question about noun adjective and tense + Isaiah 7:14 "conceiving"

[Isaac Fried]

הרה = הר-ה is an "adjective" meaning 'is with child', since the last ה of הרה is a "pronominal suffix" referring to the woman. For a noun the "pronominal suffix" needs to refer to the thing itself, for example קערה = קער-ה, 'bowl', עגלה=עגל-ה, 'carriage'.
Hence, הָעַלְמָה הָרָה means one thing, and one thing only
"The virgin is with child"
no more and no less.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[talmid56]

Karl wrote:

I don’t have spellcheck for Hebrew.

Karl, I believe you mentioned earlier that you use a Mac computer. If yours will run LibreOffice (a freeware alternative to Microsoft Office), you could try the Hebrew spellchecker it has. You install it separately as an extension. Link: https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/e ... dictionary

While I am sure it is pitched toward Modern Hebrew, it may be of some value for BH. I plan to try it myself on my MacBookPro. I've used LibreOffice for a while now (and used its Mac-centric predecessor NeoOffice for many years), and it handles Hebrew well. You do have to manually switch writing directions if you are including non-Hebrew text in your document, but that's easily done.

[ducky]

Adjectives in Hebrew can act in the sentence as a noun.
meaning that the noun itself is dropped, and the adjective itself brings the whole idea.

For example:
"I saw an old man eating" is basically ראיתי איש זקן אוכל
but I can drop the noun איש=man
and say only ראיתי זקן אוכל=I saw an old eating

and in plural...
"I saw old men eating" is basically ראיתי אנשים זקנים אוכלים
but I can drop the noun אנשים=men
and say only ראיתי זקנים אוכלים=I saw olds eating

It is called in Hebrew שם תואר מועצם
I don't know the exact term in English, but maybe something like a "nominal adjective" (as an adjective that was nominalized).

But the adjective is still an adjective - and it only "takes" with it the expected noun according to the context.
anyway, העלמה הרה is simply "the Alma is pregnant"
(also can be understood as "shall be pregnant")

But according to the context, whether it is "is" or shall be", it is about the same time as this conversation because her born son that she will bring is to be growing in the era of the prosper Judea, and the elimination of Aram and Israel.

**************************************************************
Karl, I know everyone moved on, and I think that maybe this talk that we had is over.
But maybe one or two more questions.

I don't want this to be spread to many places. Therefore, for now, I want to ask you only one question.

You said before:
Your quote: "Isaiah specifically said “house of David”, meaning the Davidic dynasty, not limited to the present occupant of the throne."

And I want to ask you: When it is said in verse 2 that the House of David got the message of Judea being attack-threatened, What does it mean?
Who got the message?
I don't need you to be very specific, only tell me if you claim that the whole Davidic Dynasty got it - or was it just the specific present kingship - which is from the Davidic dynasty?

[Jason Hare]

And I want to ask you: When it is said in verse 2 that the House of David got the message of Judea being attack-threatened, What does it mean?
Who got the message?
I don't need you to be very specific, only tell me if you claim that the whole Davidic Dynasty got it - or was it just the specific present kingship - which is from the Davidic dynasty?

That needs to be pulled out of your post and stressed.

Isaiah 7:2
וַיֻּגַּ֗ד לְבֵ֤ית דָּוִד֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר נָ֥חָה אֲרָ֖ם עַל־אֶפְרָ֑יִם וַיָּ֤נַע לְבָבוֹ֙ וּלְבַ֣ב עַמּ֔וֹ כְּנ֥וֹעַ עֲצֵי־יַ֖עַר מִפְּנֵי־רֽוּחַ׃
And it was told to the house of David, saying, “Aram (Syria) has rested upon (allied with) Ephraim (Israel).” And his heart was shaken, and the heart of his people, like the shaking of forest trees before a wind.

It was told to the house of David, and his heart was shaken. Whose heart was shaken? The king's heart. And also the heart of his people. The heart of whose people? The heart of the king's people.

There was no switch of subject. The house of David is a reference to the king.

[Jemoh66]

And I want to ask you: When it is said in verse 2 that the House of David got the message of Judea being attack-threatened, What does it mean?
Who got the message?
I don't need you to be very specific, only tell me if you claim that the whole Davidic Dynasty got it - or was it just the specific present kingship - which is from the Davidic dynasty?

That needs to be pulled out of your post and stressed.

Isaiah 7:2
וַיֻּגַּ֗ד לְבֵ֤ית דָּוִד֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר נָ֥חָה אֲרָ֖ם עַל־אֶפְרָ֑יִם וַיָּ֤נַע לְבָבוֹ֙ וּלְבַ֣ב עַמּ֔וֹ כְּנ֥וֹעַ עֲצֵי־יַ֖עַר מִפְּנֵי־רֽוּחַ׃
And it was told to the house of David, saying, “Aram (Syria) has rested upon (allied with) Ephraim (Israel).” And his heart was shaken, and the heart of his people, like the shaking of forest trees before a wind.

It was told to the house of David, and his heart was shaken. Whose heart was shaken? The king's heart. And also the heart of his people. The heart of whose people? The heart of the king's people.

There was no switch of subject. The house of David is a reference to the king.

ThIs is really a silly argument. Anything said to the King of Judah can be related to the house of Judah if the prophecy has a messianic level to it. As Jonathan's Targum shows, Judaism sees this as a messianic prophecy that extends beyond Hezekiah:

The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is bom, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.

Karl,
The prophecy does not have to be a direct messianic promise. In a Jewish hermeneutic prophecies can be reinterpreted with a Messianic outlook. The best example of this is how Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus. In the case of this prophecy the wording definitely suggests a Messianic figure, which it was hoped would be fulfilled by Hezekiah.

[Jason Hare]

We're talking about Isaiah 7, not about Isaiah 9.

[Jemoh66]

We're talking about Isaiah 7, not about Isaiah 9.

Yes, and how Jonathan Ben Uzziel handles that passage is evidence that second temple Jews like Matthew were well within their bounds when applying 7:14 to Jesus.

[ducky]

Hi Jonathan.

Let's not spread around.

I want to ask you too:
When it is said in verse 2 that the House of David got the message of Judea being attack-threatened, What does it mean?
Who got the message?
I don't need you to be very specific, only tell me if you claim that the whole Davidic Dynasty got it - or was it just the specific present kingship - which is from the Davidic dynasty?

***********************************************
Second question:
What does the text say about the era of that child?
What would happen in his lifetime?

***************************************************
Later on, we can skip to any other verse that you wish.
Because spreading the conversation, and speak in a very general fashion, makes the focus point more and more blurry, and then it becomes easy to ignore it.
Therefore, let's first understand the verse in its right context, and then, if you wish, you can explain it in your reinterpreted way.
(Because every reinterpretation needs to have a (first) interpretation).

[Jason Hare]

We're talking about Isaiah 7, not about Isaiah 9.

Yes, and how Jonathan Ben Uzziel handles that passage is evidence that second temple Jews like Matthew were well within their bounds when applying 7:14 to Jesus.

The question is: What does the verse mean in its own context? Plain and simple.

[kwrandolph]

Adjectives in Hebrew can act in the sentence as a noun.
meaning that the noun itself is dropped, and the adjective itself brings the whole idea.

For example:
"I saw an old man eating" is basically ראיתי איש זקן אוכל
but I can drop the noun איש=man
and say only ראיתי זקן אוכל=I saw an old eating

and in plural...
"I saw old men eating" is basically ראיתי אנשים זקנים אוכלים
but I can drop the noun אנשים=men
and say only ראיתי זקנים אוכלים=I saw olds eating

It is called in Hebrew שם תואר מועצם
I don't know the exact term in English, but maybe something like a "nominal adjective" (as an adjective that was nominalized).

But the adjective is still an adjective - and it only "takes" with it the expected noun according to the context.
anyway, העלמה הרה is simply "the Alma is pregnant"
(also can be understood as "shall be pregnant")

Do you have any examples from Tanakh to back up these claims?

But according to the context, whether it is "is" or shall be", it is about the same time as this conversation because her born son that she will bring is to be growing in the era of the prosper Judea, and the elimination of Aram and Israel.

You add to the text to make this claim. Nowhere in the text does it specifically say that the child was to be born in the near future. 500 years later is still a literal fulfillment of the prophesy as written.

Karl, I know everyone moved on, and I think that maybe this talk that we had is over.
But maybe one or two more questions.

I don't want this to be spread to many places. Therefore, for now, I want to ask you only one question.

You said before:
Your quote: "Isaiah specifically said “house of David”, meaning the Davidic dynasty, not limited to the present occupant of the throne."

And I want to ask you: When it is said in verse 2 that the House of David got the message of Judea being attack-threatened, What does it mean?
Who got the message?
I don't need you to be very specific, only tell me if you claim that the whole Davidic Dynasty got it - or was it just the specific present kingship - which is from the Davidic dynasty?

Ahaz was a wicked king, and the only reason God put up with him was because he was a member of the Davidic dynasty.

The threat that he faced was not just against him, but the replacement of the whole Davidic dynasty. Hence Isaiah was sent to report that the Davidic dynasty was not to be replaced.

Karl W. Randolph.