Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Dear Joseph,
> >  
> > " הָרָה " = "is pregnant" 
> >   
> > This is the perfect tense.
> >     
>
>
> HH: It is not the perfect  tense.
> הָרָה HRH is not even a verb but an adjective. The verb has to be  supplied 
> and could be either present or future (or  past).
>
> JW:
> First, do you agree that BH has perfect and imperfect distinction?
>   


HH: Sure, that's what the grammars teach.

> HH: Here is another  issue with your thought process. If you put these 
> together, you would  have:
>
> "Here is the virgin is pregnant." That makes no sense. So you  better 
> stick with "Behold" for your theory.
> JW:
> You are being remarkably restrictive for such a compact language.


HH: It is a compact language.


>  "Here is  
> the young woman that is pregnant". "Here is the pregnant young woman". No good? 
>  As Kohan said in the classic, "The Wrath of Kohan", your translation would 
> be  "far worse". What is your translation here again?
>  
> Actually "Behold" & "Look" have a connotation of pysical presence  anyway, 
> don't they. 
>   


HH: I was granting that "behold" could possibly support your theory, I 
have more difficulty with "here is" but in either case one has to supply 
the verb for two ideas, pregnancy (adjective) and birth (participle). 
The word HNH goes with both since the participle depends on the earlier 
noun "young woman" to supply the subject of the participle. The verb to 
be supplied with the birth is evidently future, so I find it hard to 
think that the reader or hearer is expected to supply a different verb 
for the adjective. If there were such a differentiation, I would expect 
the speaker to provide the verbs. But since both concepts flow from HNH, 
I expect that if one calls for a future verb, so will the other. Could 
you say, "Here is the young woman pregnant and giving birth to a son, 
and she will call his name Immanuel." Yes, you could say that, but it 
would be a strange way to talk since no mention of a young woman being 
pregnant and giving birth to a son has been previously introduced.  Do 
we want to say that this idea is supposed to be understood, just as we 
are assuming the presence of a known young woman in the group?
>  
>
>
>   
> >  One that could not possibly be likely, even in  your  opinion, as to 
> > this point you always have to use minority  meanings. You need a  miracle 
> >     
> in 
>   
> > the larger context to Save your  meaning.
> >     
>
>
> HH: No, I don't need a miracle. I do need a prophecy of the  future in 
> the larger context to save my meaning. But that is exactly what we  have.
>  
> JW:
> Unsupported assertion at this point.
>   


HH: I have given quite a bit of reasoning in support of my position. I 
have an online article on the passage if you want to look at it. It's 
not exactly on this issue of the definite article though.

http://www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue1/Articles/linkage_between_isaiah_7.htm


>  
>
>   
> >  
> >  
> > "HNH does not have to 
> > imply  anything about physical  presence. In the verse HNH is drawing 
> >  attention to what a/the virgin will  do, not to the presence of the  
> >     
> virgin."
>   
> >  
> > HRH is a very physical sign and a very common  one in the  Hebrew Bible as 
> > evidence of
> > God's mysterious  power and presence in human affairs (so  to speak).
> >    
> >     
>
>
> HH: What I said is true, and what you said is true. But there are so  
> many cases where HRH does not refer to something physically present that  
> your point carries no argumentative weight for Isa 7:14, at least for  me.
>  
> JW:
> I think you mean HNH here and not HRH.
>   


HH: If you look above, you will see that you introduced the error. But 
you're right.

>  
> I point out what is most common and you respond in part with "carries no 
> argumentative weight for Isa 7:14, at least for me." Further response  from
> me would involve primarily commenting on the relationship of the  evidence
> to your conclusion which distracts from my primary purpose of the 
> relationship of the evidence to THE conclusion.
>   


HH: I am trying to come to the place where my conclusion is THE 
conclusion, that is, the way Isaiah intended the words to be understood.

>  
> Suffice it to say that at this point with:
>  
> H
>  
> HNH
>  
> HRH
>  
> there is nothing which favors your translation.
>   


HH: My posts have given a great deal of evidence from grammarians and 
translations. You are free to hold your own view since I am not dogmatic 
about this. You would be free even if I were dogmatic.

>  
> Continuing:
>  
> _http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa7.pdf_ 
> (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa7.pdf) 
>  
> _http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm_ 
> (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm) 
>  
> "
>  יד  לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת:   הִנֵּה 
> הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ
>  אֵל. 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the  
> young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name  Immanuel.
> "
>  
> "  וְקָרָאת " = and you will call
>  
> This is second person feminine right?


HH: It can be a third person singular as well.


>  As in "you" referring to a present  
> female. Yes, I know, "Does not  necessarily", "it could". But it's  either 
> support for a present female or neutral for your desired  translation
> whatever that may currently be.
>   

HH: The possibility that the verb could be second person singular is a 
fact. It does not affect the issue because a third person interpretation 
is also possible. See #GKC #74g. Actually, the lexicons parse it as 
third person singular, both HALOT and BDB.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard