HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: ALMAH - BETULAH
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:51:29 GMT
Reply-To: H_Markowitz@att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com

On 8 Jan 93 15:33:04 GMT, Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) said:

> ---------SINCE THIS DISCUSSION APPLIES TO THIS NEWS GROUP AS WELL------
> ON ISAIAH 7:14 {pg. 35}  "THE YOUNG WOMAN.  Hebrew HA'ALMAH means an
> adolescent woman, one of marriageable age. [...] The Hebrew for
> 'virgin' is BETHULAH, though ALMAH too sometimes bears this meaning.
> (ISAIAH Soncino Books Of The Bible Editor: Rev. Dr. A. Cohen M.A.
> Ph.D., D.H.L. by The Rev. Dr. I. W. Slotki, M.A., Litt.D.  Revised by
> Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg  The Soncino Press London - New York @ 1983 ISBN
> 0-900689-28-5)

> As can plainly be seen, the Soncino Is. says EXACTLY what we've been
> saying all along: that almah can bear the meaning of virgin, (contrary
> to what one will hear on this net)!

Noone has been claiming that a "young woman" cannot be a virgin.  Those of
us with daughters KNOW that is true.  Those of us with married daughters
assume that the grandchildren did not come from a miracle.  In both
cases they are "young women".  The claim that calling someone a "young
woman" requires that she be a virgin (even if married) or a nonvirgin
(even if unmarried) is what the people objecting to the claims are
maintaining.

Again:

1.  Ha-almah means a specific young woman known to Yeshaya and Achaz

2.  The woman was probably the prophet's or the king's wife (not some
anonymous zonah as has appeared elsewhere)

3.  Before the child was more than a couple of years
old, Achaz would see the defeat of the enemy kings.

4.  The child was not the one in the next chapter.  Those who say the
woman is the king's wife would say that he is a brother of Hezekiah who
does not appear again because it was only his naming that was
significant and he himself did not take part in the events of the
historical books.

5. Those who say that the child is the son of the prophet would also say
that he is not mentioned because he does not come into other events.
The Navi does not need to say "The prophecy came true on such and such a
date, at Shaarei Tzedek Hospital, in room 13A, Dr. Ploni Almoni
attending".


--
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah in Isa 7:14
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:23:51 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <141795.2B4D63A9@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
>Jack on the other hand uses cultic tactics, when he doesn't have any proof or anything tangeable to say...  Very normal for a person who tends towards the cultic...  I am very thick skinned though.  (grin).
>
>While i do not consider myself a scholar by any means, i do believe in learning all i can... 

I'm delighted to learn that Mr. Smith is aware that he does not fit
the definition of a scholar, it appears that we can agree on 
something. As for the ad hominem attack on me, I will have to leave
it to others on the Internet as to whether my citations of 
relevant works by the primary authors in the fields under
discussion constitute "cultic tactics."

By the way, if anyone would like to know my bona fides in matters
such as the definitions of Hebrew words, please feel free to 
e-mail to me and I will do the best I can to satisfy the 
request.
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Almah in Isa 7: 14
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:01:18 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <LJMORLY.93Jan10183922@polaris.utu.fi>, ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:

|> I repeat:
|> 1. It could not have been any sign if some zona would have got a baby.

I still don't know why you don't think that the military defeat before
the baby grows up was the sign.

Especially since Isaiah essentially says this twice in two different ways.

|>    Moreover, someone with such a name, Immanuel - God with us,
|>    could not have been just anybody, but the Messiah (see Jer. 23:6).

You mean my high school friend Immanuel Goldman is the Messiah???

Must be --- according to you, how else could he get such a name?

|> 2. There's no mention of anybody called Immanuel during that time.
|>    And there are other names given to the child in Is 9:5.
|> 

During what time??  It's probably not recorded, because the
ancients didn't know about Immanuel Goldman.  

He should be still in his forties.  I haven't kept in touch
with him, but he must be awfully busy establishing peace
and restoring the nation of Israel.

When I knew him, his major achievement was playing halfback
for the very forgettable Bronx High School of Science
football team.  (I think he was 5'3", about 110 pounds.)


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Almah in Isa 7: 14
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<LJMORLY.93Jan7201038@polaris.utu.fi>
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:08:48 UTC

In article <LJMORLY.93Jan7201038@polaris.utu.fi> 
ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
>In article <fXDHi6C@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> In article <LJMORLY.93Jan6195742@polaris.utu.fi> 
>> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
>> >"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government 
>> >will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Councellor,
>> >Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."  - Yeshaya 9:5 (9:6)
>> By the way, on the off chance that you're interested in the original
>> word, here is a faithful translation of the Masorah and Qumran texts:
>> JPS Tanakh, ISBN: 0-8276-0252-9:
>> Isaiah9:5
>> 	For a child has been born to us,
>> 	A son has been given us.
>> 	And authority has settled on his shoulders.
>> 	He has been named
>> 	"The Mighty God is planning grace;(d)
>> 	The Eternal Father, a peacable ruler" -
>> ----
>> d: As in 25.1
>The beginning is more or less correct, but from 'He has been named' 
>onwards...
>'Vayikra shmo Pele Yoetz El Gibbor Avi Ad Sar Shalom'
>vayikra shmo = and he will be called
>pele = miracle, wonderfull
>yoetz = councellor
>El = God
>gibbor = hero (as an adjective 'mighty')
>avi = my father
>ad = to everlasting
>sar = prince, ruler, minister
>shalom = peace
>'And he will be called Wonderfull (,) Councellor, Mighty God, Everlasting
>Father, Prince of Peace.'
>> It seems that Christianity is full of propaganda which doesn't
>> necessarily nullify the religion, but it seems one should wonder why such
>> zealous marketing techniques are required to sell what is supposed to be
>> the truth. If one seeks the truth, one should do so truthfully,
>> otherwise one only fools oneself. If one seeks propaganda, there are
>> always those who will sell it.
>You are wrong... As I showed you, my translations are correct, yours 
>aren't, so why not think for a while whose "religion" has to use
>some special techniques.

Your translation strikes me as a bit limited, but you would be the judge
of such things. Perhaps you see what others do not or perhaps you have
forced yourself into seeing what is not there. In either case, I wonder if
you might take a crack at v.25.1, noting a simularity. FYI, JPS:TANAKH:
Isaiah v.25.1
O LORD, You are my God;
I will extol You, I will praise Your name.
For You planned graciousness(a) of old,
Counsels of steadfast faithfulness.
----
a: See 9.5
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Lost posts 3 of 4
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:01:06 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0



--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah in Isa 7:14
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:09:33 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <141769.2B4B6601@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
> JL> I don't understand this sentence at all. 
>Well it was very very plain Jack.  

About as plain as the rest of your stuff. 

> Rabbis have their own interpretation of Isa 7:14 in an attempt to debunk the Virgin birth, doctrine of Christianity. If this isn't opposites in exegetics than i don't know what is.

This was nonsense when you first stated it. It remains nonsense.

>Only in liberal non biblical churches Jack...  Many have departed from the faith, no longer believing in the virgin birth, or the Scriptures as being anything but the Word of God.

Could we have your definition of "liberal" churches, Harvey? What
percentage of the Christian world belongs to these "liberal"
churches?

>The question is not whether the word alma means virgin  or young woman, for it surely does mean young woman of marriageable age or betrothed to be married, and in EVERY CASE in the Tanakh where the word is used, it refers to a virgin, so it means a young maiden, who is a virgin, so the Rabbinic translators who translated it in 300bce into greek meaning VIRGIN, ie parthenos.... and correctly so.
>

Although I don't entirely agree with the responses, others have
already demonstrated the falaciousness of this point. I think that
you are making a propaganda point here, not one based in any
scholarship, so further argument is pointless.

>Many historic churches have long left the faith, and that is one of the reasons so many of them are losing membership and have been for well over 20 years.
>
Once again, I wonder whether you would care to identify these
no longer Christian churches.

>Nope Sorry Jack, just finished a research on the word almah, and in Ugaritic the word alma poetically is always associated with the term virgin...  

If I actually believed that you knew anything about Ugaritic, this
might be an interesting conversation. But since I'm quite sure
that any request for sources would bring the same misinterpreted
gibberish, I think I'll skip it.
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
From: krulwich@zowie.ils.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Subject: Re: Supposed Talmud quotes  (was Re: Almah in Isa 7:14)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:20:59 GMT



OK, so Harvey Smith set out to "prove" that the Talmud understood the Moshiach
to be from a virgin birth.  He did this by quoting a Talmud reference:

>>> The below quotes are taken from the English folio edition of the Talmud vol
>>> ii p 386...

which of course I took to mean that he had copied the subsequent text from an
edition of the Talmud.  I responded:

>> Sorry, but can you please give a real citation to the Talmud?  The second
>> volume of the Talmud (Messeches Shabbos) has no page 386, and this is true
>> of the Soncino English edition as well.  If you're talking about some
>> obscure printing, please elaborate.

In other words, Harvey's citation is gibberish.  I also made a second claim:

>> I decided that even though your citation is nonsense, I'd check if such a
>> Talmud quote exists.  I checked out the verse in Psalms (110:4) that is
>> included, and used the Toldos Aharon to find all the times that the verse
>> is quoted in the Talmud.  None of the references I got bore any resemblence
>> to the supposed Talmud quote you give.

In other words, the quote doesn't seem to exist in the Talmud.

Now, there's a simple way for Harvey to respond -- go to the volume of the
Talmud from which he got the quote, and give a better reference.  Does he do
this?  No, rather he says:

> Sorry copied the wrong reference..  The references are to a 15th century
> Talmud, that is in Aramaic, and Hebrew... and was not translated into
> english.

I don't understand.  All Talmud's are in Aramaic and Hebrew.  Why does that
stop you from giving a citation?  Anyone who studies Jewish texts can give a
citation into the Talmud -- first give the name of the Messechta (tractate,
volume name) and then give the page number, and then give "a" or "b" for the
side of the page.  Presumably you got the quote from somewhere, please give
the citation.

Then, Harvey reveals some truth:

> They are in the process of being researched, however since this is info from
> Oxford University, and their Hebraic department, there is no reason to doubt
> the source, however we are doing ongoing research to be able to come up with
> the exact Talmudic quotes and exact places within the Talmud where they can
> be easily accessed...

Aha.  Here we have it.  The "Talmudic quotes" that Harvey gave are in fact
_not_ from the Talmud!  If they're from an old document of some sort, fine,
that's interesting, but why have you claimed that they're from the Talmud?

This looks alot like "to the Hebrews I pretended to be a Hebrew."  Judaism
prefers honesty.


Dov (Bruce) Krulwich
krulwich@ils.nwu.edu
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Lost posts 4 of 4
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:01:18 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0


To: Bruce Tiffany

--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Non-existant Talmud quotes (was Supposed Talmud (was Almah in Isa))
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:20:24 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0

>> I don't understand Bruce i gave you the references in Torah and 
Tanakh for
>> you to look up.  are you lazy or something or just plain 
beligerant...

 BK> Yes, Harvey, I looked up the Tanach references you gave, and 
 BK> there is no Talmud quote referring to those verses.  What I'm 

And that is your error Bruce Krulwich...  I just got verification from an orthodox Rabbi on the Talmudic quotes.  Am in the process in finding out where they are exactly in the Talmud, and then you can wipe the egg off your face.

--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah in Isa 7:14
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:49:05 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <141729.2B489D7A@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
> JL> Here you go again. There is no debate between "Rabbinics and 
> JL> Christians" on this issue. There is only a debate between 
> JL> literalists and everyone else. Literalists cannot abide the 
> JL> fact that Biblical text is occasionally unclear, cannot be 
>
>Nope not at all Jack,  Here you go again i guess... There are issues of Torah and Tanakh that relate directly as to how, and what is proper exegetics of many  
>scriptures especially Isa 7:14.

I don't understand this sentence at all. 
>
> JL> modern. If the debate is between anyone and "Christians" why 
> JL> do so many Christian translations and commentaries accept 
> JL> "young woman" as the correct text and either reject or 
> JL> question "virgin?"
>
>Only in the modern era Jack.  only in modern translations that have not been accepted by the majority of Christians...

Happens to be the era I live in Harvey, unlike yourself evidently. As
for translations "not accepted by the majority of Christians"--that's
kind of interesting to me. I remember very distinctly being cautioned
by an evangelical Christian that Roman Catholics are not "Christians"
because they value the teachings of the Church more than the Gospel.
Is this the context of your remarks? Are you excluding Roman Catholics,
Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc. etc. from your 
definition of Christians? Because translations officially adopted
by all of those Churches accept "young woman" over "virgin." 

>And to the wording "Young Woman espoused" we have no difficulty with either..
>as that is the correct rendering of the word "almah",  which is utilized before a woman has her first child in Biblical hebrew..

Sorry Harvey, the volume of your verbiage does not mean you 
are correct. Almah means "young woman" and has nothing to say one
way or another about virginity in the modern English sense of 
that word. This is the consensus of all modern scholarship. If 
you wish to believe otherwise, that is your perogative. But it 
is belief that is your motivation. 
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
From: abvax!ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM!BENNING
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Prayer request for Jewish nursing home.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 7:55:08 -0500 (EST)


                          --> Prayer request <--
                         ************************

 Here in Cleveland (OHIO) there has been an outbreak of a bacterial 
 disease at a Jewish Nursing home (Montefiore Home). The rare strain
 is called campylobacter disease and it has infected 4 and one has died. 
 Though the death has not been ruled as a result of compylobacteriosis yet.

 There are some Jewish Believers in Yeshua at this nursing home, and
 for their sake and the sake of all the aging children of Abraham, 
 please join me and my brothers and sisters in Prayer. I ask all those
 who call on the name of the Lord to intercede for all those at Montefiore
 that the strain of bacteria would be contained and eradicated from all
 who live and work there and the building itself.

 Let us approach the Lord like the priests of old with our prayers, the
 fruit of our lips, and mediate between those in the nursing home and God.

 Thanks, and may the Lord bless.

 Bruce Benning -- Benning@astro.cs.hh.ab.com 
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,alt.atheism
From: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Reply-To: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<1993Jan3.151154.18933@cs.unca.edu> <C0D4Au.Cqr@ecf.toronto.edu>
	<1993Jan6.134633.1868@hfsi.uucp>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:56:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.134633.1868@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:

In article <C0D4Au.Cqr@ecf.toronto.edu>,
       vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
[...]
   >  Then the Catholic Church of Canada ( or whatever proper 
And in the US (Archdiocese of Chicago), as reported on CNN and elsewhere.
   >name ) covered up that child abuse ( MANY cases ) in the 60's and in some
   >cases even left the priests in positions of trust ( and preaching ) where
   >the destroyed more children's lives.[...]

   Perhaps you have never heard that ad hominem arguments are a
   logical fallacy?
This is not an instance of ad hominem argument, but of generalization.
Ad hominem would be "you're an [insult], therefore your argument is
weak". The above is, "enough of the parts are seriously flawed that I
don't trust the workings of the whole".

  This old argument that Christianity is flawed
   because some of its members erred is false.
Only in a very narrow sense. The more pointed criticism that the
Church is flawed because it has clung to the form of the teachings
while losing or even suppressing their substance is not as easy to
answer.

  Quoting misdeeds of
   members doesn't change one iota the validity of the teachings of
   Jesus.
Including, "By their fruit ye shall know them." and "When I am gone,
build unto me no buildings -- wherever two or three shall gather in
my name, there I shall be" (paraphrased).

-- Craig "Take this out of sci.skeptic, please!" Presson
From: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah in Isa 7:14
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:11:30 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 8:7002/1.0

To: Jack Love

 JL> stand by my point which is that modern scholarship has the 
 JL> capacity for casting additional and new light on ancient 
 JL> sources. In some cases this comes from new disciplines and 
 JL> technologies. In some cases it comes from simple "spade" work 
 JL> such as archaeology.

Yes that is true.  However, the speculations of those who have confessed that they don't believe anyway has no bearing on the scholarship and archaelogy
that in fact does believe in the Faith...

So you have two camps, the liberal non believing camp which is dedicated to disprove everything, and that is not science either, and the Evangelical camp which is dedicated to coming up with "The Truth" no matter what it is.

The former speculates, and the latter comes to scientific decisions based on research, archaelogy and carbon dating..

Now whos the fool?

 JL> Hardly, we've already agreed that Harvey belongs to some period
 JL> of medieval "scholarship." You shoudn't mind that since you 
 JL> evidently think that all scholarship is the same.

Not so Jack, but every cultic individual always takes to flaming, when they cannot come up with evidence.....  Evidence Jack is the name of the game...

 JL> Nothing of the sort has been proven. It has been asserted. The
 JL> alleged proof is worthless.

Your interpretation shows a complete lack of understanding of the word completely, and you could not ever find even an unbelieving scholar to come up with your interpretation that it just means "maid" or "Young woman".

In every instance where the word is utilized in the Scriptures, it refers to a 
"Young maiden of marriageable age" "who is a virgin" .  So the weight of how the word is used is against you Jack...  

Sorry about that...

Ask any O.T. scholar, liberal or otherwise, and ask him or her if in fact the usage of the word in other places in a document has any bearing on how the word is used...

I think you are harping on things you know nothing about, and are just using words.  you have yet to come up with any references etc.. 
--  
Harvey Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah in Isa 7:14
Date: 11 Jan 1993 14:50:27 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <141858.2B513D02@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
>
> JL> By the way, if anyone would like to know my bona fides in matters
> JL> such as the definitions of Hebrew words, please feel free to 
> JL> e-mail to me and I will do the best I can to satisfy the 
> JL> request.
> JL> -- 
>we are all waiting with bated breath Jack...  as to your bona fides...(grin) 

I assume the addition of the (grin) means that you don't actually
care. Certainly I have not received a single request via private
e-mail. I would reply to you privately, but as you know, your
e-mail connection is unreliable. I'll refrain from sarcasm on this
point. (grin)
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)