Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Y'shuaborn" <davidfentonism AT aim.com>]

Dear Tory,

Excluding the later event of the actual birth of Moshiach in the NT 
according to the Isaiah prophecy, I will have to agree to disagree given 
that we cannot come to terms on even the basic foundation of the 
difference between an inference and an assumption.

Regards,
David Fenton

Tory Thorpe wrote:
> An inference is still an assumption whether it is logical or not. Your 
> assumption in this case is illogical since the prophecy has nothing to 
> do with how the child will be conceived and birthed, but what will 
> happen between the child's conception and birth and it's knowing to 
> choose between good and evil. Within that time tthe two enemies of 
> Ahaz, namely Israel and Damascus, would be defeated in battle.
>
> On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Y'shuaborn wrote:
>
> > Dear Tory,
> >
> > You seem to be equating an inference with an assumption. To infer 
> > here is quite logical especially given the narrative qualification 
> > "who has not known a man." One must argue away from this to cultural 
> > understanding to arrive at other opinions.
> >
> > David Fenton
> >
> > Tory Thorpe wrote:
> > > No. The words almah and betulah must be qualified in
> > > the narrative with "who has not known a man."
> > > otherwise, we don't assume.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Y'shuaborn <davidfentonism AT aim.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >   
> > > > Is "physical virginity" implicitly understood in the
> > > > culture at the 
> > > > time?  Was a maiden implicitly and/or explicitly
> > > > expected to be a virgin 
> > > > in that society? Of course she was.
> > > >
> > > > David Fenton
> > > >
> > > > Tory Thorpe wrote:
> > > >     
> > > > > --- "Rev. Jim Cunningham"
> > > > >       
> > > > <kjv_gods_word AT yahoo.com>
> > > >     
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >   
> > > > >       
> > > > Yes there is. Physical virginity is not implicit
> > > > ineither alma or betulah.
> > > >     
> > > > > Tory Thorpe
> > > > >   
> > > > >       
> > > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Romans 2:13> For it is not the Shomei HaTorah
> > > > (hearers of the Law of Moshe Rabbeinu) who are the
> > > > tzaddikim who are accounted to be YITZDAK IM HASHEM
> > > > ("justified with G-d" IYOV 25:4). It is the Shomrei
> > > > HaTorah (the keepers of the Torah) who will be
> > > > counted to be YITZDAK IM HASHEM.
> > > >
> > > > James 1:22> Now be Shomrei HaDvar Hashem and not
> > > > Shomei HaDvar only, thereby causing yourselves to
> > > > fall under remiyah (deceit, deception).
> > > >     
>
> = 


--
Romans 2:13> For it is not the Shomei HaTorah (hearers of the Law of Moshe Rabbeinu) 
who are the tzaddikim who are accounted to be YITZDAK IM HASHEM ("justified with 
G-d" IYOV 25:4). It is the Shomrei HaTorah (the keepers of the Torah) who will be 
counted to be YITZDAK IM HASHEM.

James 1:22> Now be Shomrei HaDvar Hashem and not Shomei HaDvar only, thereby 
causing yourselves to fall under remiyah (deceit, deception).