Phlox Pyros

Another interesting thing to note, is that in the Genesis case, where almah is translated parthenos. The almah is most likely a virgin.

Chris Weimer

Phlox Pyros - Almost anything is possible. I do not care about what is possible, I care about what is probable, and that almah was the original reading is not probable.

And no, I tried the morph search too. I don't know what it is, but for some reason that word, and that word alone, isn't working. I think it must be a glitch in the version I have (I haven't updated it yet.)

Phlox Pyros

Then called Christ in Josephus is what you really care about because it is what the evidence yields, right?

And actually, although I'm assuming it was just an oversight, I believe that bethulah could likely have been the underlying reading, just as it is used plenty of other times in Isaiah, unlike the rare, hapax legomen almah. Can you really deny the plausibility of this?

Chris Weimer

No. It is not probable that Josephus wrote those words. Actaully, it is not plausible that he did either.

Is it plausible? Perhaps. But I thought I already explained which of the three evaluational P's I care about most - probable.

Phlox Pyros

I see this as a biased position. If evidence is what the judgement of probability is based on, then Josephus' reading should stand. If not, then what I have presented should stand.

Ah...the crux.

Chris Weimer

Non sequitur. How am I not basing my position from the evidence?

Better yet, stick to the topic at hand and try not to derail. Make a new topic about how my position is somehow "biased" instead of merely slinging the word around without any supporting evidence.

Phlox Pyros

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. If you do not accept that the manuscripts of Josephus have called Christ and prefer to say that he must have written something else because Christ is a hapax legomen, then it is biased to accept the manuscript evidence for the hapax legomen almah in Isaiah without also seriously considering what I have presented.

Chris Weimer

Red Herring. Josephus is not pertinent to this thread. But now that we see your true ulterior motives seeping out, I know what to deal with when I enter your thread about Josephus that surely you're going to start any second now instead of derailing this thread?

Phlox Pyros

Derailing? I created the thread. And I am simply saying that there are ulterior motives for not accepting the reading in Josephus and yet accepting the the reading in Isaiah. Why is that not pertinent?

Chris Weimer

Because you failed to take into account all the evidence. What's the selective investigation of the evidence called again? Oh yeah, bias. Now go start a new thread before you derail *your* thread any further.

And speaking of someone who has some ulterior motives - don't you have a savior to be defending? And you dare slander me with bias. This is merely sophistry, Plox, and you know it. And it doesn't work.