Jason Hare wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:40 pm
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:59 am
Look at verse 13, there Isaiah specified the “House of David”. That’s context. Isaiah switched addressees.
Calling Ahab the "house of David" is like calling Donald Trump "the President." Ahab was the king. He was the house of David. His father was also the House of David. Anyone who was the king was the house of David. This isn't projecting anything into the future.
Just as Queen Elizabeth is “of the House of Windsor” but is not “the house of Windsor”, so when we look at the uses of בית דוד especially in Kings, we see that it is used for the dynasty, not individual kings. And it is used to refer to the future e.g. 1 Kings 13:2.
Isaiah lived during the time covered by Kings.
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:40 pmkwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:59 am
The word comes from the root meaning “to be unknown” hence an “unknown woman”. The reference is not to a woman who has been hidden, rather one who has not had sexual relations with a man.
The opposite is one who is known. Genesis 4:1, Luke 1:34 meaning one who has had sexual relations.
Etymological fallacy
Etymology is sometimes important, sometimes claimed where there is none. Take for example the following sentence, “He
struck out in his amorous attempts at the singles bar tonight.” That sentence doesn’t make sense unless one knows the etymology of the phrase “struck out” coming from baseball.
There are patterns by which nouns and adjectives may be derived from verbs. For example, there are many words derived from “to act” including “act (two words)”, “action”, “activity” and several more.
Likewise in Hebrew, some words are derived from verbs, some words are not. Here’s an example of a word used of people (at least expected to be) never sexually active from a verb meaning “to be unknown” in opposition to the sexually active term “to know“. “Virgin” describes those people. “Unknown” fits the etymology.
I don’t claim that all nouns and adjectives in Hebrew are derived from verbs. A rough seat-of-the-pants guess is that about half are not derived from extent verbs.
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:40 pmkwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:59 am
That’s a silly claim. Further, how would you translate it without using a tensed verb in English, to match what is in Hebrew an untensed clause?
Do you have any examples from Tanakh for the difference between “the king is good” and “the good king” using “good” and “king”?
Are you really asking me to teach you basic Hebrew? If you're asking, I'll give you a lesson in how adjectives agree with the nouns that they modify, and that if the adjective is indefinite while the noun phrase is definite, then it is functioning as a predicate adjective and makes up a sentence. Do you need a lesson in what everyone learns from around the third week of Hebrew class—just after covering the formation of nouns and adjectives, before learning anything about verbs?
Wow! In this verse, you accuse Isaiah, a native speaker of Biblical Hebrew, highly literate, didn’t know basic Hebrew.
Here you have three words used adjectively of a noun that is definite, yet none of those three words are definite.
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:40 pmkwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:59 am
Are you sure you’re not just being formulaic here?
Yep, I'm sure. Again, just tell me you're sincerely wanting to know, and I'll demonstrate it for you.
I haven’t studied this particular question, so I can’t think of other examples like Isaiah 7:14. I would not be surprised if there are more.
By the way, not once in Tanakh does the phrase המלך הטוב mean “the good king”, rather every example I found has contextual clues for different meanings.
Karl W. Randolph.