" הָרָה " = "is pregnant" This is the perfect tense.
HH: It is not the perfect tense.
הָרָה HRH is not even a verb but an adjective. The verb has to be supplied and could be either present or future (or past).
JW:
First, do you agree that BH has perfect and imperfect distinction?
HH: Here is another issue with your thought process. If you put these together, you would have:
"Here is the virgin is pregnant." That makes no sense. So you better stick with "Behold" for your theory.
JW:
You are being remarkably restrictive for such a compact language.
"Here is the young woman that is pregnant". "Here is the pregnant young woman". No good? As Kohan said in the classic, "The Wrath of Kohan", your translation would be "far worse". What is your translation here again?
Actually "Behold" & "Look" have a connotation of pysical presence anyway, don't they.
One that could not possibly be likely, even in your opinion, as to this point you always have to use minority meanings. You need a miracleinthe larger context to Save your meaning.
HH: No, I don't need a miracle. I do need a prophecy of the future in the larger context to save my meaning. But that is exactly what we have.
JW:
Unsupported assertion at this point.
"HNH does not have to imply anything about physical presence. In the verse HNH is drawing attention to what a/the virgin will do, not to the presence of thevirgin."
HRH is a very physical sign and a very common one in the Hebrew Bible as evidence of
God's mysterious power and presence in human affairs (so to speak).
HH: What I said is true, and what you said is true. But there are so many cases where HRH does not refer to something physically present that your point carries no argumentative weight for Isa 7:14, at least for me.
JW:
I think you mean HNH here and not HRH.
I point out what is most common and you respond in part with "carries no argumentative weight for Isa 7:14, at least for me." Further response from
me would involve primarily commenting on the relationship of the evidence
to your conclusion which distracts from my primary purpose of the relationship of the evidence to THE conclusion.
Suffice it to say that at this point with:
H
HNH
HRH
there is nothing which favors your translation.
Continuing:
_http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa7.pdf_ (http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa7.pdf) _http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm_ (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm) "
יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ
אֵל. 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
"
" וְקָרָאת " = and you will call
This is second person feminine right?
As in "you" referring to a present female. Yes, I know, "Does not necessarily", "it could". But it's either support for a present female or neutral for your desired translation
whatever that may currently be.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.