PaulK,
Please forgive the long delay. I took the time to review all of the evidence you have presented in this thread and to submit it to a thorough examination. I trust you have done the same regarding the evidence I have provided. In light of that study, I would like to point out a few things from your recent reply.
You opened your post with:
OK neither of your posts 37 or 55 addresses the question of how the sign could follow the fulfulment.
I have made several attempts to provide you with an explanation of what I think you are asking. It is apparent that you have not accepted my explanations, yet you have not informed me of any flaws you might have found in my reasoning. You have simply repeated your claim that I have not given a "reasonable explanation." Perhaps if you could tell me what you find unreasonable about my posts, then I would be able to provide a more reasonable explanation.
You continued with this statement:
The purpose of the sign is to indicate that the fulfilment is close - not that it happened centuries in the past.
Here again, you have not informed me of which part of my post you are attempting to refute. Perhaps I could ask a question which will help clarify this. You have referred to the purpose of the sign, but may I ask, what in this passage are you referring to as "the sign" and why do you think that this is "the sign"? If you could answer this question for me, it would help me to understand your position.
You also attempted to attack my sources by stating:
From the rest of your post it appears that you are relying on the apologetic work of inerrantists who wsih to maintain that the translation of Isaiah as referring to a virgin birth is correct for religious reasons
First of all let me point out that what one wishes to be true does not necessarily prevent him from telling the truth.
Secondly allow me a moment of perplexity as I consider the implications of debating with one who denies his own sources. If you recall, I mentioned in post 77 that we are using the exact same source. I am sure then that you understand how confusing it was to read your response. Are you really admitting that you have been relying on inerrantist propaganda all this time?
Terribly confusing, is it not? But let me add a few more questions to the mix. You didn't think much of my examples for the following reason:
As for your examples they become less impressive when it is noted that Deuteronomy 32:25 uses "bachuwr" for "young man" rather than "elem", Jeremiah 13:31 does the same and does not even link the two (and Jeremaiah is full of references to the "virgin of Israel").
The 2 Lamentations entries use the same word for young man.
Here I am extremely confused. I thought that I had posted 11 references supporting my statement, yet you claim that they are less impressive if you say that 4 of them don't apply. What about the other 7? If you are correct and the 4 you mention do not apply to the topic, then why haven't you attempted to refute the ones which you think do apply? Surely seven verses is not too much for you to study, especially when you consider that I have presented a total of 74 verses in support of my position. Maybe instead of refuting my verses you could provide 74 verses which support your position. You have only mentioned 9 references outside of Isaiah 7 so far and 5 of those were simply in response to a previous mention of those verses by myself. Do you have more than 4 verses which you think support your position?
I would also be interested in knowing why you think the usage of
bachuwr in these passages lessens their applicability to my position.
You then mentioned three verses which you said "quite clearly refer to virginity."
And what about, say Leviticus 21:14 ? Or Deuteronomy 22:23 and 28 ?
Both Deuteronomy 22 references refer to a "Na'arah" (that is a girl) who is "bethulah". That would be redundant if bethulah meant "young woman" as you say - and it looks unlikely to be an example of repetition for effect.
First, let me make the same request of you that I made of Rei. "If you wish to say what I have stated, then please say what I have stated." In other words, please do not misquote me. In the realm of copy-and-paste such errors should never occur.
You claimed that I have presented
bethulah as meaning "young woman." This is not correct. I presented
bethulah as being very similar to the term "
young lady." This is an important distinction, for, as I stated, this term is somewhat limited to chastity. In reference to the word
bethulah, I precisely stated, "it does not demand virginity, but it almost always carries a connotation of chastity."
This definition of
bethulah is in keeping with its usage in the aforementioned passages. According to the
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament;
The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis; and
The Theological Wordbook fo the Old Testament, the word is used in reference to chastity; and, according to context, virginity is here considered the main determinate for chastity. Thus it is translated virgin.
You further declared:
On the other hand almah is never used when it would specifically mean "virgin". You claimed that almah is ALWAYS used "in reference to true virgins" - yet the only example where virginity is known, is where the same woman is also called "bethulah"
Here again you have misquoted me. I did not say that
almah is "ALWAYS" used in reference to true virgins; I said that it is "only used in reference to true virgins." I should have prefaced this statement with the qualifier of
in the Bible, but I assumed that this qualification would be understood by the context of this debate.
Now, the word
almah is used 7 times in Scripture. I occurs in Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, Song of Solomon 6:8, and Isaiah 7:14. Perhaps you could tell me which of these verses supports your claim that "almah is never used when it would specifically mean 'virgin'."
You again misquoted me when you said:
I also notice that you offer no reference where almah is used to refer to a woman who is not young, but still a virgin - despite the fact that you clearly claimed this meaning with no support.
I do not recall ever claiming this meaning for the word
almah. I did claim this meaning for the word
virgin, but I certainly did not do so without support. In post 77, I stated that "this definition of
virgin is from
Webster’s New International Dictionary Second Edition, Unabridged."
And finally, you keep suggesting that I have not "done my homework." Why don't we just let the homework speak for itself? Surely if I have done as little study and preparation as you say, then such negligence will be apparent in my posts. And if you have done more study than I have, then you will be able to adequately refute my statements. If the Bible is correct in stating that "even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right," then everyone else on this thread already knows which of us has truly done his homework.
™ Version 4.2