spin

Instead of making a clueless remark, elaborate your complaint referring to the text and make a point. You haven't responded to the fact that the Greek makes it clear that the person is pregnant. You haven't shown any idea of the content of each of the passages. No citations, no links. You're emptyhanded but for a few names.

As you can't understand the Hebrew or the context, let me give a few bible versions:

NIV His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was pregnant and near the time of delivery.

NAS Now his daughter-in-law, Phinehas's wife, was pregnant and about to give birth

ASV And his daughter-in-law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered

NRSV Now his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was pregnant, about to give birth

JPS 1916 And his daughter-in-law, Phinehas’ wife, was with child, near to be delivered

JPS 1999 His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was with child, about to give birth

KJV And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered

Vulgate nurus autem eius uxor Finees praegnans erat vicinaque partui

Eberfelder Und seine Schwiegertochter, die Frau des Pinhas, war schwanger und sollte [bald] gebären.

La Nuova Diodati Sua nuora, la moglie di Finehas, era incinta e prossima al parto

But did you even look at the Net Bible?? Here's what it says:

Net bible His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phineas, was pregnant and close to giving birth.

So, with Net bible proving to disagree with you, what does the Stone Tanach say that's different from JPS??

What I smell is someone avoiding their responsibility to look at the issue or worse, may even have tried to fix his evidence. That stinks.


spin

gstafleu

OK, you've got me confused now. In my thinking I included M&L in "early Christianity." Is that unreasonable? Anyway, let me then rephrase the original question: was the issue of a virginal birth (as opposed to a divine one) important to M&L and/or their communities?

1. What we have here (M&L) is a myth about divine birth, possibly accompanied by virgin birth.
2. In mythology we have many examples of such myths.
3. In these myths it is usually the divinity of the birth that is important, virginity, if mentioned at all (and usually it isn't), is secondary.
4. So, maybe we can take a clue from all these other myths?

So no, Zeus and Europa themselves obviously played no part in the M&L myth. They are an example of the class of "divine birth myths," a class of myth to which the M&L nativity stories also belong. It is the shared properties of the class I'm referring to, not the particular properties of the various instances. My claim, in other words, is that in the class of "divine birth myths" the issue of virginity is in general not important, it is the divine birth that counts. Given that the M&L nativity stories belong to this class, it is reasonable to assume that virginity there also is not important while it is the divine birth that is important. Unless there is a good reason to assume otherwise in this particular case, of course.

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151

I would say no, M&L are not early Christianity.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The verse that is most analagous is Judges 13 (5 and7) as a simple read shows..

Judges 13:5
For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son;
and no razor shall come on his head:
for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb:
and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Virtually no commentators, even Jewish ones, say this woman is pregnant
at the time of the annunciation.

We discused this a bit on b-hebrew.

Harold Holmyard
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ay/018130.html
Steven Avery
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ay/018132.html
Mark Eddy's post
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ay/018134.html

Where I gave four Jewish translations.

JPS - 1985 - "Your are going to conceive and bear a son"
JPS - 1917 - "thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.
Art/Scroll "Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son."
Soncino - "For, behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son"

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Gerard and all,

Actualy parthenogenesis is not related to the virgin birth of Messiah,
as we discussed in 2005 -

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...27#post2989427
If Jesus was born of a virgin..

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Jayhawker Soule

Since it appears necessary ...

1. I quoted Wikipedia:
   
   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] ... [5] (see 1 Sam 4:19,; Gen 16:11 and 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5; Judg 13:5, 7)

2. Your response ...
   
   Quote:

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

3. But neither Wikipedia nor I suggested otherwise. You simply proceeded to childishly and pedantically rail against a position of your own creation.

You then puffed up you chest and offered ...

Quote:

As you can't understand the Hebrew or the context, let me give a few bible versions: NIV His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was pregnant and near the time of delivery. NAS Now his daughter-in-law, Phinehas's wife, was pregnant and about to give birth ASV And his daughter-in-law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered NRSV Now his daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was pregnant, about to give birth JPS 1916 And his daughter-in-law, Phinehas’ wife, was with child, near to be delivered JPS 1999 His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was with child, about to give birth KJV And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered Vulgate nurus autem eius uxor Finees praegnans erat vicinaque partui Eberfelder Und seine Schwiegertochter, die Frau des Pinhas, war schwanger und sollte [bald] gebären. La Nuova Diodati Sua nuora, la moglie di Finehas, era incinta e prossima al parto

Thanks for sharing ... no matter how irrelevant: as previously noted, neither the Wikipedia quote nor I have suggested anything in any way contradicted by your laundry list.

I found it interesting, by the way, that your silly polemic was offered in response to the following exchange:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist Quote: Originally Posted by spin In each case the citation from Wiki is reprehensible for its lack of quality. A lack of quality which has apparently infected NET Bible at bible.org and the translators of The Stone Edition Tanach as well.

"But did you even look at the Net Bible??" you countered, apparently unaware that I was refering to the NET Bible notes regarding Isaiah 7:14 and the Stone Edition translation of that verse. The fixation on 1 Sam 4:19 was yours and yours alone. Try not to spin out of control next time ...

spin

There is another verse which is just as analogous...

This doesn't actually help very much.

If you look at Gen 16:11 there is a similar angelic annoucement, using exactly the same phraseology, though it is invariably translated as Hagar being pregnant at the time of the announcement. Let's compare the relevant phrase in the three:

Gen 16:11
HNK HRH WYLDT
idou su en gastri exeis kai texh uion (2nd sng)

Jdg 13:5
HNK HRH WYLDT
idou su en gastri exeis kai texh uion (2nd sng)

Isa 7:14
HNH (LMH HRH WYLDT
idou h parQenos en gastri exei kai texetai uion (3rd sng)

The only difference is that the third case is announced about a person, not to the person.

HRH is functionally an adjective which means "with child", "pregnant" (the notion of incipient "conceive" isn't in the term, but usually indicate by verb aspect missing here) and at any point of time it reflects the state at that time, ie if talking about a future point in time, the woman is pregnant at that time. In the present, the pregnancy is present, so that when an angel announces HNK HRH, it should be understood as, "behold, you are pregnant". There is no reason to believe that Jdg 13:5 should represent a future.

The problem I think arises because of difficulties in the expression of Jdg 13:3, in which the angel points out that she is barren and childless, but still tells her she is pregnant and that she will give birth.

But not to any depth whatsoever.


spin

Steven Avery

You are welcome to understand any "difficulties" in Judges in a way different from virtually all translations and pre-Spin scholarship.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

This rhetoric seems to mean you are unable to deal with the issue.


spin

spin

Would you stop belching and farting and say something of consequence?

You have, through your inability to state anything meaningful, waylaid the discourse. So far, your posts have been particularly vacuous (citing just to Wiki in a manner to give a false impression). Please present some evidence (rather than the opinions of Wiki).

You'll note the standard translations such as NRSV and JPS (1999) both provide the linguistically correct present tense in Isa 7:14, "is with child".

You still refuse to deal with the Greek evidence of ancient understanding of the Hebrew.

Please supply some reason to read HRH as having future content in Isa 7:14, when it doesn't itself bear any. In all indisputable examples it carries the meaning of being pregnant at the time of reference. What evidence from the verse leads you to think Isa 7:14 is linguistically different??


spin