Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

It also says nothing.  Do you have anything to back it up, or should we just 
take your word 
for it?

On 9 Jul 2007 at 18:49, Tory Thorpe wrote:

> My response pushes no ideology whatsoever.
> 
> Tory Thorpe
> 
> 
> --- K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Tory:
> > 
> > Your response is exactly why I responded as I did to
> > Jim Cunningham.
> > This can very easily devolve to a useless argument
> > as we each push our
> > own ideologies, for the reason I accept one meaning
> > is according to my
> > ideology, and the reason for yours below is
> > according to your
> > ideology. The best answer of many would best be, "I
> > disagree with you,
> > let's go on to the next subject."
> > 
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> > 
> > On 7/9/07, Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > --- "Rev. Jim Cunningham"
> > <kjv_gods_word AT yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >   ... Alma specifically means
> > > > a maiden or damsel - a young woman who has not
> > been
> > > > married/sexually touched. There is no such thing
> > as
> > > > an "alma" who has had sex.
> > >
> > > Yes there is. Physical virginity is not implicit
> > in
> > > either alma or betulah.
> > >
> > > Tory Thorpe
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 


Dave Washburn
But I can't say Sylvester, George!