In article <141769.2B4B6601@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
> JL> I don't understand this sentence at all.
>Well it was very very plain Jack.
About as plain as the rest of your stuff.
> Rabbis have their own interpretation of Isa 7:14 in an attempt to debunk the Virgin birth, doctrine of Christianity. If this isn't opposites in exegetics than i don't know what is.
This was nonsense when you first stated it. It remains nonsense.
>Only in liberal non biblical churches Jack... Many have departed from the faith, no longer believing in the virgin birth, or the Scriptures as being anything but the Word of God.
Could we have your definition of "liberal" churches, Harvey? What
percentage of the Christian world belongs to these "liberal"
churches?
>The question is not whether the word alma means virgin or young woman, for it surely does mean young woman of marriageable age or betrothed to be married, and in EVERY CASE in the Tanakh where the word is used, it refers to a virgin, so it means a young maiden, who is a virgin, so the Rabbinic translators who translated it in 300bce into greek meaning VIRGIN, ie parthenos.... and correctly so.
>
Although I don't entirely agree with the responses, others have
already demonstrated the falaciousness of this point. I think that
you are making a propaganda point here, not one based in any
scholarship, so further argument is pointless.
>Many historic churches have long left the faith, and that is one of the reasons so many of them are losing membership and have been for well over 20 years.
>
Once again, I wonder whether you would care to identify these
no longer Christian churches.
>Nope Sorry Jack, just finished a research on the word almah, and in Ugaritic the word alma poetically is always associated with the term virgin...
If I actually believed that you knew anything about Ugaritic, this
might be an interesting conversation. But since I'm quite sure
that any request for sources would bring the same misinterpreted
