The Linkage Between Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6
Eduardo M. Acuna
eacuna at mail.giga.com
Thu Mar 8 15:17:06 EST 2001
> On 08-03-2001 02:33 Eduardo M. Acuna <eacuna at mail.giga.com> wrote:
> > The site: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm shows what you say.
> > However, Qumran in my opinion is an heretic jewish sect engaged in magic.
> > The scrolls show many re-writing attempts, almost like forgotten drafts in
> > the trash basket.
> In reaction to your answer, the following:
> I think you do not know where you're talking about, when you say this with
> regard to the 1QIsa^a-scroll.
I was very clear:"The scrolls show many re-writing attempts, almost like
forgotten drafts in the trash basket".
> It is an important and very good preserved bible-manuscripts.
There are other good examples of very well preserved mss. and amulets
> So, even if you are right with regard to Qumran (which I really doubt), you
> skip the problem with regard to this reading much to easy.
> <Hebr> (MNW )L <endHebr> is written as two words indeed in e.g. BHS or
> Snaith. However, the Codex Leningradensis itself does not show a clear space
> between the two elements.
And not only there but the whole text of CL. So, applying this fact only
to Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8 is misleading.
Also, we have the fact that BHS is based on CL, so it is your opinion that
all the specialists that worked on BHK and BHS are wrong and that they
> In Isaiah 7:14 it only could be; in Isaiah 8:8
> there is certainly no space between the two elements and we read <Hebr>
> (MNW)L <endHebr>. You have thus the testimony of CL and 1QIsa^a against your
See above. Only 1QIsa^a stands against my statement. However, dont you
think that in 8:8 it is grammatically wrong to write it as a name?
> So, you're assumption was simply wrong.
More information about the b-hebrew