Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>

> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> > And there are plenty of people who claim that the text, analysing it
> linguistically, indicates while a particular woman was meant, that there was
> no indication that it had to be a woman who was alive at the time Isaiah
> said it.
> 
> If so, Karl, what significance would it have had to Ahaz?

Ahaz rejected the sign, so it was given to the house of David. That it was a 
"sign" indicates that it was something special.
> 
> > In this I'm reminded of the prophesy concerning Josiah in 1 Kings 13:2.
> > From the immediate text, one would conclude that this Josiah was already
> born, but it wasn't until centuries later that that prophesy was fulfilled.
> >
> 
> Karl,
> The difference is that 1 Kings 13 was written either during the time of
> Josiah or later, and so the author could put a "prophecy" about Josiah in
> the anonymous "man of God"s mouth. Isaiah 7 was NOT written by Matthew.
> 
> 
> 
> > Therefore, if Isaiah was prophesying in the same manner as the prophesy
> above, there is no reason to insist that the woman be alive at that time.
> And that she was called "the virgin" means that it is a sign, because
> virgins don't get pregnant and give birth.
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> 
> But she is NOT called "the virgin". She is called "the young woman".
> 
> Yigal
> 
Yigal, I have already given reasons why I insist that (LMH was the technical 
term for virgin, I won't repeat them here. BTWLH at least once, if not twice, 
referred to a married woman, so that term does not fit. If you insist 
otherwise, that's your perogative. Let's agree to disagree on this issue, and 
not argue.

Karl W. Randolph.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm