virgin: _BETHULAH_ and/or _(ALMAH_
dwashbur at nyx.net
Wed Jan 31 08:57:56 EST 2001
> At 06:46 AM 1/29/01 -0700, Dave Washburn wrote:
> > > The way I see it, the whole problem with this discussion is whether you
> > wish
> > > to view Isaiah 7:14in its context or use it as a Christological prophecy.
> > > If the verse is to be viewed as a Christological prophecy, then I have
> > > nothing to add to this discussion, so please leave me out.
> > > If the verse is to be viewed in context, which is the only basis for
> > > philological - and not Christological - discussion, [snip]
> >I just don't see how this kind of compartmentalization can be done
> >legitimately. Matthew's use indicates a certain history of
> >philological interpretation of the word, and it's doubtful that he made
> I think that if you assume that Matthew is god ordained, then I see the
> problem. But if you ignore that, and just look at the verse in Isaiah,
> there is no problem in analysing. Matthew is propaganda for a new religious
> movement, it is not an objective scholarly work. Your views may be
> consistant with your religious beliefs, but the point made was valid.
I'm sorry, Moshe, but you're the one who dragged my possible
religious beliefs into it, not I. I'm talking strictly about the history of
interpretation and understanding both of the text and of the
meanings of the words therein. Please note what I actually said:
"Matthew's use indicates a certain history of philological
interpretation of the word." Please refrain from reading anything
into this statement that isn't there.
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated." C. S. Lewis
More information about the b-hebrew