72.80.139.114

Almah

Please don't revert war and accuse people of ulterior motives. Rather, if you believe that the article is inaccurate, please discuss the change on the talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You are fighting to revert war, not me. I am citing the actual Bible verses & explaining why your reversions are frivolous. You continue to cite citations that state the OPPOSITE of what you claim. I realize the religious sensitivities here, but your arguments are patently frivolous. Joel 1:8 does not refer to virginal widows. Isiah 7:14 does not refer to the miracle of a young woman of child-bearing age giving birth to a son. These are not serious claims. I literally clicked on your citations, which said almah means virgin. You are reverting for some ulterior motive, perhaps ignorance or mere persnicketiness, but your claims are frivolous. Please explain Joel 1:8. Please explain why Abraham didn't care about his future daughter-in-law's sexual history. Please explain why Isiah's sign was an everyday event. Please cite a single example of an almah who was not a virgin. Please explain why betulah is followed by "didn't know men" or similar clarification of the betulah's virginity. You're not arguing, you're not responding, you're just insisting on an absurd point without any evidence.

• As I have said on my talk page, just because you believe to be right, that doesn't exclude you from the Wikipedia policies; see the policy of verifiability and against original research. It might be worth adding to the article how Biblical apologists interpret the word and how scholars respond to these arguments; but you can't remove referenced information from the article and replace it with its opposite. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• And if you believe that a reference does not support a particular claim made in the article, you should be more specific. What exactly does the reference say (compared to the claim made in the article)? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hello. Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, it's against the Verifiability and Neutral Point of View policies. Because of that, your latest edits to Almah have been removed. If you have any questions, feel free to message me on my talk page. Thank you! — SkiMaskA⭐ ^(💬Talk) 16:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

(You can use the article's talk page instead of doing this) --— SkiMaskA⭐ ^(💬Talk) 17:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to know why Wikipedia is NOT a serious source (it's something I only use for pop culture references because I don't care about their ultimate accuracy), look no further than this almah thread. The idea that almah means "young woman of child-bearing age" is a joke. It's clear from context that it means virgin, otherwise God's sign to King Ahaz is that a woman will have sex, get pregnant, and deliver a son. It's just not a serious claim, but people keep insisting upon it, presumably to bash Christians or something. Look, if you want to believe that Jewish women having sons is a "miracle," I can't stop you, but it's NOT a serious claim. Likewise, betulah does NOT reference virgin widows in Joel 1:8. This thread should embarrass everyone who keeps insisting on such nonsense. Almah is virgin, period. Cite one instance - just one - in the Hebrew Bible where almah referred to a non-virgin. You can't because it does NOT exist. At best, almah might refer to someone whose virginity is otherwise unspecified precisely because it means virgin - you don't need any other clarification! (Unlike betulah which always clarifies the woman's virginity or lack thereof.)

December 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Almah has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Almah was changed by 72.80.139.114 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.854035 on 2020-12-29T01:57:06+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Almah, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:72.80.139.114 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: ). Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as done at Almah.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 03:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Your edits of the article almah constitute vandalism. You have tried to change the article to make it say the opposite of what it said originally (removing references and without providing your own); when you couldn't get your way (your edit was reverted), you went to vandalize the article by adding sarcastic falsehoods to it. That's not how it works on Wikipedia. As I have said, you aren't exempt from Wikipedia policies solely because you believe to be right.

Scholars say that the word almah doesn't specifically mean "virgin"; rather, it means "maiden", "young woman". Yes, a young unmarried woman in ancient Israel was normally a virgin. Yes, virginity was valued during the time (ancient Israel was a patriarchal society). But that doesn't prove that the word specifically means "virgin". As for you disputing the meaning of the word betulah, even though it's universally translated "virgin", there's an obvious explanation: in Biblical Hebrew, it's common to redundantly describe the same thing twice in different words. For example, Zechariah 7:1 says: "And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chisleu" (KJV). Chisleu (Kislev) is nothing else than the ninth month of the year. (I can give a similar example in English. In the ring poem from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, it is said that nine rings were given to "mortal men doomed to die". That doesn't mean that they were sentenced to death, but rather that it was the human fate to eventually die; "mortal" and "doomed to die" means the same thing.)

As for the reason why a fairly normal birth was meant to be a prophetic sign, this is covered in the article Isaiah 7:14. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And as for you claiming that the references don't actually support the article, but rather say that the word means "virgin", that's a serious charge; having unsupported claims in the article, or even ones that directly contradict the references, is the last thing anybody wants (see the policy of verifiability). But I am not going to believe you just on your say-so. What exactly do the references say? If it's your personal interpretation of the references, then it's original synthesis which cannot be added to articles. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

---