Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant

[Phatt Matt s]

No shit sherlock. It can't be refuted. Either people believe what the Gospel says about the matter or they don't. I didn't come here to prove anything. Also, I'm not the interpreter of prophecy either. I might have an oppinion about it but don't know my opinion to be true.

Also, I never said you said my views disgust you. Liar!

Read the post again. You have a knack for misunderstanding what you read. What a surprise

---

Also,
Before you throw in the towel and say "I'm done arguing with you retards"
you might want to make sure you're gonna be a man of your word before speaking it.

[Minimalist]

John 7:42

"Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"

John who?

[Aractus]

3. The translation (while demonstrably true, and accepted by ALL mainstream scholars, and you STILL have provided NOT ONE scholarly reference or rebuttal), is NOT the crux of the so-called "prophecy".

Wrong, I did. I said OT scholars of most Bible translations, like say these ones. You keep claiming every scholar disagrees with Matthew's translation, but if this is the case then why do [i]most[/m] English Bibles have "virgin" in Is. 7:14? It is you who cannot back up your assertions of "every scholar this", "every scholar that".

You've also dodged every question put to you and refused to answer them. It's closed-minded people like you that used to claim that Christians put the world almah in Is 7:14 as it appears in the MT in the first place.

You're also the idiot that keeps wanting to talk about OT matters in a thread on the NT. I gave you a challenge and you failed to meet it, all you've done is try to deflect away from the texts you were told to look at as much as possible.

[*Deidre*]

I said they are considered Satanic. Do I know them to be Satanic? No. Does Scripture know divination and sorcery to be Satanic? Yes

As far as interpretation of Omens. That's relative. Men of God told of what would happen in the future, interpreted visions, difficult scriptures, and dreams in the OT

''Men of God?'' Hmmm. Those same men who kept women oppressed and taught that homosexuality is sinful?

The God of Men, you mean. But, I (should) digress...lol

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

VIRGINS ARE SEXY!

Wait a minute...

No they're not.

---

Wait, I know what to say here: "Jesus" is SEXY!

[*Deidre*]

VIRGINS ARE SEXY!

Wait a minute...

No they're not.

---

Wait, I know what to say here: "Jesus" is SEXY!

The actor who portrayed Jesus in Passion of the Christ certainly was! :p

[Phatt Matt s]

I said they are considered Satanic. Do I know them to be Satanic? No. Does Scripture know divination and sorcery to be Satanic? Yes

As far as interpretation of Omens. That's relative. Men of God told of what would happen in the future, interpreted visions, difficult scriptures, and dreams in the OT

''Men of God?'' Hmmm. Those same men who kept women oppressed and taught that homosexuality is sinful?

The God of Men, you mean. But, I (should) digress...lol

I was strictly talking about the guys from Scripture that were calle "men of God". Not saying I know them to be good people or the stories to be true.

Also, don't know about Religion either. Believe in God but also believe there is a helluvalota bullshit.

I tried to forward some pics to both of you. Let me know if I fucked it up. That's all I know how to do with this comp right now is forward emails rather than attach them all to one. Sorry if I fucked things up. Let me know what ya think.

---

VIRGINS ARE SEXY!

Wait a minute...

No they're not.

---

Wait, I know what to say here: "Jesus" is SEXY!

I'd give ya kudos but cant with my stupid browser

[*Deidre*]

I got your pictures, and pm'd you my um...commentary. :p

---

And I'm aware of the phrase 'men of God.' It's funny how phrases serve different purposes depending on the side of the fence you may sit on. As a Christian, I felt those men were 'moral,' yet I never alienated anyone (sinners) as the Bible 'recommends.' ''We are all sinners,'' but then other passages warning to stay away from sinners. Now, being an atheist...that is just a trite phrase to me. Weird how so much of religion is a mind set.

[Phatt Matt s]

K babe I didnt go full monty cuz I was cold
That was my taco johns uniform

Are u gonna get access to area 69?

U can see I'm not a christian :p

[Bucky Ball]

Wrong, I did. I said OT scholars of most Bible translations, like say. You keep claiming every scholar disagrees with Matthew's translation, but if this is the case then why do ...bla bla bla

Very slowly. I DID NOT SAY MATTHEW TRANSLATED ANYTHING INCORRECTLY. YOU show me where I said that. You are SO deluded, you can't even follow an argument. I said the translation of the ORIGINAL Hebrew word "alma", the meaning of which is dependent on CONTEXT, (as the Rabbi in the above link says), by using the Greek word "parthenos" was an error. Your "list of scholars" is worthless. NOT ONE thing ONE of them says about ANYTHING, is referenced.

Your contention that "almost all bibles" use the word "virgin" is false. In fact the trend, of which you are seeminoy totally ignorant is exactly
the opposite : http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Upload..._almah.pdf
"Therefore Adonai himself will give you people a sign: the young woman will become pregnant, bear a son and name him 'Immanu El [God is with us]." The Jewish Bible.

I don't care how "most bibles" do anything. All I care about is correct scholarship. The word "alma" is not necessarily correctly translated as "virgin", (as I explained about, and you ignored, as it proves you WRONG).
Again : http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/...irgin.html
You lose again pompous Brit. (I do see why you chose that avatar. It fits you exactly.
"Recent major Christian Bible translations have finally admitted after nearly 2,000 years that Isaiah did not prophesy a virgin birth or, more precisely, a supernatural virginal conception of the Messiah. Beginning with The Revised Standard Version in 1952, followed by The Jerusalem Bible in 1966, The New English Bible in 1970, The New Jerusalem Bible in l985, The Revised English Bible, The Good News Bible and The New Revised Standard Version in 1989, and, just recently, The New American Bible Revised Edition (2011), translators have decided that the time is right to reveal that Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus – Jewish and Judaeo-Christian translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century – were right in translating almah in Isaiah 7:14b as neanis ("young woman") rather than parthenos ("virgin"), and that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who opposed the use of "young woman", were wrong."

I have dodged NOTHING. YOU have tried to keep changing the subject with YOUR agenda. I didn't say anyone put anything anywhere. I said the use of "parthenos" in THIS context is incorrect, and scholars Do agree with that. YOU find me ONE that does not, AND specifically talks about THIS issue.

idiot that keeps wanting to talk about OT matters in a thread on the NT. I gave you a challenge and you failed to meet it, all you've done is try to deflect away from the texts you were told to look at as much as possible.

Wrong again delusional one. Nice try. Fail. The god damn thread was about the fucking ARC of the Covenant, being a pre-figurement of Mary. The Arc is not a NT issue. I see you really do know NOTHING about the Bible.

Nice try to deflect again from your idiocy, and twist everything that was said. In fact YOU have not addressed anything, and ALL your questions are YOUR agenda, and off topic. You can't even follow the logic of the argument.

---

I said they are considered Satanic. Do I know them to be Satanic? No. Does Scripture know divination and sorcery to be Satanic? Yes

But you admitted YOU think these divinations/omens/prophecies are important. So slimey/slippery one, now you try to weasel out of your own statements.

As far as interpretation of Omens. That's relative. Men of God told of what would happen in the future, interpreted visions, difficult scriptures, and dreams in the OT

"Men" of god also got it wrong as much as they got it right. ANyone can hit at least a "few" things. Which ones EXACTLY are you talking about ? We'll see whether they "got them right' or not. your "men of god" were also disobeying their own rules if they did that. But : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278