Isaiah 7:14

[jeremyp]

All the instances in the Old Testament imply unmarried and youth. Since, as Sassy pointed out, all unmarried women would be virgins at that time, the word is correctly translated as virgin.

Sassy doesn't know what she is talking about. Biblical scholars do - at least those who are not tainted by their faith.

[Dicky Underpants]

All the instances in the Old Testament imply unmarried and youth. Since, as Sassy pointed out, all unmarried women would be virgins at that time, the word is correctly translated as virgin.

All? Would you perhaps like to comment on the episode of Tamar and Amnon then?

[Spud]

All? Would you perhaps like to comment on the episode of Tamar and Amnon then?

2 Samuel 13:12-13 proves that Sassy is correct. Tamar tried to persuade Ammon to marry her first.

[ProfessorDavey]

2 Samuel 13:12-13 proves that Sassy is correct. Tamar tried to persuade Ammon to marry her first.

Doesn't prove anything as the bible doesn't provide factual evidence - it provides a series of stories. So at best all we can say is that it is claimed that Tamar tried to persuade Ammon to marry her first. Whether or not that claim is true or not cannot be determined from the bible.

[Spud]

No, if it means unmarried and youth then it means unmarried and youth. That the unmarried youth was a virgin is an assumption.

It's a reasonable assumption, as we would expect more information if she was pregnant the natural way, since it was normal for Israelites to wait until marriage.

[Nearly Sane]

It's a reasonable assumption, as we would expect more information if she was pregnant the natural way, since it was normal for Israelites to wait until marriage.

Except when Biggus Dickus, or Nortius Maximus was in town

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sassy doesn't know what she is talking about. Biblical scholars do - at least those who are not tainted by their faith.

Oh yes, and what world view is qualified for the title untainted in an historian?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh yes, and what world view is qualified for the title untainted in an historian?

Methodological naturalistic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Methodological naturalistic.

Not a world view I'm afraid
Philosophical naturalism of course would "taint" a historian since they might view history from that perspective.

[Spud]

My opinion matters not. I'm not a scholar on the subject. What I have done on this thread is to point out alternative interpretations from scholars and to question your certainty about it and the conclusions out and others reach based on this certainty.

Just to answer my question to Sassy in #62:
I've checked the Hebrew, and it's not "will conceive" (Strongs 2029 - verb) but "is pregnant" (Strongs 3030, adjective).
So it's not talking about a virgin who will conceive, which wouldn't be a sign, but a virgin who is pregnant.

[Nearly Sane]

Not a world view I'm afraid
Philosophical naturalism of course would "taint" a historian since they might view history from that perspective.

in terms of doing history, methodological naturalism is the world view. And if philosophical naturalism would taint their view of history according to you then the same is true of a philosophical nonnaturalist perspective, so you have just effectively agreed with jeremyp.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

in terms of doing history, methodological naturalism is the world view. And if philosophical naturalism would taint their view of history according to you then the same is true of a philosophical nonnaturalist perspective, so you have just effectively agreed with jeremyp.

It's not a world view. Historians use it. So what?
It seems to me that science use the methodology, but there's a difference between science and history. Feel free to outline how they can both use methodologically naturalistic and end up as different.
Philosophical naturalism of course affects the way historians view supernaturalistic claims and IMO these boil down to the "Oi nutter" school of viewing claims as mental aberration.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not a world view. Historians use it. So what?
It seems to me that science use the methodology, but there's a difference between science and history. Feel free to outline how they can both use methodologically naturalistic and end up as different.
Philosophical naturalism of course affects the way historians view supernaturalistic claims and IMO these boil down to the "Oi nutter" school of viewing claims as mental aberration.

In the context of studying history, I would suggest that it is. science and history are different subjects why would have to use a different methodology in terms of how methodologal naturalism works?
.

Your ejaculations on philosophical naturalism just indicate that as far as faith based positions go, you agree with jeremyp.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the context of studying history, I would suggest that it is. science and history are different subjects why would have to use a different methodology in terms of how methodologal naturalism works?
.

Your ejaculations on philosophical naturalism just indicate that as far as faith based positions go, you agree with jeremyp.

I don't see why a historian cannot say. " It was believed that" and of course, some have said that and not compromised or touted any worldview.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see why a historian cannot say. " It was believed that" and of course, some have said that and not compromised or touted any worldview.

I don't see anyone has suggested they can't

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are Jeremy and I in agreement. He has said nothing about philosophical naturalism or whether it taints historical interpretation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see anyone has suggested they can't

But Jeremy seems to say that those with a faith cannot suggest that without taint?

On reflection don't you think he should justify his assertions?

[Nearly Sane]

But Jeremy seems to say that those with a faith cannot suggest that without taint?

On reflection don't you think he should justify his assertions?

That doesn't mean he's said anything like a historian cannot say "It was believed that"

And since you've made a mirror assertion, you agree with him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't mean he's said anything like a historian cannot say "It was believed that"

And since you've made a mirror assertion, you agree with him.

Sorry, but Jeremy seems to be suggesting that any scholarship is tainted if carried out by those with a faith.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, but Jeremy seems to be suggesting that any scholarship is tainted if carried out by those with a faith.

Which doesn't mean that a historian can't describe beliefs of others by saying 'It was believed that'.

[jeremyp]

2 Samuel 13:12-13 proves that Sassy is correct. Tamar tried to persuade Ammon to marry her first.

2 Samuel wasn't written by Isaiah.The books may be more than 100 years apart. Language changes in that length of time.

[jeremyp]

Just to answer my question to Sassy in #62:
I've checked the Hebrew, and it's not "will conceive" (Strongs 2029 - verb) but "is pregnant" (Strongs 3030, adjective).
So it's not talking about a virgin who will conceive, which wouldn't be a sign, but a virgin who is pregnant.

It's talking about a young woman who is pregnant. By definition she wasn't a virgin.

Note that there is no acknowledgement in the story that this was a miraculous event. It's just a sign telling Ahaxz the timescales on which his enemies will be vanquished.

[jeremyp]

But Jeremy seems to say that those with a faith cannot suggest that without taint?

No I don't. I suggest that Spud's faith taints his opinion. However pretty much all of what we are talking about was discovered by scholars who had faith. Almost all of the debunking of traditional Christian views on the Bible was done by Christians. Clearly they were able to do their work whilst avoiding having it being tainted by their faith.

[Dicky Underpants]

Just to answer my question to Sassy in #62:
I've checked the Hebrew, and it's not "will conceive" (Strongs 2029 - verb) but "is pregnant" (Strongs 3030, adjective).
So it's not talking about a virgin who will conceive, which wouldn't be a sign, but a virgin who is pregnant.

Biblical Hebrew had only two tenses, perfect and imperfect. The imperfect is usually translated as the English present tense OR the future. You get no further arguing from tenses.

[Spud]

Biblical Hebrew had only two tenses, perfect and imperfect. The imperfect is usually translated as the English present tense OR the future. You get no further arguing from tenses.

Thanks, but the word 'pregnant' is an adjective describing a woman who has already conceived,. If we were referring to a future event, then rather than say "the woman will become pregnant" (which would require an extra verb, 'become') we would say "the woman will conceive" which is the natural way of saying it. Here the adjective is used, so the woman has already conceived.