since He had been with others in times of challenge.
As such, sir, please tell us if the following verses reveal that God’s presence with Moses, Jesus, and Paul (just to name a few)
was “spiritual,” rather than physical (human form):
(1)“And that very night the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am the God of your father Abraham; do not be afraid, for *I am with you* and will bless you and make your offspring numerous for my servant Abraham's sake”(Gen 26:24).

(2)“No one shall be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so *I will be with you*; I will not fail you or forsake you”(Jos 1:5).

(3)“The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The *LORD is with you,* you mighty warrior." Gideon answered him, "But sir, if the *LORD is with us,* why then has all this happened to us”(Judges 6:12-13).

(4)“And David became greater and greater, for the LORD, the *God of hosts, was with him*(2 Sam 5:10).

(5)“He gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who were residing as aliens with them, for great numbers had deserted to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his *God was with him*”(2 Chron 15:9).

(6)“how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for *God was with him*”(Acts 10:38).

(7)“But the *Lord stood by me* and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion's mouth”(2 Tim 4:17).

Sir, please review my previous comment, if you would be so kind (smile).
None of these verses use the Hebrew word “Immanuel!”
Sir, please know that God did not physically appear in human form, especially since He is a Spirit, right (smile)?....
“Physical” and “human” are not synonymous!

Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exo 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Num 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.

Deu 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
Num 14:14, Deu 24:10, Eze 20:35
“Five: Putting it all together—Simple Hebrew Sentences

Unlike English, Hebrew does not have a copula (the “to be” verb in present tense). Thus, simple sentences can be constructed with the “to be” verb understood. There are several ways that such a simple sentence can be formed. Among the more common examples are the following:
1. Juxtaposition of a noun and an adjective:[Hb.]; “the men are good.” Adjectives will be introduced in the next lesson, so for the time being this is presented as information but will not be discussed further”(page 7).
Not addressed before. This is all somewhat interesting but if you don’t mind could you show me the relevance to Isa 7:14, which, in case you have not noticed, is not a simple sentence with only a noun and an adjective.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5220 Aug 3, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
.... Sir, I thought that it was peculiar to Hebrew for them to always omit the definite article when the person or thing was to be represented as “unknown.” Yet, you have repeatedly argue [sic] that Hebrew prefixed the definite article to the “unknown,” simply because the definite article is prefixed to “almah,” right (smile)?....
I missed something in this post on my first read. This is another one of your lies! I do not know of any source which says, "it was peculiar to Hebrew for them to always omit the definite article when the person or thing was to be represented as 'unknown.'”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5221 Aug 3, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
e) Sometimes the article is put before a noun which more accurately would be made definite by a suffix ; comp. De Sacy Gramm. Arabe II.§ 482. 1 ; as when a German woman calls her husband [Gk.], the husband; or a servant his master, the master. So Is. 9: 6 [Hb.], which the Engl. Vers, expresses ; v. 2 [Hb.] for [Hb.] So too is prob. to be explained [Hb.]“almah” Is. 7:14, which, with the Hebrew intpp. And Grotius, I understand as for [Hb.]“almati”
“Almati means “my almah” NOT “the almah.” I have pointed this out to you more than once before but you were incapable of understanding what was being said.
Sir, please know that what I do understand is that “ha-almah” is what is written in the Hebrew text, right? And if so, sir, perhaps, you can explain how “ha” is translated as “my,” if you would be so kind (smile).
Allen Richards wrote:
And note “probably,”“so too >>probably<< to be explained almah.” Looks like Gesenius wasn’t too sure about his opinion.
Sir, please know that it is pretty challenging to be absolute about an opinion that is not based on empirical evidence, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
And the earlier Gesenius is not supported by the 1906 BDB based on Gesenius.
Sir, please know that you have repeatedly avoided how the BDB defines “almah,” right? At any rate, sir, here is how the BDB defines “almah” as follows:

“n.f. young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married).... Is 7:14”(BDB, p. 761).
Allen Richards wrote:
Thank you for your irrelevant, unsupported opinion concerning the definite article in Hebrew.
Well, actually my opinion is supported by the BDB, i.e.,“it is a peculiarity of Hebrew thought to conceive an object as defined by its being taken for a particular purpose, and thus by a kind of prolepsis to prefix the art[icle] to the noun denoting it,” right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
I don’t have to cite anything I have already refuted your arguments from modern up-to-date sources e.g. BDB, Joüon-Muraoka.
Sir, I totally agree that you “don’t have to cite anything.” However, sir, you have yet to refute anything that I cited either, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
Oh but that is right you quote Joüon-Muraoka when it suits your purpose the fall back on Gesenius when that suits your purpose.
But sir, here is what Joüon-Muraoka explicitly stated at 137m:

“A thing which is not determinate in the consciousness of the writer or of him who is addressed is sometimes speci&#64257;cally determinate in itself; therefore the noun takes, or can take the article. This use of the article, characteristic of Hebrew, is rather frequent. It can only be translated in English by a, sometimes by a certain”(smile).

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5222 Aug 3, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Logical fallacy, appeal to authority,“30 of the top America scholars.” And which is contradicted by other top American scholars!
Sir, it appears that you are confusing what an “appeal to authority” versus an “appeal to the majority” is, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
I had to laugh at this only one “Jewish Scholar!”
Well, sir,“Did you also laugh at all the Christian scholars who opined that “the young woman is pregnant,” rather than “a virgin shall conceive,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
Logical fallacy,“appeal to authority!”
Sir, an appeal to authority is only a valid argument when the person who is either making the claim or cited as an authority lacks the required credentials or expertise, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
Reviews and commendations are NOT scholarship. When you want to argue a specific point show the modern scholarship and “new-found manuscripts”, etc, which support the point.
“Modern biblical scholarship has served to cast a more discriminating eye on the role and sayings of the prophets. The Greek term for prophet, the equivalent of the Hebrew navi, means one who speaks on behalf of another (Smith, 1925, p. 685-88). The young woman or women in question might well be married, be with child or have children. Here the purpose of Isaiah is prophetic to the core: the preservation and strengthening of the Jewish faith in times of great trouble and dissolution. One who reads solely from the English text, without having reference to the critical studies of the works of the bible, is missing a great deal of the rich meaning and subtlety of the text. "Virgin", in George Buttrick, ed, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. The authors state that the prophecy is of immediate relevance to the political situation of the time of Isaiah; the child described is not the Messiah, for Jewish theology had not advanced to the stage of expecting a single future king; the term almah places no stress whatever on the young maiden's virginity; it is likely that the woman in question was known to both Ahaz and to Isaiah; it is not possible to state with certainty whether the woman was with child or would be with child; finally the passage does not refer to a virginal conception in the distant future--there is no indication that Matthew derived his use of the text and the concept of the virginal birth of Christ from Isaiah 7:14 (Matthew uses this and other texts in his gospel to stress the continuity between the Old and New Testaments).“
http://www.research-assistance.com/paper/1512...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5223 Aug 3, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Begging the question without scholastic evidence!
Sir, please know that the NRSV was the work of scholars, right (smile)?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5224 Aug 3, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
That link is to the home page. No reference to "young woman" and no [*].
Sir, please follow these instructions:

(1) Click of this link: http://bible.oremus.org/ .
(2) In the “Enter a bible reference” box at the top, type “Isaiah 7:14”.
(3) Deselect the “omit footnote” box.
(4) Then click the “show passage” tab located under the top box.
(5) Place your mouse pointer over the asterisk (*) that follows “young woman” to find the Greek translation of the Hebrew word “almah” as a footnote (smile).

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5225 Aug 4, 2012
e) Sometimes the article is put before a noun which more accurately would be made definite by a suffix ; comp. De Sacy Gramm. Arabe II.§ 482. 1 ; as when a German woman calls her husband [Gk.], the husband; or a servant his master, the master. So Is. 9: 6 [Hb.], which the Engl. Vers, expresses ; v. 2 [Hb.] for [Hb.] So too is prob. to be explained [Hb.]“almah” Is. 7:14, which, with the Hebrew intpp. And Grotius, I understand as for [Hb.]“almati”

“Almati means “my almah” NOT “the almah.” I have pointed this out to you more than once before but you were incapable of understanding what was being said.
gundee123 wrote:
Sir, please know that what I do understand is that “ha-almah” is what is written in the Hebrew text, right? And if so, sir, perhaps, you can explain how “ha” is translated as “my,” if you would be so kind (smile).
I don't have to explain why Gesenius in his lexicon translates "haalmah" as "almati" which means "my almah!" I did not quote that lexicon, you did. If you don't like what a source says don't quote it. Although you can't read Hebrew you can discern that Gesenius uses a different Hebrew word in his "probably explain" interpretation. Here are the Hebrew letters in "haalmah" "heh, ayin, lamed, mem, heh. The word that Gesensius used is "ayin, lamed, mem, teth, yod. If one is going to discuss Hebrew one should at least learn the Hebrew "alephbet." Also reread subsection (e).

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#5226 Aug 4, 2012
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir, please follow these instructions:
(1) Click of this link: http://bible.oremus.org/ .
(2) In the “Enter a bible reference” box at the top, type “Isaiah 7:14”.
(3) Deselect the “omit footnote” box.
(4) Then click the “show passage” tab located under the top box.
(5) Place your mouse pointer over the asterisk (*) that follows “young woman” to find the Greek translation of the Hebrew word “almah” as a footnote (smile).
Can you explain why your source, the NRSV, has the footnote, "Gk. virgin" for "haalmah?"

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5227 Aug 4, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Once again what is your point?
Sir, my point is that you cited a source that is claimed was about as reliable as the scribblings on a public restroom wall, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
Try again, I have NEVER said the KJV has more than 15,000 errors. These two responses are nothing but babbling.
Yes sir, I agree that you never claimed that the KJV had more than 15,000 errors, but rather you claimed that Strong contained such, right? However, sir, you also had cited Strong as an authoritative source, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
More of your lies!
Sir,“Do you recall repeatedly quoting §126 (4) to substantiate your argument that “ha” can be prefixed to the yet unknown,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
I base my opinion on scholarship, which I have discussed in depth, not assumptions/presuppositions. Please explain the meaning of “represented” in your reply?
Sir,“represented” simply means to denote or to signify (smile).
Allen Richards wrote:
And reread Gesenius-Kautszch §126 (4) and GHL “Ha”(2) the definite article,. Which are very similar.
The question has been raised (as it has been denied by some, and defended by others) whether
the definite article can ever be used for the indefinite.[in Hebrew] To this it must be replied, that the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the indefinite [in Hebrew]; however, there are many ideas which would be thought of and expressed as definite by the Hebrews, which, from their being taken indefinitely in Greek, German/French [or English], would be without the article just so in the modern languages, great differences are found as to the use of the article in this respect; in French for instance by a peculiar idiom, the article is frequently prefixed in places in which it could not be used in German. Thus in French it is correct to say "nous aurons aujous d'hui htn la pluie, soyez le bien venu, il a la me'moire bonne, l’esprit inquiet" in all of which expressions, the definite article could not in German [or English] be even tolerated.
“Many ideas” of which nouns have the definite article in Hebrew are not even tolerated in English.
Once again, sir, please see that this excerpts says,“there are many ideas which would be thought of and expressed as definite by the Hebrews,” right? And if so, sir, please know that the English language does not dictate how an idea would be “thought of and expressed” in Hebrew, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
Wrong once again. Let us not forget you brought the modern up-to-date Joüon-Muratoka grammar into the discussion. You cite modern scholarship when it suits your purpose and fall back on 100+ year old scholarship when that suits your purpose. You quoted from GHL, p. 212. Let us read the paragraph which follows that quote.
“As to the instances which I formerly brought forward in contradiction to this (Lehrg. p. 655),[Gesenius’ Grammar published 30 years earlier] they may be explained as follows:[Hb.] 1 Sam. 17:34, the lion, as the known and continual enemy of the flock; compare [Gk.]“o lukos”, John 10:12; Arabic [Hb.]; Ex. 2: 15, the well of that district:[Hb.] Num. 11:27, the young man who attended him in the camp ; and in like manner [Hb.] Gen. 14: 13, the fugitive, namely, the one who had escaped. So 1 Sam. 17:8, " behold I am [Hb.]," namely, he who has come forth to challenge you to single combat.”
What Gesenius wrote in his grammar 30 years previously contradicts his position in GHL but there is no additional scholarship which supports that change.
Wow sir! I thought that you had already claimed that Gesenius had offered his “unsupported opinion.” And thus, sir, you asked,“Who died and made him God and made his opinion the law of the land,” right (smile)?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5228 Aug 4, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Jesus applied this passage to himself. Disprove that amigo!
Sir, please substantiate where specifically in the scripture that Jesus applied this passage to Himself, if you would be so kind (smile).
Allen Richards wrote:
“Anointed” in Hebrew is “Meschiach,” which is transliterated in English as “Messiah.” This passage is applied to Jesus in the NT.
Sir, please cite where specifically that the Hebrew word “Meschiah” applied to Jesus in the OT, if you would be so kind (smile).
Allen Richards wrote:
Micah 5:2 does not say any such thing! No reference in the OT or BDB lexicon for a person name “Bethlehem.”
Sir, if I may very respectfully ask,“Do you agree that Micah 5:2 explicitly says,“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days,” without specifically identifying “Bethlehem” as a place or name”?

And if so, sir, then if Bethlehem in this passage is a place, then we can reason that it was a place within the territories of Judah, right (smile)?
Allen Richards wrote:
John Gill’s commentary; yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; not Hezekiah, who very probably was now born at the time of this prophecy; nor was he born at Bethlehem, nor a ruler in Israel, only king of Judah: nor Zerubbabel, who was born in Babylon, as … was governor of Judah, but not of Israel; nor can it be said of him, or any mere man, what is said in the next clause: but the Messiah is intended, as the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi confess, and other Jewish writers. The Targum is,
"out of thee shall come forth before me the Messiah, that he may exercise dominion over Israel.''
Jarchi's note is,
"out of thee shall come forth unto me Messiah, the son of David;''
and so he says, "the stone which the builders refused", &c. Psa_118:22; plainly suggesting that that passage also belongs to the Messiah, as it certainly does. Kimchi's paraphrase is,
"although thou art little among the thousands of Judah, of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge, to be ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah.''
The promise in Micah iv. 3 is applied to the times of the Messiah in the Talmud (Shabb. 63 a).
So is the prediction in verse 5 in Shemoth R. 15; while verse 8 is thus commented upon in the Targum:‘And thou Messiah of Israel, Who shalt be hidden on account of the sins of Zion, to thee shall the Kingdom come.’
The well-know passage, Micah v. 2, is admittedly Messianic. So in the Targum, in the Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 3, and by later Rabbis.
Verse 3 is applied in the Talmud to the fact that the Messiah was not to come till the hostile kingdom had spread for nine months over the whole world (Yoma 10 a), or else, over the whole land of Israel (Sanh. 98 b).
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes....
Sir, as interesting as these commentaries are, I want to know if you agree that the word “Bethlehem” at Micah 5:2 must either refer to the name of a person or a place. And, sir, if it is your contention that it refers to a place,“Do you agree that this place was a territory in Judah,” if you do not mind my asking (smile)?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5229 Aug 4, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
Logical fallacy, "Appeal to Authority." Just because your pet version says it does not make it true. Let me see some scholarship? Show me something which will prove that the JPS, by Jewish scholars, is incorrect?
Once again, sir, I have offered scholarly finding of 30 top America scholars as to how Isaiah 7:14 should be translated that is consistent with Hebrew grammar, right (smile)?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min President DonJ Trump 675,595
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 12 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 110,283
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 21 min Devil number 666 982,213
Lido Theater, Dallas (Mar '12) 27 min Roxanne 474
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 33 min Palanty 46,195
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr Classic 4,087
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 hr Retribution 15
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 184,752
More from around the web