> Tory:It's normal that languages change.
>
> You wrote, "Yes, well, Karl sees christian doctrine forcing changes in
> the meaning of Hebrew words among native Hebrew speakers, ..." This is
> libel, take it back. It is libel because it is a deliberate and
> willful broadcast of a falsehood.
It is not a falsehood. It is the claim you made: "there was no
problem among Jews with the understanding of (LMH meaning "virgin"
until after the Christian claim that Jesus was born of such... It can
be an indication that the word changed meaning over time."
what's wrong about claiming that the meanings of many Hebrew words may have changed
meaning from when Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a native tongue to
centuries later when they were again used in the Mishnah and later?
But I never claimed, not even remotely, that "christian doctrine
forcing changes in the meaning of Hebrew words among native Hebrew
speakers," and your defense of this libel only compounds this libel.
Who and how do you define "modern Hebrew scholar"? Your definitionYou didn't answer the second aspect of my question, namely, what
> may be too restricted.
That's a long list. And though it includes all of my Jewish American
and Israeli professors, it also includes non-Jewish Christian
scholars like R. E. Brown: "It [almah] puts no stress on her
virginity" (The Birth of the Messiah [1977], p. 147); "two passages
demonstrate how poorly it [almah] would underline virginity: in Cant
6:8 it refers to women of the king's harem, and in Prov 30:19 an
almah is the object of a young man's sexual attention" (p. 147, n.
43); "No more than betulah is parthenos so clinically exact that it
necessarily means virgo intacta. The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon
gives several instances of the secular use of parthenos for women who
were not virgins" (p. 148, n. 45); "the MT of Isa. 7:14 does not
refer to a virginal conception in the distant future. The sign
offered by the prophet was the imminent birth of a child...naturally
conceived" (p. 148).
merits a person to be called a scholar? Would you include someone who
has evaluated word meanings so much that he has written a dictionary
from Hebrew to English?
Does it include someone who has read Tanakh
through, cover to cover, around 20 times, as he knows Hebrew so well?
Or is your list restricted only to those who are professors at secular
universities, showing that they have passed a political correctness
test of discipleship to their mentors, rather than showing independent
thought?
As for the specific passages that you list above, the only one that
has not been answered recently is Proverbs 30:19 where there is
question whether or not it was pointed correctly by the Masoretes.
>> This reading allows for physical virginity.The example above is drawn from the English language. You should have
>
> This is like when talking about an old crone you simply call her a
> "mature woman". A mature woman includes any woman from 18 and older,
> while crone is a subset of elderly women. Yes, you are technically
> correct, but far from accurate.
At what age were girls considered "mature" in preexilic Israel?
recognized that.
You made reference to a book to back up your claim that JewsJust because you can't find it doesn't mean that it isn't there. I
understood almah to mean "virgin" from ? down to the 1400s. The book
makes no such claim, which does not inspire much faith in your other
assertions.
don't have the book available to me so I could point you to the page,
but it was just a small comment that is easily missed, the only reason
I noticed it was because I was surprised to find it.
Who said the word could not be used in reference to a virgin?You did. Look below at where I quoted you.
There is a big difference between "young woman" and "virgin". Not all
virgins are young, and only some young women are virgins. If Isaiah
intended that "virgin" be understood, then to translate the term as
"young woman" is incorrect.
>>> The reasons that I and many others claim that (LMH means "virgin"Yours is a red herring response. If "virgin" was intended by Isaiah,
>>> are
>>> both linguistic and ideological:
>>
>> The reason for reading "young woman" is simply linguistic and does
>> not exclude your ideology. That's why the reading "young woman" is
>> nonpartisan.
>
> It is partisan. First because it is too inclusive, Young women who are
> virgins are only a subset of young women. not all of them. Secondly,
> because it is too inclusive, it can then be used for understandings
> that were not intended by the author, understandings that historically
> have been driven by ideological considerations.
You mean like the birth of Jesus?
then to translate the term with "young woman" is incorrect and
partisan for the reasons above.
The word is used too seldom for us to insist that it was restricted to
a certain age group.
Whether you accept those linguistic reasons (I did not invent them) or
not is not the question, the question is do those reasons exist and
are they linguistic? The answer to both is Yes.
They are not novel because I did not originate the ideas. I first
heard about them decades ago in a lecture from someone who was citing
others, but I don't remember who he cited.
... But you are certainlyThis is certainly not what you stated in the quote above, where you
free to believe in this.
called such ideas 吹牛皮.
In closing, you have not presented a single incontrovertible example
that backs up your claim above, i.e. "... as if almah cannot be used
to describe a married woman, which is totally false."
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.