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

[Jason Hare]

Wow! In this verse, you accuse Isaiah, a native speaker of Biblical Hebrew, highly literate, didn’t know basic Hebrew.

Isaiah isn't in this conversation. I have made no claims that would make anyone think that Isaiah didn't know Hebrew. His knowledge of Hebrew is not contingent on what you know or do not know, and it seems (from the odd claims that you frequently make) that the actual Hebrew that you know, as opposed to how you attempt to claim that no one else knows the language, could use some improvement. This isn't an Isaiah thing. It bothered me from the beginning that you try to undermine the standard grammars. It bothered me further when you were making fundamental mistakes when we were doing Hebrew compositions (and that you were not composing at all, but rather copying, pasting, and modifying). And now we have discovered that you don't know the difference between אדום הבד "the fabric is read" and הבד האדום "the red fabric."

My only goal is that you might come into enough humility to realize that your first year of Hebrew study was not enough for you to throw the whole study of grammar and syntax out the window. You didn't know enough to say that Gesenius was a know-nothing, and you've done yourself no favors by sticking to your guns on this over the years. There is a ton to be learned (by all of us). The various grammars are not useless, and the rest of the world is not somehow duped by people with bad intentions or with poor reading comprehension abilities. If only I could help you see that you would benefit from both familiarizing yourself with Gesenius (at the very least) and with how the pointing system of the Masoretes' works. Once you understand the system, you will be in a position to judge the specific accidence of use. Until then, you're just being a contrarian.

[Jason Hare]

This is what, the usually very reserved, etymoline says about the etymology of "virgin":
probably related to virga "young shoot," via a notion of "young" (compare Greek talis "a marriageable girl," cognate with Latin talea "rod, stick, bar").

Again, etymology and all that. Greek παρθένος, Latin virgo, and Hebrew עלמה were not originally associated directly with the idea of virginity. These meanings came later (well, that meaning never came to be associated with עלמה even in later Hebrew). That doesn't mean that we should translate עלמה as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, given that "virgin" in today's English (despite its etymology) certainly has a specific meaning—one that wasn't present in this verse.

[ducky]

I think that most of the words that have the meaning of "virgin", firstly had the meaning of young.
And this "young", especially "young woman" (or unmarried woman), and especially in old cultures, were progressed to point the meaning of virgin.
As it was a default for a young girl/unmarried woman to be a virgin as well.

And so, we must define the words according to the way the language used them and how the specific language used it.

The word "innocent", for example, doesn't mean "virgin", but surely it can be used for that meaning. And if we see a text that would say about a man searching for an innocent girl to marry, we will understand it as a "virgin".

And I think we can see this in the Hebrew word בתולה.
It has the meaning of "young girl" - but Hebrew use it mostly to express "virgin".
And no wonder that we don't see this word comes in its masculine form בתול, since the male doesn't have a virginity sign, and also, the virginity of a male is way less important than the virginity of a woman of course.
And so, this word comes also as בתולים - as the virginity sign - and so no doubt about the meaning of בתולה for that matter.

As for עלמה - basically, we can also say that the meaning of "young girl" can be progressed to a "virgin".
But we need to look at the specific way that Hebrew used it, and if this progression occurred in that language.
And we don't see it at all.
And also, it also comes as a masculine word, and I don't see its relevance at all.
And also here, we see this word comes as עלומים (like בתולים) - but in this case, it doesn't have the meaning of "virginity".
So it seems that this word was not used to express virginity, but only "youth".
Plus, there is no other Hebrew text that has the word עלמה/עלם as a "virgin".

Also, the text itself uses to explain this word (and that is another subject of how the text uses to explain rare words) when it brings the common word next to the rare word.
And so,
Gen. 24:43
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל עֵין הַמָּיִם וְהָיָה הָעַלְמָה הַיֹּצֵאת לִשְׁאֹב וְאָמַרְתִּי אֵלֶיהָ הַשְׁקִינִי נָא מְעַט מַיִם מִכַּדֵּךְ
it is a repeat of:
Gen 24:13-14
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל עֵין הַמָּיִם
וְהָיָה הַנַּעֲרָ אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיהָ הַטִּי נָא כַדֵּךְ וְאֶשְׁתֶּה
So here עלמה=נער(ה)

And also in 1Sam 17:56
בֶּן מִי זֶה הָעָלֶם
and in 1Sam 17:55
בֶּן מִי זֶה הַנַּעַר אַבְנֵר
and in 1Sam 17:57
בֶּן מִי אַתָּה הַנָּעַר
So also here עלם=נער

And this is how it should be seen.

When Isaiah called his wife עלמה - we should ask why?
After all, she is married and already had a son, so what's the point to call her עלמה as if she was a young unmarried woman.
And the reason may tell that this is like a praising name. As he still refers to her as a pure woman.
And we see that later he also refers to her as נביאה - which is also a way to raise her status to pureness.


************************
As for המלך הטוב vs. המלך טוב
I think this issue was raised before.

When the noun is definite and its description is definite, they become one
המלך הטוב
the king the good = the good king
It is not a full sentence

But if the noun is definite and its description is indefinite, then the description act as a predicate to the noun and crate a full sentence
המלך טוב
the king good = the king is good

So if we look at Judges 15:2
אֲחוֹתָהּ הַקְּטַנָּה טוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה

אחותה a definite noun אחותה (comes with a pronoun)
הקטנה a definite description
טובה indefinite description

so אחותה הקטנה = here little sister
טובה ממנה = *is* prettier than her

The first description is one with the subject
and so the full subject is "her little sister"
and טובה ממנה is the predicate.

**
So the description כבד in הרעב כבד has another syntactic role than the כבד in עלו הכבד

**********************
it is very rare to find an indefinite description with a definite noun that directly modifies the noun (as if it was definite) - and of course, such cases cannot be used as the "right-way" for the synatx.

[Isaac Fried]

I am afraid that we are straying with this discussion into far, foreign and treacherous territories. It is really not about the understanding of the word עַלְמָה as meaning "a young woman", or "a virgin". It is rather about understanding what the prophet Isaiah puts into the declaration
הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה
Does the text imply that the עַלְמָה conceived naturally through contact with a man, so that once she showed a belly she naturally passed from the status of עַלְמָה to that of ידוּעת איש, or does the test mean than she was still an עַלְמָה even with child? Pregnant, yet still "innocent" or "unknown" to man?
How we choose to understand a biblical text is often a choice motivated by one's faith, and with this we don't argue.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

Would you see a difference if the text read with בהריון instead of הרה (an adjective that really isn't used anymore)?

הִנֵּה הָֽעַלְמָה בְּהֵרָיוֹן וְיוֹלֶ֫דֶת בֵּן

Today we would say that someone is בְּהֵרָיוֹן rather than הָרָה.

[Isaac Fried]

For a sworen realist (or a materialist) there is no inherent difference between הִנֵּה הָֽעַלְמָה בְּהֵרָיוֹן and הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה. Both mean to him one thing: A (newly taken?) young wife became pregnant in the proven way. To him, now that it shows, she is no more an עַלְמָה but rather an אשה. But people of faith may detect here a hint for a miracle.
We are not denying that miracles do happen from time to time.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[kwrandolph]

I am afraid that we are straying with this discussion into far, foreign and treacherous territories. It is really not about the understanding of the word עַלְמָה as meaning "a young woman", or "a virgin". It is rather about understanding what the prophet Isaiah puts into the declaration
הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה
Does the text imply that the עַלְמָה conceived naturally through contact with a man, so that once she showed a belly she naturally passed from the status of עַלְמָה to that of ידוּעת איש, or does the test mean than she was still an עַלְמָה even with child? Pregnant, yet still "innocent" or "unknown" to man?
How we choose to understand a biblical text is often a choice motivated by one's faith, and with this we don't argue.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

When those Jews and proselytes to Judaism started teaching that Jesus was the promised Messsiah, one of the verses they relied on to show the virgin (modern English meaning) birth was Isaiah 7:14. That presented a problem for those Jews and proselytes to Judaism who opposed that teaching concerning Jesus. The only logical response was to deny that עלמה meant “virgin”. The denial is clearly a religious response.

For me, the combination of etymology with its uses in Tanakh are sufficient to say it meant “virgin” in Biblical times. I don’t need to say more. Nor will I argue.

Wow! In this verse, you accuse Isaiah, a native speaker of Biblical Hebrew, highly literate, didn’t know basic Hebrew.

Isaiah isn't in this conversation.

He most certainly is, because he’s the author of this passage.

The question is, did he undermine the standard grammars in this passage?

It bothered me from the beginning that you try to undermine the standard grammars.

What makes you think that the standard grammars are correct in their description of Biblical Hebrew? Especially since many of these concepts are still hotly debated among scholars?

Your next paragraph is so full of inaccuracies that it appears to be an extended straw man argument. I see no reason for a detailed response to it.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

When those Jews and proselytes to Judaism started teaching that Jesus was the promised Messiah, one of the verses they relied on to show the virgin (modern English meaning) birth was Isaiah 7:14. That presented a problem for those Jews and proselytes to Judaism who opposed that teaching concerning Jesus. The only logical response was to deny that עלמה meant “virgin”. The denial is clearly a religious response.

This is getting ridiculous. You are actually blaming others for doing the thing you're doing. It is You that want to read it as "virgin" so it can fit your faith, and therefore, (as you said above), "The only logical response was to deny that עלמה (doesn't) meant 'virgin'".

And also, how does this verse would create a problem for the Jews. I mean, even if this word was really meant a "virgin" (and it's not) - the text says clearly that this birth will occur soon, and the baby will still be breastfed when the prophecy will be fulfilled (so something about three years or less). So how does it even touch Judaism or Christianity?

Using this verse to support Christianity is doing what is usually done - and that is taking verses out of context.
That is why, you, as a Christian believer, didn't even know what the context means. Because this context changes this view that you so much want to see - so why bother?

For me, the combination of etymology with its uses in Tanakh is sufficient to say it meant “virgin” in Biblical times. I don’t need to say more. Nor will I argue.

What etymology? and what combination?
The text itself explains the word עלמה as נערה and the word עלם as נער. (I wrote the two examples in my last post).
The Biblical text itself is your dictionary.
What do you need more?

The question is, did he undermine the standard grammars in this passage?

What makes you think that the standard grammars are correct in their description of Biblical Hebrew? Especially since many of these concepts are still hotly debated among scholars?

I still don't understand what is the grammar problem that you (and Jason) are talking about.

[kwrandolph]

When those Jews and proselytes to Judaism started teaching that Jesus was the promised Messiah, one of the verses they relied on to show the virgin (modern English meaning) birth was Isaiah 7:14. That presented a problem for those Jews and proselytes to Judaism who opposed that teaching concerning Jesus. The only logical response was to deny that עלמה meant “virgin”. The denial is clearly a religious response.

This is getting ridiculous. You are actually blaming others for doing the thing you're doing. It is You that want to read it as "virgin" so it can fit your faith, and therefore, (as you said above), "The only logical response was to deny that עלמה (doesn't) meant 'virgin'".

Here all I’m saying is history. Before some Jews started Christianity (it was started as a branch of Judaism) this verse was not controversial. After Christianity was started, when some Jews insisted that it meant “virgin” in relation to Jesus, only afterwards do you have the pushback that it didn’t.

And also, how does this verse would create a problem for the Jews. I mean, even if this word was really meant a "virgin" (and it's not) - the text says clearly that this birth will occur soon,

Not necessarily soon. “Soon” is a disputed claim.

Using this verse to support Christianity is doing what is usually done - and that is taking verses out of context.
That is why, you, as a Christian believer, didn't even know what the context means. Because this context changes this view that you so much want to see - so why bother?

This is taking a verse with a strange message, namely that a woman who is unknown sexually meaning that she never has had sexual relations with a man, gets pregnant. Jews of that time were not dumb, they knew that babies came only after sex (unlike the anti-Semitic claims put forward by some modern professors) so that a woman who became pregnant without ever having had sexual relations with a man means that God did something very unusual. Throughout history, there’s only one historical claim that that happened.

That strange prophesy was not fulfilled “soon”.

For me, the combination of etymology with its uses in Tanakh is sufficient to say it meant “virgin” in Biblical times. I don’t need to say more. Nor will I argue.

What etymology? and what combination?

I already wrote it once, do you want me to repeat myself.

The text itself explains the word עלמה as נערה and the word עלם as נער. (I wrote the two examples in my last post).
The Biblical text itself is your dictionary.
What do you need more?

At a time when the laws of sexual purity were strict and punishment harsh, both boys and girls were expected to be virgins until marriage. Hence the terms were synonymous.

The laws as written by Moses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were actually harsher towards males who broke those laws of purity than towards females.

The question is, did he undermine the standard grammars in this passage?

What makes you think that the standard grammars are correct in their description of Biblical Hebrew? Especially since many of these concepts are still hotly debated among scholars?

I still don't understand what is the grammar problem that you (and Jason) are talking about.

From what I understand, Jason claims people followed grammar rules strictly, no exceptions. I question the “no exceptions”.

Jason claims that the grammars of Gesenius and Weingreen are accurate descriptions of Biblical Hebrew. I disagree. I see those grammars (which is what I was taught in class) are accurate descriptions of medieval Tiberian Hebrew. But that medieval Tiberian Hebrew differs significantly from Biblical Hebrew, especially in its grammar.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

I still don't understand what is the grammar problem that you (and Jason) are talking about.

It's not a grammatical issue in this verse. It's the general idea of how he rejects all Hebrew grammarians who write about the biblical language. He says that they are medieval and teach a Hebrew that is not connected to the Bible. It is his adventure in life to reject every grammarian so that he can simply say whatever he wants about the language, claiming that he got it from reading on his own. As I said, he is a contrarian.