[b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14 - HRH

JoeWallack at aol.com JoeWallack at aol.com
Sun Jul 22 13:21:54 EDT 2007

In a message dated 7/21/2007 11:28:14 AM Central Daylight Time,  
hholmyard3 at earthlink.net writes:

Dear  Joe,
> "14. Therefore, the  Lord, of His  own, shall give you a sign; behold, the 
> young woman is with  child,  and she shall bear a son, and she shall call 
his name 
>  Immanuel."
> " הָרָה " = "is pregnant" 
> This is the perfect tense.

HH: It is not the perfect  tense.
הָרָה HRH is not even a verb but an adjective. The verb has to be  supplied 
and could be either present or future (or  past).

First, do you agree that BH has perfect and imperfect distinction?

>  You can once again do "Does not  necessarily",  "it 
> could" as even The Rashi
> takes it here as imperfect (I  think because of the  prophecy connection) 
> for your benefit  and Karl's
> if we go by examples in the Hebrew Bible, this   construction is usually 
> perfect. 
> So now,  regarding the offending word in 7:14, we have the  nearby Textual  
> Markers of:
> HNH = Here is
> HRH = Is pregnant

HH: Here is another  issue with your thought process. If you put these 
together, you would  have:

"Here is the virgin is pregnant." That makes no sense. So you  better 
stick with "Behold" for your theory.
You are being remarkably restrictive for such a compact language. "Here is  
the young woman that is pregnant". "Here is the pregnant young woman". No good? 
 As Kohan said in the classic, "The Wrath of Kohan", your translation would 
be  "far worse". What is your translation here again?
Actually "Behold" & "Look" have a connotation of pysical presence  anyway, 
don't they. 

> All completely consistent with a young woman  who is not  only known to 
> and Ahaz but physically  present.

HH: Yes, it is possible.

>  The HRH could  even be  physically noticeable 
> (this would fit the larger context  of a "forced" prophecy.

HH: Yes, this is  possible.

>   You would agree 
> that it's forced  on Ahaz. That may not be the limit of it's  
> Consider that the two nearest Textual Markers support a  physical  presence 
> Harold, your indefinite translation is looking merely like  a  possible one 
> this point.

HH: Yes, of course, I  explained what I thought was probable. I did not 
claim  certainty.

>  One that could not possibly be likely, even in  your  opinion, as to 
> this point you always have to use minority  meanings. You need a  miracle 
> the larger context to Save your  meaning.

HH: No, I don't need a miracle. I do need a prophecy of the  future in 
the larger context to save my meaning. But that is exactly what we  have.
Unsupported assertion at this point.

> "HNH does not have to 
> imply  anything about physical  presence. In the verse HNH is drawing 
>  attention to what a/the virgin will  do, not to the presence of the  
> HRH is a very physical sign and a very common  one in the  Hebrew Bible as 
> evidence of
> God's mysterious  power and presence in human affairs (so  to speak).

HH: What I said is true, and what you said is true. But there are so  
many cases where HRH does not refer to something physically present that  
your point carries no argumentative weight for Isa 7:14, at least for  me.
I think you mean HNH here and not HRH.
I point out what is most common and you respond in part with "carries no 
argumentative weight for Isa 7:14, at least for me." Further response  from
me would involve primarily commenting on the relationship of the  evidence
to your conclusion which distracts from my primary purpose of the 
relationship of the evidence to THE conclusion.
Suffice it to say that at this point with:
there is nothing which favors your translation.
 יד  לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת:   הִנֵּה 
הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ
 אֵל. 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the  
young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name  Immanuel.
"  וְקָרָאת " = and you will call
This is second person feminine right? As in "you" referring to a present  
female. Yes, I know, "Does not  necessarily", "it could". But it's  either 
support for a present female or neutral for your desired  translation
whatever that may currently be.
Joseph Wallack

************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list