dog-on

Sorry Spin, I should have written that the author(s)/redactor(s) of Luke/Acts may have been familiar with the Virgin Birth story. In other words, this legend was taking shape in the second century and could have been added to Luke to further kick-slam the Marcionites (born a Jew, which to the Marcionites would have been a power slam). I do not believe that the author(s) copied from Matthew, if he/she/they in fact did, maybe he/she/they were correcting the account based on his/her/or their own community's legend. :notworthy:

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps, although ...

• Quote:

  Adjective “harah הָרָה ” and time of pregnancy The adjective “harah הָרָה ” is used predicatively. From the narrator’s perspective, Jewish scholars argue that this generally means a past, or present, or imminent future pregnancy.[5] With that in mind, the translation of Isaiah 7:14 may also be rendered as either “the [or this] young woman is pregnant” or “the [or this] young woman will soon be pregnant”. [5] (see 1 Sam 4:19,; Gen 16:11 and 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5; Judg 13:5, 7) - from Wikipedia re Isaiah 7:14; [emphasis added - CA]

while noting ...

• Quote:

  Almah ("עלמה") or plural: alamot ("עלמות") is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl. For theological reasons, the meaning and definition of this word (especially the definition of "virgin") can be controversial, particularly when applied to Isaiah 7:14. - from Wikipedia re Almah

spin

Do you note the frequency of having to take the unlikely, mainly unsupported position in order to make some conventional view function? That should help you smell the stink.

1 Sam 4:19 is ridiculous to include in this list. The woman was near to birth.

In each case the Greek has en gastri ex/ei/eis/w, ie pregnant.

I include 1 Sam 4:19 in the indesputably already pregnant category. Along with it is Ex 21:22,

And if two men strive and injure a woman with child [HRH], and her child be born imperfectly formed...

Another indesputable: Isa 26:17,

like one with child whose time of giving birth approaches...

Can one really argue that in 2 Sam 11:5 HRH is anything but the current state? I note the valiant but stupid form given in YLT: "I am conceiving!", but that is only incredibly tortuous. The verse says, "She conceived [THR, related to HRH] and sent and told David, "I am with child." The present continuous is without any merit.

There is no evidence for translating HRH in the future and a lot for translating it as the current state.

If she is already with child, then she is not BTWLH (virgin), though there's no trouble with her as (LMH (young woman). It is a misconception that while circumstances make a word imply some particular meaning, that the word must mean which the statement applies. Example, in "the man scolded his son", "the man" is obviously a father, but one cannot conclude that "man" means "father". One can use "young woman" to imply "virgin", but you cannot eke "virgin" out of "young woman". It is only through context, eg "the young woman had never known a man". She was implicitly a virgin, though "young woman" doesn't bear the meaning itself.

In each case the citation from Wiki is reprehensible for its lack of quality.

Smell the stink. Do you have to live with it?


spin

Casper

Now that is good. I never thought about it that way. :redface:

gstafleu

If so the discussion about whether the gospels (M&L anyway) say that Mary was a virgin is misplaced. If it didn't matter all that much to the authors--the only important thing being the divine origin of Jesus--then we have no reason to assume they said either the one or the other.

As a general remark, I have the impression that in mythology in general it is more the paternity of the god that is important than the virginity of the mother, think for example Zeus and Europa.

Gerard Stafleu

Chili

I think that parthenogenesis is essential for the firstborn to be reborn without impediments.

Chris Weimer

Non sequitur.

Red herring.

gstafleu

Chris, rather than just throwing around some terms you picked up from Fallacies 101, perhaps you could explain why you think they are applicable?

Gerard Stafleu

Chris Weimer

Cut the bullshit, Gerard.

No, amice, you explain how this is relevant. I never said that it didn't matter to the authors, I said it didn't matter to early Christianity. Clearly by M&L's time there is an importance placed on it, even moreso by Luke's time.

I emphasized "early" for a reason.

Thus whether we should assume something or not about Matthew or Luke does not follow the remarks.

How is this relevant to our discussion? Where did Zeus and Europa play a part in prophecy and divine birth as understood by Matthew and Luke?

Jayhawker Soule

What is "ridiculous" is the manner in which you distorted the reference to 1 Sam 4:19.

A lack of quality which has apparently infected NET Bible at bible.org and the translators of The Stone Edition Tanach as well.

What I smell is unwarranted certainty and a tendency to posture as Hebraic scholar. No.