as several things you still do not understand
What are they, though? You have said this several times, and the only thing I didn't understand was your reference "context," in which you used it in a way that is not typically used in hermeneutical conversations.
So far, everything else you have is standard fare for your position and I understand it perfectly. I don't think you understand the implications of it.
The whole premise of my view is that that assumption is not always true. Matthew, when quoting the OT, often meant something other than what was originally meant - yet did not "misuse" it.
Your premise is faulty. If hte NT author meant something different than the OT author, then we have serious problems in these texts. You can't do that to language.
No, YOU don't get it. If you said "I have a vehicle. I have a car." and I say "Yes, I have a vehicle too, a truck." Both a car and a truck are a vehicle. Both an apple and a banana are a fruit. Both a virgin and a non-virgin are an "almah", a young woman.
But not at the same time. You cannot use two different meanings for a word in one and the same contex.t
Please show me where I said this or agreed with this. I don't not believe I did.
December 10, 2005 05:59 PM. I said "Matthew says that Mary was that virgin, and she knew no man." ANd you said "I agree." Apparently you don't. And finally we have arrived at something I don't actually understand. If you agreed that Mary was "that virgin" that Isaiah was talking about, how can you disagree with me?
Again, it looks like you have thought through the implications of this.
For the fourth (fifth?) time, almah means "young woman".
I defended that view long before this conversation started. I have stated it in this conversation. ON page 2, I said,
Some very good cases have been made that "almah" means virgin. I happen to disagree. There is no unambiguous use of "almah" to refer to anything but a virgin. The only unambiguous use of the root term is Isa 54 where alumim (a derivative) is used for barren women.
But remember, the point is not what the word "can" mean, but what it "does" mean. In a context, a word can mean only one thing.
Some young women are virgins. Some are not.
But in a given context, such as Isaiah's, it only means one or the other. Not both.
Some fruits are apples, some are not - that doesn't mean I'm saying a "fruit" can be both an apple and a banana.
And here you identified your very problem. Isaiah said "the virgin" (with a definite article not usually translated). He was referring to "a fruit" to use your analogy. And ha'almah cannot be both.
In the end, we are still talking past one another. I believe it is because you have not through through the implications of your position. You claim it is because I don't understand. Having read thousands of pages on Isaiah 7, I can say with relative assurance that the problem isn't that I don't understand your position. As I said, I do understand it, and in fact could make a case for it and sound like I believed it.
What's at stake here is the nature of prophecy and the integrity of the text. You don't deny the virgin birth, and neither do I. I presume you don't deny the inspiration of Scripture, and neither do I. But the problem is that when we start using texts willy-nilly (a Hebrew term), then we end up with all kinds of things.
I don't see what is lost by not having a "ha'almah harah" in the time of Isaiah. I see much that is lost by saying that Matthew used the passage in a way that Isaiah did not intend.
I will close with this: When you or Keith say that I don't recognize that "almah" can mean young woman, you are both wrong. I have said that for a long time. I am in contradiction to much of conservative scholarship on that.
Here is Keith's objection: "The major problem with the single meaning hermeneutic is trying to recreate authorial intent. Since the interpreter has no access (beyond the words) to the author’s state of mind, he can at best only make logical deductions about what the author was thinking. Therefore, according to the critic of the single intent model, the interpreter is chasing after something largely unattainable. However, if one assumes (as he should) that the author chose the words that would best convey his intention in a way that would be understood by the reader, this problem is minimized (though perhaps not fully eradicated)."
Here is part of Natters' issues: "The major problem with sensus plenior is that it opens the door to interpretations that are not governed by any discernible textual indicators. Thus sensus plenior runs the risk of robbing the text of any significant meaning to the original reader since they did not have the later revelation that unlocked the “real” or deeper meaning. It also introduces a variable of subjectivity since meaning has been removed from the text and placed in the realm of the interpreter’s view of the text in light of his understanding of later revelation."
Continued: "Since the overriding presupposition in communication is the fact that a hearer can legitimately comprehend the intent of the speaker, authorial intent is not as elusive as the critics might suggest. The speaker believes it is within his power to choose words that can be understood to communicate what he wishes to communicate. If the speaker thought otherwise, he would likely not even attempt to communicate. If he thinks a word or phrase might be misunderstood, he will choose a different word or phrase, or add qualifiers to clarify his intent; in short, he will change it so that he will not be misunderstood. Such interaction demands commonality of usage between the author and the reader (and ultimately the interpreter) so that the recipient will be able to understand a given linguistic sign or combination of linguistic signs in the manner in which the author intends them. If the recipient fails at this basic level, rational discourse is rendered impossible. Therefore, the speaker uses signs or symbols that he believes the hearer will understand in the same manner in which the speaker intends them. Thus, a commonality of meaning for a sign or a set of signs is assumed."
The question is, Did Isaiah intend a young non-virgin birth in the time of Ahaz, or did he intended the virgin birth of Christ?
I say the latter. I am not sure if natters has wrestled with Isaiah's
intent, what Isaiah wanted the hearer c. 730BC to understand. That is the key issue. What did Isaiah intend? If he had intended a young woman, non-virgin, in his time, he could have said it another way to make it clear.
If, on the other hand, Isaiah intended a virgo intacta, this is the way hw would say it. A virgo intacta would have been what was commonly understood, given the lexical data. Therefore, I believe part of this problem stems from failing to understand how langauge was used at that time, and the univocal nature of language.
In the end, is this a big deal? No, not really in many ways. But it does have some serious implications.
I have enjoyed the exchange, though.
