RE: Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant
March 27, 2014 at 11:09 pm
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2014 at 12:30 am by Bucky Ball.)
(March 27, 2014 at 10:00 pm)Aractus Wrote: 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.
(March 27, 2014 at 10:00 pm)Aractus Wrote: 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.
(March 27, 2014 at 11:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: 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.
(March 27, 2014 at 11:22 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: 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
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell 
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist

Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist