From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah in Isa 7:14
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:55:55 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <LJMORLY.93Jan6195742@polaris.utu.fi> ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
>No one denies the above, but I don't see how that is your point --
>it merely explains the means that the modern scholarship has. I thought
>we were discussing about the meaning of 'almah'.

That's what I thought as well. It means "young woman." See
Brown, Driver, Briggs "A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament" Oxford University Press s.v.

>Let me elaborate. Is 7:14 is one of the clearest Messianic prophesies in
>Tanach

If this is true, than the whole matter isn't very clear.

>, saying that the Messiah will be born of a virgin 

It doesn't say that. No matter how much you may want it to, it
says nothing about a virgin, and it says nothing about a messiah
with either a capital or a small "m."

>and thus is more
>than a normal human being, so Rabbis throughout the centuries have tried
>to obscure its meaning, mainly by changing the original meaning of the
>word 'almah'. 

This is called a "paranoid delusion." 

>Now, many scholars (or "scholars") nowadays think that since
>Rabbis, or RJ scholars know Hebrew and have studied Tanach and its history
>so much, they are experts and can give advice in whatever subject, not
>taking into account the 2000-year-long period of trying to cover the 
>evidence of the coming of the real Messiah, Yeshua. This is more often
>the case with liberals rather than conservatives -- also in Finland.
>Our new Bible translation translates 'almah' as virgin, but then afterwards
>explains that the word really means 'young woman'... :-(

The above statement is incoherent.

>> > Harvey is a scholar
>
>> By whose definition?
>
>Anybody's except anti-missionaries'.
>

What are his qualifications? Does he publish in peer-reviewed
journals? So far the only material I have seen from him appears
to be deliberately misleading or flat out wrong.

>> Hardly, we've already agreed that Harvey belongs to some period
>> of medieval "scholarship."
>
>Who have agreed ? You, RL and Dubi Krulwich.
>

No. I was referring to you and me. I think that you and I agree
that Harvey Smith belongs squarely in the community of some 
medieval scholars, albeit not among the more enlightened ones.

>What I think about scholarship is irrelevant here. What annoys me 
>is that you keep selling short Harvey Smith without any reason 
>whatsoever (except maybe harassment).

I think the reasons are abundantly clear, and they have nothing
to do with Jews Rabbinic or otherwise. In case you have not 
noticed, I have based virtually all of my comments on the 
scholarship of Christians.

>> Nothing of the sort has been proven. It has been asserted. The
>> alleged proof is worthless.
>
>This kind of statement is worthless. You don't seem to be able to reply
>to the issue itself, but instead keep repeating the same old assertions.

An amusing position. I have made no assertions of my own on the issue
of "almah." I have quoted from basic Biblical Hebrew reference works,
every one of which is the work of Christians--Brown, Driver, Briggs,
Holiday, Koeler, Baumgartner. I have cited major Christian Bible
translations--Revised Standard, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible
among others. I have referred to the Septuagint itself and to its
Jewish and Christian heirs (Aquila, Theodotus, Symmachus, etc.). So
you may say that all of these scholars, commentators, and translators
are "worthless," but I don't think you can assign the label to me,
except through them. 
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,talk.religion.misc