At 02:23 AM 10/30/99 +0200, you wrote:
>jim west wrote:
>
>>
>> (re. Joel 1:8, the bethulah who weeps for the husband of her youth)
>>
>> Uh huh, which she never had (no pun intended)- making her a virgin still...
>>
>
>Only if you've decided ahead of time that bethulah must mean
>virgin (no matter what
>the context would tell you). Ordinarily women with husbands
>are not virgins.
er... ya musta misread the context- she is lamenting the "husband of her
youth"- i.e., the man she was promised to in the arragned marriage- but
which she never consummated because of the judgement of God.
she is a bethulah because she is a virgin! She remains a virgin because she
does not marry (her poor dead husband now being unavailable).
I am not reading into the text- you are not reading the text aright.
>The point is that the word bethulah by itself may not be
>sufficient to indicate
>virginity.
yes it is.
a rose by any other name... you can rationalize as you like, but the facts
remain facts- almah means young woman and bethulah means virgin.
>What you said is that if Isaiah meant "virgin" he would have
>used bethulah, but the
>fact is you can't make the case that bethulah is any closer
>to the meaning of "virgin"
>than `almah is.
rubbish. only a theologically tendentious reading into the text sees
otherwise.
>Personal preferences aside, what does the context lead you
>to expect? A huge miracle
perhaps- but it has NOTHING to do with a virgin.
>Only if you assume that the virgin is pregnant now (the
>Hebrew doesn't say whether she
>is pregnant now or will be pregnant). Is the birth of
>Immanuel recorded in Isaiah?
You cant have it both ways. either she was a virgin and the baby born to
her was virginally conceived- or it was- and jesus was one among others and
not originally the first one of a kind.
>"Some kid" who is spoken to in the next chapter as if he's
>the head of the nation (as
>opposed to Ahaz) - 8:8 - isn't that a bit odd to speak that
>way to an unknown person?
Nope. Especially when he hasnt been born.
>If you don't know who Immanuel is, or what the miraculous
>sign is, perhaps you should
>be a bit less dogmatic about what the fulfillment is or is
>not.
less dogmatic? me? hardly. anyway im not the one clinging to dogma here am
i.... :-)
>The Messiah has quite a few names in Isaiah, Immanuel being
>only one of them - it's
>not necessarily referring to his given name - could be his
>character, in which case
>you would have a nice fit with Isaiah 9:6 (which certainly
>describes a child who is
>literally "God with us"), which would also explain why the
>birth resulting from this
>miraculous pregnancy is not recorded (i.e. it's recorded
>under a different name, in
>Isa 9:6).
>
such gymnastics are always necessary arent they- when the plain meaning of
the text has to be submitted to the contortionists box in order to fit the
dogmatic presuppositions of the exegete. still- i give your performance
here a 5 for style and a 6 for heartiness.
>We could identify a number of questions that need to be
>answered to interpret Isa
>7:14:
>1. What does `almah mean, and who is she?
it means young woman- and her name isnt given.
>2. What is the sign, i.e. the evidence of divine
>intervention that points to Judah's
>deliverance?
the sign is that before her kid grows up to an age which understands right
from wrong the syrians will be gone.
>3. Who is Immanuel?
doesnt matter.
>4. What is the connection of the sign to the current crisis
>facing Judah?