Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

References in the biblical text appear to focus more or less exclusively on 
the question of 
sexual activity.  Hence, redefining virginity anatomically in such a context 
is not valid 
exegesis, or so it seems to me.

On 17 Jul 2007 at 7:15, Isaac Fried wrote:

> 
> Dave,
> A great deal was said about the (LMAH being a virgin, and now we are 
> heatedly debating 
> virginity, but none of thedisputants ever made clear to the rest of us what 
> he means by virgin or 
> virginity. A virgin may mean: 
> 1. A woman with an originally intact hymen. 
> 2. A woman [of ripe age?] who never had sex [what this means needs also 
> close scrutiny] with a 
> man.
> Of corse, an intact hymen does not mean the woman is innocent, and a broken 
> hymen does not 
> mean the woman is guilty of any wrong doing.
> 
> Isaac Fried, Boston University 
> 
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 7:19 PM, dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote: 
> 
> You are arbitrarily redefining "virginity" to mean "intact hymen" whereas 
> in the biblical text it 
> clearly means "not having had intercourse." I have yet to see anything 
> anywhere in the 
> textual or linguistic context that makes this redefinition valid. 
> 
> On 16 Jul 2007 a 
> 
> 


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