Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] virgin vs. young woman

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Y'shuaborn" <davidfentonism AT aim.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virgin vs. young woman
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:39:34 -0400

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).





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page