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

[ralph]

If you have a noun and an adjective e.g. ish tov

Does it have to have the meaning of "is"?

Can it mean "man was good" or "man will be good"?

I notice for example in Gen 1:4 "kee tov", It translated as "it was good", rather than "it is good". Grammatically could it be "it will be good?"

Isaiah 7:14 הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה

biblehub says hara is an adjective. So in terms of its biblical hebrew classification, it's not a "participle" and I know that what biblical hebrew calls "participles", don't define a tense and can certainly be past present or future.

According to JPS 1917 they translate as "shall conceive".

Forget theology. Forget surrounding passages. Forget the context of the verse. We can translate alma as young woman or forget the word alma. I'm not asking about the word alma. This is a grammatical question about the word hara.

Is that translation ("is conceiving") legitimate grammatically, e.g. can a noun adjective pair be in a future tense relationship?

The kee tov example I gave does suggest that an adjective (tov), can be past tense, with the word it is associated with. I guess "kee" is a preposition

[Jason Hare]

To make a comparison, you would place these against each other:

הנה האיש טוב - "Behold, the man is good."
הנה העלמה הרה - "Behold, the young woman is pregnant."

I don't see any compulsion to translate it with the future, unless one assumes that עלמה means "virgin" and is talking about something happening 500 or so years later (which is not part of the context).

JPS 1917 is not a good source to use. It often uncritically echoes the King James Version. The New Jewish Publication Society Tanach (NJPS), published in 1985 and renewed in 1999, is a much better Jewish translation to cite. In this case, it says: "Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son." The online so-called Complete Jewish Bible or Complete Tanach from the website of Chabad reads similarly: "behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son."

If you just want to get a Jewish translation of the Bible, use one of those two sites, not the old 1917 translation by the JPS. That translation is generally disliked because it doesn't use modern language and because it, as I said before, often mirrors the KJV instead of offering something better.

[Jemoh66]

Compare Genesis 16:11

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהוָ֔ה
הִנָּ֥ךְ הָרָ֖ה וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֑ן
וְקָרָ֤את שְׁמֹו֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל
כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֥ע יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־עָנְיֵֽךְ

Then the Angel of YHWH said to her
Behold you are pregnant

Followed by two Qal perfects with waw conjunction but the MT has pointed the same consonants וילדת as a participle.

לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם אֹ֑ות
הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן
וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמֹ֖ו עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃

This could be rendered the virgin is pregnant and beating a son
But the context prefers a future the virgin will conceive and bear a son
The Greek has it,

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον·
ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήμψεται
καὶ τέξεται υἱόν,
καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ·

On account of this, the Lord himself will give you a sign
Behold the virgin will conceive in the womb
And shall bear a son
And you shall call his name Immanuel.

Seems like the 70 read וילדת as וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ

[Isaac Fried]

As I understand it, Isaiah 7:14
הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן
may well be future, with הִנֵּה indicating imminence or certainty.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jason Hare]

As I understand it, Isaiah 7:14
הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן
may well be future, with הִנֵּה indicating imminence or certainty.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Yes, but not 500 years later "imminent."

[Isaac Fried]

Jason writes

Yes, but not 500 years later "imminent."

1. I am not talking theology, never, only Hebrew grammar.
2. Recall also Ps. 90:4
כִּי אֶלֶף שָׁנִים בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּיוֹם אֶתְמוֹל כִּי יַעֲבֹר
KJV: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past"

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

[Jemoh66]

Frankly, I find the participle pointing of וְיֹלֶדֶת here quite puzzling. However, If as a seer, Isaiah is describing what his vision is showing him as he speaks, maybe she is delivering at this moment, but then it makes the phrase הָעַלְמָה הָרָה superfluous, unless he is saying, "behold, the pregnant virgin, and she's delivering a son; you will call his name With Us God." Since only the prophet actually sees this, behold has the force of I see the virgin with child and she's delivering a son.

[kwrandolph]

Yes, but not 500 years later "imminent."

Look at the context. Isaiah had switched from addressing Ahab to addressing the whole House of David which had already lasted centuries by that time. So there’s no expectation that it had to be fulfilled immediately.

Isaiah also mentions something that was impossible, a virgin being pregnant, which by its impossibility apart from God is a sign.

What we have here is an adjective, then the next two phrases have feminine participles which are nouns. So the direct (and awkward) translation comes out as “Behold the pregnant virgin and the one bringing forth a son and the one calling his name God With Us.”

Going back to the original question that started this thread, there is no grammatical tense relationship in this prophesy. Context is what defines the “when”.

As for the name, the word “name” is also used for “reputation” therefore “God With Us” is not necessarily the given name.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Look at the context. Isaiah had switched from addressing Ahab to addressing the whole House of David which had already lasted centuries by that time. So there’s no expectation that it had to be fulfilled immediately.

By addressing the king, he was addressing the house of David.

Isaiah also mentions something that was impossible, a virgin being pregnant, which by its impossibility apart from God is a sign.

It doesn't say "virgin." It is not prophesying a virgin conception or virgin birth.

What we have here is an adjective, then the next two phrases have feminine participles which are nouns. So the direct (and awkward) translation comes out as “Behold the pregnant virgin and the one bringing forth a son and the one calling his name God With Us.”

You are illustrating that you don't know the difference between המלך טוב "the king is good" (a nominal clause) and המלך הטוב "the good king" (noun phrase with adjective). It does NOT by any stretch of the imagination mean "the pregnant virgin," which would be הבתולה ההרה (the adjective would need to be definite, and we would have to have the word "virgin").

The context is talking about Ahab's enemies being destroyed before the child to be born knows how to distinguish between good and bad. It's not about 500 years later, and such poor translation of the pieces of the text does not lend credibility to your claim.

[Isaac Fried]

Karl writes

Going back to the original question that started this thread, there is no grammatical tense relationship in this prophesy. Context is what defines the “when”.

This is very very true. Indeed: Now: עַלְמָה, tomorrow morning: הָרָה, nine months later: יֹלֶדֶת, looking at the baby: בֵּן!, a couple of days later: וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com