"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:a4E6e.939$VA3.734@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...

"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:115m1nemj88bb69@corp.supernews.com...

"Mhtsos" <thebluebox@ontherock.com> wrote in message
news:XWC6e.2955$YO5.2681@reader1.news.jippii.net...

II) The Virgin Birth

Another alleged prophecy that was claimed in Matthew 1:22-23 to have
been fulfilled by Jesus is based on Isaiah 7:14, which is said to
predict a certain virgin birth. But there are many problems with that.

(1) The Hebrew word "almah" which is used in the Isaiah verse does not
mean "virgin" but "young woman". It is correctly translated in the
Tanakh, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, and

the

New Jerusalem Bible, but is incorrectly translated by the King James
Version, the New International Version, and the New American Bible. It
is also incorrectly translated by Matthew, who probably relied upon
the
incorrect translation in the Septuagint. There is another Hebrew word,
"bethulah", which definitely means "virgin". Since a virgin birth is
such an extraordinary event, presumably Isaiah would have used that
other word if indeed he really meant to say that the woman is a
virgin.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html

Actually it means "young maiden" . Maidens were always considered

virgins

under jewish law. If not they could be stoned to death. Matthew simply
clarifies by the story that Mary was a true virgin. Joseph did not have
relations with her until after jesus was born.

I hate to break it to ya, but you can't be a virgin and give birth
without science.

God can supply genetic infomation just as easy as sceince can. Enough
said!!

"David H." <davidhaapala@sbcglobal.fart.not.net> wrote in message
news:a4E6e.939$VA3.734@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...

"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:115m1nemj88bb69@corp.supernews.com...

"Mhtsos" <thebluebox@ontherock.com> wrote in message
news:XWC6e.2955$YO5.2681@reader1.news.jippii.net...

II) The Virgin Birth

Another alleged prophecy that was claimed in Matthew 1:22-23 to have
been fulfilled by Jesus is based on Isaiah 7:14, which is said to
predict a certain virgin birth. But there are many problems with that.

(1) The Hebrew word "almah" which is used in the Isaiah verse does not
mean "virgin" but "young woman". It is correctly translated in the
Tanakh, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, and

the

New Jerusalem Bible, but is incorrectly translated by the King James
Version, the New International Version, and the New American Bible. It
is also incorrectly translated by Matthew, who probably relied upon the
incorrect translation in the Septuagint. There is another Hebrew word,
"bethulah", which definitely means "virgin". Since a virgin birth is
such an extraordinary event, presumably Isaiah would have used that
other word if indeed he really meant to say that the woman is a virgin.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html

Actually it means "young maiden" . Maidens were always considered

virgins

under jewish law. If not they could be stoned to death. Matthew simply
clarifies by the story that Mary was a true virgin. Joseph did not have
relations with her until after jesus was born.

I hate to break it to ya, but you can't be a virgin and give birth
without science.

God can supply genetic infomation just as easy as sceince can. Enough said!!

I hate to break it to ya, but you can't be a virgin and give
birth
without science.

God can supply genetic infomation just as easy as sceince can. Enough
said!!

Just Mark wrote:

Feh! Quit the apologetic triple-flips and use thy brain.

Will you do this yourself, or just engage in vituperation? Let's
see...

First -- Matthew who? Is that the author's real name? What else did

he/she

write? What are his/her credentials? Why should we believe him/her?

Find out, oh lazy one.

Second -- Which is more likely?:

(a) a virgin (unfertilized) human female gives birth to a healthy

baby human

boy

-or-

(b) somebody taking the moniker "Matthew" wants his/her god-man to

compete

with other god-men, so...
(1) he/she copies the idea of a "virgin birth" (see the Mithras

story)

(2) he/she twists a bible verse, making it say what it clearly

does

*not* say
(3) he/she writes it down in his/her version of the "Jesus as

god-man"

tale

I'm sure that somewhere we can find what the odds of (a) happening

are.

I'll bet it's somewhere around "a snowball's chance" and "when pigs

fly".

The odds of (b)....helluva lot better.

Medieval-type logic noted. In the modern era, we try to find out the
facts. The idea that Mithras was born of a virgin is the sort of thing
only the dimmer atheists swallow. The rest of us know he was born from
a rock...

"Do not multiply entities without necessity," saith brother William

Ockham

(if he'd been an english-speaker). And it's a good idea.

Why not think for yourself, instead of this stale old twaddle? While
advocating conformity to societal values, why not actually say so and
offer some reason for this? Anyone can sneer and jeer.

Just Mark wrote:

Feh! Quit the apologetic triple-flips and use thy brain.

Will you do this yourself, or just engage in vituperation? Let's
see...

First -- Matthew who? Is that the author's real name? What else

he/she

write? What are his/her credentials? Why should we believe

Find out, oh lazy one.

Second -- Which is more likely?:

(a) a virgin (unfertilized) human female gives birth to a healthy

baby human

boy

-or-

(b) somebody taking the moniker "Matthew" wants his/her god-man to

compete

with other god-men, so...
(1) he/she copies the idea of a "virgin birth" (see the Mithras

story)

(2) he/she twists a bible verse, making it say what it clearly

does

*not* say
(3) he/she writes it down in his/her version of the "Jesus as

god-man"

tale

I'm sure that somewhere we can find what the odds of (a) happening

are.

I'll bet it's somewhere around "a snowball's chance" and "when pigs

fly".

The odds of (b)....helluva lot better.

Medieval-type logic noted. In the modern era, we try to find out the
facts. The idea that Mithras was born of a virgin is the sort of

only the dimmer atheists swallow. The rest of us know he was born

a rock...

"Do not multiply entities without necessity," saith brother William

Ockham

(if he'd been an english-speaker). And it's a good idea.

Why not think for yourself, instead of this stale old twaddle?

While
advocating conformity to societal values, why not actually say so and
offer some reason for this? Anyone can sneer and jeer.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:35:39 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:20:23 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following

Joseph did not have
relations with her until after jesus was born.

And where exactly in Scripture does it say that?

Matthew 1:24, which neither states nor implies that he did have
relations with her afterwards, but does specifically state that he did
not beforehand.

"Mhtsos" <thebluebox@ontherock.com> wrote in message
news:QZD6e.2962$Q36.2650@reader1.news.jippii.net...

Randy Story wrote:

"Mhtsos" <thebluebox@ontherock.com> wrote in message
news:XWC6e.2955$YO5.2681@reader1.news.jippii.net...

II) The Virgin Birth

Another alleged prophecy that was claimed in Matthew 1:22-23 to
have been fulfilled by Jesus is based on Isaiah 7:14, which is said
to predict a certain virgin birth. But there are many problems with
that.

(1) The Hebrew word "almah" which is used in the Isaiah verse does
not mean "virgin" but "young woman". It is correctly translated in
the Tanakh, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised English
Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible, but is incorrectly translated
by the King James Version, the New International Version, and the
New American Bible. It is also incorrectly translated by Matthew,
who probably relied upon the incorrect translation in the
Septuagint. There is another Hebrew word, "bethulah", which
definitely means "virgin". Since a virgin birth is such an
extraordinary event, presumably Isaiah would have used that other
word if indeed he really meant to say that the woman is a virgin.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html

Actually it means "young maiden" . Maidens were always considered

virgins

under jewish law. If not they could be stoned to death. Matthew
simply clarifies by the story that Mary was a true virgin. Joseph
did not have relations with her until after jesus was born.

If she was pregnant and she was married to Joseph she was no virgin.
Guess what. My mother got pregnant from my father very shortly before
she got married.
Does this makes her a virgin or me a son of god?

Its funny. you guys use the text when it helps your presupposed belief
but deny it when it doesnt. When you dont believe that God exists, you
reject anything.

Its funny. you guys use the text when it helps your presupposed belief but
deny it when it doesnt.

When you dont believe that God exists, you reject anything.

"Mhtsos" <thebluebox@ontherock.com> wrote in message
news:g7E6e.2966$u66.847@reader1.news.jippii.net...

Randy Story wrote:

"Mhtsos" <thebluebox@ontherock.com> wrote in message
news:XWC6e.2955$YO5.2681@reader1.news.jippii.net...

II) The Virgin Birth

Another alleged prophecy that was claimed in Matthew 1:22-23 to have
been fulfilled by Jesus is based on Isaiah 7:14, which is said to
predict a certain virgin birth. But there are many problems with that.

(1) The Hebrew word "almah" which is used in the Isaiah verse does not
mean "virgin" but "young woman". It is correctly translated in the
Tanakh, the Revised Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, and
the
New Jerusalem Bible, but is incorrectly translated by the King James
Version, the New International Version, and the New American Bible. It
is also incorrectly translated by Matthew, who probably relied upon the
incorrect translation in the Septuagint. There is another Hebrew word,
"bethulah", which definitely means "virgin". Since a virgin birth is
such an extraordinary event, presumably Isaiah would have used that
other word if indeed he really meant to say that the woman is a virgin.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html

Joseph did not have

relations with her until after jesus was born.

How do you know this?
Where you there?
How would the family and with family I mean the entire clan of Joseph
and Maria would react if she become pregnant before Joseph and not from

him?

Would they not stone her to death?
Christianity didn't started with Jesus birth. It come much later.

No, it started with his death & ressurection!!