FatherMithras

It's called the burden of proof. It's on the one making the positive statement. You obviously have no clue how scholarly debate works or any idea about logic.

FatherMithras

Bull. the person making the positive statement has to prove it. You haven't.

Incorrect. the mistranslation says virgin. The actual hebrew said maiden.

Look. It's real simple. You make a claim. YOU have to prove it. If I were to say "The earth was created by a flying spaghetti monster" it'd be my responsibility to prove it, not yours to disprove it. Please acquanit yourself with logic.


And as an ex-orthodox, you're incorrectness is frusterating.

David Vestal

Apparently you didn't understand. I asked what your support was for the assertion that "Mary was not impregnated the same way as you or I would impregnate a girl." I wasn't actually affirming the truth of that statement. How do you know she wasn't?

Again you apparently you didn't understand. I asked what your support was for the assertion that "God worked much the same way as artificial impregnation works today." I wasn't actually affirming the truth of that statement. How do you know how he worked (or for that matter, whether he did?)?


Isaiah 14 doesn't say who Isaiah was talking about. Assuming you meant to type that "Jesus" (rather than Mary) "will be born of a virgin," what's your support for the idea that Isaiah was talking about Jesus (or Mary, if you didn't mistype).

In other words, you just assumed it? And also, you assumed what God's preference was as to whether Jesus had an earthly father figure?

In other words, you just assumed it?

God just poked his head out of my ass and said "That guy ISVFan who posts on iidb.org is a real dummy." Of course you don't actually believe that, though. Do you understand that because the burden of proof rests on the person who asserts, that it's fully as reasonable to disbelieve you?

FatherMithras

AND it says maiden. NOT virgin in the actual correct translation of the text. The Jews would argue this back in the day with xians, and that's why the xians used the greek septuagit. This was one of the things that led the Jews to ging back to Hebrew.

Transplanar

Does this imply that they went back to their old Hebrew texts, or translated the books they were using back to Hebrew?

ISVfan

No it says "Virgin" not maiden. How many years have you had in Hebrew? :angry: That's what I thought. I know a man who has studied Hebrew his whole life he has a doctorate and has worked at the Hebrew University in Israel and he says it Virgin. So I'll forgive your lack of knowledge in this area.

ISVfan

Look I know it's up to me to prove it. You are all right. But say there was a third position that wasn't athiest or Christian and we were both making cases your point of view would have no more proof than mine to the person who was wondering what to believe. I can't say look here's proof it happened and you couldn't say here is proof it didn't happen that was my point.

ISVfan

And you obviously don't know Hebrew.

Diogenes the Cynic

Your friend is full of it. It says almah. Almah means "young woman." It does not mean "virgin." The Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. The Septuagint simply mistranslated almah into Greek as parthenos. Calling the woman a "virgin" in the context of 7:14 wouldn't even make sense. There wasn't supposed to be anything miraculous about either the birth or the child. The child was only used as marker of time. In the context of the story (which it seems that Christian Fundamentalists never bother to read) God is telling a besieged King Ahaz not form an alliance with Assyria. In order to reassure Ahaz, God tells him that a young woman is already pregnant (The Hebrew is in the present tense, not future), that she will have a son and that "before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

The prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter. It has nothing to do with the Messiah, it doesn't say "virgin" and the woman was already pregnant.

Let me guess...your friend is a Christian?

FatherMithras

Idiotic bullshit. I even explained the history of this, AND had the explanation given to me on a separate account by a Greek rthodox Priest. NOW you are simply ignoring the facts and/ or lying. the original version says maiden, and the fact the xians used this particular translations was the reason that the Jews went back to using the original HEBREW. The fact you're even arguing this point is laughable, it is established fact.

In case you need more... the word is "almah" in Hebrew, which means maiden. So before you make another statement about me having no idea what I'm talking about, why don't you actually go talk to someone who knows something or do research?

Jesus tap dancing Christ... If I have another xian who knows less about the Bible then me tell me I'm ignorant again I'm gonna die laughing.