Talk:Almah

message: Find and add other Definitions for the Bible use of this term.
Research Edersheim Quote:
*Review Spelling of the Hebrew Names
*Discuss age range of Almah
*Discuss meaning of Naari
Add Additional detailed comments about Almah vs Alma (Egyptian word) and how the word may have a different source.
****  -- Hi Blue Tile. I just want to correct, the children of unmarried woman are not illegitimate in Jewish law. They have equal status with other Jews. Illegitimate children are only produced by a forbidden union, such as adultery (married woman with other than her husband), or by incest.
liparoi
Liparoi (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to do to Finish this 

message: A commentary in the Soncino Chumash in the beginning of Toldot states
> Isaac married Rebecca when she was 3 years old. Can someone clarify
> this? Hertz's Chumash doesn't allude to this. The Stone does, but again
> without any explanation.
I believe Rashi deals with this point. It works out as follows:-
1. Sarah was 90 when Yitzchok was born.
2. Sarah died at 127 immediately after the Akeidah, so Yitzchok was 37 at the Akeidah.
3. Immediately after Sarah's death Avrohom hears the news of the birth of Rivkah, so she was born when Yitzchok was 37.
4. Yitzchok was 40 when he married Rivkah, so she must have been 3 when they married.
I believe that the Ramban disagrees with Rashi on this.
hree years and one day is the youngest age at which halachah recognizes
the possibility (elbeit not probability) of sexual relations for females.
Thus, three was the youngest age at which Rivka could have wed Yitzchak.
** Hi. I am adding some info. There are two midrashim (legends) that discuss it. By one accounting she was 14; by another she was 3. However, relations with a 3 year old are illegal in Jewish Law. (Halachah recognized that it is "possible" at 3 although it is still a crime of rape. The distinction is important because if she were raped, the perpetrator would still be guilty of a crime, but she would not be considered a non-virgin when she got older and wanted to marry, making her a victim yet again.) **
So, they would have waited a long time. In fact, they did not have children until about 20 years after they were married.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebecca's age 

message: I am not happy with the way an IP removed Vischer and added Beck, but the comments made about Beck in the edit summary by Zad were uncalled for and both have now been restored. Vischer in toto, Beck in a much toned down form. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also removed the blueletterbible bold subsection heads into reflinks per WP:MOS and replaced with descriptive subtitles. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wilhelm Vischer]] and [[William F. Beck]]

message: Its being entered as "Christian Old Testaments typically translate it as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl". Need something more than Sweeney. In fact, open up 90% of popular Christian OT and it will be virgin. Basileias (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All statements need reliable sources, and Sweeney is a reliable source. PiCo (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If Sweeney has given the impression Christian translators have all used maiden, young woman, damsel or girl" in popular translations (NIV, KJV, ESV, HCSB, Message, NASB, etc.) for Isa 7:14, he just recused himself as a reliable scholar. Basileias (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On a quick look in Sweeney I couldn't find that passage there, so I removed it. PiCo (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian [[Old Testament]]s typically translate it..., sources?

message: See Talk:Isaiah 7:14#Changing text at whim and Talk:Isaiah 7:14#Point on translation. Also discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 83#Isaiah 7:14. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already responded at Talk:Isaiah 7:14#Changing text at whim. Potatín5 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe book 

message: The IP from Munich still has to produce a WP:RS for their claims; we cannot change the text of the article at whim. See WP:OR.
I'm not saying they are wrong. However, wikipedically speaking, they are not even wrong.
Inquisitorial histrionics never exempt anyone from WP:CITE WP:RS. The idea that we will cower in fear just because they mentioned the words  is inane.
I can say at this article, from the mainstream academic point of view, the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong, same as at other articles I can say that the Jews are wrong and the Christians are right. E.g. the traditional Jewish idea that Jesus was an apostate from Judaism is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: In the first two instances, evidences from an author of "Anatomy of a Cargo Cult," rather than actually providing the verse references and  description of how the word is used, we are told, "A servant of Abraham tells his master how he met Rebecca," yet the servant is not even speaking to his master Abraham, but to Laban, the brother of  wife-to-be Rebecca. The WP description continues: "He prayed to the Lord that if an almah came to the well and he requested a drink of water from her," without mentioning that the same women, Rebecca, is called a "bethûlâh," 
Next, again without any reference, the WP description  states, "Miriam, an almah, is entrusted to watch the baby Moses," but fails to note that the almah was the sister of Moses. Which, consistent with the theme in this article that almah (with priority given to liberal scholars) does not denote a virgin, must mean she is a fornicator, which Rebecca must have also become in the servant's mind, btwn the time she is called "bethûlâh"  and then in   becomes an almah in explaining his mission.  
Next, it lists      and in , and  "In  and the heading to Psalm 46 as using "alamot"   without explaining the form. 
Then as regards SOS 6:8, the WP description  adds that "in verse 6:8 a girl is favorably compared to 60 Queens (wives of the King), 80 Concubines," thereby inferring equivalence, yet the description is one of comparison of glory, that of the temple, and thus the moon and the sun are also invoked, while in the next verse the word translated "undefiled" in the KJV most often denotes being complete, morally innocent, having integrity.  Yet she also must be considered a fornicator consistent with the theme in this article that almah does not denote a virgin.
Next, in  the  WP description, it  explains , as  "comparing the woman's acts to things the author claims are hard to predict," when contextually  it actually  describes things that are "wondrous" (like as in  ; 13:19;  1Ch 16:9,12, etc.).  It then resorts to the Greek in countering the Hebrew, since the latter  concludes with "the way of a man with an almah" being another wondrous thing,  but the Greek does not even translate  almah as any kind of women, but as youth, in "the way of a man in his youth." 
All of which is consist with the overall tenor of this article, which argued that almah  "has nothing to do with virginity" citing unnamed scholars, even though almah   is never used for anyone who is shown to be otherwise, and is used for one who is called "bethûlâh." And if almah  is not used for virgins then it means that the sister of Moses, and the women who was to marry Jacob, as well as all the rest,   were fornicators or previously married  or victims of rape. Meaning that  the exclusion  that almah  "has nothing to do with virginity"   means it   may have something to do with immorality or previous marriage. 
And yes, I know there is always some bias in such editing, but it is the conclusion that militates against  almah   as denoting  virginity is one that is forced, and not substantiated by its use.  Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus 
(On side note that I also discovered that it seems the Bible previewer extension in Firefox prevents my  Bible references from  appearing in WP pages as this.) (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Biblical usage section pathetic

message: :"there is no instance where it is used for a women (sic!) who is described as not being a virgin, and in Genesis 24:43 is used for the "bethûlâh" Rebecca (Gen 24:16)."
Nonsensical sentence, probably due to careless successive re-edits. Multiple issues:
# Almah "is used for ... bethûlâh"? Looks like someone was pushing a point and has thrown editorial care & logic overboard. A. Bethûlâh not explained. B. Not clear if (nor likely that) the Hebrew text uses both terms in succession, or that Rebecca is regularly defined as a bethulah, allowing to claim equivalence between almah and bethulah.
# Contradictory. Either 24:16, or 24:43. Now the sentence basically states that "24:43 illustrates 24:16."
Arminden (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As  argued, almah did not explicitly mean virgin, but it was taken for granted that the nubile girl was a virgin. So, although those edits are awkward, they are not completely wrong. And Moody Press is an extreme position in Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of bethûlâh in lead