Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Alma, Parthenos, Virgin

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jim west <jwest AT highland.net>
  • To: John Ronning <ronning AT nis.za>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Alma, Parthenos, Virgin
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:20:09 -0400


At 08:34 PM 10/28/99 +0200, you wrote:

>> if the hebrew text had
>> wished to say virgin it would have used bethulah.
>
>One might think so from some of the uses of bethulah, but then there is
Joel 1:8 which
>speaks of a bethulah weeping for the husband of her youth.

Uh huh, which she never had (no pun intended)- making her a virgin still...

> Then there is Gen 24:16,
>where Rebekah is called a bethulah, with the statement added that "no man
had known
>her" - perhaps not superfluous information.

Of course not- whats your point? I said that the Hebrew Bible can use
virgin when it wants to- and your two cases support rather than refute what
I have said about Is 7.


>Reading the context is a good idea - like v. 11 for example "Ask a sign for
yourself
>from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven." For
analogy of a
>sign "high as heaven" we could note Isaiah 38:7-8 - the shadow going
backwards on the
>steps of Ahaz - something totally contrary to nature (like a virginal
conception).

Well you can see a miracle here if you want to- I see a declaration that the
enemies of Judah will soon be eliminated (which might in itself be a miracle
of sorts) but there is certainly no hint here of a virgin birth- nor is
there any reference whatsoever to the birth of Jesus.

>
>So if you say the great miracle (something like the sun going backwards) is
not the
>conception, what is it?

Are you suggesting that the almah is going to virginally conceive (the
proper term anyway- and not "virgin birth" which is utterly meaningless)?
If so that means the the boy child she bore before the destruction of
Judah's enemies was the Messiah! Born of a virgin! Jesus, then wasnt the
first!!!!!!

(your line of reasoning makes itself fairly impossible).

>
>
>> there is NOTHING prophetic of
>> Christ there!
>>
>
>Then presumably you can tell us from the book of Isaiah who Immanuel is (or
can you
>only tell us who he isn't?).

Sure, some kid born to some woman who lived a long time before Jesus was
conceived. Anyway, to continue your line here- if the prophecy was to Mary-
why didnt she name Jesus Immanuel? The two names arent the same. She
messed up in naming him Jesus, or the prophecy was wrong in declaring the
name. Either way, using the name alone, you turn out with an unfulfilled
prophecy dont you. To be charitable one would call it unfulfilled- to be
mean one would say it was wrong and a lie... But im not the mean sort. ;-)


best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
jwest AT highland.net
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page