JoeWallack

JW:
HRH (conceive/pregnant) is by far the most difficult part of the verse to translate because:

1) Roots with a final H have many exceptions.

2) The Verb (conceive) and the Adjective (pregnant) can lack clear distinction in usage.

From a theological standpoint Christianity wants a translation of "will conceive" to support "Matthew" and this has been the Traditional Christian translation. However, this translation needs an Imperfect Verb which would require HRH to have a pre-fix.

HNH (behold) is Demonstrative and Imperative. A common meaning is to point to a specific person for emphasis. Another meaning is to introduce a Prediction, which of course the Christians want, but for all the reasons I've given in this Thread I think it's clear that Isaiah was pointing to a present young woman.

The change you have documented above (future to "is pregnant") is representative of improved Christian scholarship in modern times as if HRH is taken as a Verb the Form is wrong for the Imperfect. Christian scholarship has moved from Interpreting (which "Matthew" did) to Translating.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing the analysis of the key Hebrew words:

הִנה
H N H
Behold!

הָעַלְמָה
HML ( H
the young woman

הָרָה
HR H
has conceived

וְיֹלֶדֶת
TDLYW
and will give birth

בֵּן
NB
a son

וְקָרָאת
T) RKW
and you will call


with:

הָעַלְמָה
HML ( H
the young woman

here is the Brown-Driver-Briggs entry for הָ the Hebrew definite article:

"s§ 35), definite article, the (so Moab. Ph. (Schröd § 62–4), Liḥyan (NW. Arabia) ha (DHMEpigr. Denkm. 4. 13. 58 ff.; not Assyrian Aramaic or Ethiopic: Arabic اَلْ (˒al), of which, before dentals, sibilants, and liquids, the l is written but not pronounced, thus اَلشَّمْسُ (˒aš-šamsu) pron. ˒ash-shamsu = Heb. הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ)—in gen. the use of the art. in Heb. is analogous to its use in Greek or German: but naturally there are applications peculiar to Hebrew (comp. with what follows Ges§ 126 Ew§ 277):—1. joined with substantives: a. to mark a definite concrete object, as Gn 1:1 the heavens and the earth, הַמֶּלֶךְ the king, etc. Never, however (as in Greek e.g. ὁ�*λάτων), before true proper names, though it is used with certain terms, chiefly geographical, of which the orig. appellative sense has not been lost, as הַבַּעַל ‘Baal,’ lit. ‘the lord,’ in pl. הַבְּעָלִים i.e. the various local Baals, הַשָּׂטָן the Adversary Jb 1:6 ff. (as a pr. n. שָׂטָן, ‘Satan,’ only 1 Ch 21:1); הַלְּבָ�*ֹון (but not הַחֶרְמֹון), הַיַּרְדֵּן (but not הָאַרְ�*ֹן), הַכַּרְמֶל, הַשָּׁרֹון the Sharon, הַשְּׁפֵלָה the (Judaean) lowland, הַכִּכָּר, הַמִּישֹׁור the (Moabite) table-land, הָעֲרָבָה, הָעַי ‘˓Ai,’ הַגִּבְעָה ‘Gibeah,’ Ju 20:5 ff., הַגָּלִיל ‘Galilee,’ הַגִּלְגָּל, הַגִּלְבֹּעַ, הַבָּשָׁן, הַגִּלְעָד (often), הַשִּׁטִים, הַמִּצְפָּה, הָרָמָה, הַיְשִׁימֹון, הָעֹפֶל, הַפִּסְגָּה. b. with an adjective to denote one who exhibits a quality κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, i.e. to express the compar. or superl. degree: so often, as Gn 1:16 המאור הגדל the greater light, הקטן המאור the lesser light, 27:1 ב�*ו הגדול = his elder son, 48:14 הצעיר the younger, 42:13 הַקָּטֹן the little one, i.e. the youngest (of Joseph’s brethren), Lv 21:10 הַגָּדֹול מֵאֶחָיו the chiefest of his brethren, Nu 35:25 + הכהן הגדול the chief priest, הצעיר ב׳ the least among Ju 6:15, הצעירה מן the least of 1 S 9:21, הַיָּפָה ב׳ the fairest among Ct 1:8, 2 K 10:3 Pr 30:30, cf. Jos 14:15. c. with nouns which are not definite in themselves, but acquire their definition from the context, or from the manner in which they are introduced: thus (α) in the standing phrases הַיֹּום to-day, Gn 4:14; 21:26 + often; הַלַּיְלָה to-night, Gn 19:5; 30:15 +, once 1 S 15:16 last night; so הַשָּׁ�*ָה this year, 2 K 19:29 Jer 28:16; הַפַּעַם this time, Gn 18:32 +, בַּמִּלְחָמָה in battle 1 S 26:10; 30:24 2 S 19:4. (β) הַ�*ָּהָר the river = Euphrates; Ex 2:15 the (local) well, Jos 8:11 the valley, 1 S 17:3; 1 S 19:10 the wall, v 13 the bed, 20:21 הַ�*ַּעַר the lad (whom Jonathan would naturally take with him), v 34 the table. Hence occas. where a suffix would define the noun more precisely, as הַחֲמֹור 2 S 19:27 + = my ass, Ju 3:20 1 S 1:9 הַכִּסֵּא = his seat, Ju 4:15 1 K 22:35 2 K 10:15 + הַמֶּרְכָּבָה, 1 S 18:10; 20:33 הַחֲ�*ִית. d. it is a peculiarity of Hebrew thought to conceive an object as defined by its being taken for a particular purpose, and thus by a kind of prolepsis to prefix the art. to the noun denoting it: 1 S 10:1 and Samuel took אֶת־פַּךְ הַשֶּׁמֶן lit. the cruse of oil, not, however, a curse which had been defined previously, but one rendered definite by being now taken; in English idiom ‘a cruse of oil,’ v 25 בַּסֵּפֶר lit. in the scroll or book, the one, viz. taken for the purpose, i.e. in a scroll (so Ex 17:14 Nu 5:23 Jb 19:23), 21:10 בַּשִּׂמְלָה, Ju 4:18 וַתְּכַסֵּהוּ בַּשְּׂמִיכָה, v 19; 7:13 הָאֹהֶל a tent, 8:25; 9:48 אֶת־הַקַּרְדֻּמֹּת hatchests, 20:16 every one able to sling בָּאֶבֶן אֶל־הַשַּׂעֲרָה with a stone at a hair, 1 S 6:8 בָּאַרְגָּז (unless indeed the אַרְגָּז was an understood appendage in every cart), Nu 11:27 הַ�*ַּעַר a young man, 13:23 בַּמֹּוט on a pole, Jos 2:15 בַּחֶבֶל with a cord, 2 S 17:17 השׁפחה a girl (cf. Dr 1 S 1:4; 19:13). Sometimes it is uncertain whether an art. is to be referred to c or d: e.g. 1 S 2:13 his prong or a prong, 2 S 18:9 his mule or a mule, etc. e. with nouns that denote objects or classes of objects that are known to all, as הַצֹּאן, הַזָּהָב, הַמַּיִם; Gn 13:2 Abram was very rich בַּמִּקְ�*ֶה בַּכֶּסֶף וּבַזָּהָב, Ex 31:4 לַעֲשֹׂות בַּזָּהָב וּבַכֶּסֶף, Dt 14:26 and thou shalt lay out the money וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר בַּבָּקָר, 2 K 9:30 וַתָּשֶׂם בַּפּוּךְ עֵי�*ֶיהָ, in French ‘elle mit du fard �* ses yeux.’ It is, however, remarkable that this usage depends mostly on the punctuation, הַכֶּסֶף, הַיַּיִן, הַלֶּחֶם etc. (except as applied to denote definite quantities of gold, wine, etc., as Jos 6:24) being far less common than כֶּסֶף, יַיִן etc., but בַּכֶּסֶף, לַכֶּסֶף etc. being much more freq. than בְּכֶסֶף, לְכֶסֶף etc.: for instances in which the art. forms part of the consonantal text, see Gn 6:20; 7:8 + העוף and הבהמה, Dt 8:3 הַלֶּחֶם, 1 K 5:8, 13 Is 28:7 הַיַּיִן and הַשֶּׁכָר, 60:17 Ez 15:4, 7 הָאֵשׁ, Hb 2:5 Pr 20:1 ψ 65:14 הַצֹּאן, Ct 1:11 Ec 7:12. Cf. below, h. f. in comparisons, the object compared being, as a rule, not an individual as such, but one exhibiting the characteristics of a class: Is 1:18 כַּשָּׁ�*ִים, כַּתֹּולָע like scarlet, like crimson (both meant generally), 5:24 כַּמַּק יִהְיֶה v 28 כַּצַּר and כַּסּוּפָה, 10:14 כַּקֵּן, 13:8 כַּיֹּולֵדָה (as always with this word, e.g. 42:14 ψ 48:7), 11:7 כַּבָּקָר; + often (The usage is not, however, quite uniform, at least according to the punctuation: there occurs e.g. כְּקַשׁ Jb 41:21 Is 47:14; כְּאַרְיֵה ψ 7:3 al.: and we find both כַּלָּבִיא Is 5:29 and כְּלָבִיא Ho 13:8; כָּאֲרִי Is 38:13 and כַּאֲרִי Nu 24:9; כַּגִּבֹּור Is 42:13 and כְּגבור Jb 16:14; etc.) Similarly Gn 19:28 כְּקִיטֹר הַכִּבְשָׁן as the smoke of a furnace, Nu 11:8, 12 הָאֹמֵן אֶת־הַיֹּ�*ֵק כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא, Dt 28:29 (הָעִוֵּר), Ju 8:18 b הַמֶּלֶךְ כְּתֹאַר בְּ�*ֵי, 14:6 כְּשַׁסַּע הַגְּדִי like (a lion’s) rending a kid, 16:9 1 K 14:15 Zc 12:10 כְמִסְפֵּד עַל הַיָּחִיד as mourning over an only child, 13:9 +. Where, however, the standard of comparison is not the class in general, but only a particular part of it, defined by a special epithet (whether adj. or verb), the art. is naturally omitted: thus כַּמֹּץ like chaff (in general) Is 41:15, but כְּמֹץ עֹבֵר like chaff passing away 29:5; כַּצֵּל Jb 14:2, but כְּצֵל �*ָטוּי ψ 102:12; כַּקַּשׁ Is 40:24. but כְּקַשׁ �*ִדָּף 41:2; כָּאַיָּל Is 35:6, but כְּאַיָּל תַּעֲרֹג על וג׳ like a hind (that) longeth for streams of water ψ 42:2; כָּאֵשׁ Is 9:17, but כְּאֵשׁ תבער יער like fire (that) kindleth a wood ψ 83:15; כֶעָשָׁן Is 51:6, but כְּעָשָׁן מֵאֲרֻבָּה like smoke from a chimney Ho 13:3: so Is 62:1 b Jb 9:26; 11:16 כְּמַיִם עָֽבְרוּ like waters (that) have passed by, etc.; Dt 32:2 a כַּמָּטָר, כַּטַּל, but v 2 b כִּשְׂעִירִים עֲלֵי־דֶשֶׁא, עֲלֵי־עֵשֶׂב כִּרְבִיבִים. Where the art. is found, although a rel. clause follows (as ψ 1:4; 49:13 Is 61:10), this is prob. to be regarded not as limiting the class of object compared, but as describing it. g. prefixed to generic nouns (in the singular) it designates the class, i.e. it imparts to the noun a collective force, as Ex 1:22 כָּל־הַבֵּן all (lit. the whole of) the sons, כָּל־הַבַּת all the daughters, Lv 17:8, 10 מִן־הַגֵּר of the strangers, who sojourn in their midst, Nu 21:7 הַ�*ָּחָשׁ the serpents; Gn 14:13 Ez 24:26; 33:21 הַפָּלִיט those who escaped; Jos 6:7 + הֶחָלוּץ 6:9, 13 הַמְאַסֵּף; 8:19 הָאֹורֵב; 1 S 13:17 הַמַּשְׁחִית; Mi 2:13; Is 6:4 הַקֹּורֵא the choir of criers; 1 S 24:14 הַקַדְמֹ�*ִי the ancients; Ec 7:26 אֶת־הַאִשָּׁה woman, and often with gentile names, as הַיְבוּסִי the Jebusites, הַכְּרֵתִי וְהַפְּלֵתִי 2 S 8:18 al., הַדָּ�*ִי Ju 18:1 etc., הַלֵּוִי the Levites, Nu 3:20; 18:23 Mal 2:8 ψ 135:20 +. h. with nouns denoting abstract ideas, especially the names of moral qualities (cf. Gk. ἡ δίκη, Fr. la justice), chiefly in two cases—(α) where the art. is recognizable in the consonantal text, exceptionally, when some emphasis or definiteness is intended, as Dt 7:9 שׁומר הברית והחסד; החסד הזה 2 S 2:5 1 K 3:6; את החסד והרחמים Je 16:5 (contr. Zc 7:9); הצדק �*Is 1:26; 61:3 Ec 3:16; הַצְּדָקָה �*Is 32:17(×2) (contrast v 16) Dn 9:7 (emph.); הַדַּעַת Ho 4:6; הָאֱמֶת Gn 32:11 (sq. אֲשֶׁר), Is 59:15 (contrast v 14) Zc 8:3, 19; הָאֱמוּ�*ָה �*Is 11:5 b (contr. v a) Je 7:28; הַחָכְמָה Jb 28:12, 20; הַחַיִּים Gn 2:9 +; הָאַהֲבָה �*Ct 2:7; 3:5; 8:4, 7; הַשֶּׁקֶר �*Je 7:4, 8; 23:26; הַמָּוֶת Is 25:8 Ru 1:17 +; הָרֶשַׁע �*ψ 125:3 Ec 3:16; הָרִשְׁעָה �*Zc 5:8; הַחֹשֶׁךְ Is 60:2 Ec 2:13; see also Dt 30:15, 19 (Je 21:8), 1 K 7:14 Je 32:19 Mal 2:5 החיים והשׁלום, ψ 123:4; 130:4 Dn 9:9 1 Ch 29:11 2 Ch 1:12 Pr 31:30 Ec 2:13, 17; 7:12, 19; 10:6; 11:10: but in all such cases חֶסֶד, צֶדֶק, אֱמֶת, etc. are far more common. (β) where the art. depends on the punctuation, after preps. especially בְּ, but with much irregularity, as בַּחֶסֶד Is 16:5 Pr 20:28 (but בְּח׳ Ho 2:21 Pr 16:6), בַּצֶּדֶק Pr 25:5 (elsewhere always בְּצ׳: בִּצְדָקָה also always); בֶּאֱמֶת and בֶּאֱמוּ�*ָה always; בַּשֶּׁקֶר �*Is 28:15 (but || כָּזָב, not הַכָּזָב) Je 5:31; 13:25; 20:6; 23:14 (בְּשֶׁקֶר �*Je 3:10; 29:9); בַּשָּׁלֹום �*ψ 29:11 Jb 15:21 (elsewhere בְּשָׁלֹום); Zc 12:4 to smite בַּשִּׁגָּעֹון וּבַעִוָּרֹון (but Dt 28:28 בְּשׁגעון וּבְעורון), cf. Gn 19:11 Dt 28:22; to enter with one בַּמִּשְׁפָּט Jb 9:32; 22:4 (but בְּמשׁפט ψ 143:2), contrast also Pr 18:5 with 24:23; לַמִּשְׁפָּט Is 59:11 ψ 9:8 (but לְמ׳ Is 5:7 ψ 122:5); Pr 2:2; 7:4 לַחָכְמָה (but never הַחכמה in Pr 1–9, or indeed in the whole book); Pr 2:3; 7:4 לַבִּי�*ָה, Jb 39:17 בַּבִּי�*ָה (but never הַבִּי�*ָה); Pr 2:2, 3 לַתְּבוּ�*ָה (but הַתְּבוּ�*ָה only 1 K 7:14 emph.); to perish בַּצָּמָא Ju 15:18 +; Is 29:21 בַּתֹּהוּ, 32:19 בַּשִּׁפְלָה תִּשְׁפַּל הָעִיר Germ. in die Niedrigkeit sinkt die Stadt, 45:16 together they go בַבְּלִמָּה (in die Schmach), 46:2 בַּשְּׁבִי into captivity, 47:5 בֹּאִי בַחשֶׁךְ (so always: never בְחשׁך). The living language may have used the art. more readily after a prep., where it did not lengthen the word by an entire syll.; still the disparity of usage between α and β makes it not improb. that the art. in β is in many cases not original but due to the punctuators. i. to mark the vocative: 1 S 17:55 חֵי־�*פשׁך הַמֶּלֶךְ as thy soul liveth, O king, I do not know, v 58 בן מי אתה הַ�*ַּעַר Whose son art thou, lad? 2 S 14:4 Help, O king! 1 K 18:26 הַבַּעַל עֲ�*ֵ�*וּ, 2 K 9:5 אֵלֶיךָ הַשָּׂר, Is 42:18 הַחֵֽרְשִׁים שְׁמָ֑עוּ, Je 2:31 הַדֹּור אַתֶּם רְאוּ וג׳, Ez 37:4 הָעֲצָמֹות הַיְּבֵשֹׁות O dry bones, Mal 3:9 הַגֹּוי כֻּלֹּו (Dr§ 198 Obs. 2)."

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. 2000. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc. (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems: Oak Harbor, WA

JW:
Per BDB note the following:
1) The Hebrew definite article is very similar in usage to the Greek and German and therefore, by extension, English.

2) The first and most common category of usage given by BDB is joined with substantives to give a definite concrete object.

3) BDB gives a sub category of the Hebrew definite article joined to nouns which are not definite by themselves but acquire definite status based on context.

4) BDB gives an example of 3) with the general noun "lad".

Thus the default meaning of:

הָעַלְמָה
HML ( H
the young woman

is a definite young woman unless the Context clearly indicates that the woman was unknown.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

lee_merrill

You may need to apply for permission to post such long quotes! But need we see all the entries? And I would say a sign such as "ask a sign in the highest heavens or the earth below" would not simply refer to a woman giving birth to a son, this would indicate a more supernatural event was intended, that a virgin indeed was meant.

spin

lee_merrill, it might be nice if you understood what you were trying to undermine, but, as you don't, I hope I can help you.

The sign certainly does "not simply refer to a woman giving birth to a son". No-one claims this, but perhaps you. The sign is that before the child to be born reaches the age of being able to choose good over evil, "the land before whose two kings [Ahaz is] in dread will be deserted."

Instead of trying to understand what the text says, lee_merrill, you've simply done what every other convinced apologist has done, ie neglected the text and rehearsed dogma.

The original text says nothing about a virgin, but you need a virgin. She is in fact already pregnant. She is observably pregnant and that's what Joe has asked you to note in reading the text. The woman is present in the narrative (you were asked to note that "woman" has a definite article, so it's not an unknown woman). The speaker can see that she is pregnant -- remember "behold"? The speaker is saying "look at her and see".

Please read the whole passage and you should then understand how it works.


spin

manwithdream

Spin,

I don't know how to show quotes, so I will just say what I want to explain. You said that in Isaiah 7:14, the hay (the word "the") is used to show that the young woman is actually present, but the word "the" is used in the Tanakh differently than in English. On B-hebrew,when this was discussed, one of the people pointed out 1 Kings 20:36 "the lion" and 2 Samuel 17:17 "the servant girl" among a few other quotes with "the" used when "a" would be used in English.

Also, the same person tried to show "hineh" used for future events in Gen. 6:13, 6:17, 1 Samuel 3:11, and 2 Kings 7:2.

Manwithdream

Amaleq13

Click on the QUOTE button at the bottom of the post. Manual quoting can be accomplished by placing {quote} at the start of the quoted material and {/quote} at the end but you have to replace the {} with [] for it to work.


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

spin

This is the divide and conquer approach: separate the related issues and rubbish each of them, so that you don't have to deal with their combined consequences.

Look how HNH is generally used in the Hebrew bible. Try for example the first five or ten uses in Genesis. Try Gen 6:12 in which god sees the current situation (HNH) and from there moves to the imminent future (HNH), "I will destroy..." HNH focuses attention: the young woman is mentioned immediately after the HNH to focus your attention on her. She is at the same time already pregnant: H(LMH HRH, observe her; you can see. (For the christianizing reading one has to already know what you want the text to mean to consistently take the least likely renderings.)

Then, your objections seem, as with many analysts, to miss out on what the verse is actually doing. Focusing on the young woman and her supposed miraculous pregnancy means that one misses the sign totally. This passage is about a sign from god to Ahaz which deals with the fall of Samaria and Damascus. I don't understand why so many intelligent people refuse to deal with what the text actually says.

Isa 7:14f
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, the young woman with child will bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel. Curds and honey shall he eat by the time he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

In fact this is only the first of a doublet of signs about the fall of the northerly realms in Isaiah. Look at the close parallel with Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa 8), before whose being able to call on his mother and father (ie before he can speak) Assyria will have carried away the wealth of both Samaria and Damascus. Note how once again the sign is the brevity of time to the fall measured regarding a new born child's ability first to reach the age to distinguish good and evil, second to reach the age of being able to talk.

Isa 8:4
For before the child knows how to cry: My father, and: My mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria.

The blind refusal to deal with the literal significance and the weight of context regarding Isa 7:14 doesn't reflect well.


spin

manwithdream

Spin,

I am not sure if you thought I was giving my own opinion about the word "the" and the word "behold" (hineh), because I was not. I was just saying what I read on B-hebrew. I do not believe that Isaiah 7:14 is about a virgin birth, and I was not defending that belief.

I was hoping you had heard these arguments before, and had some answer. I don't think that it is useful to say that the word "the" used before "young woman" shows that the young woman is there at the time because you can't prove absolutely that "the" is used that way always. I gave you the quotes that the guy used to show that "the" is not used the same in Hebrew. I was very surprised to read his argument because I don't know Hebrew, and I did not know how "the" was used sometimes.

Also, I was frustrated about his argument about "hineh" used in future prophecies, but I can't disprove what he said in a way that would satisfy him. B-hebrew has a lot of Christians who know Hebrew, and they are often using their knowledge in a missionary way, even though they are not supposed to.

In the end, it does not matter because they ignore the whole sign as you pointed out. They just say it is either a double prophecy that will happen somehow at Ahaz' time and again hundreds of years later as a virgin birth of their religion's founder.

Some people say Isaiah 7:14 has two signs, even though it only mentions one, and they say that Isaiah's son "a remnant shall return" is the one who will know good from evil. They say that is why Isaiah brought his son with him when he spoke to Ahaz. These ideas are not my opinions, but their opinions.

You have to have a way to prove or disprove the existence of double prophecies to really deal with Isaiah 7:14. Nothing else seems to work.

Manwithdream

spin

Once again separating the evidence. Why is HNH immediately followed by a noun with a definite article?

It is not strange that different languages develop diverse uses for apparently similar notions.

In this case your source has probably pointed to the use of the definite article, eg 2 Sam 17:17 of a referent in passing for a specific purpose. In each case though it seems that the referent is not qualified as our young woman with child. She is an integral part of the discourse rather than peripheral.

Unfortunately, it requires some domesticity with the particular language.

This use with prophecies is quite often with a starting point of the observable present. In fact the most common use of HNH, as I said, is to focus attention. In prophecies this is often, look at the current situation and watch what I (god) will do from here and that is the situation in Isa 7:14.

This should be clear when considering what the actual sign is about. It would have no sense to talk about some young woman who we don't know yet who will become pregnant at some stage then follow it with a very specific notion of before the child can know to choose between right and wrong -- as with the parallel of not yet being able to say "my mother" or "my father". Obviously, with the definite nature of the sign you need the definite nature of the starting material: it's not just any young woman at some stage. The woman is known and she is being indicated with HNH. If you don't know which pregnant woman, what would be the value of the sign??

And the double nature of that prophecy only becomes apparent when read by christians who inject the second prophecy, despite the fact that there is no reason from the text to see one there.

You might ask, when did "a sign" come to mean "two signs".

One has to start with the text, otherwise one can say anything one likes. That is eisegesis. What we try to do with the text is understand what it actually says (this is exegesis). If someone is merely interested in eisegesis nothing will work. We see it time and again here, usually from christians who have a priori commitments to the significance of texts, texts which have to be mangled to provide the desired significances. Isa 7:14 is a classic (as is Ps 22:16) and you'll note that one requires substantial mangling, not "young woman", but "virgin" (this is uncondonable); not "with child" but "will become pregnant" (this requires a lot of effort without any textual support in the passage); not "the (young woman)" but "a (young woman)" (again without any textual support in the passage).


spin