Chrissyfly

HI im new here be gentle

to the point i have heard before that the idea of mary's imaculate conception is a mis translation in the bible from latin to english
the theory i have heard is that the word that translates to virgin (ie not had sex) from latin is also the same word used to describe a young teenage girl. Have any of you heard of this and if so do you have any infomation/opinions on this?

Jayhawker Soule

See, for example, A Virgin-Birth Prophecy? by Kenneth E. Nahigian.

malookiemaloo

Welcome to the Sec. Web, Crissyfly. Let me warn you , if you show any Christian leanings you are in for a rough time!!

By co-incidence I was thinking of starting of a thread on the virgin birth.

If you do not mind my saying, I think you are confusing the immaculate conception with the virgin birth.

The IC states that Mary was born without sin. This is an invention of man (the RC Church to be precise) and has no scriptural foundation whatever.

However the VB is different. In Isaiah 7:14 it states that 'a young girl shall conceive'. Virginity was not the point being made here and it is incorrect to translate the word as virgin.

However my own question is this. The Septuagint (LXX) when translating Isaiah 7:14 clearly DOES say virgin. Why should the LXX say this? Anyone any ideas?


malookiemaloo

Old Man

The concept of "immaculate conception" does not refer to the virgin birth, or even to the birth of Christ at all, but to the birth of Mary without original sin.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

"Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul."

Of course, not being a RC, I reject this hogwash as being part and parcel of the "cult of Mary" which has long existed within the RCC.

The virgin birth is something else, and it is directly recorded in Matthew 1. Basically, you have two options: you either call the author of Matthew's gospel a liar (with no evidence) or you don't.

Personally, I think its a bad idea.

In respect of Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive",

whilst it is not conclusive of virginity as we know (so say the linguistic experts), the fact that it is recorded as being a "sign" would infer that it is indeed refering to a virgin, because otherwise, it would not be construed as a "sign", because non-virgins were conceiving all the time. Matthew 1 interprets Isa 7:14 this way.

Chrissyfly

ok im stupid i ment the virgin birth not IC, hey its not my fault it was a rough nite last night, but ConsequentAtheist's post pretty much answerd my question and backed up what i had heard
and to the christianity thing i am not a christian or believer in any god, but a large part of my family is and because of this i have been to church and sunday school and when my dad knocks off i inherit a very old, very big, very valuble family bible

Amos

I don't think God is in the breeding business of humans but rather God is interested in the rebirth of humans and here the virgin birth cannot be conceived to exist without an immaculate conception. The point here is that also a non-virgin rebirth is possible and that is what the Immaculate Conception is all about. The "sign" of a virgin birth is the star of Bethlehem that will guide the Magi to bring about Epiphany. In confirmation of this the Eastern rite of the Catholic Church does not celebrate Christmas until Jan.6. In real life it is our own baptism candle that we recognize in our advent wreath prior to our christ-mass event that lead the Magi to our epiphany. In other words, we must become the Virgin Mary in relation to Father God and unless we are the Immaulate Conception epiphany will not follow our rebirth event.

Amos

No, you are not stupid but is that what got you thinking about the virgin Mary?

Kosh

Mathew was a liar.

Mathew also lied about all the prophecies that he claimed were fullfilled by Jesus.

Prophecies Imaginary and Unfulfilled - by Farrel Till

The first Gospel (Mark) makes no mention of the virgin birth. You'd think he'd have remembered that...

Old Man

I've read some of this stuff. You can see immediately it is extremely biased. For instance


Non-Prophecies
--------------------

Jesus claimed another fulfillment of nonprophecy in Luke 24:46. Speaking to his disciples on the night of his alleged resurrection, he said, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day." That the resurrection of Christ on the third day was prophesied in the scriptures was claimed also by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures." In two different places, then, New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures. Try as they may, however, bibliolaters cannot produce an Old Testament passage that made this alleged third-day prediction. It simply doesn't exist.


But as every person with a modicum of knowledge about the bible knows, the "third day" prophecy derives from the book of Jonah and the Jewish method of reckoning time, which was different from ours, must also be taken into account (it meant time spread over 3 days).


Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.



So I am afraid I must consider this diatribe scandalously inaccurate. I would strongly encourage everyone to avoid it as it is mere propaganda of the worst sort.

Gooch's dad

Old Man,

If the story of Jonah being in a whale for 3 days is supposed to be prophecy, what isn't prophecy in the Old Testament? You get the idea here? It was a story, not a prophecy. Nothing in the book of Jonah says anything about a Messiah dying and rising again in 3 days, does it?

And how do Jews count time differently than we do? I fail to see how Friday evening to Sunday morning, roughly 32 hours, can be seen as 3 days and 3 nights. Its 2 nights, one day, and a bit more.