That wasn't what I understood Karl to be saying, but I'm not going to
continue this any more
since this topic is clearly going nowhere.
On 16 Jul 2007 at 13:25, Tory Thorpe wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:10 PM, dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:
>
> > You haven't demonstrated that anything is "because of christian
> > dogma." That's an
> > assumption on your part, and an erroneous one at that.
>
> Karl's claim (and correct me if wrong Karl) is that almah meant one
> thing in the Hebrew speech community until the advent of
> christianity, and then the meaning was changed by non-christian Jews.
> And I believe you to be correct, that assumption on Karl's part is
> erroneous. But the claim is also offensive.
>
> Tory Thorpe
>