13 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are correct, sir. Call it a finger faux pas.
Well, I would say Luke says she was a virgin explicitly and Matthew strongly suggests it. I can't find any mention in John of a virgin birth and Mark doesn't address his birth at all.
However, there are OT references to the same phenomena.
Moreover, without the virgin birth, the humanity of Christ would not have been qualified to execute the task for which He was born.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually this is not true.
However, there are OT references to the same phenomena.
The septuagint (you know, the Bible with the books you mysteriously exclude
from Scripture) was in Greek and they translated the word for 'maiden' which
did not entail any commentary on her sexual history with the word for 'virgin'
which obviously does. This is why Sts Matthew and Luke point to prophesy but
the original Hebrew says no such thing.
Nemesio
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioFascinating. I'm always impressed with your biblical knowledge. If you ever get tired of the organ gig, you should seriously consider teaching.
Actually this is not true.
The septuagint (you know, the Bible with the books you mysteriously exclude
from Scripture) was in Greek and they translated the word for 'maiden' which
did not entail any commentary on her sexual history with the word for 'virgin'
which obviously does. This is why Sts Matthew and Luke point to prophesy but
the original Hebrew says no such thing.
Nemesio
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesActually it's the illusion of knowledge. Because I am not a 'True Believer' I will
Fascinating. I'm always impressed with your biblical knowledge. If you ever get tired of the organ gig, you should seriously consider teaching.
never understand the Bible.
Just ask around. You'll see.
Nemesio
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioTrue. But there's the knowledge that pretty much anyone with the drive can get, and then there's knowledge, which is the basis for understanding.
Actually it's the illusion of knowledge. Because I am not a 'True Believer' I will
never understand the Bible.
Just ask around. You'll see.
Nemesio
Kind of like getting an encyclopedia's topical take on the Civil War, and then doing an actual in-depth study of the same.
But, that's another issue...
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm going to start a thread on this. Please join in.
True. But there's the knowledge that pretty much anyone with the drive can get, and then there's knowledge, which is the basis for understanding.
Kind of like getting an encyclopedia's topical take on the Civil War, and then doing an actual in-depth study of the same.
But, that's another issue...
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioWhile the Septuagint was the Greek for the new masses, Hebrew was the language in which the OT was written.
Actually this is not true.
The septuagint (you know, the Bible with the books you mysteriously exclude
from Scripture) was in Greek and they translated the word for 'maiden' which
did not entail any commentary on her sexual history with the word for 'virgin'
which obviously does. This is why Sts Matthew and Luke point to prophesy but
the original Hebrew says no such thing.
Nemesio
[As far as the sly reference to the excluded books goes, we both know the story on the two you hold dear, as well as the assorted other junior varsity tomes.]
Ironically, while the Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew texts, the word itself is Latin. Okay, maybe not so funny to everyone else, but I always thought it was hilarious. I don't get out much.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While the Septuagint was the Greek for the new masses, Hebrew was the language in which the OT was written....Ironically, while the Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew texts, the word itself is Latin.
You don't follow me. The Hebrew word is best rendered 'maiden' in English. This word,
in Hebrew, does not comment upon whether or not Mary was or was not a virgin. The
word that is used in the Septuagint, however, is best rendered 'virgin,' which is clearly
what Sts Matthew and Luke were using.
That is: there was never any prophecy of a virgin birth because that word does not appear
in the OT Hebrew.
[As far as the sly reference to the excluded books goes, we both know the story on the two you hold dear, as well as the assorted other junior varsity tomes.]
This was not a 'sly reference.' You use an incomplete Bible and claim it is the
Word of God. I don't see how anyone could take your faith seriously when you
have edited the Bible as you see fit.
Nemesio
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMy father was a priest and had studied some theology. He said that the oldest known texts used a word meaning 'young woman' though it could be interpreted differently depending on context (just as maiden can also mean virgin or young woman).
I heard it claimed that Luke is the only Gospel that describes a virgin birth. None of the others state that Mary is a virgin. Is this the case?
He also thought that this part of Lukes account was not based on what he had heard about Jesus but rather what was prophesied in the old testament. The old testament has prophesies of a saviour being born of a virgin.
I doubt that Jesus' deciples or the writers of the new testament, which came later knew very much about Jesus' early life and what is written about it is either made up to fit the prophesy or as many fundies would say 'inspired by God'. The question here is if it was inspired by God then it would imply that he would ensure that it is translated correctly in most translations unless he only wanted the first few generations to know the truth.
It was not until much later that the Roman Catholics made the virgin birth and the significance of Mary a much more important part of thier Christian faith and to this day the Pope and the importance of Mary is one of the major theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and The Anglican Church.