NationStates Jolt Archive

Ironically, the Bible doesn't say that the Earth will be destroyed. Not in the literal sense of the word destroyed anyway. A deeper understanding of Revelations will show that.

Try reading my post before you hit the respond button.

Ironically, the Bible doesn't say that the Earth will be destroyed. Not in the literal sense of the word destroyed anyway. A deeper understanding of Revelations will show that.
You mean a non-literal understanding?

I don't believe in god because everything is just to difficult to believe... Although you cannot disprove the existance of god you can explain everything "done" by god through scientific Means...

I have never believed in god
and i never will

I disagree. You show me a Christian that doesn't believe the whole second coming thing.
Are you honestly trying to argue that Christianity can be reduced to only the second coming?

Christianity has many dogma and tenets. The central one is the teaching of Jesus. Basically, "love thy neighbour". But as every other religion, some other tenets are put in. Reducing Christianity to the second coming is like reducing buddhism to suffering. Do you see me likening Judaism to a masochism cult.

Please, there are so many ways to argue against Christianity, don't resort to absurdity.

You mean a non-literal understanding?

Oh there is no doubt that there will be plagues to hit the earth, including World War III however the Earth will not be literally destroyed though it will not look the same when the final disaster is poured out. In essence, it will be destroyed, but not at the sametime.

Oh there is no doubt that there will be plagues to hit the earth, including World War III however the Earth will not be literally destroyed though it will not look the same when the final disaster is poured out. In essence, it will be destroyed, but not at the sametime.
So... that is the "deeper understanding", then? Okay.

It doesn't and it is disingenious to say so. Some sect of the big Christian family does that, indeed but the majority do not.

Come to think of it, which religions doesn't explain death and what happens after? Was the greek religion a death cult (hades)?
I wouldn't say that death was a huge part of greek mythology though. Their stuff was more about living. Part of life is death (well, the end of it) but that's not the focus.
In christianity, you're supposed to expect to suffer in life and not get rewarded until after you die. Greek mythology seems to embrace life a lot more...

So... that is the "deeper understanding", then? Okay.

Biblical Prophacy really isn't all that difficult. The question is, do you want to believe what the Prophecies are saying?

Biblical Prophacy really isn't all that difficult. The question is, do you want to believe what the Prophecies are saying?
No, I was just curious if your "deeper understanding" meant something else, but it simply meant more details.

Are you honestly trying to argue that Christianity can be reduced to only the second coming?

Christianity has many dogma and tenets. The central one is the teaching of Jesus. Basically, "love thy neighbour". But as every other religion, some other tenets are put in. Reducing Christianity to the second coming is like reducing buddhism to suffering. Do you see me likening Judaism to a masochism cult.

Please, there are so many ways to argue against Christianity, don't resort to absurdity.

In all seriousness - Jesus is not Messiah (even if you accept the idea that he could be) UNLESS he comes back and finishes what he started.

Second Coming is not only central it is ESSENTIAL.

And, there seems to be no confusion as to what 'the world' can expect when he chooses to pop in.

I wouldn't say that death was a huge part of greek mythology though. Their stuff was more about living. Part of life is death (well, the end of it) but that's not the focus.
In christianity, you're supposed to expect to suffer in life and not get rewarded until after you die. Greek mythology seems to embrace life a lot more...

I, for one, was raised more with teaching of "love thy neighbour", "forgive" and "turn the other cheek" that "you will all burn unless you repent, sinner". So it seems that not all branches of Cristianity weight heavily on end times.

In all seriousness - Jesus is not Messiah (even if you accept the idea that he could be) UNLESS he comes back and finishes what he started.

Second Coming is not only central it is ESSENTIAL.

And, there seems to be no confusion as to what 'the world' can expect when he chooses to pop in.

And end to warfare. An end to suffering. The establishment of his 1000 year reign in Jeruselem. The World will be a much better place when the Lord Savior Jesus returns.

In all seriousness - Jesus is not Messiah (even if you accept the idea that he could be) UNLESS he comes back and finishes what he started.

Second Coming is not only central it is ESSENTIAL.

And, there seems to be no confusion as to what 'the world' can expect when he chooses to pop in.
a bit of hardship then a peaceful kingdom where good people live in harmony. ;)

I, for one, was raised more with teaching of "love thy neighbour", "forgive" and "turn the other cheek" that "you will all burn unless you repent, sinner". So it seems that not all branches of Cristianity weight heavily on end times.
It's not just the end of times bit. It's the intense focus on how everyone is sinning simply by enjoying life, it's declarations like "the meek shall inherit the earth" and how we should expect to suffer in life but be released to the kindgom of god upon our deaths.

The greek mythologies didn't focus on death, they focused on life, their deities took pleasure in things, they lived lives much like ours. The christian diety destroys those who disbelieve or are different and just goes and sacrifices itself, not so everyone can have a better life, but so they can have a better death.

I disagree. You show me a Christian that doesn't believe the whole second coming thing.
Well, personally I know lots of them. I think it's a lot more popular on the American side of the Atlantic.

And end to warfare. An end to suffering. The establishment of his 1000 year reign in Jeruselem. The World will be a much better place when the Lord Savior Jesus returns.

Yes. And the rest. This is all going to happen calmly, is it?

Yes. And the rest. This is all going to happen calmly, is it?
There's bound to be a troublemaker or two... ;)

Seriously, Corneliu, you're not helping in painting Christianity as a valid source of morals (which is what I see as the main purpose of religion).

Yes. And the rest. This is all going to happen calmly, is it?

I told you that there will be suffering and war. At the appointed time, Jesus will descend from Heaven and destroy the enemies of God.

a bit of hardship then a peaceful kingdom where good people live in harmony. ;)

Which assumes a very tight definition of 'good people', and a very loose definition of 'a bit of hardship'.

There's bound to be a troublemaker or two... ;)

Seriously, Corneliu, you're not helping in painting Christianity as a valid source of morals (which is what I see as the main purpose of religion).

As an aside - I agree with you. Not that I'm a Christian, of course... but, I think the 'important' part of the book is the lessons we attribute to Jesus.

But, I can only focus on that, because I don't believe in any of the supernatural stuff... like Revelation.

If I had the vaguest belief any of the metaphysical stuff was true, I'd be forced to accept the - while Jesus is 'about' love... Christianity is 'about' death... and torture. In spades.

I told you that there will be suffering and war. At the appointed time, Jesus will descend from Heaven and destroy the enemies of God.

'Destroy'?

'Destroy'?

Defeat I guess I should have said.

As an aside - I agree with you. Not that I'm a Christian, of course... but, I think the 'important' part of the book is the lessons we attribute to Jesus.

But, I can only focus on that, because I don't believe in any of the supernatural stuff... like Revelation.

If I had the vaguest belief any of the metaphysical stuff was true, I'd be forced to accept the - while Jesus is 'about' love... Christianity is 'about' death... and torture. In spades.
Well, that's just grand. Tell you what, I started a fire over here. Bring some refreshment and we will all sing Kumbaya and share goodwill towards men or whatever good thing your religion preach.

It'll be grand.

Defeat I guess I should have said.

Maybe we should edit the bible. I think 'destroy' sounds better and gives Jesus a greater multitude of ways as to with which he can win.

Maybe we should edit the bible. I think 'destroy' sounds better and gives Jesus a greater multitude of ways as to with which he can win.

Jesus already won. All that is left is for the actual battles to be fought.

Jesus already won. All that is left is for the actual battles to be fought.

So - 'destroy' and 'defeat' are just euphemisms. What you MEAN is kill. Murder.

And then - torture the immortal souls for all eternity.

Well, that's just grand. Tell you what, I started a fire over here. Bring some refreshment and we will all sing Kumbaya and share goodwill towards men or whatever good thing your religion preach.

It'll be grand.

Fire and refreshments good.:)

I'm a godless heathen, so I guess I 'preach' "Let's make the best of it, while it lasts"... which works, for bonfires and munchies.

So - 'destroy' and 'defeat' are just euphemisms. What you MEAN is kill. Murder.

Since killing is part of war and since this war has been going on for ages.....

And then - torture the immortal souls for all eternity.

Those who do not recognize Jesus and those who have turned their backs fon God they will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

Since killing is part of war and since this war has been going on for ages.....

Those who do not recognize Jesus and those who have turned their backs fon God they will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

Too weak-stomached for a simple 'yes'?

And then - torture the immortal souls for all eternity.
*whew* Good thing some of us are mortal souls.

*whew* Good thing some of us are mortal souls.

Indeed. Again - being a godless heathen means I'm not to worried by whichever apocalyptic visions keep the fundamentalists cosy at night...

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

Insistance on your part to presume the bible is proof of anything, is quite unintelligent, and the most biased source you could possibly reffer to.

Im not saying you shouldnt read it, but you MUST understand, that it is proof of NOTHING.

1. The origins of the bible are unknown, we do not know who wrote the original texts, or when, or where.
ALL of these are important, when you presume to speak of PROOF within a book.

2. The words within these texts are not altogether unchanged since the time of thier discoveries.
Having been translated from one language to another, to another, to yet another, and then to English, has caused many discrepancies as to its true meaning, and translation.

This means any given parable, phrase, quote, psalm, may NOT HAVE THE SAME MEANING IT ONCE DID.
Much has likely been lost in translation.

3. The bible is no more proof of Gods existance, that "The Goblet of Fire" is proof that there is a school for wizards and witches in England.
The difference is, R.K Dowling does not try to convince anyone that God is writing Harry Potter.


Have you actually read any of that?

It means that you are citing a book that cannot be verified as to its author, cannot be investigated beyond a certain point, that has a loose translation from its original texting, and has undergone many transformations within a short peroid of time.

and yet, you mean to tell me, that you insist upon relying upon THAT, to answer the most important question ever?

You dont think those are not the actions of the retarded?

Look, if you want to follow the bible, thats your perrogative, and its one that no one can stop you from.
However, do not make rediculous statements that confuse your personal beliefs, with hard fact.

The truth is, the bible contains very little, if any hard fact, and to suggest otherwise, is fairly dumb.

The bible simply has no credibility, beyond that wich your are pretending it to have.
You are taking it as literal proof of God, BECUASE YOU WANT TO, and absolutely nothing else.
If that makes you happy, by all means keep at it.

But never again suggest the bible proves God exists, becuase it MOST CERTAINLY does not.

Since killing is part of war and since this war has been going on for ages.....



Those who do not recognize Jesus and those who have turned their backs fon God they will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

After a while wouldn't you get used to it though? And if you did wouldn't it just get borring and after a couple of years (lets say you counted the days) you might go crazy and make up some fictitious life in you're mind, thus you would think you weren't there?

After a while wouldn't you get used to it though? And if you did wouldn't it just get borring and after a couple of years (lets say you counted the days) you might go crazy and make up some fictitious life in you're mind, thus you would think you weren't there?

Get used to what if I may ask?

Get used to what if I may ask?

The eternity of being in the lake of fire and torture and wotnot. Heck, hell would be quite fun for a masochist.

The eternity of being in the lake of fire and torture and wotnot. Heck, hell would be quite fun for a masochist.

I wouldn't know Seornes for I am not there.

I wouldn't know Seornes for I am not there.

Then if you think about it, after a while hell wouldn't be that bad really.

Then if you think about it, after a while hell wouldn't be that bad really.

I don't want to go there.

How is Christianity a death-cult?
It's centered around the worship of a singular death (jesus), which is supposed to help all those who die and believe in him have everlasting life. Sounds like the worship of death to me.

Biblical Prophacy really isn't all that difficult. The question is, do you want to believe what the Prophecies are saying?
You certainly don't. Your religion is based on "prophecies" that don't exist! 3 days in the ground? NO SUCH PROPHECY! Virgin birth? NO SUCH PROPHECY! Second coming? NO SUCH PROPHECY!

Those who do not recognize Jesus and those who have turned their backs fon God they will spend eternity in the lake of fire.
Don'cha just love post-mortem threats? All it means is that the person has no argument at all. The person has lost--given up. The person can only make empty threats backed by nothing.

Pitiful.

But that's the xer death-cult: pitiful.

*twitch... twitch... twitch...*
.
.
.
.
*sighs*
Neither side did anything more than bash the ever loving hell out of the other, neither listened or even attempted to bring a bit of respect to the beliefs and faiths of the other.

Instead it has gone to a "Jews are wrong!" and "Christians are wrong!" name calling match.

Congratulations.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible

Which happens to contradict itself. It was also written in a time where there was little moral or care for things. It is possible that the Bible was started as a moral story (with a horrific structure, I might add), or just faked as part of a plan to bring about a more civil time.

many peoples personal experiances

And they all seem to happen in a near death/starving/fatigued state. Such can be classified as a dream or a hallucination. I've gone three days without sleep before, and I know you hallucinate and start to go insane. You cannot tell what is real and what is not. And that is just from three days without sleep. Also, these experiences could be caused by naturally-occuring hallucinogens.

Oh, and you spelt "expiriences" wrong.

*twitch... twitch... twitch...*
.
.
.
.
*sighs*
Neither side did anything more than bash the ever loving hell out of the other, neither listened or even attempted to bring a bit of respect to the beliefs and faiths of the other.

Instead it has gone to a "Jews are wrong!" and "Christians are wrong!" name calling match.

Congratulations.

Ah, good old NS.

I wouldn't know Seornes for I am not there.
Neither am I. What do you know.

Ah, good old NS.
I know... I know... I've been here long enough it shouldn't surprise me. But 20 pages of "Christianity is a death cult!" and "Jews don't know their own religion!"...

Jesh...

Neither am I. What do you know.

I know what the prophecy says.

You certainly don't. Your religion is based on "prophecies" that don't exist! 3 days in the ground? NO SUCH PROPHECY! Virgin birth? NO SUCH PROPHECY! Second coming? NO SUCH PROPHECY!

Isaiah prophecied to Ahaz that God's special sign was that a virgin would give birth. This was apparently several hundred years before Christ.

Jesus himself prophesied that the Jews would receive a sign, the sign of Jonah, who was apparently 'buried' in the belly of a great fish for three days, before coming back to preach his message to the people of Ninevah.

Jesus also told his disciples, before he died, that he would return for them a second time, to take his followers with him.

You claimed that these prophecies don't exist. They are, however, all there in the Scriptures. How about some evidence for your claims?

You certainly don't. Your religion is based on "prophecies" that don't exist! 3 days in the ground? NO SUCH PROPHECY! Virgin birth? NO SUCH PROPHECY! Second coming? NO SUCH PROPHECY!

Really. Then let me show you

Virgin birth

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

Second comming

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." Matthew 24:30-31

Rising after three days

"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first." Matthew 27: 62-64


So you've been proven wrong. Please recant.

This is rediculas. Your religion sucks. Get over it.

This is rediculas. Your religion sucks. Get over it.
What a brilliant debating point! And so eloquently delivered...

I'm convinced.

I know... I know... I've been here long enough it shouldn't surprise me. But 20 pages of "Christianity is a death cult!" and "Jews don't know their own religion!"...

Jesh...
To my (agnostic) ears, all this sounds pretty much like:

"Quetzalcoatl is just a made up magical feathered snake! You people are stupid for worshipping such a silly God!"

"Oh yeah? Like your stupid God of Lightning, Apocatequil, is sooooo realistic! You're just stupid lightning worshippers!"

"Apocatequil is in my heart, and I know he's real and he loves me! Besides, my book of Apocatequil stories is much more historically accurate than anything you've got on Quetzalcoatl!!"

Isaiah prophecied to Ahaz that God's special sign was that a virgin would give birth. This was apparently several hundred years before Christ.


No - he didn't. The Hebrew text is clear.

It is not a 'messianic' prophecy, and it does not mention virgins.

You read the comment out of context, and you allow a bad translation... neither of which changes the nature of the ORIGINAL text.

Really. Then let me show you

Virgin birth

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14


The Hebrew text says 'young woman'. Not 'virgin'.

The translation you are reading is flawed, just as the Greek translation was that the Gospel writers referenced.

Have you not READ the native language?


Second comming

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." Matthew 24:30-31


Self-contained prophecy? The same 'story' that tells the fruition ALSO tells the 'prophecy'? Strangely, I'm not convinced.

What a brilliant debating point! And so eloquently delivered...

I'm convinced.

Thank you.

No - he didn't. The Hebrew text is clear.

It is not a 'messianic' prophecy, and it does not mention virgins.

How do you know if a text is supposed to be messianic? Is there supposed to be something in the text which says 'this is now a messianic prophecy'?

In the context of the scriptures there, a young woman giving birth to a baby boy would hardly be a 'sign' of God, since this sort of thing happened every day, presumeably. So, short of attributing such a passage to jumbled nonesense, how would you explain this as a reasonable sign for Ahaz, if it wasn't referring to a virgin?

And is there specifically a Hebrew word for virgin that would have fitted better?


You read the comment out of context, and you allow a bad translation... neither of which changes the nature of the ORIGINAL text.

Perhaps you ought to render your explanation of that passage. I'm interested in seeing what you make of it.

No - he didn't. The Hebrew text is clear.

It is not a 'messianic' prophecy, and it does not mention virgins.

You read the comment out of context, and you allow a bad translation... neither of which changes the nature of the ORIGINAL text.
Ah but is the hebrew text the ORIGINAL text that survived 3000 years or was it copied a few times throughout the years? 'Cause the latter is as much subject to changes as the bible due to religious pressures, personnal preference, etc.

-- snip --


Perhaps it would just be easier to remind people of the commonly accepted definition of the word 'evidence', and point out that 'evidence' can be different from 'proof'.

So far, I have not thought of any sign that God could give a man which that man could not doubt. I wonder if God is incapable of proving himself to someone who chooses to doubt. What say you?

Perhaps it would just be easier to remind people of the commonly accepted definition of the word 'evidence', and point out that 'evidence' can be different from 'proof'.

So far, I have not thought of any sign that God could give a man which that man could not doubt. I wonder if God is incapable of proving himself to someone who chooses to doubt. What say you?
It's not possible to produce evidence of God.

If God came down in person and turned your coffee cup into a unicorn, you still wouldn't have any evidence that God exists...you'd have evidence that some unimaginably powerful critter just did something unbelievable (or that your coffee cup had a few too many shots in it to begin with), but you'd have no way of knowing if that being was GOD. It might be some very, very, very powerful being that is NOT God.

The human mind has no way of evaluating such evidence when it comes to supernatural phenomena, because you can't produce NATURAL evidence that conclusively supports SUPERNATURAL phenomenon. Any natural evidence could have a million supernatural explanations, and we have absolutely no means of evaluating which explanation is more accurate than another.

If God came down in person and turned your coffee cup into a unicorn, you still wouldn't have any evidence that God exists...you'd have evidence that some unimaginably powerful critter just did something unbelievable (or that your coffee cup had a few too many shots in it to begin with), but you'd have no way of knowing if that being was GOD. It might be some very, very, very powerful being that is NOT God.Even if it came right out and said "Lo, I am the lord thy God" It might still just be pretending..
(Although if I were feeling particularly argumentative, I'd say it is evidence, just not proof. The mere existence of our planet is evidence of God in that sense. If this planet wasn't here it would falsify God's existence as described in the bible. Unless it was destroyed in the meantime or something)

How do you know if a text is supposed to be messianic? Is there supposed to be something in the text which says 'this is now a messianic prophecy'?

In the context of the scriptures there, a young woman giving birth to a baby boy would hardly be a 'sign' of God, since this sort of thing happened every day, presumeably. So, short of attributing such a passage to jumbled nonesense, how would you explain this as a reasonable sign for Ahaz, if it wasn't referring to a virgin?

Perhaps you ought to render your explanation of that passage. I'm interested in seeing what you make of it.

First - it is not 'my' explanation. It is what is written in the text.

It is worth pointing out that the JPS scripture translates the relevent passage as: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel..." and that the BBE scripture translates it as "For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel..."

Second: It is not NECESSARY for it to be a virgin, if one looks only SLIGHTLY ahead in Isaiah 7, one sees WHY the young woman who is ALREADY with child, is relevent to the passage:

Isaiah 7:14-6 "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken."

What does this passage tell us?

Ahaz is 'testing' God. He doubts that what God is saying WILL come to pass. The name of the child will be "God is with us"... although it is not clear if this is because the child is a sign, or a judgement.

Next - Isaiah says the land will be rich, once the child is grown. He shall eat 'curds and honey'... a rich, well-fed land.

Next - Isaiah says that, BEFORE the land is rich, BEFORE the child comes of age, judgement SHALL be brought upon the 'two kings'.


So - the relevence of the child is NOT purely a sign in and of itself - but a CHRONOLOGY against which judgement can be measured.

The baby is ALREADY conceived, and BEFORE the child reaches manhood, the prophecy shall be fulfilled.

There is nothing about 'messiah', and nothing about a virgin.

Nor is either needed, for this passage.


And is there specifically a Hebrew word for virgin that would have fitted better?


Yes. Which you really should know, if you are willing to debate the issue, don't you think?

The word translated as 'virgin' is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun for "young man".

Even if it came right out and said "Lo, I am the lord thy God" It might still just be pretending..

Exactly. Because of the limitations of being human, we are never going to be able to determine the "reality" of such things.


(Although if I were feeling particularly argumentative, I'd say it is evidence, just not proof. The mere existence of our planet is evidence of God in that sense. If this planet wasn't here it would falsify God's existence as described in the bible. Unless it was destroyed in the meantime or something)
It is evidence for a supernatural force of some kind. You can say it is "evidence of God," and you will be no more or less right than if you said it is "evidence of a magical space cactus." It's not evidence of God in particular, because there's no such thing. (EDIT: To clarify, "no such thing" in this case refers to "no such thing as empirical evidence for God.")

Until somebody provides a testable, falsifiable means of identifying what is and is not God, we cannot evaluate any "evidence" for or against God. And as long as God is an omnipotent supernatural force, no such evidence can exist for human beings.

Ah but is the hebrew text the ORIGINAL text that survived 3000 years or was it copied a few times throughout the years? 'Cause the latter is as much subject to changes as the bible due to religious pressures, personnal preference, etc.

The difference, if there was one, in the Hebrew text - would be the 'pointing'.

That COULD make a difference. For example - it could change the jist of the passage from "You shall call him Immanuel" to "She shall call him Immanuel".

You might want to look into how Torah are 'made'. Even the idea of adding pointing to indicate pronunciation, would be a major decision, not easily or lightly undertaken.

I'm not saying the Hebrew scripture is impervious to change. But, it is less likely to have been edited than the Christian scripture... especially since we have evidence of Christian scripture SHOWING the editing process, over the years.

I know what the prophecy says.
I know that you've got the prophesy wrong.

And just because it's written in an old book doesn't make it true.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.
Okay, there is evidence, but it is about as compelling as Bob Dole in a fist fight.

I wonder if God is incapable of proving himself to someone who chooses to doubt. What say you?

I love this phrase: "choose to doubt".

Your little god is not supported by any real evidence, so it's MY fault I don't believe...?

I love this phrase: "choose to doubt".

Your little god is not supported by any real evidence, so it's MY fault I don't believe...?
How dare you demand trivial matters like evidence and justification for our belief in the divinity in the most high Bob Dole. His doleness will wreak vengance upon your cynical earlobe unless you repent your evil rationalist ways.

It is evidence for a supernatural force of some kind. You can say it is "evidence of God," and you will be no more or less right than if you said it is "evidence of a magical space cactus." It's not evidence of God in particular, because there's no such thing. (EDIT: To clarify, "no such thing" in this case refers to "no such thing as empirical evidence for God.")Hmm, well, I may just have a different concept of what evidence is. I see no problem with something being simultaneously evidence for God, a magical space catus, Eris, the flying spaghetti monster and various other supernaturals, or highly advanced aliens, or other things.
It just means the evidence isn't really usefull to distinguish between those hypothesized phenomena..

Until somebody provides a testable, falsifiable means of identifying what is and is not God, we cannot evaluate any "evidence" for or against God. And as long as God is an omnipotent supernatural force, no such evidence can exist for human beings.Even if one were to define any omnipotent omniscient being as God (so it wouldn't need to be a very particular entity), testing whether it actually knows all or can do all is impossible. (Even aside from obvious paradoxes; you can't know whether you know all, and you can't make square circles.)

Hmm, well, I may just have a different concept of what evidence is. I see no problem with something being simultaneously evidence for God, a magical space catus, Eris, the flying spaghetti monster and various other supernaturals, or highly advanced aliens, or other things.
It just means the evidence isn't really usefull to distinguish between those hypothesized phenomena..

That's essentially what I am saying.

Example: I have a rock in my shoe right now. In the simplest terms, the presence of a rock in my shoe is evidence for the fact rocks exist and sometimes end up in people's shoes.

However, one could also say that it is evidence for magical gnomes who put rocks in people's shoes when they aren't looking. One could also say it is evidence for the presence of an angry God who likes to punish heretics (such as myself) by putting rocks in their shoes. One could also say it is proof that God loves me very dearly, because He chose to put a rock in my shoe instead of a poisonous snake. One could also say that the existence of a rock in my shoe is evidence that God does not exist, because God would not allow rocks to end up inside people's shoes.

The first definition of evidence is "a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment." Since the existing evidence (the rock in my shoe) does not provide us with any means of discriminating between these various secondary hypotheses, it is not helpful in forming any conclusion or judgment abnout them.


Even if one were to define any omnipotent omniscient being as God (so it wouldn't need to be a very particular entity), testing whether it actually knows all or can do all is impossible. (Even aside from obvious paradoxes; you can't know whether you know all, and you can't make square circles.)
Exactly.

It is worth pointing out that the JPS scripture translates the relevent passage as: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel..." and that the BBE scripture translates it as "For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel..."

Second: It is not NECESSARY for it to be a virgin, if one looks only SLIGHTLY ahead in Isaiah 7, one sees WHY the young woman who is ALREADY with child, is relevent to the passage:

Isaiah 7:14-6 "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken."

What does this passage tell us?

Ahaz is 'testing' God. He doubts that what God is saying WILL come to pass. The name of the child will be "God is with us"... although it is not clear if this is because the child is a sign, or a judgement.

Next - Isaiah says the land will be rich, once the child is grown. He shall eat 'curds and honey'... a rich, well-fed land.

Next - Isaiah says that, BEFORE the land is rich, BEFORE the child comes of age, judgement SHALL be brought upon the 'two kings'.


So - the relevence of the child is NOT purely a sign in and of itself - but a CHRONOLOGY against which judgement can be measured.

The baby is ALREADY conceived, and BEFORE the child reaches manhood, the prophecy shall be fulfilled.

There is nothing about 'messiah', and nothing about a virgin.

Nor is either needed, for this passage.


In verse 8 of chp 7 of Isaiah, the prophecy predicts that within 65 years the northern kingdom of Israel would be crushed. However, your interpretation would have it that this 'crushing' would have to take place within, say, 20 years, i.e., before the baby boy would reach adulthood. A look at 2 Kings 15 suggests that Israel was destroyed by Assyria within 20 years (King Pekah ruled for only 20 years). So it is possible that this is was the prophecy meant, i.e., a time scale and not a miraculous virgin birth.

However, a messianic prophecy need not mention that it is messianic in order to be so, since few of the other messianic prophecies mention the term.

Furthermore, you have said that this prophecy was a reference to a young woman, not a virgin, but when I asked you what the Hebrew word for 'virgin' is, you say that it is 'simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun for "young man"'. I suppose that means the the word for 'young woman' and 'virgin' is that same thing. Are you still going to stand by your claim that there was 'nothing about a virgin' in the text?

In conclusion, you claim that 'the relevence of the child is NOT purely a sign in and of itself', but your reasons do not support this. A more objective point of view might conclude that the prophecy could mean either a time scale, or a virgin birth, or both.

Isaiah prophecied to Ahaz that God's special sign was that a virgin
WRONG!

Ha-almah DOES NOT MEAN VIRGIN. How many times must this be explained?


Jesus himself prophesied that the Jews would receive a sign, the sign of Jonah,
No such prophecy exists in the OT.

If it does, I should like chapter and verse for it. Provide it NOW.

I love this phrase: "choose to doubt".

Your little god is not supported by any real evidence, so it's MY fault I don't believe...?

The definition of 'real evidence' might depend on the world view that the observer has chosen. That you find the evidence for God lacking does not mean that I do. The difference, obviously, is our world views. We came upon those world views through personal choices (so long as we were provided with options). Thus, what you and I call 'real evidence' depends on our choices.

If you don't believe in God, then that is your choice, and consequently, your 'fault'.

Really. Then let me show you

Virgin birth
Ha-almah DOES NOT MEAN VIRGIN.

How many times must that be explained to you?


Second comming

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." Matthew 24:30-31
Matthew is in the OT? When did that happen?


Rising after three days

"Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first." Matthew 27: 62-64
Matthew is in the OT? When did that happen?

So you've shot yourself in the foot. Leave this thread with your tail between your legs.

WRONG!

Ha-almah DOES NOT MEAN VIRGIN. How many times must this be explained?


Only once if you explain what the text does mean in a nice reasonable way.


No such prophecy exists in the OT.

If it does, I should like chapter and verse for it. Provide it NOW.

I didn't realize that you were limiting such prophecies to the OT, since the statement to which I was posting contained no suggestion of this.

Virgin birth

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

I think people read these threads and completely ignore certain posts. The fact that you're harping on Isaiah 7:14, when about four people have demonstrated that it is not a messianic prophecy would confirm that. Again, I'll just go ahead and repost what has already been posted on this issue:

Isaiah 7 - Immanuel

Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah — he will bring the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:10-17)

Christians often claim that Isaiah 7:14 (listed above, in context) is a prophecy about Jesus' virgin birth. Please read the excerpt above very carefully. Context is critical with this proof-text, as it alone disproves the notion that this is a prophecy about Jesus, as we shall see below.

First, this was an event that would happen during the life of Ahaz; it was to be a sign for Ahaz. This was to happen long before Jesus may have existed.

Second, Jesus was never named Immanuel. Christians developed this doctrine via circular reasoning: “We believe that Jesus is God, therefore Jesus is Immanuel because Immanuel means “God with us.”” Aside from the fallacy, it is important to note that Hebrew names don't work like this - many Hebrew names contain "God" somewhere in them, but don't mean that the person named is divine.

Third, this states that the child would eat curds and honey when he knows to reject the wrong and choose the right. This doesn’t match the idea of a sinless Jesus, who supposedly always knew right form wrong, nor is there any account of a diet of curds and honey in the gospels.

Finally, it makes reference to the two kings that Ahaz dreads being laid to waste before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. That’s conclusive proof that this event happened during the reign of Ahaz, and not some future event.

One more thing about the virign birth - the word "virgin" never occurs here. In Hebrew, we have almah, which simply means a young woman. There is a specific word for virgin in Hebrew that isn’t used here, bethulah. Considering that properly translated it says young woman rather than virgin, there is no reason to assume that it corresponds to any virgin birth myth.

Now, as much as the Christian faith would like to twist Jewish scriptures, Isaiah 7 is neither about a virgin birth nor is it about a messiah. Any honest evaluation, any honest exegetical method, demonstrates that much. Please, before you start saying "OMG, virgin birth!!!ones!" respond to the article I've already written above. Please, pretty please, try to disprove it.

And is there specifically a Hebrew word for virgin that would have fitted better?
Yes. Bet'ulah. That word is used thrice in Isaiah, but NOT in Is 7:14.

Mayhaps you should take some time to learn a bit about Hebrew. Then you wouldn't look so stupid.

The definition of 'real evidence' might depend on the world view that the observer has chosen. That you find the evidence for God lacking does not mean that I do. The difference, obviously, is our world views. We came upon those world views through personal choices (so long as we were provided with options). Thus, what you and I call 'real evidence' depends on our choices.

If you don't believe in God, then that is your choice, and consequently, your 'fault'.

Don't be ridiculous.

One cannot choose what one believes.

Only once if you explain what the text does mean in a nice reasonable way.
Re-read this thread. It's been explained by myself and others numerous times.


I didn't realize that you were limiting such prophecies to the OT,
You want a prophecy written by someone writing the book at that time? Talk about writing something after-the-fact to make it true!

Don't be ridiculous.

One cannot choose what one believes.
?

I guess it depends on what you think it means to "choose" something. I am able to examine my beliefs critically, and if I am provided with sufficient reason to abandon a particular belief (or to embrace a new one) then I able to make that change. It is up to me to choose what standard must be met before I abandon or embrace a belief, and whether or not to actually change the belief if those conditions are met.

Don't be ridiculous.

One cannot choose what one believes.
What do you mean by this? Do you really feel that there is no element of choice involved in belief? I suppose on a certain level I would be inclined to agree with you, but what are your justifications for such an absolute statement?

In verse 8 of chp 7 of Isaiah, the prophecy predicts that within 65 years the northern kingdom of Israel would be crushed. However, your interpretation would have it that this 'crushing' would have to take place within, say, 20 years, i.e., before the baby boy would reach adulthood. A look at 2 Kings 15 suggests that Israel was destroyed by Assyria within 20 years (King Pekah ruled for only 20 years). So it is possible that this is was the prophecy meant, i.e., a time scale and not a miraculous virgin birth.

However, a messianic prophecy need not mention that it is messianic in order to be so, since few of the other messianic prophecies mention the term.

Furthermore, you have said that this prophecy was a reference to a young woman, not a virgin, but when I asked you what the Hebrew word for 'virgin' is, you say that it is 'simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun for "young man"'. I suppose that means the the word for 'young woman' and 'virgin' is that same thing. Are you still going to stand by your claim that there was 'nothing about a virgin' in the text?

In conclusion, you claim that 'the relevence of the child is NOT purely a sign in and of itself', but your reasons do not support this. A more objective point of view might conclude that the prophecy could mean either a time scale, or a virgin birth, or both.

If we assume 16 as the age of majority - conservatively, but it doesn't matter... and we assume that Isaiah 7:8 is talking about the same event (rather than 'connected' events)... I still don't see a problem.

First god says 'within 65 years'... then he says 'within, say... 16 years'. That is not incompatible... 16 years IS within 65 years.

But anyway... the kings will be 'forsaken' within 16 years, does not clash with 'the city of Ephraim shall be broken into pieces within 65 years'.


Regarding the difference between Bethulah and almah, others have ALREADY (repeatedly) demonstrated the two words. I was just showing WHY 'young woman' does NOT equate to 'virgin'... because it is simply the feminine form of 'young man'.

However, a messianic prophecy need not mention that it is messianic in order to be so, since few of the other messianic prophecies mention the term.

One of the exegetical principles we use to determine what is messianic prophecy and what isn't is historical context and precedent. Throughout history, messianic claiments have gone back and reinterpreted non-messianic verses to be prophecy. Christians did it for Jesus, Jews did it for Bar Kochba, again for Shabbetai Zevi, etc. However, they all fail to meet sound exegetical principles.

If they verses were not traditionally intended and interpreted to be messianic, that is probably the best way that we know that they aren't. Its true that they don't need to explicitly state that they are messianic. In fact, the term 'messiah' in reference to the Messiah is actually of later use than most messianic prophecies. Redeemer is the first messianic term actually used. But when we perform exegesis, we attempt to gain the original intent and meaning of the verses. And the way we do this is to see how they were interpreted by those who wrote them. Thus, Jewish interpretation becomes stronger than non-Jewish interpretation, and interpretation closer to the time of writing is stronger than later interpretation.

In short, the fact that certain verses were not interpreted as messianic before certain dates is inductive proof that they are not messianic prophecy. Isaiah 7 is a good example, as it didn't become interpreted as such until non-Jewish authors of the Gospels or Hellenized Jews (both working outside of traditional Judaism and interpretation) invented the interpretation.

And this is a common pattern among modern Christianity. Christians keep inventing new messianic prophecies today, ones that weren't even used by early Christians. I think that is the case with 90% of Messianic prophecies out there. Most are very new. Some are earlier, but still too new to fit the criteria for sound exegesis. And, when it comes to real messianic prophecy, Christians tend to ignore it.

Exactly. Because of the limitations of being human, we are never going to be able to determine the "reality" of such things.

Is that a belief, or is that a conclusion based on evidence? I.e., what evidence do you have that 'we are never going to be able to determine the "reality" of such things'? A lack of evidence?


It is evidence for a supernatural force of some kind. You can say it is "evidence of God," and you will be no more or less right than if you said it is "evidence of a magical space cactus." It's not evidence of God in particular, because there's no such thing. (EDIT: To clarify, "no such thing" in this case refers to "no such thing as empirical evidence for God.")

In a reasonable argument for God, if we were able to detect a supernatural force (it would no longer be supernatural if we could detect it, but nevermind that for now), and if it was consistent with the current notion of God, it might not rule out a magical space cactus, but it can still be considered evidence that supports the notion of God. It only has to be interpreted or explained consistently with the notion of God to support the concept of his existence. We can only call it proof of God if all other options are ruled out.


Until somebody provides a testable, falsifiable means of identifying what is and is not God, we cannot evaluate any "evidence" for or against God. And as long as God is an omnipotent supernatural force, no such evidence can exist for human beings.

I think you need to review the definition of evidence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

''A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.''

What we are saying here is that evidence is information that is helpful in forming a conclusion. If we hold to that definition of evidence, then evidence for God is plentiful. Indeed, it could be that the evidence not limited so much by a lack of information so much as by our inability to perceive it because of our prejudices.

?

I guess it depends on what you think it means to "choose" something. I am able to examine my beliefs critically, and if I am provided with sufficient reason to abandon a particular belief (or to embrace a new one) then I able to make that change. It is up to me to choose what standard must be met before I abandon or embrace a belief, and whether or not to actually change the belief if those conditions are met.

When you say you make a choice about what standard must be met to abandon a belief, do you really believe in your ability to choose it? If you decided to choose a lower standard would you really believe the new belief you embraced after the lower standard of evidence that you chose? I think that it is more likely that you are taking the fact that there are standards of evidence in your mind, and then making the claim that you chose those standards. When in fact you have no control over them. If you truly choose those standards then it is the same as just choosing what you believe. If you want to believe something just lower your standard to whatever level your new belief can meet.
If you take issue with any of this please do not hesitate to correct me.

?

I guess it depends on what you think it means to "choose" something. I am able to examine my beliefs critically, and if I am provided with sufficient reason to abandon a particular belief (or to embrace a new one) then I able to make that change. It is up to me to choose what standard must be met before I abandon or embrace a belief, and whether or not to actually change the belief if those conditions are met.

You can choose to look for evidence.

If the evidence is compelling that you are wrong, can you choose NOT to embrace the newly revealed 'truth'?

When I was still loosely a Christian, I was very interested in angels. I researched the exhaustively... I could lecture you for hours on the 9 angelic choirs of angels, and where they existed with regard to 'mundane' or 'spiritual' incarnation.

Eventually - the evidence mounted up. The references that suggest five of the 9 choirs of angels, refer to mortal agencies - not supernatural. And - of the other four ranks, two are just different ways of describing the other two.

I loved the whole 9 ranks thing... but, once the evidence was clear, I had to accept it was wrong, no matter how much I liked it. I didn't get to 'choose'.

You can choose to look for evidence.

If the evidence is compelling that you are wrong, can you choose NOT to embrace the newly revealed 'truth'?

When I was still loosely a Christian, I was very interested in angels. I researched the exhaustively... I could lecture you for hours on the 9 angelic choirs of angels, and where they existed with regard to 'mundane' or 'spiritual' incarnation.

Eventually - the evidence mounted up. The references that suggest five of the 9 choirs of angels, refer to mortal agencies - not supernatural. And - of the other four ranks, two are just different ways of describing the other two.

I loved the whole 9 ranks thing... but, once the evidence was clear, I had to accept it was wrong, no matter how much I liked it. I didn't get to 'choose'.
I have seen the light.

What do you mean by this? Do you really feel that there is no element of choice involved in belief? I suppose on a certain level I would be inclined to agree with you, but what are your justifications for such an absolute statement?

If I could choose, I'd be a Christian. Life is a piece-of-piss if you are Christian... 'daddy' takes away all the guilt and responsibility, means you don't have to face trouble alone, and means someone ALWAYS is there for you, loving you, accepting you... in a way human relationships can't... eternally, and unhesitatingly.

Plus - living in the Bible Belt, I'd have access to better jobs, and more advantageous social contacts.

But... I can't 'choose'. I'm a non-believer, with all that entails.

Is that a belief, or is that a conclusion based on evidence? I.e., what evidence do you have that 'we are never going to be able to determine the "reality" of such things'? A lack of evidence?

It is a conclusion based on the reality in which we live. Empirical evidence cannot give us conclusive information about supernatural forces, because our system of evaluating evidence cannot be applied to the supernatural.


In a reasonable argument for God, if we were able to detect a supernatural force (it would no longer be supernatural if we could detect it, but nevermind that for now),

Um, that's the crux of my argument. You can't just say, "nevermind that for now." The entire point is that the supernatural cannot be judged by the means we judge natural phenomena, and natural evidence cannot give us conclusive information about supernatural matters.


and if it was consistent with the current notion of God, it might not rule out a magical space cactus, but it can still be considered evidence that supports the notion of God. It only has to be interpreted or explained consistently with the notion of God to support the concept of his existence. We can only call it proof of God if all other options are ruled out.

This is merely a repetition of what I have already responded to. My rock-in-the-shoe comparison illustrates my point: there is no empirical evidence that will help us to rule out the infinite number of other possible supernatural explanations, and therefore no empirical evidence can assist us in reaching a conclusion about the supernatural. The same piece of evidence can support an infinite number of theories equally well, and there is absolutely no means by which we can evaluate their relative merits.


I think you need to review the definition of evidence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

''A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

Given that I cited that specific phrase in my previous post, don't you think it's a bit odd to insist that I need to look it up?


The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.''

What we are saying here is that evidence is information that is helpful in forming a conclusion. If we hold to that definition of evidence, then evidence for God is plentiful.

No, it really isn't. See, in the NATURAL world, a broken window may be evidence of a break in. But that is because natural phenomena follow particular rules. Supernatural phenomena do not follow those rules.


Indeed, it could be that the evidence not limited so much by a lack of information so much as by our inability to perceive it because of our prejudices.
Our prejudices have no bearing on the simple fact that empirical evidence cannot give us additional help in objectively determining whether or not God exists. This has nothing to do with whether or not we choose to believe in God; that's a matter of personal preference.

You can choose to look for evidence.

If the evidence is compelling that you are wrong, can you choose NOT to embrace the newly revealed 'truth'?

Sure. I don't think it would be wise to do so, but I could.


When I was still loosely a Christian, I was very interested in angels. I researched the exhaustively... I could lecture you for hours on the 9 angelic choirs of angels, and where they existed with regard to 'mundane' or 'spiritual' incarnation.

Eventually - the evidence mounted up. The references that suggest five of the 9 choirs of angels, refer to mortal agencies - not supernatural. And - of the other four ranks, two are just different ways of describing the other two.

I loved the whole 9 ranks thing... but, once the evidence was clear, I had to accept it was wrong, no matter how much I liked it. I didn't get to 'choose'.
The thing is, when it comes to the supernatural there really is no evidence either way. You can choose to interpret any evidence to have any supernatural meaning you like.

When we're talking about empirical reality, you're right: I can't seem to simply believe in something when it has been demonstrated to be empirically false. However, nobody can empirically demonstrate that any supernatural force is or is not false, so that gives me plenty of wiggle room.

One of the exegetical principles we use to determine what is messianic prophecy and what isn't is historical context and precedent. Throughout history, messianic claiments have gone back and reinterpreted non-messianic verses to be prophecy. Christians did it for Jesus, Jews did it for Bar Kochba, again for Shabbetai Zevi, etc. However, they all fail to meet sound exegetical principles.

If they verses were not traditionally intended and interpreted to be messianic, that is probably the best way that we know that they aren't. Its true that they don't need to explicitly state that they are messianic. In fact, the term 'messiah' in reference to the Messiah is actually of later use than most messianic prophecies. Redeemer is the first messianic term actually used. But when we perform exegesis, we attempt to gain the original intent and meaning of the verses. And the way we do this is to see how they were interpreted by those who wrote them. Thus, Jewish interpretation becomes stronger than non-Jewish interpretation, and interpretation closer to the time of writing is stronger than later interpretation.

In short, the fact that certain verses were not interpreted as messianic before certain dates is inductive proof that they are not messianic prophecy. Isaiah 7 is a good example, as it didn't become interpreted as such until non-Jewish authors of the Gospels or Hellenized Jews (both working outside of traditional Judaism and interpretation) invented the interpretation.

And this is a common pattern among modern Christianity. Christians keep inventing new messianic prophecies today, ones that weren't even used by early Christians. I think that is the case with 90% of Messianic prophecies out there. Most are very new. Some are earlier, but still too new to fit the criteria for sound exegesis. And, when it comes to real messianic prophecy, Christians tend to ignore it.

I don't agree that a messianic prophecy is only such when the person through whom it came knew it to be such. If we allow for a divine inspiration of the prophets, it is possible that there was a lot more meaning in their words than what they themselves understood.

Furthermore, many of the messianic prophecies may not have been recognised before the fulfillment of the prophecy because of a lack of knowledge and understanding. Hindsight is a good source of knowledge with which to understand and detect prophecies. A less objective position, perhaps (for some people at least), but one with more knowledge available. Hence the importance of discussion and debate over what is a prophecy and what isn't. Sound exergesis is a difficult thing, but not impossible. I agree that exergesis is rather important, and that Biblical messages do have a tendency to be abused through misinterpretation.

Perhaps an important point to keep in mind is the purpose of prophecy, and who it was intended for--those living before the event in the prophecy, or those after, or perhaps both.

I have yet to read any good reason why the prophecy in Isaiah 7 should NOT be fairly considered a possible messianic prophecy.

Sure. I don't think it would be wise to do so, but I could.


The thing is, when it comes to the supernatural there really is no evidence either way. You can choose to interpret any evidence to have any supernatural meaning you like.

When we're talking about empirical reality, you're right: I can't seem to simply believe in something when it has been demonstrated to be empirically false. However, nobody can empirically demonstrate that any supernatural force is or is not false, so that gives me plenty of wiggle room.

So - could you CHOOSE to be a Christian, and accept that whole resurrection and revelation situation?

Ha-almah DOES NOT MEAN VIRGIN.

How many times must that be explained to you?

Yes it does. There is a scholarly debate upon this, but there are plenty who would disagree with you



Matthew is in the OT? When did that happen?

Matthew is in the OT? When did that happen?

So you've shot yourself in the foot. Leave this thread with your tail between your legs[/QUOTE]

I didnt say either of them were in the OT. I said they were prophecies of the second comming and the rise in 3 days. Thats what you wanted

Yes it does. There is a scholarly debate upon this, but there are plenty who would disagree with you

There is? Got one single academic source that claims that almah means virgin? An academic source, mind you. Not an apologetic source.

Hindsight is a good source of knowledge with which to understand and detect prophecies.


Rubbish.

If it can only be made to appear as prophecy by comparison to something that has happened later, then it isn't prophecy.

It's just screwing around with other people's words to make thim fit your own agenda.

I have yet to read any good reason why the prophecy in Isaiah 7 should NOT be fairly considered a possible messianic prophecy.

The simple fact that it clearly, more simply, explains things happening at the time?

I know that you've got the prophesy wrong.

And just because it's written in an old book doesn't make it true.

I'm sorry but I know that the prophesy isn't wrong.

You're correct to point out that people dismiss things like the Bible and personal experience as evidence. Technically, yes, they are evidence. The real question should be "are these things strong evidence."

The Bible is evidence for God as much as the Koran is evidence for Genies. And personal experiences of Jesus are evidence for Jesus as much as Bedouin experiences of Genies.

Generally when people say that there is no evidence, they mean that there is no scientific evidence. Or no empirical evidence. We have equal evidence of other types for all religions and myths - such as texts and personal experiences.

Personal experience of ganja-smoking Jamaicans is evidence for Jah Rastafari
but how strong is that?

Yes it does. There is a scholarly debate upon this, but there are plenty who would disagree with you


No. It doesn't.

The argument isn't about what the word means... the meaning is the definition, and it is clear... 'young woman'.

The debate is about whether, in THIS context, we CAN assume that 'young woman' IMPLIES a virgin.

(Which is only even relevent, because the Greeks mistranslated the Hebrew, and the Gospels relied on Greek texts.)

I'm sorry but I know that the prophesy isn't wrong.

It isn't an issue of the prophecy being wrong. Its the fact that it isn't a prophecy about what you claim it is. You've just taken verses out of their context and claimed they are about Jesus because they sound remotely similar.

I'm sorry but I know that the prophesy isn't wrong.

But your 'knowledge' is based on faith, not proof.

So - could you CHOOSE to be a Christian, and accept that whole resurrection and revelation situation?
At this point? Probably not...they'd stone me as a witch before I got close enough to yell "I CONVERT!!"

If it does, I should like chapter and verse for it. Provide it NOW.

Jesus was in the New Testiment and that iswhere the prophecy is BAAWAKnights.

Don't be ridiculous.

One cannot choose what one believes.

Oh that's a bunch of BS and you and I both know it. Stop repeating this lie.

Um, that's the crux of my argument. You can't just say, "nevermind that for now." The entire point is that the supernatural cannot be judged by the means we judge natural phenomena, and natural evidence cannot give us conclusive information about supernatural matters.


Ah, I see your point. You are arguing that because something is supernatural, it cannot be detected by the natural. Or if something could be detected by the natural, whatever it is, it is no longer supernatural. Am I right?

But if you think carefully about this, you might see that the term supernatural is an empty one, because we have defined it as anything that is not natural. Thus, we have concluded that because God is not natural, we cannot detect him. The problem with this argument is in the definitions. It does nothing to address the possibility that God might be real and be capable of existing in both the natural and supernatural definitions. In other words, your argument is based on semantics (meanings of terms) and you are not addressing the possibility that the supernatural and natural worlds might interact, simply because of your definitions. Thus, you have a semantical conclusion, not a reasonable one. Unless you are prepared to consider the possibility that God might be able to interact with the natural world, you are just arguing away in your own little bubble of logic that is not relevant to the possibility of God's existence.

But your 'knowledge' is based on faith, not proof.

Sorry but my knowledge is based on study.

Ah, I see your point. You are arguing that because something is supernatural, it cannot be detected by the natural. Or if something could be detected by the natural, whatever it is, it is no longer supernatural. Am I right?

I'm saying that supernatural things might or might not be detected by natural means. A given supernatural thing might be detected by natural means one time, but then not detected by the exact same natural means another time. Supernatural forces do not have to follow cause-and-effect, nor do they have to obey any of the rules of natural events/beings/etc. We have no way of knowing whether or not we are detecting something supernatural, and (consequently) no way of evaluating any findings that we may or may not have.


But if you think carefully about this, you might see that the term supernatural is an empty one, because we have defined it as anything that is not natural.

YES. Exactly.


Thus, we have concluded that because God is not natural, we cannot detect him.

Well, the first problem with God is that we have no working definition of God. But most definitions that I have heard proposed will, indeed, include the assertion that God is not confined to the natural realm.


The problem with this argument is in the definitions. It does nothing to address the possibility that God might be real and be capable of existing in both the natural and supernatural definitions.

Sure it does. My point is that God may or may not be real, and may or may not be acting in ways that change natural reality, and we have no natural means of testing these possibilities.


In other words, your argument is based on semantics (meanings of terms) and you are not addressing the possibility that the supernatural and natural worlds might interact, simply because of your definitions.

On the contrary. I am saying that it is entirely possible that the natural and supernatural may interact, and that we have no means of testing this possibility empirically because our empirical methods only work when we're dealing with natural phenomena. We can't test the supernatural using natural methods.


Thus, you have a semantical conclusion, not a reasonable one.

For one thing, it's possible to have a conclusion that is both semantically accurate and also reasonable. But, for another, I'm not arguing semantics here, I'm just using the terms as they are defined.


Unless you are prepared to consider the possibility that God might be able to interact with the natural world,

I've long since acknowledged that. In fact, that's what this entire discussion is about.


you are just arguing away in your own little bubble of logic that is not relevant to the possibility of God's existence.
My "bubble" is called reality. I'm not arguing whether or not God exists, or whether or not God can interact with natural reality, or whether or not supernatural forces might influence natural reality, or any of that. I'm simply pointing out that we cannot empirically test the supernatural, nor can empirical evidence help us when it comes to matters of God.

The OT traces the effect of sin on mankind from creation, follows Israel's formation and development as God's earthly people through it's wonderings and enrty into the promised land and its subsequent history, and looks forward to the coming to earth of the Lord Jesus Christ to redeem lost mankind.

The NT starts with the miraculous conception and virgin birth of Jesus, chronicles His life,ministry, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven, and looks forward to His glorious second coming and to the events by which God will usher in an everlasting new Heaven and a new earth. it records the birth, growth and missionary activity of the early church and contains vital teaching and instruction on practical living for Christians.


from a man who wrote a book and ive meet him personally and he's a good man!

Rubbish.

If it can only be made to appear as prophecy by comparison to something that has happened later, then it isn't prophecy.

It's just screwing around with other people's words to make thim fit your own agenda.


The discipline of exergesis means that one avoids interpretations that suit your own agenda. It's like the scientist who tries hard to show that he is unbiased. When he has convinced his peers that he is unbiased, they will listen to his conclusions.

In the NT, there are several references to where the disciples realized the meaning of a prophecy after the event that the prophecy predicted. In that case, it wasn't making the event appear to be a fulfillment of prophecy. It was recognising it, through hindsight.


The simple fact that it clearly, more simply, explains things happening at the time?

Does it? 'Clearly' and 'more simply' might depend on your point of view. Futhermore, as I pointed out before, two interpretations of the one prophecy are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Is that a belief, or is that a conclusion based on evidence? I.e., what evidence do you have that 'we are never going to be able to determine the "reality" of such things'? A lack of evidence?
Quite simply, if we ever are able to determine the reality of the supernatural, we are no longer human. We are divinity.

In the NT, there are several references to where the disciples realized the meaning of a prophecy after the event that the prophecy predicted. In that case, it wasn't making the event appear to be a fulfillment of prophecy. It was recognising it, through hindsight.

I don't believe that the disciples 'recognized' prophecy any more than the followers of Bar Kochba or Shabbatei Zevi. I think that the authors of the Gospels did exactly what ever other messianic claiment throughout history did, they went and invented new interpretations of old scriptures and then claimed they were prophecy.

Jews knew what was and what wasn't messianic prophecy long before the first century CE. Its difficult to believe that no one knew that certain verses were prophetic when they have been reading the books every since they were written. Its also insulting to Jews. It implictly states that they were so stupid and blind that they didn't know certain verses were messianic.

Remember, an exegetical principle is historical context. If the verses were not historically viewed as messianic prophecy, we can't in good conscience follow exegetical principles and claim that they suddenly are.

I don't agree that a messianic prophecy is only such when the person through whom it came knew it to be such. If we allow for a divine inspiration of the prophets, it is possible that there was a lot more meaning in their words than what they themselves understood.

Furthermore, many of the messianic prophecies may not have been recognised before the fulfillment of the prophecy because of a lack of knowledge and understanding. Hindsight is a good source of knowledge with which to understand and detect prophecies. A less objective position, perhaps (for some people at least), but one with more knowledge available. Hence the importance of discussion and debate over what is a prophecy and what isn't. Sound exergesis is a difficult thing, but not impossible. I agree that exergesis is rather important, and that Biblical messages do have a tendency to be abused through misinterpretation.

Perhaps an important point to keep in mind is the purpose of prophecy, and who it was intended for--those living before the event in the prophecy, or those after, or perhaps both.

I have yet to read any good reason why the prophecy in Isaiah 7 should NOT be fairly considered a possible messianic prophecy.
A prophecy is not determined after the fact, and it does not 'become' a prophecy by coming true. What you describe is not prophecy, it is fortune telling.

Oh that's a bunch of BS and you and I both know it. Stop repeating this lie.
Please explain why you feel his argument is invalid.

A prophecy is not determined after the fact, and it does not 'become' a prophecy by coming true. What you describe is not prophecy, it is fortune telling.

AKA prophecing.

At this point? Probably not...they'd stone me as a witch before I got close enough to yell "I CONVERT!!"

:D

That's not what I mean, and you know it... ;)

Oh that's a bunch of BS and you and I both know it. Stop repeating this lie.

I proved it true. You've not proved it false.

You 'choose' to believe other than what you believe, and I'll accept it.

I sure as hell can't choose what I believe.

But if you think carefully about this, you might see that the term supernatural is an empty one, because we have defined it as anything that is not natural.
That's not what 'supernatural' means, I'm sorry. Does 'superpower' mean not power?

Sorry but my knowledge is based on study.

Of only one piece of 'evidence', which you do NOT hold to the same standards as other evidences would be held to... and which you accept as accurate without corroboration.

That kind of study is worth nothing.

That's not what 'supernatural' means, I'm sorry. Does 'superpower' mean not power?
What he stated is, indeed, one of the accepted definitions of "supernatural."

Supernatural: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.

Yes it does.
Really? Ask any jew. They will tell you it means "young woman". I think they know Hebrew far better than you.


Matthew is in the OT? When did that happen?

So you've shot yourself in the foot. Leave this thread with your tail between your legs
I didnt say either of them were in the OT.
They need to be.

Jesus was in the New Testiment and that iswhere the prophecy is BAAWAKnights.
Not possible. It needs to be in the OT, since supposedly the OT speaks of the coming of jesus. Chapter and verse, please.

The discipline of exergesis means that one avoids interpretations that suit your own agenda. It's like the scientist who tries hard to show that he is unbiased. When he has convinced his peers that he is unbiased, they will listen to his conclusions.


You don't even realise you are perverting the scripture. You are TOO close to it.


In the NT, there are several references to where the disciples realized the meaning of a prophecy after the event that the prophecy predicted. In that case, it wasn't making the event appear to be a fulfillment of prophecy. It was recognising it, through hindsight.


The testaments were written after the fact... thus to claim the chronological order 'means' anything is ridiculous.

There is no real reason to accept the gospels as even relating to 'real' events... let alone, faithfully recording the cause-and-effects.

Maybe - for example - Matthew misunderstood the Hebrew texts, because he only knew them in the Greek translations. Maybe he thought Messiah needed to be born of a virgin. Maybe he thought Jesus was Messiah. Maybe he invented the whole virgin birth part of his Gospel, to match his misinterpreted belief?


Does it? 'Clearly' and 'more simply' might depend on your point of view. Futhermore, as I pointed out before, two interpretations of the one prophecy are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

No - clearly is because the text is clear. More simply is because it is written about events transpiring at or near the time it is written... about history that DID come to pass.

It was never a messianic prophecy. It is dishonest to pretend it was.

What he stated is, indeed, one of the accepted definitions of "supernatural."

Supernatural: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.
My dictionary states it better: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Not possible. It needs to be in the OT, since supposedly the OT speaks of the coming of jesus. Chapter and verse, please.

It does but then you wouldn't recognize it, just like TS and Gni doesn't recognize it.

My dictionary states it better: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
Meh. Doesn't change the fact that he was using an accepted definition of the word.

the Bible
lol

Ive kinda been looking for a reason to post this, so now I will.

Taken from the book of leviticus:
7:22-25
Eating the fat of an ox/sheep/goat is punishable by being 'cut off from your people'.
12:1-8
After a women gives birth to a boy, she is "unclean" (no one can touch her) for 7 days. 14 Days with a girl.
18:18
No sexual activity during the menstruation period.
19:19
No cross breeding of domestic animals, no sowing of two seeds into the same field, no wearing of garments with 2 or more thread.
19:20
"Adultery with a slave will result in the adulterer being punished, but not with death, because she is not free."
19:25
Cant eat fruit from a tree until it is 5 years old.
19:26
Do not eat meat with blood in it
Do not clip your hair at your temples
Do not trim your beard
No tatoos
19:31
No fortune tellers
20:9
If you curse your mother or your father, you will be stoned to death.
20:10
Adultery = Death, unless it is with a slave
20:18
Sex during the menstruation period = "cut off from your people".
20:27
Fortune tellers are stoned to death
21:9
If a priest's daughter has sex before marriage, she is burned to death.
21:11
Priest's cannot go near dead people
21:16-22
No one with a defect(disability) can offer a sacrifice to the lord, as they are unclean. (23) They also cannot go near an alter.
23:7
No work on the sabbath
24:14
Curse God = Stoned to Death
25:44
Slaves can buy land, but when they leave their sons must be left behind as "perpetual slaves".
26:7
"You will rout your enemies and law them low with your sword" -Used to justify a heckuva lot of killings.
27:29
"Human beings who are 'doomed' must be put to death" -Not sure what 'doomed' exactly means here though.

Throughout the bible the phrase "cut off from your people" comes out a lot. I'm assuming it means that either you're just killed, or they throw you out of the city/village/caravan/whatever, where you'd either starve to death or find a new city.

All that complete bs is just in Leviticus. There's a lot more where it came from. I was a catholic until I actually read a bible.

Simply? Don't believe everything you read.

It does but then you wouldn't recognize it, just like TS and Gni doesn't recognize it.

Here's a thought... if there is a thing that you can see, but no one else can... maybe they are right?

Here's a thought... if there is a thing that you can see, but no one else can... maybe they are right?
Funny you should say that. My friend Harvey, the 6-foot-tall invisible bunny rabbit, gave me the exact same advice the other day.

Meh. Doesn't change the fact that he was using an accepted definition of the word.
Accepted in some parts of the world, yes.

Accepted in some parts of the world, yes.
*sigh*

And I get accused of "arguing semantics." There just ain't no justice in the world.

*sigh*

And I get accused of "arguing semantics." There just ain't no justice in the world.

Same thing happened to me, yesterday. Over the definition of the word 'murder'. I was using the accurate definition, while someone else chose to use their own definition, and argue about why mine was 'better'.

Cue, dictionary... followed by argument that the difference was 'semantic'.

I need a smack-forehead icon.

*sigh*

And I get accused of "arguing semantics." There just ain't no justice in the world.
The fact that it is accepted in some parts of the world doesn't change the fact that that's not what it means. It doesn't mean 'not natural', it means 'above or beyond' natural.

Can you look at a regular power that a human has (say, persuasion for instance) and see that he has a superpower? No, because you're looking at the regular power, not the superpower.

Can you know a superpower he has and say that that superpower is 'not power'? No. It's not the same thing as the power, but that doesn't mean it is not power.

Can you use the power to determine anything about the superpower? No, they are not the same thing.

That is the line of argument that makes sense.

I'm sorry but I know that the prophesy isn't wrong.
No you don't. You've been shown, objectively that it is wrong and you're living in denial.

They need to be.

No they dont. A prophecy about the second comming can come from either testement (Since it hasnt happened yet) and Jesus predicting his own rise is pretty astonishing.

No they dont. A prophecy about the second comming can come from either testement (Since it hasnt happened yet) and Jesus predicting his own rise is pretty astonishing.

The problem with the New Testament, is that any prophecy you find in it about Messiah, isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Simply - because the text wasn't even commited to paper, until LONG after the events are alleged to have taken place.

One cannot seriously place ANY faith in discussion of prophecy, when the same text claims to catalog the prophecy AND the realisation, does it all within the same covers, and was written AFTER the fact.

And - as for the second coming... it is contrary to messianic prophecy in the Hebrew scripture - which is an automatic strike against it... AND it hasn't EVER happened... so there is no reason to consider any such 'prophecy' as worth anything!

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.
Actually, when people say "there is no evidence for God's existence," what they mean is that there is no evidence for God's existence which is non-anecdotal and scientifically verifiable. That's why the existence of God is a matter of belief rather than a matter of logic.

No you don't. You've been shown, objectively that it is wrong and you're living in denial.

He wasn't shown "objectively" any such thing. He was told by people that don't want Isaiah's verse to be a usable reference to an NT scripture they don't like, that it doesn't say what Matthew says it does.

However, translators of the Septuagint, who were much closer to Isaiah’s time than modern scholars and the minimulist in this thread, saw fit to translate it as the word parthenos (virgin). And thus, one cannot claim that they too were trying to twist Isaiah’s writing to mean the Christian Christ before the fact, because they were pre-Christ. They translated and believed that Isaiah verse meant a young-woman/virgin.

Only after Christian scriptures were written did the Jewish theologians ever begin to dispute that Isaiah meant a virgin-young-woman. Before Matthew was written it was universally held to mean virgin. There are many such "revisions" of Jewish theology in response to Christianity's teachings after the fact.

The problem with the New Testament, is that any prophecy you find in it about Messiah, isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Simply - because the text wasn't even commited to paper, until LONG after the events are alleged to have taken place.

One cannot seriously place ANY faith in discussion of prophecy, when the same text claims to catalog the prophecy AND the realisation, does it all within the same covers, and was written AFTER the fact.

And - as for the second coming... it is contrary to messianic prophecy in the Hebrew scripture - which is an automatic strike against it... AND it hasn't EVER happened... so there is no reason to consider any such 'prophecy' as worth anything!

In accordance with Prophesy, the great and esteemed debator, Jocabia, will join NationStates. When one comes upon a great and esteemed debator and his name is Jocabia know that the prophesy has been fulfilled and for this witness, you must give him one dollar, in accordance with prophesy.

He wasn't shown "objectively" any such thing. He was told by people that don't want Isaiah's verse to be a usable reference to an NT scripture they don't like, that it doesn't say what Matthew says it does.

However, translators of the Septuagint, who were much closer to Isaiah’s time than modern scholars and the minimulist in this thread, saw fit to translate it as the word parthenos (virgin). And thus, one cannot claim that they too were trying to twist Isaiah’s writing to mean the Christian Christ before the fact, because they were pre-Christ. They translated and believed that Isaiah verse meant a young-woman/virgin.

Only after Christian scriptures were written did the Jewish theologians ever begin to dispute that Isaiah meant a virgin-young-woman. Before Matthew was written it was universally held to mean virgin. There are many such "revisions" of Jewish theology in response to Christianity's teachings after the fact.
Parthenos also means 'young woman', at least according to Forward magazine, a Jewish publication.
http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=200408251105

The problem with the New Testament, is that any prophecy you find in it about Messiah, isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Simply - because the text wasn't even commited to paper, until LONG after the events are alleged to have taken place.

One cannot seriously place ANY faith in discussion of prophecy, when the same text claims to catalog the prophecy AND the realisation, does it all within the same covers, and was written AFTER the fact.

And - as for the second coming... it is contrary to messianic prophecy in the Hebrew scripture - which is an automatic strike against it... AND it hasn't EVER happened... so there is no reason to consider any such 'prophecy' as worth anything!

With that type of logic you'd have to throw away the entire Talmud.

In other words, what you’ve said is utter nonsense. Verbal heritage and community memory has long been recognized as being capable of retaining and passing on admissible witness, especially during the century’s pre and after Christ’s birth in the Judea/Palestine culture.

He wasn't shown "objectively" any such thing. He was told by people that don't want Isaiah's verse to be a usable reference to an NT scripture they don't like, that it doesn't say what Matthew says it does.


This is just untrue. Even as a Christian, I was aware of the fact that many words in the English translation did not match the words in the original Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew.

When I was a Christian... Isaiah SHOULD have been translated as 'young woman', not 'virgin'. Now, I am an Atheist, and the word should STILL be translated as 'young woman', not Atheist.

Don't attempt to make it subjective. We are talking about words, with clear meanings... that remain 'true', no matter WHAT you or I might WANT them to mean.


However, translators of the Septuagint, who were much closer to Isaiah’s time than modern scholars and the minimulist in this thread, saw fit to translate it as the word parthenos (virgin). And thus, one cannot claim that they too were trying to twist Isaiah’s writing to mean the Christian Christ before the fact, because they were pre-Christ. They translated and believed that Isaiah verse meant a young-woman/virgin.


The Greek translation was flawed. Not a deliberate attempt. Just a bad one.

Isaiah DID mean a young woman... that is what the Hebrew said. The fact that the Greek translation does NOT say that, means the Greek translation is, quite simply, wrong.


Only after Christian scriptures were written did the Jewish theologians ever begin to dispute that Isaiah meant a virgin-young-woman. Before Matthew was written it was universally held to mean virgin. There are many such "revisions" of Jewish theology in response to Christianity's teachings after the fact.

Not true. Before Matthew, it was NOT universally held to mean virgin.

Also - you miss something... the Hebrews KNEW their scripture... knew which meanings and nuances were important. The Greeks did not.

Matthew bases his little story of Jesus' birth (Which, obviously, is NOT witness testimony) on a flawed translation. He THOUGHT he was reinforcing Jesus' claim to Messiah... but, in fact, the idea that Jesus COULD be 'born of virgin' disallows him from being messiah ANYWAY... and certainly does NOT match any prophecy. And - again - the 'prophecy' so often cited, is not messianic. Nor is it entirely 'prophecy'... the child in question was already CONCEIVED when the Isaiah story takes place...

With that type of logic you'd have to throw away the entire Talmud.

In other words, what you’ve said is utter nonsense. Verbal heritage and community memory has long been recognized as being capable of retaining and passing on admissible witness, especially during the century’s pre and after Christ’s birth in the Judea/Palestine culture.

I can quite happily throw away the whole Talmud, Torah, Koran, Bhagavad Gita... you name it. They mean nothing to me.

I'm not saying oral traditions are not effective means of transmission... I am saying, NOW, 2000 years later, we are arguing over prophecies that may or may not have been fulfilled. And - the ONLY evidence we have for some of those prophecies, was written about 1970 years ago... by a group of followers of one of the MANY 'messiah' claimants. And - the ONLY evidence that we have for those same prophecies being fulfilled, is the SAME group of followers of one of the MANY 'messiah' claimants.

Surely you can see how that makes the available evidence questionable, at the very least?

In accordance with Prophesy, the great and esteemed debator, Jocabia, will join NationStates. When one comes upon a great and esteemed debator and his name is Jocabia know that the prophesy has been fulfilled and for this witness, you must give him one dollar, in accordance with prophesy.

Crap.

The check is in the mail.

Parthenos also means 'young woman', at least according to Forward magazine, a Jewish publication.
http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=200408251105

That article says pretty much the same thing I did, thanks for linking it.

...
The Greek translation was flawed. Not a deliberate attempt. Just a bad one.

Isaiah DID mean a young woman... that is what the Hebrew said. The fact that the Greek translation does NOT say that, means the Greek translation is, quite simply, wrong.

...

You asked Isaiah himself did you? Only YOU know exactly what he meant? Interesting.

That article says pretty much the same thing I did, thanks for linking it.
Right; except where you said, "parthenos (virgin)." Should have been "parthenos (young woman/virgin)."

And strike: "Before Matthew was written it was universally held to mean virgin."

Right; except where you said, "parthenos (virgin)." Should have been "parthenos (young woman/virgin)."

And strike: "Before Matthew was written it was universally held to mean virgin."

Ah, really? My own post said...

... And thus, one cannot claim that they too were trying to twist Isaiah’s writing to mean the Christian Christ before the fact, because they were pre-Christ. They translated and believed that Isaiah verse meant a young-woman/virgin.
...

Bolded for emphasis.

Ah, really? My own post said...

Bolded for emphasis.
So?

That article says pretty much the same thing I did, thanks for linking it.

Actually - you claimed that 'parthenos' was fairly definitively 'virgin', which the article disputes.. giving two meanings.

I also notice, although the article discusses the fact that not all young women are virgins, it IGNORES the fact that not ALL virgins are young women.

So - although, in some cases, a woman COULD be described as either 'young woman' OR 'virgin' with equal accuracy... the same word does NOT mean both 'young woman' AND 'virgin'.

You asked Isaiah himself did you? Only YOU know exactly what he meant? Interesting.

Not only I. The text is clear. It could have used another word, if it had a different meaning in mind. It didn't use a different word.

So?

My post said what you said it should say...

My post said what you said it should say...
No, it didn't. I pointed at two other lines.

Not only I. The text is clear. It could have used another word, if it had a different meaning in mind. It didn't use a different word.

Can't argue with the guy that knows exactly what Isaiah thinks...

Ah, really? My own post said...

Bolded for emphasis.

The part you are now claiming covers both bases: "They translated and believed that Isaiah verse meant a young-woman/virgin...." is your OWN reference to what the Greeks might have THOUGHT the Hebrew text might mean.

Which is a little disingenuous. The specific part Willamena and I refer to is where you said:

"However, translators of the Septuagint, who were much closer to Isaiah’s time than modern scholars and the minimulist in this thread, saw fit to translate it as the word parthenos (virgin)."

You clearly claim one 'accurate' translation for the Greek word 'Parthenos'... when such is not the case.

Can't argue with the guy that knows exactly what Isaiah thinks...

I know what the text means, because I've read it.

Perhaps, what you MEAN to say is: "Can't argue with a guy who knows exactly what... the text says"...?

There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible

Even though I am a Christian, I must say that is very stupid reasoning. Your saying that since the Bible is true, God must exist and the Bible must be the word of God. And since it is the word of God, it must be true. And since it is true... Around and around.

No, it didn't. I pointed at two other lines.

You dissected a single post, paragraph and sentences, and then complained that the single words in it individually didn't meet with your approval? Kind of stretching for anything at all huh?

I know what the text means, because I've read it.

Perhaps, what you MEAN to say is: "Can't argue with a guy who knows exactly what... the text says"...?

You and only you. Only you can read the lines the way they were 'meant' to say things.

You dissected a single post, paragraph and sentences, and then complained that the single words in it individually didn't meet with your approval? Kind of stretching for anything at all huh?

You made a claim, which was not true.

And now, would rather pick at the other person who ILLUSTRATED your error, rather than admit your fault.

You were, quite simply, wrong.

Admit it, and it's done. Continue to prevaricate about the bush, and you just end up looking like a poor loser.

You dissected a single post, paragraph and sentences, and then complained that the single words in it individually didn't meet with your approval? Kind of stretching for anything at all huh?
I disputed some of what you said, and pointed to references to back it up. Now I could have said nothing, but you hinged a large part of the last paragraph on the fact that it was universally understood as virgin, when the article I pointed to said something different. If you disagree, you are welcome to provide references that support your claim. I would happily read them, and maybe change my views.

That's how a debating forum works.

You and only you. Only you can read the lines the way they were 'meant' to say things.

No - not at all.

The fact that there IS a debate means it is not only I.

But - this is not the only line of Hebrew scripture which the nascent Christian movement co-opted, to serve their purposes... just one of the more famous examples... since a lot of Christians seem to think - for what reason, I don't know - that it IMPROVES the case for Jesus as Messiah, if he was born of a virgin.

Which just goes to show, the average Christian has a pretty poor grasp of the Hebrew scripture.

Can't argue with the guy that knows exactly what Isaiah thinks...Well, that's true, you can't. The best bet is to go by what he actually wrote.

You made a claim, which was not true.

And now, would rather pick at the other person who ILLUSTRATED your error, rather than admit your fault.

You were, quite simply, wrong.

Admit it, and it's done. Continue to prevaricate about the bush, and you just end up looking like a poor loser.

Perhaps you could reword all of our posts for us and tell us all what we "meant" to say in the first place. Your clairvoyance is quite impressive, almost as big as your ego apparently.

I disputed some of what you said, and pointed to references to back it up. Now I could have said nothing, but you hinged a large part of the last paragraph on the fact that it was universally understood as virgin, when the article I pointed to said something different. If you disagree, you are welcome to provide references that support your claim. I would happily read them, and maybe change my views.

That's how a debating forum works.

Your own link does quite well for my purposes... I'll quote it...

The Christian belief that Mary gave birth to Jesus while she was still a virgin is not necessarily, therefore, a pagan one that has no roots in Judaism. On the contrary: It has very deep Jewish roots, as does the entire story of Jesus, who remains a distinctively Jewish character in the New Testament despite the Gospels' attempt to distance him from his Jewish background. It is because his first disciples were Jews that, believing his birth to be miraculous, they interpreted almah as "virgin," and the evidence of the Septuagint does not tell us that this was outlandish.

Perhaps you could reword all of our posts for us and tell us all what we "meant" to say in the first place. Your clairvoyance is quite impressive, almost as big as your ego apparently.

Despite the fact that you're trying to avoid the debate by making crap up about clairvoyance, GnI read the text in the original language which he knows quite well. Did you?

Your claims were wrong. You got caught. You've spent the better part of all your posts on NS complaining because you got caught. Admit your error and move on.

The text says what GnI is claiming. You are claiming it says something OTHER than what is in the text. The onus is on you to show some support or claim some special knowledge. Given that GnI's translation is supported by an article that you agreed with, no clairvoyance is necessary.

So how about you show some support for your claims rather than your ridiculous accusations?

...
So how about you show some support for your claims rather than your ridiculous accusations?


The linked to article already did that for me. If you would have read it you would know. Perhaps your entire post is really just a display from you to show support for your friend and tells the rest of us that you've chosen sides based on "faith" in your comrade over positions on the table? Yes, I think that's it but to be sure we should ask GnI, he could use his "insight" and tell us what we "meant" to say.

Your own link does quite well for my purposes... I'll quote it...

So Isaiah used a word that means young woman/newly married woman in scripture that is talking about woman who is both young and newly married. The word could be taken to mean virgin, but this is generally based on the assumption that young women are virgins. There was a word for virgin, but Isaiah used a word that would make more sense translated to mean young woman or newly married woman. Was Isaiah trying to trick us? Why did he use almah if he meant bethulah?

Meanwhile, Mary was a married woman at a time when sex was considered a part of becoming married in the eyes of God. There is no reason to believe the Jesus was a virgin birth, nor is there any reason to think Isaiah was that poor at communicating.

Jesus himself refers to the idea that sex is what spiritually marries people. Do you think he was claiming that his parents were not married? I think he wasn't.

The linked to article already did that for me. If you would have read it you would know. Perhaps your entire post is really just a display from you to show support for your friend and tells the rest of us that you've chosen sides based on "faith" in your comrade over positions on the table? Yes, I think that's it but to be sure we should ask GnI, he could use his "insight" and tell us what we "meant" to say.

Ah, yes, don't bother to address the actual issue. Instead accuse me of bias and GnI of clairvoyance. Yep, that's good debate there, old chum. Now what language did you read Isaiah in, expert?

Here it is. Care to translate or would that require you to be clairvoyant?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/tan/isa007.htm#014

Perhaps you could reword all of our posts for us and tell us all what we "meant" to say in the first place. Your clairvoyance is quite impressive, almost as big as your ego apparently.

First: Nothing is as big as my ego.

Second: Why reword? All I have done is shown you the error in your own words... I didn't 'reword' anything.

Third: The word Isaiah used means 'young woman'. You CAN argue it COULD mean virgin, as well... since young women might often be virgins, also. But that isn't word Isaiah USED... he used 'young woman'. Not 'virgin'.

If you want to claim he means something other than 'young woman'... it is YOU who is 'rewording'.

Your own link does quite well for my purposes... I'll quote it...

Because this was addressed earlier in the thread, I suggest you take a look at this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11291776&postcount=114), specifically this part:

One more thing about the virign birth - the word "virgin" never occurs here. In Hebrew, we have almah, which simply means a young woman. There is a specific word for virgin in Hebrew that isn’t used here, bethulah. Considering that properly translated it says young woman rather than virgin, there is no reason to assume that it corresponds to any virgin birth myth.

The linked to article already did that for me. If you would have read it you would know. Perhaps your entire post is really just a display from you to show support for your friend and tells the rest of us that you've chosen sides based on "faith" in your comrade over positions on the table? Yes, I think that's it but to be sure we should ask GnI, he could use his "insight" and tell us what we "meant" to say.

Curiously... you are debating with two people, here, who have very different 'beliefs' about some of the scripture. Where we reach common ground, I'd say it is more likely we might be hitting on something of significance.

But - apparently, you would rather attack EVERY other poster, than actually delve deeper into the text.


On a positive note, you seem to be using the accurate meaning of the word 'clairvoyance', when most people assume it has something to do with seeing the future. Kudos.

Ah, yes, don't bother to address the actual issue. Instead accuse me of bias and GnI of clairvoyance. Yep, that's good debate there, old chum. Now what language did you read Isaiah in, expert?

Here it is. Care to translate or would that require you to be clairvoyant?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/tan/isa007.htm#014


Almah is used seven times and every time it either explicitly means a virgin or implies it. Almah always refers to an unmarried woman of good reputation; Genesis 24:43 it applies to Rebecca, Isaac's future bride, already spoken of in Genesis 24:16 as a B’tulah. Exodus 2:8 it describes the infant Moshe's older sister Miryam, a nine- year-old girl and surely a virgin. Other verses are to young maidens being courted (Proverbs 30:19) and virgins of the royal court (Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8). In each case the context necessitates that the young girl be an unmarried woman of good reputation, i.e., a virgin.

First: Nothing is as big as my ego.

Second: Why reword? All I have done is shown you the error in your own words... I didn't 'reword' anything.

Third: The word Isaiah used means 'young woman'. You CAN argue it COULD mean virgin, as well... since young women might often be virgins, also. But that isn't word Isaiah USED... he used 'young woman'. Not 'virgin'.

If you want to claim he means something other than 'young woman'... it is YOU who is 'rewording'.

He's busy right now translating it from Hebrew in the link above, because he clearly knows Hebrew better than you do. Can't you tell? I mean his evidence is OVERWHELMING. "It COULD have meant this, so it MUST have meant this!!!"

Almah is used seven times and every time it either explicitly means a virgin or implies it. Almah always refers to an unmarried woman of good reputation; Genesis 24:43 it applies to Rebecca, Isaac's future bride, already spoken of in Genesis 24:16 as a B’tulah. Exodus 2:8 it describes the infant Moshe's older sister Miryam, a nine- year-old girl and surely a virgin. Other verses are to young maidens being courted (Proverbs 30:19) and virgins of the royal court (Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8). In each case the context necessitates that the young girl be an unmarried woman of good reputation, i.e., a virgin.

Everyone you meantion is also a young girl. Even you meantion that there is another word for virgin and it is used when necessary to express it. You ruined your own argument. Because the women it referred to were virgins doesn't mean that was what it was meaning to say. There was no need to imply virgin in those other writings because it explicitly said it using clearer terms. Did Isaiah just suck and coming across clearly, or is this perhaps your issue?

Meanwhile, was Mary an unmarried woman of good reputation?

First: Nothing is as big as my ego.

Second: Why reword? All I have done is shown you the error in your own words... I didn't 'reword' anything.

Third: The word Isaiah used means 'young woman'. You CAN argue it COULD mean virgin, as well... since young women might often be virgins, also. But that isn't word Isaiah USED... he used 'young woman'. Not 'virgin'.

If you want to claim he means something other than 'young woman'... it is YOU who is 'rewording'.

What word would you prefer he used? B'tulah does not always mean "virgin" in the moderns sense either, as it might be one of two posts holding up a beam or as it was used in Joel 1:8: "Lament like a B'tulah girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth" which obviously cannot be a "virgin" in the manner we think of it. Any word used by Isaiah would be a disputed word today. Almah was just fine for young-girl/virgin.

...
Meanwhile, was Mary an unmarried woman of good reputation?

Quite disingenuous today aren't we? But as a matter of fact, to answer your question anyway, she was. Joseph is said to have debated with himself “how” to call off the wedding (before his dream of the angel) because he didn't want to reduce or destroy her good reputation.

Question: is it at all concievable that a non-virgin at the time would be refered to anything other than a whore?

- I'm guessing the social context is the only meaningful way of determining the intention here. The word "Maiden" for example, do not actually mean virgin. Yet in Christian times, virginity is a prerequisite for being called a maiden, as no non-virgin would be considered a proper young woman - which is what a maiden is.

Quite disingenuous today aren't we? But as a matter of fact, to answer your question anyway, she was. Joseph is said to have debated with himself “how” to call off the wedding (before his dream of the angel) because he didn't want to reduce or destroy her good reputation.

Ha, got caught on that one. I admit I had to look that up and had forgotten it.

Doesn't address the fact that you're basically saying that Isaiah didn't know how to communicate.

By the way, you did an excellent job of dropping the actual argument, expert. Hmmm... I wonder why. I would drop it in your shoes as well. Perhaps you should just call me biased again and leave it at that.

Question: is it at all concievable that a non-virgin at the time would be refered to anything other than a whore?
...

Um, yes.



As among the Jews, betrothal was a real marriage, the use of marriage after the time of espousals presented nothing unusual among them. Hence Mary's pregnancy could not astonish anyone except St. Joseph. As he did not know the mystery of the Incarnation, the situation must have been extremely painful both to him and to Mary. The Evangelist says: "Whereupon Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately" (Matthew 1:19). Mary left the solution of the difficulty to God, and God informed the perplexed spouse in His own time of the true condition of Mary. While Joseph "thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:20-21).

Not long after this revelation, Joseph concluded the ritual marriage contract with Mary. The Gospel simply says: "Joseph rising up from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife" (Matthew 1:24). While it is certain that between the betrothal and the marriage at least three months must have elapsed, during which Mary stayed with Elizabeth, it is impossible to determine the exact length of time between the two ceremonies. We do not know how long after the betrothal the angel announced to Mary the mystery of the Incarnation, nor do we know how long the doubt of Joseph lasted, before he was enlightened by the visit of the angel. From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

...
By the way, you did an excellent job of dropping the actual argument, expert. Hmmm... I wonder why. I would drop it in your shoes as well. Perhaps you should just call me biased again and leave it at that.

I didn't drop anything, you just didn't bother to read all of the posts. What word would you prefer he used instead (I assume that's point you were referring to)? I already pointed out that the other word I mentioned would bring up objections as well.

Your own link does quite well for my purposes... I'll quote it...
The Christian belief that Mary gave birth to Jesus while she was still a virgin is not necessarily, therefore, a pagan one that has no roots in Judaism. On the contrary: It has very deep Jewish roots, as does the entire story of Jesus, who remains a distinctively Jewish character in the New Testament despite the Gospels' attempt to distance him from his Jewish background. It is because his first disciples were Jews that, believing his birth to be miraculous, they interpreted almah as "virgin," and the evidence of the Septuagint does not tell us that this was outlandish.
Okay, but that is not the bit that I was disputing. I actually have no problem with this part.

On a positive note, you seem to be using the accurate meaning of the word 'clairvoyance', when most people assume it has something to do with seeing the future. Kudos.
Ha! I thought that, too...

If the Bible is evidence for God's existence, then Star Trek is evidence that Warp Drive is possible.

Because this was addressed earlier in the thread, I suggest you take a look at One more thing about the virign birth - the word "virgin" never occurs here. In Hebrew, we have almah, which simply means a young woman. There is a specific word for virgin in Hebrew that isn’t used here, bethulah. Considering that properly translated it says young woman rather than virgin, there is no reason to assume that it corresponds to any virgin birth myth.

As I already pointed out, Bethulah (by any spelling) does not always mean "virgin" in the modern sense either. It might mean one of two posts holding up a beam OR as it was used in Joel 1:8: "Lament like a B'tulah girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." Neither of which can be interpreted as a "virgin" in the manner we think of it today. Any word used by Isaiah would be a disputed word today. Almah was just fine for young-girl/virgin.

If the Bible is evidence for God's existence, then Star Trek is evidence that Warp Drive is possible.

That's funny, but it also reminds me of all of the scientist and engineers that have produced new products over the years that have mentioned how they were inspired by some Star Trek episode when they were younger...

Seeing as we're discussing the whole virgin birth thing, a few friends and I got into a discussion a while ago about whether, seeing as God impregnated Mary without her consent, He was in fact guilty of rape.

What's the opinion on that one?

That's funny, but it also reminds me of all of the scientist and engineers that have produced new products over the years that have mentioned how they were inspired by some Star Trek episode when they were younger...

So when are you inventing this 'God' character?

Seeing as we're discussing the whole virgin birth thing, a few friends and I got into a discussion a while ago about whether, seeing as God impregnated Mary without her consent, He was in fact guilty of rape.

What's the opinion on that one?

He did have her consent. Luke 1 35-38: The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

So when are you inventing this 'God' character?

Was he on Star Trek?

Just because something's written down doesn't mean it's true.
See: Harry Potter.
Edit: Also, any newspaper.

Compulsive Depression, I agree completely. Just look at any newspaper or the novels of Darwin, Freud and Marx, and you can clearly see that there is no God. Besides, Christianity has caused so much oppression in the world that we are only now trying to correct.

He did have her consent. Luke 1 35-38: The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

Okay, fair enough. However, look at Deuteronomy 22:23-27

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

I'm not sure if Mary was in town or not, but either way, the Holy Spirit has some explaining to do.

As I already pointed out, Bethulah (by any spelling) does not always mean "virgin" in the modern sense either. It might mean one of two posts holding up a beam OR as it was used in Joel 1:8: "Lament like a B'tulah girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." Neither of which can be interpreted as a "virgin" in the manner we think of it today. Any word used by Isaiah would be a disputed word today. Almah was just fine for young-girl/virgin.

Another post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11292106&postcount=172) farther along the debate mentioned that bethulah had been used for virgin three times prior to 7:14, the prophetic passage, yet it was not used here for "virgin". Since almah can mean young woman/virgin, it could be construed that, since he was already using bethulah for virgin, Isaiah likely meant to use almah for young woman.

Okay, fair enough. However, look at Deuteronomy 22:23-27

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

I'm not sure if Mary was in town or not, but either way, the Holy Spirit has some explaining to do.
The Holy Spirit is female. ;)

It does but then you wouldn't recognize it, just like TS and Gni doesn't recognize it.
Wonderful cop-out and fallacy of affirming the consequent. Try again.

The Holy Spirit is female. ;)
Do you think she's seeing anybody?
Man, that would make anyone jealous.
"Have you met my girlfriend, Lisa?"
"No, have you met mine? The Freaking Holy Ghost!"

No they dont.
Yes it does, since it refers to the OT. Try again.

Do you think she's seeing anybody?

Apparently nobody's seeing her.

What part of christianity doesn't scream Death Cult to high heaven?! Is it the bits that scream Insane SM Cult perhaps?

Q: Why did Jesus die on the cross?
A: He forgot the safe word.

Apparently nobody's seeing her.
lol

Almah is used seven times and every time it either explicitly means a virgin or implies it. Almah always refers to an unmarried woman of good reputation; Genesis 24:43 it applies to Rebecca, Isaac's future bride, already spoken of in Genesis 24:16 as a B’tulah. Exodus 2:8 it describes the infant Moshe's older sister Miryam, a nine- year-old girl and surely a virgin. Other verses are to young maidens being courted (Proverbs 30:19) and virgins of the royal court (Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8). In each case the context necessitates that the young girl be an unmarried woman of good reputation, i.e., a virgin.

That is implication. As I said - it may be true that a young woman IS a virgin... but the two terms are neither synonymous, nor exculsive, one to the other.

As you yourself illustrate, where it is important, and there could be uncertainty, the word Bethulah is specifically used to denote virginity.

Where the operative sense is the youth and the femininity, the word almah is used.

You are saying this yourself - how is it it can pass through your eyes and mouth, without hitting your brain?

Even though I am a Christian, I must say that is very stupid reasoning. Your saying that since the Bible is true, God must exist and the Bible must be the word of God. And since it is the word of God, it must be true. And since it is true... Around and around.

The Bible is not just the Christian holy book. It is a series of historical accounts and many other types of document that when examined with the light of other evidence, shows us God.

What word would you prefer he used? B'tulah does not always mean "virgin" in the moderns sense either, as it might be one of two posts holding up a beam or as it was used in Joel 1:8: "Lament like a B'tulah girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth" which obviously cannot be a "virgin" in the manner we think of it. Any word used by Isaiah would be a disputed word today. Almah was just fine for young-girl/virgin.

You appear to be having some problems with the often metaphorical nature of Hebrew.

Do you believe Job's bowels literally boiled, also?

Quite disingenuous today aren't we? But as a matter of fact, to answer your question anyway, she was. Joseph is said to have debated with himself “how” to call off the wedding (before his dream of the angel) because he didn't want to reduce or destroy her good reputation.

No - Joseph looked at how he could 'put her away'... a divorce.

As I already pointed out, Bethulah (by any spelling) does not always mean "virgin" in the modern sense either. It might mean one of two posts holding up a beam OR as it was used in Joel 1:8: "Lament like a B'tulah girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." Neither of which can be interpreted as a "virgin" in the manner we think of it today. Any word used by Isaiah would be a disputed word today. Almah was just fine for young-girl/virgin.

No more true than the last time you said it.

You are confusing vernacular phrasing with meaning.

Where I caome from, someone who is a little down, or very tired, or stressed, might be referred to as 'put upon'. Literally, most of those cases have little to do with the ACTUAL meaning of the words 'put' or 'upon', or any conventional sense of their meaning.

Bethulah means virgin. Sometimes, that virgin is an allusion.

It really isn't that difficult, if you understand the artistic temprament of the language.

Seeing as we're discussing the whole virgin birth thing, a few friends and I got into a discussion a while ago about whether, seeing as God impregnated Mary without her consent, He was in fact guilty of rape.

What's the opinion on that one?

Artificial Insemination is closer, since there was no sex act.

It was certainly non-consensual, though.

If one looks at the history of the time and place, rape is a tool of pacification. You conquer the mean with the sword, and the women with the ... 'other sword'. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the nascent Christian movement decided to tell of Jesus conceived in such a manner.

I know what the text means, because I've read it.

I know what the text means Gni because I've read it.

He did have her consent. Luke 1 35-38: The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."
38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

She has been TOLD what is going to happen. She doesn't consent, she resigns.

Another post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11292106&postcount=172) farther along the debate mentioned that bethulah had been used for virgin three times prior to 7:14, the prophetic passage, yet it was not used here for "virgin". Since almah can mean young woman/virgin, it could be construed that, since he was already using bethulah for virgin, Isaiah likely meant to use almah for young woman.

Exactly. If Isaiah had intended 'virgin', there is a servicable language available which would have served that purpose. The fact that he chooses NOT to, implies he didn't want to, or mean to.

That is implication. As I said - it may be true that a young woman IS a virgin... but the two terms are neither synonymous, nor exculsive, one to the other.

As you yourself illustrate, where it is important, and there could be uncertainty, the word Bethulah is specifically used to denote virginity.

Where the operative sense is the youth and the femininity, the word almah is used.

You are saying this yourself - how is it it can pass through your eyes and mouth, without hitting your brain?

B’tulah can mean an age of a girl, like in Deuteronomy 22:19 (for example) which speaks of a woman after her wedding night as a B'tulah, here she is being falsely accused of being a pre-pubescent virgin.

B’tulah can also mean any girl (virgin or not) who is too young to have menstrual cycles, and it can mean a married girl who is not a virgin but is before her first menstrual period, and it can mean a girl who has never consented to having illegal (non-married) sex but has been raped (for example). There are at least two cases where the word b’tulah was used that the scripture felt it necessary to additionally identify the subjects as virgin’s because B’tulah is not sufficient to make that definition:
Gen. 24:16: "The girl (Rebekah) was very beautiful, a betulah; and no man had ever lain with her." Likewise, each young woman in Jabesh Gilead was described in the book of Judges in a similar way. "They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women (na'arot), betulot, who had not known a man by lying with a male, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan." (Judg. 21:12)

In both these cases in Scripture, the information that the woman was physically a virgin is additional to the fact that she was a betulah. By itself, the word betulah is not considered adequate to indicate physical virginity. Whereas the word Almah is sufficient because it tells us that the young woman being spoken of is of a sexual mature age (unlike a the word B’tulah) AND a denotes a physical virgin (no male consort at all, rape or otherwise).

Additonal side point: As to whether Isaiah was prophesying about future events or just talking about events in his own time, the context of Isaiah chapter 7, not just the verses we have been quoting, show that "sign" of ha-Amlah’s birthing, was [i]not for King Achaz. King Achaz is referred to as "you" (singular) previously, but here it is for the entire "House of David" because it is mentioned in the plural form.
The sign for King Achaz was that, before the Na’ar (the toddler child) should know how to choose good and refuse evil, the events foretold had to occur. The toddler child was Isaiah's son Sh'ar-Yashuv, who was likely being addressed, but that then leaves us waiting for the spoken of, watched for, Amlah’s birthing event, to yet take place and provide a sign to the whole House of David and all of it’s descendants, to make the prophecy fulfilled - which it was fulfilled by Christ’s virgin birth according to the book of Matthew.

The Bible is not just the Christian holy book. It is a series of historical accounts and many other types of document that when examined with the light of other evidence, shows us God.

Which would be fine, except for the absolute LACK of corroborative sources.

As for it being a 'series of historical accounts'... perhaps you are not well acquainted with how relative 'new' that concept is...

I know what the text means Gni because I've read it.

Which language?

If your answer is English - you have read a translation... not the actual text.

We might as well be discussing the fine points of the text, where I have read it, and you have seen Mel Gibson's movie...

B’tulah can mean an age of a girl, like in Deuteronomy 22:19 (for example) which speaks of a woman after her wedding night as a B'tulah, here she is being falsely accused of being a pre-pubescent virgin.


How disingenuous.

I suggest you re-read Deuteronomy... it is quite clear that the girl is STILL virgin after her 'wedding night'.

The Hebrews considered the 'marriage' and the 'consumation' to be inextricably linked. If you read earlier in that chapter, it carefully explains how we are discussing anulling an unconsumated relationship.


B’tulah can also mean any girl (virgin or not) who is too young to have menstrual cycles, and it can mean a married girl who is not a virgin but is before her first menstrual period, and it can mean a girl who has never consented to having illegal (non-married) sex but has been raped (for example). There are at least two cases where the word b’tulah was used that the scripture felt it necessary to additionally identify the subjects as virgin’s because B’tulah is not sufficient to make that definition:
Gen. 24:16: "The girl (Rebekah) was very beautiful, a betulah; and no man had ever lain with her." Likewise, each young woman in Jabesh Gilead was described in the book of Judges in a similar way. "They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women (na'arot), betulot, who had not known a man by lying with a male, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan." (Judg. 21:12)

In both these cases in Scripture, the information that the woman was physically a virgin is additional to the fact that she was a betulah. By itself, the word betulah is not considered adequate to indicate physical virginity. Whereas the word Almah is sufficient because it tells us that the young woman being spoken of is of a sexual mature age (unlike a the word B’tulah) AND a denotes a physical virgin (no male consort at all, rape or otherwise).


How many times did David kill Goliath? According to the text - he 'slew' him with a rock, and then 'slew' him with his own sword.

Redundancy in Hebrew scripture is not uncommon, and usually points to subtle differences in the meaning. For example - Rebekah was virgin physically and spiritually.


Additonal side point: As to whether Isaiah was prophesying about future events or just talking about events in his own time, the context of Isaiah chapter 7, not just the verses we have been quoting, show that "sign" of ha-Amlah’s birthing, was [i]not for King Achaz. King Achaz is referred to as "you" (singular) previously, but here it is for the entire "House of David" because it is mentioned in the plural form.
The sign for King Achaz was that, before the Na’ar (the toddler child) should know how to choose good and refuse evil, the events foretold had to occur. The toddler child was Isaiah's son Sh'ar-Yashuv, who was likely being addressed, but that then leaves us waiting for the spoken of, watched for, Amlah’s birthing event, to yet take place and provide a sign to the whole House of David and all of it’s descendants, to make the prophecy fulfilled - which it was fulfilled by Christ’s virgin birth according to the book of Matthew.

Isaiah is talking to a room with people in it. That is why he uses the plural - he is talking to members of the House of David, collectively. And, the woman in question is in the room... indeed, it is Isaiah's own wife.

Thus... the sign we are waiting for, isn't really a 'sign' at all... but a guidance. Isaiah points to a pregnant woman (his wife) and says that, before that child reaches majority, these things shall transpire.

Edit: Before I forget: Regarding the use of the word 'bethulot'... clearly, 'betulot' isn't entirely a literal equivalent to our modern BIOLOGICAL definition of 'virgin', either... it doesn't necessarily equate exactly to the state they call 'virgo intacta'. In Esther, two of the concubines are referred to as 'bethulot', so it MUST carry other implications that just physical virginity.

What it boils down to is:

We have one word which means 'young woman'. This is the word that was used. It doesn't mean 'virgin', although a young woman MIGHT be a virgin. The term refers ONLY to her status as a woman, a young one.

We also have another word - which was not used - which usually means 'virgin', but not always in an entirely literal, medical fashion. But - that is irrelevent, because THAT word was NOT used, anyway!

If the Bible is evidence for God's existence, then Star Trek is evidence that Warp Drive is possible.

Warp drive is theoretically possible.

If we assume 16 as the age of majority - conservatively, but it doesn't matter... and we assume that Isaiah 7:8 is talking about the same event (rather than 'connected' events)... I still don't see a problem.
Incidentally, The Message bible specifies 12 years for the age of the child when the prophecy comes to fruition.

"So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us). By the time the child is twelve years old, able to make moral decisions, the threat of war will be over."


These threads are the closest I've ever come to 'Bible Study'. :)

Warp drive is theoretically possible.
He's got you there, Phyrexia Prime!
:)

Actually, no... Just because warp drive is possible doesn't mean Star Trek is valid evidence that warp drive is possible.

Incidentally, The Message bible specifies 12 years for the age of the child when the prophecy comes to fruition.

"So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us). By the time the child is twelve years old, able to make moral decisions, the threat of war will be over."

These threads are the closest I've ever come to 'Bible Study'. :)

:D They also come the closest I usually come to 'official' Bible Study, normally, my 'work' is done alone... or with a Witness friend.

I am wary about the Message bible here... it makes assumptions... it assumes that the virgin state is implied (odd really... it says 'girl'... which would be translation.. and then adds 'who is presently a virgin'... which is effectively the OTHER translation... it uses both, for one word). It also assumes that the age of maturity is twelve... which it MIGHT be... or it might not, in THIS case.

But - even WITH all it's assumptions... you note that it is still clear that the girl is being talked of in the PRESENT tense... not some future event virgin or girl.

...
How many times did David kill Goliath? According to the text - he 'slew' him with a rock, and then 'slew' him with his own sword.

Actually, he knocked him out with the stone and killed him with the sword...

Redundancy in Hebrew scripture is not uncommon, and usually points to subtle differences in the meaning. For example - Rebekah was virgin physically and spiritually.

Isaiah is talking to a room with people in it. That is why he uses the plural - he is talking to members of the House of David, collectively. And, the woman in question is in the room... indeed, it is Isaiah's own wife.

Thus... the sign we are waiting for, isn't really a 'sign' at all... but a guidance. Isaiah points to a pregnant woman (his wife) and says that, before that child reaches majority, these things shall transpire.

Edit: Before I forget: Regarding the use of the word 'bethulot'... clearly, 'betulot' isn't entirely a literal equivalent to our modern BIOLOGICAL definition of 'virgin', either... it doesn't necessarily equate exactly to the state they call 'virgo intacta'. In Esther, two of the concubines are referred to as 'bethulot', so it MUST carry other implications that just physical virginity.

What it boils down to is:

We have one word which means 'young woman'. This is the word that was used. It doesn't mean 'virgin', although a young woman MIGHT be a virgin. The term refers ONLY to her status as a woman, a young one.

We also have another word - which was not used - which usually means 'virgin', but not always in an entirely literal, medical fashion. But - that is irrelevent, because THAT word was NOT used, anyway!

Notice that the text does not read an Almah but the Almah. The particular virgin will conceive supernaturally, and her supernatural offspring will be called Immanuel, because that is who he is, "God with us."

The prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.7:14 is related to the prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.9:6-7, and to the prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.11. They all point to the Messiah. The context is very Messianic. His wife could not be the Almah (having already had one son).

:D They also come the closest I usually come to 'official' Bible Study, normally, my 'work' is done alone... or with a Witness friend.

I am wary about the Message bible here... it makes assumptions... it assumes that the virgin state is implied (odd really... it says 'girl'... which would be translation.. and then adds 'who is presently a virgin'... which is effectively the OTHER translation... it uses both, for one word). It also assumes that the age of maturity is twelve... which it MIGHT be... or it might not, in THIS case.

But - even WITH all it's assumptions... you note that it is still clear that the girl is being talked of in the PRESENT tense... not some future event virgin or girl.
I rather like the Message because it provides a more easy to read 'modern' translation that tries to capture the meaning intended for the passage, rather than accurately translate each word or phrase, and then I go back and try to see if that context fits with other translations.

I think he does a pretty good job, in most cases.

Notice that the text does not read an Almah but the Almah. The particular virgin will conceive supernaturally, and her supernatural offspring will be called Immanuel, because that is who he is, "God with us."

The prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.7:14 is related to the prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.9:6-7, and to the prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.11. They all point to the Messiah. The context is very Messianic. His wife could not be the Almah (having already had one son).
Actually, the way I heard it (will look up the reference when I get home in a few hours) is, rather than 'supernatural' child, a 'sacred' child. 'The Virgin' was a title given to a line of women, of which Mary was one, that were given to have a sacred child. That makes Mary herself one such sacred child, as was her mother Anne.

This is from the Book of Mary in the apocryphaic "Lost Books of the Bible".

Actually, the way I heard it (will look up the reference when I get home in a few hours) is, rather than 'supernatural' child, a 'sacred' child. 'The Virgin' was a title given to a line of women, of which Mary was one, that were given to have a sacred child. That makes Mary herself one such sacred child, as was her mother Anne.

This is from the Book of Mary in the apocryphaic "Lost Books of the Bible".

Much to the dismay of the general public's layman impressions, The Immaculate Conception title refers to Mary's own birth, not her birthing of Jesus. She is said to have been born free of sin so that she could be the mother of the Christ Child. As to all of that though, I'm no expert.

Supernatural, sacred, divine... Whatever, it doesn’t mean ‘everyday occurrence’ like it was supposed to be Isaiah’s own wife nonchalantly referred to because she happened to be standing nearby for affect.

Much to the dismay of the general public's layman impressions, The Immaculate Conception title refers to Mary's own birth, not her birthing of Jesus. She is said to have been born free of sin so that she could be the mother of the Christ Child. As to all of that though, I'm no expert.

Supernatural, sacred, divine... Whatever, it doesn’t mean ‘everyday occurrence’ like it was supposed to be Isaiah’s own wife nonchalantly referred to because she happened to be standing nearby for affect.
Okay, cool. The line of 'sacred' births, though, has nothing to do with the doctrine of Immaculate Conception.

It is certainly special, right. (Church Lady: Isn't that special?!)

The Bible is not just the Christian holy book. It is a series of historical accounts and many other types of document that when examined with the light of other evidence, shows us God.

'Historical' in the Gandalf-and-the-lads-with-the-big feet sense...

And if the bible is "evidence" then where the fuck is Mordor?

Actually, he knocked him out with the stone and killed him with the sword...


I don't know where on earth you heard that.

First Samuel 17:50: "So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; but there was no sword in the hand of David."

The word translated as killed is 'muwth'... literally - cause the death, kill.

Explicitly - no sword in his hand.

First Samuel 17:51: "Then David ran, and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head therewith. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled."

Again - the word translated as 'kill' is 'muwth'. But this time, ONE verse later, explicitly, Goliath is killed with a sword.

If you are THIS shaky on the scripture... I shall not introduce Elhanan, and HIS excellent progress in ALSO killing Goliath...

(It took longer to kill that guy, than Rasputin...)


Notice that the text does not read an Almah but the Almah. The particular virgin


You say 'virgin', but the Hebrew doesn't.


will conceive supernaturally, and her supernatural offspring will be called Immanuel, because that is who he is, "God with us."


Conceive supernaturally?

The offspring will be called Immanuel, because he is evidence that God is with Israel, in this adventure. Or maybe - as remonstration to Ahaz.


The prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.7:14 is related to the prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.9:6-7, and to the prophecy of the supernatural son in Is.11. They all point to the Messiah. The context is very Messianic. His wife could not be the Almah (having already had one son).

Having a son doesn't stop a woman being a 'young woman'.

You pervert the scripture to serve your own purposes.

Compulsive Depression, I agree completely. Just look at any newspaper or the novels of Darwin, Freud and Marx, and you can clearly see that there is no God. Besides, Christianity has caused so much oppression in the world that we are only now trying to correct.

Muslims and Jews have also caused alot of oppression. Not to mention a few who did not believe in God. However that is a different debate for another time.

'Historical' in the Gandalf-and-the-lads-with-the-big feet sense...

And if the bible is "evidence" then where the fuck is Mordor?

Well, since Goliath was brought up earlier, here you go http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587 , maybe he was employed by Sauron like an ogre.

The Bible is not just the Christian holy book. It is a series of historical accounts and many other types of document that when examined with the light of other evidence, shows us God.

Agreed 100%.

I rather like the Message because it provides a more easy to read 'modern' translation that tries to capture the meaning intended for the passage, rather than accurately translate each word or phrase, and then I go back and try to see if that context fits with other translations.

I think he does a pretty good job, in most cases.

I like my Reader's Digest Bible. It has only about 2/3 the number of words of a regular bible, and is a very 'straightforward', comfortable read. It isn't too reliable on the details, though.

It is important to remember, if you are seriously discussing the letter of the law, so to speak, that any 'version' is just that... a 'version' of the original. There is no real equal to the native script.

That includes the KJV. I love the language. It is very pretty to read... very poetic, and majestic. But it is still a flawed attempt to transfer the complexity of Hebrw, into a simplified English form. (And the Greek, obviously...)

Supernatural, sacred, divine... Whatever, it doesn’t mean ‘everyday occurrence’ like it was supposed to be Isaiah’s own wife nonchalantly referred to because she happened to be standing nearby for affect.

You obviously aren't familiar with the Hebrew scripture...

The Hebrew text is a much more 'personal' text than the Greek scriptures. Look at the conversational tone between God and Satan in Job... or the gentle ribbing between God and Sarai.

It is only in the Greek scriptures that God becomes a humourless automaton.

The Hebrew scripture is all about making the commonplace into the special. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything about Covenant law.

Well, since Goliath was brought up earlier, here you go http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587 , maybe he was employed by Sauron like an ogre.

And was killed by a .38, if anyone gets what I'm talking about :D

...
If you are THIS shaky on the scripture... I shall not introduce Elhanan, and HIS excellent progress in ALSO killing Goliath...

First "killed" (muwth) means destroyed and second "killed" means dead and finished. Elhanan killed Goliath's brother, Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. 1 Chronicles 20:5

...
You pervert the scripture to serve your own purposes.

Funny that you should accuse me of that. But seeing as how you are the self proclaimed clairvoyant one who “knows what they meant to say,” and all, I'm sure I should take your word for it.

Which would be fine, except for the absolute LACK of corroborative sources.

As for it being a 'series of historical accounts'... perhaps you are not well acquainted with how relative 'new' that concept is...

1. The Bible is not one source, it is a multitude of sources

2. http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

3. Its at least as new a concept as the idea that the diaries of Samuel Pyepes are historical accounts

First "killed" (muwth) means destroyed and second "killed" means dead and finished. Elhanan killed Goliath's brother, Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. 1 Chronicles 20:5



Funny that you should accuse me of that. But seeing as how you are the self proclaimed clairvoyant one who “knows what they meant to say,” and all, I'm sure I should take your word for it.

Actually, he specifically said what Isaiah did say. You are the one claiming what he meant to say. Claiming that he couldn't have meant his wife when he pointed to her.

Meanwhile, I'm clairvoyant in the same way GnI is. I can tell you the ending of The Big Lebowski. Of course, I've seen The Big Lebowski so that helps.

First "killed" (muwth) means destroyed and second "killed" means dead and finished.


Strong's Concordance gives:

"Muwth: a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill

X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise.

Clearly, causatively, to KILL. Enough of your diversions and prevarications. You are wasting my time.


Elhanan killed Goliath's brother, Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. 1 Chronicles 20:5


Second Samuel 21:19 in the Hebrew: milchamah Gob Plishtiy 'Elchanan ben Ya'arey 'Orgiym Beyth hal-Lachmiy nakah Golyath Gittiy 'ets chaniyth 'arag manowr.

Literally - War (or a battle) (in) Gob (a place in Palestine) Philistine Elhanan, son of (woods of weavers - the name given here for Elhanan is NOT his father's name), a Bethlehemite strikes Goliath, Gittite, spear, weaver, beam.

Or - in dialogue form "At a battle with Philistines, at Gob, Elhanan, (son of the weaver's wood) the Bethlehemite struck Goliath the Gittite, whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

No mention of brothers. This is the same Goliath... the same spear... from the same town, that David is SUPPOSED to have killed, something like 20 years earlier.

(If it matters, the phrase 'stike/struck' is used elsewhere in scripture to represent a killing blow. e.g. First Chronicles 11:22)


Funny that you should accuse me of that. But seeing as how you are the self proclaimed clairvoyant one who “knows what they meant to say,” and all, I'm sure I should take your word for it.

I have not claimed to know what anyone means to say... only have I claimed to know what they WROTE that they mean to say.

Your deceptive tactics score you no points.

1. The Bible is not one source, it is a multitude of sources


Not really. It is the condensed collection of the tales of one people, largely edited to cover MOST of the inconsistencies... and the preaching of a cult, heavily edited and abridged.

MOST Christian texts were left out, completely.


2. http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm


This again?

First: Not ONE of these is contemporary.

Second:Not one of these is first hand.

Third: Not one of the authors even lived during the alleged 'earthly ministry'.

Fourth: Most of these 'account' references are Josephus - most of the relevent texts for which were forged, as much as several centuries later.


3. Its at least as new a concept as the idea that the diaries of Samuel Pyepes are historical accounts

What is your point?

Strong's Concordance gives: ...

Strong’s Concordance actually gave you, "destroy (er)," like I said and yet you pretend like you've established something I didn't already say by quoting it... It says what I said.


Second Samuel 21:19 in the Hebrew: milchamah Gob Plishtiy 'Elchanan ben Ya'arey 'Orgiym Beyth hal-Lachmiy nakah Golyath Gittiy 'ets chaniyth 'arag manowr.

Literally - War (or a battle) (in) Gob (a place in Palestine) Philistine Elhanan, son of (woods of weavers - the name given here for Elhanan is NOT his father's name), a Bethlehemite strikes Goliath, Gittite, spear, weaver, beam.

Or - in dialogue form "At a battle with Philistines, at Gob, Elhanan, (son of the weaver's wood) the Bethlehemite struck Goliath the Gittite, whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

No mention of brothers. This is the same Goliath... the same spear... from the same town, that David is SUPPOSED to have killed, something like 20 years earlier.

We've established what Second Samuel says, no one disputed you the first time around, but you went back to it anyway because that’s all the argument you have for that deception. If you like to obfuscate and tell only half truths, then continue to do so, but the answer is in 1 Chronicles 20 4-8

4 In the course of time, war broke out with the Philistines, at Gezer. At that time Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai, one of the descendants of the Rephaites, and the Philistines were subjugated.

5 In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

6 In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. 7 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimea, David's brother, killed him.

8 These were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.

Your deceptive tactics score you no points.

Who's being deceptive? You're the one going around trying to tell everyone that Elhanan killed the same person that David did, when the scriptures clearly say otherwise. You're the one going around telling people that Almah "might mean a young woman and maybe even a young woman that could have had a child and the Almah might not be a virgin at all" when in fact, the word is NEVER used the way you suggest it might be used, not anywhere else in the scripture. And to compound that you are the one that goes around saying Isaiah could have use the word B’tulah if he meant a virgin. But B’tulah is an image, a pretense of a condition without actually being anything. A married girl could be a B’tulah, it can simply mean a very young (pre-adulthood) age of a girl, and it IS used for other purposes in the scripture as I’ve already quoted and pointed out.

In any event, Almah is ALWAYS used for young, sexually mature, woman ready to be but not yet married, and that’s the world Isaiah used, whereas B’tulah would not be as definitive and would be more questionable for understanding it’s meaning, not less.

And you spend all your time trying to tell people around here that it doesn’t mean what it says, by telling them it says something different, but say that only you are capable of telling us what Isaiah really meant to say. You’ve even got people convinced that Isaiah actually pointed at his wife when he said it… astounding that they believe you instead of simply reading it themselves. But you accuse ME of using deceptive tactics all you want, the truth is evident to those that bother to actually read it themselves instead of taking your word for it.

I think, rather, it is you who are wasting my time. You deceive either intentionally or on purpose, I don't know, but neither do I care. Other people can look it up for themselves, or take your word for it, up to them.

I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Strong’s Concordance actually gave you, "destroy (er)," like I said and yet you pretend like you've established something I didn't already say by quoting it... It says what I said.


Yes, destroyer is in there as a tertiary meaning. However, the causative meaning is 'to kill'. You can try to make the text pander to your perverse desires all you like, but I'm going to stick to the actual meanings of words.

I wonder where you perceive a difference, to be honest. Maybe you think David might have 'destroyed' Goliath WITHOUT killing him?


We've established what Second Samuel says, no one disputed you the first time around, but you went back to it anyway because that’s all the argument you have for that deception.


You aren't paying attention.

We established what FIRST Samuel says, and you DID dispute me. Until I presented the two verses next to each other, to show the fundamental error in your argument.

If you like to obfuscate and tell only half truths, then continue to do so, but the answer is in 1 Chronicles 20 4-8

4 In the course of time, war broke out with the Philistines, at Gezer. At that time Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai, one of the descendants of the Rephaites, and the Philistines were subjugated.

5 In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

6 In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. 7 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimea, David's brother, killed him.

8 These were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.


So - what we have is a contradiction. Second Samuel clearly states that Elhanan killed Goliath the Gittite, with his famous spear.... remember the SAME spear was mentioned in the David 'version' of the story.

First Chronicles is contradiction to Second Samuel - but STILL mentions the famous spear. Thus - we have to assume this is an attempt by a later author, to reconcile the two versions.

If you've paid attention to the Davidic scripts at all, you'll have seen that they have constant problems with consistency... David helps his musician into his armour before the battle, but has forgotten who he even IS, a few minutes later.

Clearly - the Hebrew texts collected oral traditions - not ALL of which meshed perfectly. But, we KNEW this already.


Who's being deceptive?


If you are asking me... I'd have to say it was you.

You're the one going around trying to tell everyone that Elhanan killed the same person that David did, when the scriptures clearly say otherwise.


No - one part of the scripture says otherwise, another part explicitly says he DID kill the same person. And, still ANOTHER part, says that David killed the same person twice.

You're the one going around telling people that Almah "might mean a young woman and maybe even a young woman that could have had a child and the Almah might not be a virgin at all" when in fact, the word is NEVER used the way you suggest it might be used, not anywhere else in the scripture.


Almah means 'a young woman'. It has no meaning of virgin. Some of the people described as 'almah' might be virgins, and some virgins might be 'almah', but the two are not synonymous.

And to compound that you are the one that goes around saying Isaiah could have use the word B’tulah if he meant a virgin.


He could. That is hardly 'compounding' it.

But B’tulah is an image, a pretense of a condition without actually being anything.


You are asking, or telling?

A married girl could be a B’tulah, it can simply mean a very young (pre-adulthood) age of a girl, and it IS used for other purposes in the scripture as I’ve already quoted and pointed out.

In any event, Almah is ALWAYS used for young, sexually mature, woman ready to be but not yet married, and that’s the world Isaiah used, whereas B’tulah would not be as definitive and would be more questionable for understanding it’s meaning, not less.


I'm sorry you have such a shaky grasp of the language. I suppose I should simply be impressed that you have at least TRIED to read it in the native tongue.

Almah IS definitive. It is definitively a reference about a young woman. Period.

Bethulah would have suggested virgin... at least in a spiritual sense.. the word is used in a less-than-totally-accurate sense elsewhere.

But it is STILL more about 'virgin' status, than almah.


And you spend all your time trying to tell people around here that it doesn’t mean what it says, by telling them it says something different, but say that only you are capable of telling us what Isaiah really meant to say.


I didn't say that. You keep saying I did, but you are not playing strictly honestly with the facts.

You’ve even got people convinced that Isaiah actually pointed at his wife when he said it…


It is not a theory I coined... it has been a common theory of debate for tens of centuries.

astounding that they believe you instead of simply reading it themselves.


Perhaps they HAVE read it themselves, and simply find my arguments closer to their own, than yours?

Perhaps that is because I'm sticking to the words as written, rather than trying to pervert the text to some agenda?

But you accuse ME of using deceptive tactics


I do. But, only because of the staggering, and increasing, evidence.

all you want, the truth is evident to those that bother to actually read it themselves instead of taking your word for it.

I think, rather, it is you who are wasting my time.


If, by 'wasting my time', you mean "pointing out the ridiculously large holes in my 'argument', and taking a few moments to explain the error of my ways"... then, yes, I am 'wasting your time'.

You deceive either intentionally or on purpose, I don't know, but neither do I care. Other people can look it up for themselves, or take your word for it, up to them.

I have not deceived at all. I have referred ONLY to the words on the page, in the native tongue, and to the meanings of those words.

If any can be blamed for deceiving, I think the eye should first turn to those who peddle perversions and subversions of the literal text.

I'll tell you what, Poot. Can you name anyone other than Christian apologists who claim the text says virgin. Obviously, the Jews know the text. Can you link me to few Jewish sites that translate it as Virgin? I mean if GnI is using his sixth sense as you've clearly attempted to say or if GnI is lying then the vast majority of Torah scholars should agree with you. They are clearly have no real vested interest in changing the text and they have every interest in being educated about what their text says. Shall we discuss how they translate it?

Isaiah uses bethulah how many times in the text? Yet he changes to almah here, why? The answer is obvious to anyone not trying to obfuscate the truth.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1054.htm
http://www.anova.org/sev/htm/hb/23_isaiah.htm

Hmmm... that's just doing a search for Hebrew and Isaiah with no bias. Why is it that the Hebrew translations don't match your translation? Again, the answer is obvious.

I'll tell you what, Poot. Can you name anyone other than Christian apologistswho claim the text says virgin.
Just out of curiosity, how would you define Christian apologists?

Just out of curiosity, how would you define Christian apologists?

An apologist is someone who argues to defend an institution or group, in this case Christianity. The issue is if this is an honest language issue then it shouldn't require that you have conclusion in hand to determine the meaning of these terms. I can't find anyone that supports a translation other than what GnI is offering up that is not an apologist, yet for his troubles GnI gets accused of all manner of things by an individual who has basically attacked everyone who disagreed with him.

I was accused of worshipping GnI because I stick to the text rather than twisting it to what I want it say. It's amazing that people who hold a text that tells them to be honest as infallible can be so wholly and obviously deceptive.

An apologist is someone who argues to defend an institution or group, in this case Christianity. The issue is if this is an honest language issue then it shouldn't require that you have conclusion in hand to determine the meaning of these terms. I can't find anyone that supports a translation other than what GnI is offering up that is not an apologist, yet for his troubles GnI gets accused of all manner of things by an individual who has basically attacked everyone who disagreed with him.

I was accused of worshipping GnI because I stick to the text rather than twisting it to what I want it say. It's amazing that people who hold a text that tells them to be honest as infallible can be so wholly and obviously deceptive.
Let's back track on that for a second. We'll put aside the language issue because I cannot read Greek nor Hebrew and am NOT a Biblical scholar so...

But, "An apologist is someone who argues to defend an institution or group, in this case Christianity." Is that what you really think an apologist is? Why then, anyone whomever backs up ANYTHING is an apologist.

And, forgive me, but apologist sounds rather like an insult, as if you already have your mind made up about any sorces he may pull out of his rear.

Not another religion thread.

Let's back track on that for a second. We'll put aside the language issue because I cannot read Greek nor Hebrew and am NOT a Biblical scholar so...

But, "An apologist is someone who argues to defend an institution or group, in this case Christianity." Is that what you really think an apologist is? Why then, anyone whomever backs up ANYTHING is an apologist.

And, forgive me, but apologist sounds rather like an insult, as if you already have your mind made up about any sorces he may pull out of his rear.

Defend. Justifies. That's the actual definitions of an apologist.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/apologist

You'll notice they both match what I said almost exactly.

I didn't make up the term and it's not an insult. It is sometimes thrown around as an insult because it implies that you have your conclusion in hand, but the reason I am asking for a source that is not an apologist source is for the very reason that if this was an unbiased reading of the text then it would appear in places other than Christian apologist sites. It's pretty standard logic.

You're not forgiven. You don't like that I used a term exactly as it is meant to be used. Too bad. I don't really care if you don't like my proper usage of the English language.

Defend. Justifies. That's the actual definitions of an apologist.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/apologist

You'll notice they both match what I said almost exactly.

I didn't make up the term and it's not an insult. It is sometimes thrown around as an insult because it implies that you have your conclusion in hand, but the reason I am asking for a source that is not an apologist source is for the very reason that if this was an unbiased reading of the text then it would appear in places other than Christian apologist sites. It's pretty standard logic.
Then let us turn that on it's head. Can you link me to a site were said word is defined that is not a JEWISH apologist site?

You're not forgiven. You don't like that I used a term exactly as it is meant to be used. Too bad. I don't really care if you don't like my proper usage of the English language.
I disliked your assertion that any site that was Christian in nature would automatically be suspect.

Then let us turn that on it's head. Can you link me to a site were said word is defined that is not a JEWISH apologist site?

You mean like the several Christian Bibles that use young woman rather than virgin in 7:14. Revised English Bible, for example.

Also, here -

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

Meanwhile, the Jews are honestly looking for messiah, so they have little interest in rewriting messianic prophesy. The part of the prophesy we are discussing wasn't even the whole prophesy or even the important part of the prophesy. I can see no reason why they would pretend the scripture says different than it does, particularly not all of them. However, given that the alteration helps to secure the mystical elements of the story of Jesus, Christians have a vested interest in the birth being of a virgin.

I disliked your assertion that any site that was Christian in nature would automatically be suspect.
It would automatically be suspect. It doesn't make them liars. It means they have an obvious bias. And if they didn't allow that bias to strongly color translations, which is certainly possible, then the same translation would be present regularly in the translations made by other groups. But the virgin birth is noticably absent in many translations and in many descriptions of the life of Jesus.

Paul didn't describe a virgin birth. Neither did John. Neither did Thomas. Neither did the gospel of Q. The very concept appears to be noticably absent from early Christianity. Add in there that there are few to none who translate Isaiah to have been about a virgin unless they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and are looking for prophesy to support it and you have a very suspect translation.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me someone who doesn't have a vested interest in that passage saying virgin who is translating as a part of scholarship and not religion.

It appears to be a mistake that was either made by the original author or added (as in the case of Luke) and perpetuated throughout Christian history. There were even times when Catholics claimed Mary remained a virgin throughout her life even though the brothers of Jesus were mentioned in the Bible.

It would automatically be suspect. It doesn't make them liars. It means they have an obvious bias.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me someone who doesn't have a vested interest in that passage saying virgin who is translating as a part of scholarship and not religion.
Ah, see, there's the rub, there are a number of noteable CHRISTIAN biblical scholars who will agree with you (As far as I am able to tell, being, as I mentioned neither a speaker of any of said languages or a biblical scholar).

But since they are Christian, they MUST be apologists and biased.

Even if they are respected scholars.

I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Think up your own arguments. Don't use someone else's tired catchphrases.
Not another religion thread.
Yes, *sigh*, another religion thread.

It would automatically be suspect. It doesn't make them liars. It means they have an obvious bias. And if they didn't allow that bias to strongly color translations, which is certainly possible, then the same translation would be present regularly in the translations made by other groups. But the virgin birth is noticably absent in many translations and in many descriptions of the life of Jesus.

Paul didn't describe a virgin birth. Neither did John. Neither did Thomas. Neither did the gospel of Q. The very concept appears to be noticably absent from early Christianity. Add in there that there are few to none who translate Isaiah to have been about a virgin unless they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and are looking for prophesy to support it and you have a very suspect translation.
Actually, any site whatsoever is biased, because all people are biased on every topic. The only issue is whether they have the same biases as you.

Also, the absence of the virgin birth from many early Christian texts does not negate its existence. . . two of the Gospels don't really even have the Christmas story in them. None of the writings includes everything. Also, the reason there wasn't much emphasis on the virgin birth early on in Christianity is because the Catholic church singled it out as something especially special, and has a curious attachment to it and Mary (probably has something to do with all the other sexual rules and taboos in Catholicism. You know, vows of chastity and all.)

Ah, see, there's the rub, there are a number of noteable CHRISTIAN biblical scholars who will agree with you (As far as I am able to tell, being, as I mentioned neither a speaker of any of said languages or a biblical scholar).

But since they are Christian, they MUST be apologists and biased.

Even if they are respected scholars.

You fail to see the point and I'm losing patience. Let's say I'm Michael Jordan's brother and I claim that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player that ever lived. Now, I could be correct, but in absense of corroboration their is simply no reason to believe me. However, we discover that it is a widely-held position and thus, I'm not simply letting my bias show (necessarily). And if I'm Michael Jordan's brother (assuming he and I aren't upset with one another and there is no competitive reason) and I think Shaq is the king of basketball players, there is not nearly as much reason to dismiss my opinion as bias.

When Christian apologists come to a conclusion about the text that is only scholarly and does not in any way promote the Christ/Messiah connection, there is no reason to dismiss it due to bias. However, when the only people coming up with a particular translation that just HAPPENS to be in support of the Christ/Messiah, then one has to be suspect if one is in any way logical. Thus, showing corroboration that is not Christian carries a lot of weight. So far, we've seen none and even seen some Christian groups and sites that dispute the translation.

Your attempts to flip this fail and are actually pretty sorry. In scholarship and in science, analyzing bias is a very important activity. It gives us many ways to properly incorporate information that may have come from bias rather than scholarship.

Think up your own arguments. Don't use someone else's tired catchphrases.

Yes, *sigh*, another religion thread.

Actually, any site whatsoever is biased, because all people are biased on every topic. The only issue is whether they have the same biases as you.

Also, the absence of the virgin birth from many early Christian texts does not negate its existence. . . two of the Gospels don't really even have the Christmas story in them. None of the writings includes everything. Also, the reason there wasn't much emphasis on the virgin birth early on in Christianity is because the Catholic church singled it out as something especially special, and has a curious attachment to it and Mary (probably has something to do with all the other sexual rules and taboos in Catholicism. You know, vows of chastity and all.)

Of course, everyone is biased. The question in scholarship and science is whether that biased influenced the outcome. When only people who already believe Jesus to be the messiah translate a particular messianic prophesy a certain way, it's hideously suspect. If one found the same translation in groups that did not have a reason to support their particular version of Jesus, this would clearly suggest that their translation was not born of bias. However, this is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true.

Paul and the other Gospels singled out many differents aspects of the life of Jesus that made him special. It's difficult to believe that they would discuss the birth of Jesus and ignore the virgin birth if it happened.

You don't even realise you are perverting the scripture. You are TOO close to it.
How do you know that you are not perverting the scripture? Your claim to read the original text does not impress me, since it appears that your opinions are based on your dislike of conventional Christian interpretation of the scriptures, and this results in your apparent willingness to believe anything that contradicts Christian beliefs. Thus, much of what you say on this subject could be translated as 'I reject Christianity', and possibly not much else.


There is no real reason to accept the gospels as even relating to 'real' events... let alone, faithfully recording the cause-and-effects.

This only emphasises my criticism of your position. You appear to be preferring to believe that gospels to be an invention, rather than faithful accounts from people with integrity. Your opinion on that matter is not worth a grain of salt, unless you have tried to demonstrate that you are not prejudiced. I see no evidence of this.

There are plenty of good reasons to accept the gospels as relating to real events. There are, for starters, references to prominent people who are thought to have lived around that time, e.g., Herod, Pilate, etc. Sure, this isn't proof, but it is an indication that the literature is quite different to The Lord of the Rings.


Maybe - for example - Matthew misunderstood the Hebrew texts, because he only knew them in the Greek translations. Maybe he thought Messiah needed to be born of a virgin. Maybe he thought Jesus was Messiah. Maybe he invented the whole virgin birth part of his Gospel, to match his misinterpreted belief?


If you are only making suggestions and using the word 'maybe', then there is room for objective discussion and debating.

We can look at the possibility of the invention of the gospels. If that is true, Matthew, for example, was a liar. Not mistaken, but intentionally deceiving people with possibly the worst kind of deception--providing people with false hope. I'm not sure if you want to make such a claim about the invention of the virgin birth story, but that appears to be the question that you have raised.


No - clearly is because the text is clear. More simply is because it is written about events transpiring at or near the time it is written... about history that DID come to pass.


It isn't clear, and hence the debate. The word that was used can refer to a virgin or a young woman. Those who believe in the deity of Christ are going to argue for the 'virgin' option, while those who don't believe in the deity of Christ are going to argue the other way. Thus, it really isn't clear at all. It might be clear to you, but I am far from convinced that you are in a position of objective clarity. I don't trust your judgment. And I believe in the deity of Christ.


It was never a messianic prophecy. It is dishonest to pretend it was.

I think it dishonest to claim dishonesty in the arguments of your opponents, particularly when you cannot establish any proof of dishonesty. That's just using gutter tactics, in my opinion.

You fail to see the point and I'm losing patience.
Oh goodie, because I have lost all of mine. Let me be blunt then, YOUR bias is showing.

When Christian apologists come to a conclusion about the text that is only scholarly and does not in any way promote the Christ/Messiah connection, there is no reason to dismiss it due to bias. However, when the only people coming up with a particular translation that just HAPPENS to be in support of the Christ/Messiah, then one has to be suspect if one is in any way logical. Thus, showing corroboration that is not Christian carries a lot of weight. So far, we've seen none and even seen some Christian groups and sites that dispute the translation.

Oh dear, we MUST then discount everything Tropical Sands has thus far said because (as he admits) many of his professors are Christian, and they were the ones who pointed this out to him in the first place. We must also discount everything GnI has said because he admits that at one point he too was Christian.

What's next? Discounting a biologist because she's a Christian and therefore is biased about anything to do with evolution?

Your attempts to flip this fail and are actually pretty sorry. In scholarship and in science, analyzing bias is a very important activity. It gives us many ways to properly incorporate information that may have come from bias rather than scholarship.
Then analyze this, you have stated that any site if the author is Christian must automatically be discounted due to bias. You are throwing away data without even looking at it. I'm not arguing the damn translation, what I am taking exception to is your automatic dismissal of ANY argument due to the researcher's religious stance. If you said anything that was wan't peer reviewed, I would have been silent, but instead you decide to throw away the knoweldge and experiance of 1/3 or so of the planet's population. Now you tell me how that is "smart" scholarship.

Bias analyse is a very great tool, and one that every researcher should be quick to look at, but you also have to remember to look at what it is they are saying and how they are saying it before you dismiss them.

Now the sites that the supporters for a different reading of that damn word will probably BE biased, and easily detected, but to blanket EVERYONE due to religious stance is flat out wrong.

And piss poor scholarship at that.

An apologist is someone who argues to defend an institution or group, in this case Christianity. The issue is if this is an honest language issue then it shouldn't require that you have conclusion in hand to determine the meaning of these terms. I can't find anyone that supports a translation other than what GnI is offering up that is not an apologist, yet for his troubles GnI gets accused of all manner of things by an individual who has basically attacked everyone who disagreed with him.

I was accused of worshipping GnI because I stick to the text rather than twisting it to what I want it say. It's amazing that people who hold a text that tells them to be honest as infallible can be so wholly and obviously deceptive.

Welp. So much for you claiming to be a christian.