> On Jul 19, 2007, at 2:20 AM, dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:
>
> > We have to be very careful about inferring too much from Ugaritic.
> > It's a cognate, not a
> > precise parallel. Gordon, Dahood and a couple of others had a
> > tendency to carry such
> > things a little too far, and their conclusions have not been
> > generally accepted.
>
> Gordon reached all sorts of conclusions. And not that facts are
> determined by hand raising but there is wide acceptance that no one
> word in the languages of the ancient Near East (other than perhaps
> BH) by itself means virgo intacta. The evidence from Ugaritic,
> Aramaic, South Arabic, and especially Mishnaic Hebrew is a reason to
> put BH on that list.
I never said anything about virgo intacta. I'm not going to play this game
any more.
> > As for Joel 1:8, first, it's poetry, which takes a lot of liberties
> > in any and every language where it exists. Second, the term
> > rendered "husband" is BA(AL, which as the NIV notes, may also mean
> > "betrothed."
>
> How are you, and how is the NIV, defining "betrothed"?