The Temporal Horizon of the Immanuel Oracle

[Jason Hare]

Karl,
Isaiah 7:14-16 seems to be a time frame. First, there is a birth of a child. Then the land has to be forsaken before the end of the time frame which is that the child will be able to choose between good and evil represented by curd and honey, I assume.
If the land is forsaken before the child is born, then that is not in the time frame, even if it is forsaken before the child knows to choose between curd and honey or good and bad.
If the child is born hundreds of years later, then what is the point of mentioning the child being able to tell good from bad as the time limit for when the land will be forsaken because the land will be forsaken before every event of the child's life. Technically, the land will be forsaken before the child knows good from bad, but also for every other thing in the child's life because it will happen before the child is born. It could say before the child is born or before the child first sneezes, or runs a distance. Whatever. Everything could be the time limit for the sign to take place.

I’m in full agreement. If words have any meaning at all, there must be a connection between that child’s lifetime and the fall of the kings of Syria (ʾĀrām) and Ephraim (Israel’s northern kingdom), which both fell to Assyria in or before 720 bce.

[Jason Hare]

As the conversation goes on, I want to commend everyone for a job well done at keeping the atmosphere civil despite differences of opinions. We do tend to avoid conversations that touch on subjects such as this, but I think you’ve (we’ve) all done a great job of showing how we can indeed have these conversations without letting the conversation deteriorate into insult and position taking. Each person has his opinion, and we hit ideas back-and-forth. I’ve enjoyed that we have expressed our differences and maintained decorum. May we have many more discussions of the type, and may you all feel free to have and express your opinions on B-Hebrew. Let’s just remember to leave space for disagreement (and to maintain a respect for the text and language).

[kwrandolph]

I think it’s a temporal sign. The child born to a young woman who was pregnant at the time of the speaking of the prophecy would not grow old enough to distinguish between good and bad by the time that the two kings that אָחָז ʾĀḥāz feared had fallen. It wasn’t about a pregnant virgin in any way.

The word עלמה is the technical term for virgin. This is an example—calling her a “young woman” but not a “virgin”—where one allows one’s religious beliefs trump good lexicographic principles.

One way around it is to say that Isaiah pointed to a young woman who was a virgin at the time he made the prophesy, but was about to get married. Linguistically, I don’t think that fits. But to deny that the woman was a virgin is wrong.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Karl,
In 1 KIngs 13, the prophecy was given first, then the sign was announced, and then the sign which was to confirm the first prophecy took place, and then the actual prophecy was fulfilled many years later. The sign was fulfilled before the prophecy it confirmed was fulfilled. The sign did not happen hundreds of years after the first prophecy took place because it was meant to confirm that it would actually take place. The sign was the proof for the future fulfillment of the first prophecy. Why give the proof that a prophecy will happen if the proof (the sign) happens after the prophecy is fulfilled?

Kenneth:

I don’t understand what you are trying to say. The sign is that there will be a pregnant virgin. But the sign also includes verses 15 and 16. That’s all one sign. So what do you mean a prophecy is fulfilled before the sign happens?

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,
Isaiah 7:14-16 seems to be a time frame. First, there is a birth of a child. Then the land has to be forsaken before the end of the time frame which is that the child will be able to choose between good and evil represented by curd and honey, I assume.
If the land is forsaken before the child is born, then that is not in the time frame, even if it is forsaken before the child knows to choose between curd and honey or good and bad.
If the child is born hundreds of years later, then what is the point of mentioning the child being able to tell good from bad as the time limit for when the land will be forsaken because the land will be forsaken before every event of the child's life. Technically, the land will be forsaken before the child knows good from bad, but also for every other thing in the child's life because it will happen before the child is born. It could say before the child is born or before the child first sneezes, or runs a distance. Whatever. Everything could be the time limit for the sign to take place.

You make an assumption that everything in the prophesy is in chronological order. Is this assumption valid? Or is the mention of what comes before the main sign just more information about the time frame?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,
Am I correct if I assume that the land will be abandoned before the child either eats curd and honey or knows good and evil? If that is true, then assuming that the land is forsaken and then hundreds of years later, a child is born, and the child eats the food or knows the difference between good and evil at a certain age. Then, I assume, you would say the sign has come true. There was a child born from a young woman or a virgin and that child fulfilled the prophecy or the sign by eating the stuff and knowing good and evil. Right?

If the sign of the land being abandoned before the child does that stuff happens hundreds of years before the child is born, then you could ask yourself: Why mention the sign taking place before the child reaches a certain age, if the sign happens long before the child is born? The sign actually takes place before the child reaches that age, technically, but it also happens before every thing the child will do in his life because the sign happens before he is born. Why mention the curd and honey, etc., if it happens before every event of the child's life? It is a nonsensical sign because the child eating stuff and knowing good and evil is not really relevant. It could have said before the child is born the land will be abandoned or before the child says "momma" or "hello" or sneezes twice because the sign will take place before every event of the child's life. The sign of the child eating and knowing stuff has nothing to do with anything.
But if the child is born then and the land is abandoned before the child reaches a certain age, the sign of eating stuff and knowing stuff makes sense as a time frame for the sign to take place in.

[Jason Hare]

I think it’s a temporal sign. The child born to a young woman who was pregnant at the time of the speaking of the prophecy would not grow old enough to distinguish between good and bad by the time that the two kings that אָחָז ʾĀḥāz feared had fallen. It wasn’t about a pregnant virgin in any way.

The word עלמה is the technical term for virgin. This is an example—calling her a “young woman” but not a “virgin”—where one allows one’s religious beliefs trump good lexicographic principles.

One way around it is to say that Isaiah pointed to a young woman who was a virgin at the time he made the prophesy, but was about to get married. Linguistically, I don’t think that fits. But to deny that the woman was a virgin is wrong.

Karl W. Randolph.

The word for “virginity” is בְּתוּלִים, and the word עֲלוּמִים means “youth”—together with the word עֶ֫לֶם that simply means “lad.” עַלְמָה is the feminine of עֶ֫לֶם in the same way that יַלְדָּה is the feminine of יֶ֫לֶד and נַעֲרָה is the feminine of נַ֫עַר. Why would בְּתוּלָה not correspond to the word that means “virginity” and the עַלְמָה not correspond to the word that means “youth”?

I reject your lexicographical designation completely and submit that you take the position that you do on the basis of your desire for עַלְמָה to mean “virgin” in order to prop up your idea of a virgin birth. This is much more obvious than the opposite.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Jason,
Personally, I ignore comments on that word's meaning to avoid any discussion.

[kwrandolph]

I think it’s a temporal sign. The child born to a young woman who was pregnant at the time of the speaking of the prophecy would not grow old enough to distinguish between good and bad by the time that the two kings that אָחָז ʾĀḥāz feared had fallen. It wasn’t about a pregnant virgin in any way.

The word עלמה is the technical term for virgin. This is an example—calling her a “young woman” but not a “virgin”—where one allows one’s religious beliefs trump good lexicographic principles.

One way around it is to say that Isaiah pointed to a young woman who was a virgin at the time he made the prophesy, but was about to get married. Linguistically, I don’t think that fits. But to deny that the woman was a virgin is wrong.

Karl W. Randolph.

The word for “virginity” is בְּתוּלִים, and the word עֲלוּמִים means “youth”—together with the word עֶ֫לֶם that simply means “lad.” עַלְמָה is the feminine of עֶ֫לֶם in the same way that יַלְדָּה is the feminine of יֶ֫לֶד and נַעֲרָה is the feminine of נַ֫עַר. Why would בְּתוּלָה not correspond to the word that means “virginity” and the עַלְמָה not correspond to the word that means “youth”?

I reject your lexicographical designation completely and submit that you take the position that you do on the basis of your desire for עַלְמָה to mean “virgin” in order to prop up your idea of a virgin birth. This is much more obvious than the opposite.

Twice in Tanakh בתולה is used for a married woman—once for a woman presently married (Isaiah 62:5) and a widow (Joel 1:8). Therefore בתולה cannot be the technical term for virgin. But as I wrote above, under normal circumstances, it was expected that a בתולה also be a virgin.

Also look at the root meaning of עלמה namely עלם. That refers to someone or something that is unknown. One use of the verb to know refers to people having sexual relationships. Hence, a person who is unknown, is a virgin. It can refer to both boys and girls.

Look at the people who wrote the dictionaries to which you refer—not one of them is a Christian, Every one of them had/has a vested interest to deny that this passage is about Jesus. In this discussion I will not insist that this is the only correct reading, see above,

As for the use of עלמה in Proverbs 30:19, there is a grammatical pattern of noun derivations from roots where the feminine is used for an abstract concept, in this case “the unknown”, i.e. the future. Therefore, this verse cannot be used as a denial that a young woman who is an עלמה is other than a virgin.

Jason,
Personally, I ignore comments on that word's meaning to avoid any discussion.

Kenneth, not a bad practice.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,
I don't understand why you think Isaiah 62:5 can't say that a young man will marry a virgin? Can't a person marry a virgin?

[Jason Hare]

Look at the people who wrote the dictionaries to which you refer—not one of them is a Christian...

Brilliant. If they aren’t Christians, they aren’t reputable. I’m very impressed with this line of thinking. Do you really know the personal beliefs of the people who wrote these dictionaries?