Immanuel (one word/name)

Eduardo M. Acuna eacuna at
Sat Mar 10 10:37:27 EST 2001

> You are reasoning in circles. One of my arguments was that the text itself
> indicates that we're dealing with a name here . You do not answer that
> question (even to the contrary:
> > there is NO NAME and no need to explain what the NAME MEANS, because
> > there is NO NAME. It is prophesizing that the child's NAME will MEAN
> > "With us God"".
> Neither do you solve the problem of the accentuation of these two elements.
> I will not allaborate my point any further untill you provide us with real
> arguments,
1. BHS has two words.
2. The two words will apply to the meaning of the child´s name.
3. LXX has one word; i.e., the name.
4. LXX has a footnote explaining the name meaning; i.e., the two words.

In LXX and 1QIsa-a the name meaning turns out to be the name; the two
words are joined to one, and for that reason the LXX has to explain with a
footnote the change.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list