Phlox Pyros

The name wasn't the whole point. The quote that you ignored was most of it.

Actually, I do. How'd you know?

Good grief, you can be hard headed. You should know that Tov and many others state that the standardization of the HB did not happen until the 1st century. I'm not even going to give you page numbers, because I know you know this stuff and are simply ignoring it for some reason. Far be it from spin to admit his own mistakes and blunders. Trypho is too late... Trypho knows only the corrupt text of his day and also knows, unlike you will acknowledge, that parthenos is an inaccurate translation of almah. For some reason, you don't deal with that second part either... Hmm...wonder why.

Of course, it falls in line with the translators consistent use of bethulah and makes as much sense in context as almah does.

Stop the apologetics, spin!

Phlox Pyros

Edited out the hate.

kais

I'm not sure why this argument is particularly relevant given that Joe seems to be the only person strongly asserting that parthenos is "equivocal as to virginity" (post #49). Your other opponents are basing their arguments on the DSS. After you provided a summation of your argument, Apikorus posted the following:

"Other than 23:4, the instances of betulah in Isaiah are all metaphorical. As for 23:4, the expression betulot ubechorim = "virgins and young men" (and variations thereof) was evidently part of the vernacular, as it also appears in Deut 32:25, Jer 51:22, Amos 8:13, Qoh 1:18, 2:21, Ps 148:12, and 2 Chr 36:17. Isa 7:14 presents a clearly different literary context than any of these bethulah verses, as it refers to a specific (though unnamed) person. So I see no evidence in the text whatsoever which would lead me to question the appearance of almah in 7:14. 1QIsa(a) seals the deal." (post #48)

I find his analysis persuasive. Do you?

spin

That which you quoted from your name was just an unsupported opinion which you have already stated. Dismal. Try again.

It's the only explanation for your performance.

Get real. We are not talking about the whole Hebrew bible. We are talking about one text which we have two Qumran witnesses to.


Sadly Justin doesn't know what you take for granted. We have to wait for Irenaeus to try that fudge.

First, you should look up the citations in L&S for when parQenos certainly doesn't mean virgin, before you try to beat this weak point to death. Then you should acknowledge that LXX translations are prone to inaccuracy. In short, you have no point.

She's pregnant.

It is the fact that she is sexually capable, ie (lmh. No indication in the text requires (or even hints at the possibility of) a meaning of "virgin". The text doesn't support you. You've simply pushed an unsubstantiable conjecture over the edge into incredulity.


spin

Phlox Pyros

It is not relevant. It seemed that others, like spin, were unreasonably takin g up that cause.

Apikorus has had the most persuasive counter to this point, but I do not think that it is overwhelming to the hypothesis. I don't particularly understand why virgin in the metaphorical sense would necessarily indicate that virgin could not be used in the sense it is at Isaiah 7:14.

The strongest point is the lack of evidence for bethulah. However, I provided Tov's quote to explain why I do not see this as overwhelming either.

So, again, the case is speculative because there is no physical evidence, just as the case against Josephus using called Christ is also speculative. This case is as strong, if not stronger, than that one. Textual critics will occasionally make a correction to a text in spite of a lack of physical evidence. This is called an emendation.

Phlox Pyros

Huh? What do we have but opinions? You have your erroneous opinion and I have my own. The difference is that I backed up my opinion by reference to an acknowledged scholar.

So, you believe the text of Isaiah was standardized before the 1st century? Please provide your support for this assertion.

No...that would be Justin. How long has it been since you've read this stuff anyway? Justin accuses the Jews of modifying the text. They both know that parthenos is an inaccurate translation almah, but you still have not dealt with this or the fact that the Hebrew had already been standardized by the time Trypho is arguing.

Spin, you are out on an extremely weak and apologetic limb if you are claiming that parthenos doesn't mean virgin! Liars for the cause... Attempting to win the argument at all costs of integrity?

That is your interpretation of the Hebrew, but this aspect was already pointed out earlier in this thread by Apikorus.

I can't help it if you are wrong, spin. Keep trying. Maybe you'll find something worth arguing.

Toto

MOD NOTE:

Godwin's law - you lose.

Please cool the rhetoric down a notch. I know that everyone here is having a good time in this verbal sparring, but references to Hitler are a warning flag that things are going out of control.

Phlox Pyros

ROTFL!!!! I wondered how long it would take for someone to ding me!!! :Cheeky:

Note that I did not descend into this stuff until Joe, Chris, and Spin ignited the flame of fire. That's ok...I'll be the martyr...the whipping boy.

spin

When you bang the drum with the already repudiate stuff about parQenos representing an underlying btwlh, we look at what the translator has done to try to understand it. The text clearly has (lmh in the Hebrew, so why use parQenos? Well, the term is wider than simply "virgin", which could account for the translator's use of it. It's not a point I need to make, as the text from the 1st c. BCE attests to (lmh. A Jewish scholar, Trypho, from the 2nd c. attests to the text having neanis. This is before the time of Theodotion and Aquila's translation is known for its overliteral translation, so obviously Trypho reflects the text. And as I have pointed out several times, Justin cannot respond to Trypho's point. Neither can you.


spin

Toto

Phlox - as we have said before, comments on moderation are off topic in the thread in question, and if you think someone has violated a rule, you can use the report post button rather than upping the rhetoric a notch or otherwise pouring gasoline on the fire.