> On Jul 16, 2007, at 12:44 PM, dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:
>
> > Once again, as Peter already pointed out, you retreat into the
> > accusation that anybody who
> > disagrees with you must be theologically or doctrinally motivated.
> > You're the one with the
> > conspiracy theory, not Karl or I. Obviously, it's a conspiracy by
> > those rakkafrakka Christians
> > to make you look silly...no, wait, you're doing that all yourself.
> > Never mind.
>
> What else would you call the insinuation of Hebraists altering the
> meaning of almah because of christian dogma? How is that completely
> unsubstantiated charge, a familiar one, acceptable in this forum but
> my labeling it a conspiracy theory not?
You haven't demonstrated that anything is "because of christian dogma."
That's an
assumption on your part, and an erroneous one at that.