Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 07-17-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Because Toto has already replied to this in post #13.

Post #13 is from P-D. Deal with my posts (and quote from them, if you really want yours answered), and we'll then see if you have a tenable point.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-17-2007, 08:35 AM

Incorrect. Post #13 was made by Toto.

He tried quoting you, but you still ignored him.

Just as you are continuing to ignore most of the posts made by your opponents, and most of the points made by myself within my own posts. You are only giving partial replies.

Why is this? :huh:

ksen · 07-17-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Why mention his mother and his birth?

If I could read the minds of the authors of Isaiah, I wouldn't have this problem. For all I know, it might be because it might of sounded poetic when written in Hebrew.

We are straying from the topic though. I'd really like to focus on what Pre-Christians Jews interpreted this as, instead of what you interpret it as.

I believe the pre-Christian Jewish translators of the LXX used the greek word that meant virgin.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-17-2007, 08:56 AM

I gather there wasn't a Greek word that unequivocally meant "virgin" at the time (i.e. the meaning of the Greek "parthenos" has itself shifted over time).

Also, see post #47. There seems to be some doubt about whether those "pre-Christian Jewish translators" actually placed a Greek translation of Isaiah into the LXX at all.

Amaleq13 · 07-17-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

But this is all so much academic waffle, because the context indicates that 'virgin' must be the correct meaning.

No, it does not and simply repeating this assertion does not constitute support for it. The context is that the age of the child is a time marker for the prophecy and whether the mother was a virgin is obviously irrelevant to that context.

squiz · 07-17-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

I gather there wasn't a Greek word that unequivocally meant "virgin" at the time (i.e. the meaning of the Greek "parthenos" has itself shifted over time).

I think the English word maiden is a good example of this. It seems to mean both a young woman and to be a synonym for virgin.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-17-2007, 09:22 AM

BTW, on the almah/betulah issue: it seems that nobody has mentioned Jerome yet. He was a 4th-century Christian, not exactly a Jewish apologist:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerome

Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah...

There is a great deal of relevant material on this issue on ErrancyWiki here. This is especially interesting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ichabod Crane

In fact the masculine plural cognate noun, betulim, means "virginity" in the abstract sense. See for example Deut 22:14,15,19, where the issue of virginity itself is specifically in view for legal reasons, and proof of the maiden's "betulim" (i.e. virginity) is required.

Clouseau · 07-17-2007, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Incorrect. Post #13 was made by Toto.

That's post #10. And I replied to it, as I reply to everything that needs a reply.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-17-2007, 10:58 AM

Nope, that is post #13.

Here's a list of the authors of the first 13 posts on this thread:

#1: Pseudo-Deity
#2: praxeus
#3: Clouseau
#4: Pseudo-Deity
#5: Pseudo-Deity
#6: Toto
#7: Clouseau
#8: Pseudo-Deity
#9: Pseudo-Deity
#10: Toto
#11: Clouseau
#12: Boro Nut
#13: Toto

This is what post #13 says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity

If I could read the minds of the authors of Isaiah, I wouldn't have this problem.

What problem? There was no sign in a man being called 'God with us'. That was the identification that was to come after the sign.

There was no point in mentioning a young woman and a birth if she was not a virgin. The case is solved.

The point was to use the birth of the child, and his growth to the point where he knew right from wrong, as a marker of time.

The prophecy had to do with Israelite military security. The prophecy was fulfilled in its time.

Case solved.

Then the Christians came along and claimed to have some special insight into the Hebrew Scriptures that Jewish scholars missed.

Case reopened. Christians still trying to argue for their bizarro reading 2000 years later in the face of consistent opposition from Jews and people who can actually read the texts.

There is no discernible response to this, other than the rather curious post #20, which includes Toto's phrase "The prophecy was fulfilled in its time" (erroneously attributing this to yourself), and nothing else of what Toto said. Plus the "dual prophecy" apologetic, for which there is IIRC absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever from Hebrew scriptures.

Derec · 07-17-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

There's no scholarship required here. Just a modicum of common sense, which seem to have deserted generations of otherwise sensible people. The text says that the future event will be an unusual occurrence, a sign, a portent. Now if 'almah' means 'a young woman', what is there unusual about a young woman giving birth? The word must mean 'virgin' or it is not worth writing.

The point of the passage is not a supernatural sign, but time. A woman shall conceive, and before the baby is old enough to "refuse the evil, and choose the good" the enemies of Judah will be vanquished.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2007, 08:35 AM	#62
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Incorrect. Post #13 was made by Toto. He tried quoting you, but you still ignored him. Just as you are continuing to ignore most of the posts made by your opponents, and most of the points made by myself within my own posts. You are only giving partial replies. Why is this? :huh:

07-17-2007, 08:56 AM	#64
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	I gather there wasn't a Greek word that unequivocally meant "virgin" at the time (i.e. the meaning of the Greek "parthenos" has itself shifted over time). Also, see post #47. There seems to be some doubt about whether those "pre-Christian Jewish translators" actually placed a Greek translation of Isaiah into the LXX at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.