Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 05-10-2008, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

No, I am asking for the text where Mary claims that Jesus was reproduced without sexual contact. There is a verse in Luke where Mary claims, at the time of the angelic announcement (which is even before the conception, let alone the birth; see 1.35), that she is still a virgin. But I do not know where she makes an explicit claim about the actual reproduction of Jesus.

You say it is in Matthew? Might I ask where?

Ben.

You are serious?

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Dog-on, aa has made an explicit statement that "Mary claimed Jesus was reproduced without sexual contact". That is what Ben is questioning.

I have to say I found aa's reading that "the baby Jesus "leaped into her womb" while talking to Elisabeth" fascinating as well. Wonderful!

dog-on · 05-10-2008, 12:40 AM

I know, GD. Just playing around.

I am unaware of any direct quotes from the virgin, herself.

aa5874 · 05-10-2008, 07:00 AM

[QUOTE=aa5874]

Luke 1.34-35&38,

Quote:

"Then said Mary unto the ANGEL, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And the ANGEL answered and said unto her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord, BE IT UNTO ME ACCORDING TO THY WORD, and the ANGEL departed from her.

I have already showed Ben the passage where Mary implicitly claimed her "son" is the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

According to Luke 1.38, these are the last words of Mary to the ANGEL:

Quote:

And MARY said...BE IT UNTO ME ACCORDING TO THY WORD...."

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2008, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I do not represent scholars, I represent myself. I am not obligated to accept or reject any scholar.

Given that you do not read the original language in which the passage was written and that this is, essentially, a linguistic issue, it is simply foolish to avoid checking to see how those with expertise in the language interpret the passage.

To my knowledge, none agree with your reading but I would be interested in learning otherwise.

aa5874 · 05-10-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I do not represent scholars, I represent myself. I am not obligated to accept or reject any scholar.

Given that you do not read the original language in which the passage was written and that this is, essentially, a linguistic issue, it is simply foolish to avoid checking to see how those with expertise in the language interpret the passage.

To my knowledge, none agree with your reading but I would be interested in learning otherwise.

Are you claiming that the translators for the KING JAMES VERSION of the NT did not interpret or translate Luke 1.38 correctly?

You think it is foolish to use the KJV?

This is found in my KJV Bible:

Quote:

THE HOLY BIBLE ---CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED

BY HIS MAJESTY'S SPECIAL COMMAND

APPOINTED TO BE READ IN THE CHURCHES

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you claiming that the translators for the KING JAMES VERSION of the NT did not interpret or translate Luke 1.38 correctly?

No, I'm claiming you are not understanding the English translation correctly and you are refusing to look to experts in the original language to improve your understanding.

Quote:

You think it is foolish to use the KJV?

It is foolish to rely on any translation when the meaning of specific words or phrases is the question. If you don't read the original language, it is certainly foolish to avoid determining what experts who do read it have to say.

aa5874 · 05-10-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you claiming that the translators for the KING JAMES VERSION of the NT did not interpret or translate Luke 1.38 correctly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, I'm claiming you are not understanding the English translation correctly and you are refusing to look to experts in the original language to improve your understanding.

I UNDERSTAND the translation perfectly. And I have looked at different versions of the NT.

IT IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS AND MIS-LEADING FOR YOU TO CLAIM THAT I REFUSED TO LOOK TO EXPERTS IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE WHEN YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEGDE OF WHAT I DO.

Quote:

You think it is foolish to use the KJV?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It is foolish to rely on any translation when the meaning of specific words or phrases is the question. If you don't read the original language, it is certainly foolish to avoid determining what experts who do read it have to say.

Again, it is foolish to think that I rely on one single translation. You have no idea of the information I have at my disposal.

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I UNDERSTAND the translation perfectly.

How do you know that without checking to see what experts in the original language have to say about it?

Quote:

IT IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS AND MIS-LEADING FOR YOU TO CLAIM THAT I REFUSED TO LOOK TO EXPERTS IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE WHEN YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEGDE OF WHAT I DO.

Yes, I only know what you tell me and your response to my question about any scholars who support your apparently unique reading did not suggest you knew of any.

Quote:

Again, it is foolish to think that I rely on one single translation.

The number of translations you consult doesn't change the fact that you are not considering the original language or what scholars familiar with that language have to say.

Quote:

You have no idea of the information I have at my disposal.

Does that information include any experts who agree with your reading?

If not, your entire response has been nothing but a smoke screen.

aa5874 · 05-10-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I UNDERSTAND the translation perfectly.

How do you know that without checking to see what experts in the original language have to say about it?

Yes, I only know what you tell me and your response to my question about any scholars who support your apparently unique reading did not suggest you knew of any.

The number of translations you consult doesn't change the fact that you are not considering the original language or what scholars familiar with that language have to say.

Quote:

You have no idea of the information I have at my disposal.

Does that information include any experts who agree with your reading?

If not, your entire response has been nothing but a smoke screen.

And, if not, your entire post has been nothing but misleading and erroneous.

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And, if not, your entire post has been nothing but misleading and erroneous.

That makes no sense.

You should have written "And, if so..."

So, despite your protests, we are still left with no scholars supporting your reading and no reason to think you have it right while everyone else has it wrong.

IOW, nothing to suggest I have been wrong about you at all.

How do you know you understand the translation perfectly?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-10-2008, 12:40 AM	#52
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I know, GD. Just playing around. I am unaware of any direct quotes from the virgin, herself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.