Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Joe:

This is the last time I plan to respond to this thread.

You ignore context. But when one reads an unpointed text, the only way
to recognize what words are what is through context. Many forms can be
a verb, or with the exact same consonantal spelling be a noun, or an
adjective, or whatever. Furthermore, a word can have one meaning in
one verse, and the exact same spelling in the next verse can be from a
different root altogether with a completely different meaning. Context
is that which tells which is which.

In the context of referring to a woman who is pregnant, the verb HRH
takes the forms HRTH for the perfective, THR for the imperfective.
(Sorry, HH, you should have checked a concordance, like I did.) Hence
its use in Isaiah 7:14 is not that of a verb. The same is true of YLDT
and QR)T.

On 7/31/07, JoeWallack AT aol.com <JoeWallack AT aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> JW:
…
> HRH - Let's get basic here. HRH can either be the English "conceive", which
> is a Verb or the English "pregnant", which is an Adjective. BDB confirms 
> this.
>  Not that I need BDB to tell me this but I have Faith that BDB is still used
> in  the Seminary which may carry some weight with some here (pregnant 
> pause).
>
You put more weight on BDB than I do.

> … they look like Verbs to me.
>
See above.

>
> WQR)T - Same construction. "You will call". 2nd person feminine. Supports
> physical presence of 7:14.
>
Wrong, the context of the second person in verses 13 and 14 is that of
the second person plural, hence if it were a verb with a second person
suffix, it should be WQR)TM, not the form found.
>
>
> Joseph Wallack
>
Joe, there is nothing in the verse's context that insists on physical
presence other than your presuppositions. That is why you are failing
to convince us that your reading is correct. In fact, context, syntax
and word forms, all indicate that you are wrong to insist on physical
presence.

You tried to compare this verse with those concerning the births of
Samson and Ishmael, but in each of those cases the context is
sufficiently different as to make your comparison invalid.

As I say to others, I now say to you, I see no reason to continue this
discussion and unless you bring up something that I have not seen or
considered before, I will not respond to anything more that you say on
this thread.

Karl W. Randolph.