Virgin birth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2011, 05:50 AM
RE: Virgin birth
God is so messed up that he had sexual intercourse with his children (humans) and broke his rule about the marriage thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2011, 09:33 AM
RE: Virgin birth
(19-10-2011 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  b. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothed,or newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign.

Thanks for the erudite and informative post.

There's something about the almah-parthenos translation issue that's always puzzled me, and maybe you can clarify it.

As you've pointed out, almah in Classical Hebrew means 'woman of marriageable age,' not 'virgin'--for that there's another word, bethulah. However, as I understand it, parthenos in Greek does in fact mean 'virgin.'

Now the LXX translation was completed in the second century BCE. So my question is, was that original translation from Hebrew to Greek a mistranslation? If so, was it simply an error based on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew or was there an "agenda" of some sort (clearly pre-Christian) behind it?

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
27-10-2011, 11:18 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2011 04:04 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Virgin birth
(19-10-2011 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  From a previous post of mine ....
2. The so-called "virgin birth" is one of the PRIME examples where there is development of an off-the-wall notion, based on a translation, of a MIS-translation, of a translation, which is then taken out of context, and solidified as doctrine, and driven over the cliff.

To wit :
a. Background :
Isaiah 7 talks about the history of King Ahaz, son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was king of Judah. At the time, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, son of Remaliah, King of Israel, marched up to fight against Jerusalem, and the campaign was long and protracted. See the Syro-Ephraimite War, (Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War ), and it happened in the 8th Century (734) BC. When Ahaz was loosing faith, Isaiah went to visit him, and told him to "buck up", keep the faith, and continue the war, and told him that the SIGN from god, that they were favored, was that one of his wives, (a "woman of marriageable age") would be found to be with child. The SIGN was the CHILD, (and NOT the manner of the birth). ...."And they shall name him Emmanuel" which means "god is with us". The CHILD was the SIGN.

Any devout Jew in the time of the Roman occupation, (around 60 AD), would know that story, from Isaiah, and when they heard the words "a woman, (of marriageable age) will be found to be with child" they would connect the stories in their brains, and recognize that the gospel text's intention was to remind them of the Isaiah story, and would "harken" back to it, and realize the intent of the author was to claim that THIS child also was a sign. The general intent of the Gospel of Matthew was to claim the fulfillment of the various prophesies regarding the messiah, and this one was another one of those claims/stories of fulfillment.

b. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothed,or newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign.

Also interesting that Matthew (1:25) only says that Joseph "knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son". It does NOT say she REMAINED a virgin. (??)

See also : Mother Goddess, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_goddess ) and Joseph Campbell, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess ) and Courtly Love, ( http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513...ourtly.htm ). The business of Mary, and her idealized state, was extremely important in the civilization/culture of the West, and in some circles remains very important today, (Lourdes & claims of "Marian" apparitions" etc., etc.)

Over and out. Cool
The whole story of Jesus was concocted at least a millennium before he supposedly even existed, so who really cares what the Bible says on the matter?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2011, 02:14 PM
RE: Virgin birth
And your evidence is ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2011, 04:08 PM
RE: Virgin birth
(27-10-2011 02:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And your evidence is ?

I thought it was common knowledge that the Bible was a load of BS.

Anyways, here is one of many examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Chris..._mythology
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mysticjbyrd's post
27-10-2011, 04:43 PM
RE: Virgin birth
(27-10-2011 04:08 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(27-10-2011 02:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And your evidence is ?
I thought it was common knowledge that the Bible was a load of BS.
Anyways, here is one of many examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Chris..._mythology

Don't forget Mithra from around 600 BC. Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom.
Smile

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2011, 11:16 PM
RE: Virgin birth
There is a load of virgin births in mythology.
Hinduism, Buddhism…
Just like there are lots of “died but fully recovered later” headlines.
Dionysus son of Zeus and Osiris didn’t know when to quit ether.
It’s the same story but the names change, ever seen a soap opera and then another one?
Same formula, same lighting, different names.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2011, 03:36 PM
RE: Virgin birth
(27-10-2011 09:33 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(19-10-2011 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  b. The word "virgin" is a mistranslation, of a translation. So WE have a translation, of a mis-translation, of a translation. Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the slightly wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothed,or newly wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign.

Thanks for the erudite and informative post.

There's something about the almah-parthenos translation issue that's always puzzled me, and maybe you can clarify it.

As you've pointed out, almah in Classical Hebrew means 'woman of marriageable age,' not 'virgin'--for that there's another word, bethulah. However, as I understand it, parthenos in Greek does in fact mean 'virgin.'

Now the LXX translation was completed in the second century BCE. So my question is, was that original translation from Hebrew to Greek a mistranslation? If so, was it simply an error based on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew or was there an "agenda" of some sort (clearly pre-Christian) behind it?

I always assumed it was a misunderstanding of the word, when they translated it. The emphasis, (need for), on the Gnostic "spiritual plane", (vs the "corrupt" physical level), did not arrive for at least a hundred years later. That "double decker" universe is still with us, everywhere, ("natural" vs "supernatural", etc.,etc).
(Although the many levels of the Hebrew universe were also in place at the time...there is a fairly good diagram of that, (the various parts of the Hebrew universe), in the intro to the New American Bible). BUT, I think you can assume ANY editor of ANY of those texts had a agenda.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: