Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Actually it doesn't make it the oldest recorded writings or Oral tradition....but proceed please.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
haalmah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
Actually it doesn't make it the oldest recorded writings or Oral tradition....but proceed please.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
I empathize..
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
We aren't discussing math nor gravity.
Hi James, Yes, that Creator GOD(as seen in the Scriptures) didn't make Jews nor Gentiles---GOD made mankind; and mankind came in a multitude of what is seen as "nationalities and ethnic back-grounds." Therefore, as you posted---a group hug.
GOD said it this way---"Love your neighbor as yourself." Lev.19:18
We aren't discussing math nor gravity.
Hi James, Yes, that Creator GOD(as seen in the Scriptures) didn't make Jews nor Gentiles---GOD made mankind; and mankind came in a multitude of what is seen as "nationalities and ethnic back-grounds." Therefore, as you posted---a group hug.
GOD said it this way---"Love your neighbor as yourself." Lev.19:18
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by james2ko
I experience this often here and elsewhere, especially with my fellow brothers and sisters (the Jews). I find it is a common fallacy frequently implemented when truth gets a little too close to home:
I still love em', though. :group:
Hi Dan, Yes, and counting. Eve is the best example of why one should not "take into consideration" that which is "said to them". Paul (1Cor.10:6, 11) put the whole of the OT writings in this light. "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.-----Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
I gave the reasons why the prophetic Scriptures stated the Power of GOD will "Stand in the end" and Ahaz's would not.
Ahaz had caused his son to "pass through the fire"--in obedience to the false god Ahaz had believed instead of the Creator GOD.
"Sister"/Israel was coming against "sister"/Judah in association with syria. and that was contrary to GOD's wishes/plan. (But, the characteristic of intrigue seen in the 'House of Jacob" was seen early and rhe children carried it forward.) GOD said it wouldn't happen and it didn't---but Assyria(who Ahaz counted on save Judah) destroyed the land and could not save Judah from the punishment GOD had said would happen--- seventy years of captivity by Babylon.
Yes, the answers do make sense to all, but those who are still in denial of a Creator GOD and HIS plan to save those who ignorantly disobey HIM.
I experience this often here and elsewhere, especially with my fellow brothers and sisters (the Jews). I find it is a common fallacy frequently implemented when truth gets a little too close to home:
"Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke"
Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI still love em', though. :group:
Hi Dan, Yes, and counting. Eve is the best example of why one should not "take into consideration" that which is "said to them". Paul (1Cor.10:6, 11) put the whole of the OT writings in this light. "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.-----Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
I gave the reasons why the prophetic Scriptures stated the Power of GOD will "Stand in the end" and Ahaz's would not.
Ahaz had caused his son to "pass through the fire"--in obedience to the false god Ahaz had believed instead of the Creator GOD.
"Sister"/Israel was coming against "sister"/Judah in association with syria. and that was contrary to GOD's wishes/plan. (But, the characteristic of intrigue seen in the 'House of Jacob" was seen early and rhe children carried it forward.) GOD said it wouldn't happen and it didn't---but Assyria(who Ahaz counted on save Judah) destroyed the land and could not save Judah from the punishment GOD had said would happen--- seventy years of captivity by Babylon.
Yes, the answers do make sense to all, but those who are still in denial of a Creator GOD and HIS plan to save those who ignorantly disobey HIM.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
We aren't discussing math nor gravity.
Hi James, Yes, that Creator GOD(as seen in the Scriptures) didn't make Jews nor Gentiles---GOD made mankind; and mankind came in a multitude of what is seen as "nationalities and ethnic back-grounds." Therefore, as you posted---a group hug.
GOD said it this way---"Love your neighbor as yourself." Lev.19:18
Based on the presence of the CMH gene in my DNA test, I think they may be more than just my neighbor.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
I assure you that my context of the Scriptures starts with Gen.1:1 and ends at Rev.22:21. That makes it as old as any writings or Orals that were recorded.
Hi DP, Since I was referring to the Scriptures-----should I have added----"concerning the Scriptures"????
Thank you ----I will.
I assure you that my context of the Scriptures starts with Gen.1:1 and ends at Rev.22:21. That makes it as old as any writings or Orals that were recorded.
Hi DP, Since I was referring to the Scriptures-----should I have added----"concerning the Scriptures"????
Thank you ----I will.
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Agreed, all of mankind came from the same "parents"----Adam and Eve. Again, Scripturally supported as well.
gnostic
The Lost One
sincerely said:
Yes, yes. I know and I understand that Ahaz was not good, obedient and pious king, that he was rebellious. Rebellious or not, Isaiah 7 was still reassurance to Ahaz that his enemies would not succeed in conquering Jerusalem or Judah, but this reassurance to Ahaz was the sign given to the current king of Judah that he would not to have worry about his enemies - Pekah and Rezin, because of intervention from the king of Assyria. But the sign - and I do mean "sign" AS GIVEN IN ALL 4 VERSES (Isaiah 7:14-17) that would be fulfilled in Ahaz's and Isaiah's lifetime, and not some 7 centuries later.
I have been telling you time-and-time-again that if the sign imminent then the woman has to be already pregnant, in order for the child Immanuel to eat honey and curds (7:15) but BEFORE he know how to learn to right over wrong (7:15-16) WHEN the two kingdoms (Israel and Aram) would fall to Assyria.
Hence why, I know that the Hebrew word הָרָה or harah mean that the woman "is pregnant" or "with child", verses 7-15-17 can't happen, if the woman is not pregnant.
Isaiah 7:15-17 required the woman to be pregnant (7:14), so that the child (Immanuel) can fulfill what will happen in 7:15-17. Do you understand that, sincerly?
I had demonstrated that הָרָה or harah mean "is pregnant" or "is with child" in 3 other instances: in Genesis 16:11, Exodus 21:22 and in Jeremiah 31:8. These other verses are completely relevant comparisons to usage of הָרָה or harah.
The Hebrew word in the future tense "to conceive" or "shall conceive" is הָרִ֖ית or häriyt, like that is used and found in Judges 13:3.
Why do you continue to ignore הָרִ֖ית or häriyt that mean "to conceive"?
Even when you quoted my post that has the word häriyt in it, you seem to ignore that häriyt mean "shall conceive". Why do you that?
As far I know häriyt is future tense while harah is present tense. Both words are imperfect tense.
Last edited:
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Hebrew grammarian Rabbi Isaac Nordheimer, a student of the legendary Rabbi Moshe Sofer, states "shall conceive" is a plausible translation for harah:
A Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language - Isaac Nordheimer - Google Books pg 179 point 1
Let it go, gnostic....
Sincerly,
The word in Judges 13:3 is not the same word found in Isaiah 7:14. Even your very own Blueletter bible shows that:
Isaiah 7:14 has Strong's #2030, "with child".
Judges 13:3 has Strong's #2029, "shall conceive".
Fletch
Hi James,
How would you translate the word in question, Strong's #2030, where it is used with what I would call the real Hebrew word that means "shall conceive", Strong's #2029.
Pick one you think is the best:
A)2 Sam 11:5 And the woman conceived(#2029), and sent and told David, and said, I am with child(#2030).
or....
B)2 Sam 11:5 And the woman conceived(#2029), and sent and told David, and said, I shall conceive (#2030).
I see the word #2030 as always meaning with child and #2029 as anything less than, like shall conceive. Seems to be the exact same pattern in the Hebrew Scriptures too where each word is used.
Fletch
james2ko
Well-Known Member
Hebrew grammarian Rabbi Isaac Nordheimer, a student of the legendary Rabbi Moshe Sofer, states based on the prophetic perfect, "shall conceive" is a plausible translation for harah in this passage:
A Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language - Isaac Nordheimer - Google Books
Let it go, fletch....
Hi James,
Rashi had absolutely no allusions that almah means virgin what so ever.
In fact, he said that the almah in Isaiah 7:14 was Isaiah's wife bearing her second son Immanuel. In other words, she was not a virgin.
In Song of Songs, he states that the almahs are allegories for the virgin nations. They are neither virgins nor are they nations, they are merely allegories for them. Allegorical virgins, not real virgins.
Fletch
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Hi James, even those on this thread have acknowledged that fact as well as that almah can be a "Virgin".
Sincerly,
Can you point out to me exactly who on this thread thinks that a young woman(almah) can not be a virgin? I have not seen any myself.
I have gone further on this forum than anyone, I pointed out that an almah can be an astronaut. But I certainly do not think because of this that the word almah in any way means nor even implies astronaut.
Fletch
Last edited:
sincerly
Well-Known Member
Hi Fletch, in contex, David had sex with her; therefore, (A). However, in the case of Isa,7:14 there is no male involved in that "sign" and the power of GOD was seen in the Gen.3:15 prophesied "seed of the woman".(Which Ahaz should be aware concerning---all women were.)
Therefore, as James pointed out---harah---"shall conceive" and not as the "sign" for the happenings concerning Assyria----that was fulfilled by Isaiah's "sons". Isa.8:18.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
That just goes to prove the term "harah" can also be used to represent an abstract. "Virgin" nations---a "virgin" girl. It doesn't change the term's definition, it only changes what it represents or symbolizes. It also proves the term can imply both a virgin and young woman. It's been proven without question, "shall conceive" is a plausible interpretation in Isa 7:14, whether you think so or not. Really fletch, just let it go my friend.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
sincerly said:
I'll only agree with you on the 1st line "but thou shalt conceive..."
But your source is wrong on Judges 13:3 with both the Hebrew word and its transliteration:
Are you still using that horrible website BlueLetter Bible as your source?
I would suggest that you ditch it. It is not translating what's there in the verse. What you are only seeing is the root word, not the word used in Judges 13:3.
The actual verse of the Masoretic Text:
Judges 13:3 said:
Do see the what I had highlighted in red?
The word being used in Judges 13:3 is הָרִ֖ית (häriyt), not הָרָה (harah).
Clearly, הָרִ֖ית is used in the Judges 13:3 of the Masoretic Text, is different to הָרָה. You have to utterly blind not to see that Judges 13:3 used different (but related) word to the word used in Isaiah 7:14, Jeremiah 31:8, Exodus 21:22 Genesis 16:11.
The הָרָה (harah) is the root word, which literally mean "pregnant" or "is conceived", present tense.
But there other words, related to the root הָרָה (harah), like
- what is used in Amos 1:13, the plural version of harah - הָרֹ֣ות, transliterated to härôt, in which could be translated as - the women "with child" of Gilead (used in KJV) - or alternatively the "pregnant" women of Gilead (NRSV);
- or what is used in Judges 13:3 - הָרִ֖ית (häriyt), which means "will conceive".
Why doesn't KJV translated Genesis 16:11, Exodus 21:22 & Jeremiah 16:11 to match Isaiah's harah "shalt conceive"? The reason why they didn't is because KJV have mistranslated Isaiah's disputed passage.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
james2ko said:
Sorry, james2ko, but I have made some valid points on the usages and meanings of 2 different words (harah and härôt), in 2 different verses.
And I have made valid points at the beginning (referring to the OP), by comparing the 4 instances (Isaiah 7:14, Jeremiah 31:8, Exodus 21:22 & Genesis 16:11) of harah.
Why did KJV translated Isaiah's verse to "shalt conceive", when the other the woman to be "with child"?
Could KJV changed the meaning, so that will fit Matthew's passage (Matthew 1:23), hence agenda?
The agenda is to make Jesus fit into Isaiah's sign, by either reinterpreting the verse or by deliberately mistranslating the verse. The KJV were all Christians, so they definitely have an agenda, to make Isaiah's passage to match Matthew's verse (1:23).
As to Rabbi Isaac Nordheimer, I can't comment on his work or his interpretation of the disputed verse, because I have not read them. But from I read your link, is hardly a ringing endorsement that this is the only valid translation, especially since he has not compare this verse (Isaiah 7:14) with those other instances of harah that I have brought up.
Tell me, James2ko. Why do KJV translate harah to "shalt conceive", and not like other instance "is with child" (hence "is pregnant")?
Last edited: