Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant

[Aractus]

The "mistranslation " thing is taught to FRESHMEN in college Biblical studies.

Oh right, so students are taught conjecture and opinion as fact? Shouldn't they at least be taught the early interpretations and translations as well?

The Gospel of Matthew uses the Greek word "parthenos". You didn't even read the link, about the origins of the entire business. Your claim about "the earliest" translation is laughable, and completely irrelevant.

I told you that Matthew is an early translator and that you need evidence to show that he is incompetent. I would have expected you, at the very least, to go through the OT quotes made in Matthew (here's a list), discount the ones copied from Mark, and then come back and explain what evidence you think there is that Matthew is a poor translator.

Matthew also (alone of all the gospels) says many others rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem. Really ? REALLY ? You buy that crap ?

Irrelevant, we're talking about passages that Matthew translated from Hebrew - that's entirely different as to the question of "where did he get his narratives from".

No scholar questions that the gospels were written after 70 AD.

Bullshit.




Also, it has been pointed out that Luke probably uses a common source to Josephus link. This fact also argues against a later date, especially a date in the 2nd century where we'd expect Luke would have made use of the writings of Josephus.

Come back when you have actual evidence.

[Phatt Matt s]

Also, why am I posting it on an atheist forum? I get along with atheists and enjoy their company ussually.

Well, I figured the Virgin Mary Ark of the Covenant prefigurement might be interesting to some.

I was curious what the responses would be. Maybe some people that despise God would not have the same aversion for Mary.

I'm not gonna convert anyone and I don't care about winning an arguement. There's no medal or reward so I could give a fuck less.
However, I'd rather people weren't so closed minded as to be certain they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If there were something I were trying to accomplish, it would be that people would be less arrogant and closed minded about their beliefs be they Christian or Atheist.

---

Also,
never said you said Mary was a whore. I'm just saying I can't judge you for any blasphemy because I'm guilty of it and that would make me a hypocrite. YOur post about me wanting a nicey nicey Jebus mary Forum is silly.

I made it very clear that resistance is a good thing. That's another reason why I'm not at a Christian forum

[Bucky Ball]

Oh right, so students are taught conjecture and opinion as fact? Shouldn't they at least be taught the early interpretations and translations as well?

Waaa waaa waaa. You're being ''abrasive". I just don't think I can stand it. I don't give a shit what you "told me". You supported it with NO references, and NO scholars. If YOUR agenda is something, then go right ahead and do what you claim. You have no clue when actually the editors of the text, (they were ALL originally unlabeled) called "Matthew" did or did not do. If you do have some proof, let's see it. Now. The rest of the preposterous bullshit in Matthew is hardly "irrelevant". A set of authors who said there was a zombie invasion is utterly discredited about EVERYTHING. I'm not going anywhere. Nice try at deflecting form the fact that YOU are actually trying say that Isaiah tried to tell the King that HIS wife was a virgin, and miraculously pregnant. Try not to be such an insufferably pompous "Brit". It's too abrasive and hurts the ears of (sigh) the children of "Mary".

---

Also, why am I posting it on an atheist forum? I get along better with atheists and enjoy their company ussually.

Well, I figured the Virgin Mary Ark of the Covenant prefigurement might be interesting to some.

I was curious what the responses would be. Maybe some people that despise God would not have the same aversion for Mary.

I'm not gonna convert anyone and I don't care about winning an arguement. There's no medal or reward so I could give a fuck less.
However, I'd rather people weren't so closed minded as to be certain they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If there were something I were trying to accomplish, it would be that people would be less arrogant and closed minded about their beliefs be they Christian or Atheist.

---

Also,
never said you said Mary was a whore. I'm just saying I can't judge you for any blasphemy because I'm guilty of it and that would make me a hypocrite. YOur post about me wanting a nicey nicey Jebus mary Forum is silly.

I made it very clear that resistance is a good thing. That's another reason why I'm not at a Christian forum

I "ussually" do too, but usually don't.
Well there were many "arcs" in the ancient Near East. Many city-states had rolling boxes they rolled into battle. The jewish arc was one of many.
Since Exodus, and Moses and all the stories of the making of the Ark are all known (proven by Archaeology) myths, the question is rather idiotic.
It's simply amazing the endless sentimental drivel ("prefigurement") religionists cook up, connecting and reconnecting imaginary dots.
Why would atheists give a rip about that ? But I suppose in as much as it's a "(covered) box", there may be some relationship to Mary and a pregnancy, after all. :p
Next you're be telling us Adam and Eve and Abraham were actually true.

[Aractus]

Waaa waaa waaa. You're being ''abrasive". I just don't think I can stand it. I don't give a shit what you "told me". You supported it with NO references, and NO scholars. If YOUR agenda is something, then go right ahead and do what you claim. You have no clue when actually the editors of the text, (they were ALL originally unlabeled) called "Matthew" did or did not do.

We don't have any unlabelled manuscripts - but that's irrelevant because I'm not arguing over who the author was, I'm asking you to provide clear evidence that Matthew (the author thereof) is an inept translator. So far you've provided zero evidence. As to your link, the website was down and still is, if it's that important to you quote it.

Now to get back on track, I just checked the LXX too. Not 7:14, but the other occurrences of almah to see whether the LXX has usage of 'parthenos' to translate 'almah' elsewhere, and sure enough it does, at least 3 times in addition to Is 7:14 (I haven't checked all of them):

• Genesis 24:16: ἡ δὲ παρθένος ἦν καλὴ τῇ ὄψει σφόδρα παρθένος ἦν ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτήν καταβᾶσα δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν πηγὴν ἔπλησεν τὴν ὑδρίαν καὶ ἀνέβη
  
• Genesis 24:43: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐφέστηκα ἐπὶ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῆς πόλεως ἐξελεύσονται ὑδρεύσασθαι ὕδωρ καὶ ἔσται ἡ παρθένος ᾗ ἂν ἐγὼ εἴπω πότισόν με μικρὸν ὕδωρ ἐκ τῆς ὑδρίας σου
  
• Prov 30:19 ἴχνη ἀετοῦ πετομένου καὶ ὁδοὺς ὄφεως ἐπὶ πέτρας καὶ τρίβους νηὸς ποντοπορούσης καὶ ὁδοὺς ἀνδρὸς ἐν νεότητι

It's up to you to show me why both Matthew and the various LXX translators are wrong in their treatment of almah. Need I remind you that until the DSS were dug up critics like you used to claim that Christians modified 7:14 in the Hebrew (Masoretic Text)?

If you do have some proof, let's see it. Now. The rest of the preposterous bullshit in Matthew is hardly "irrelevant".

It's irrelevant to the topic of OT translation by the author of Matthew.

A set of authors who said there was a zombie invasion is utterly discredited about EVERYTHING.

Fuck your logic is so far up your ass. You're deflecting because you can't provide me with any evidence.

[Phatt Matt s]

Oh right, so students are taught conjecture and opinion as fact? Shouldn't they at least be taught the early interpretations and translations as well?

---

I'm not gonna convert anyone and I don't care about winning an arguement. There's no medal or reward so I could give a fuck less.
However, I'd rather people weren't so closed minded as to be certain they are right and everyone else is wrong.

If there were something I were trying to accomplish, it would be that people would be less arrogant and closed minded about their beliefs be they Christian or Atheist.

---

Also,
never said you said Mary was a whore. I'm just saying I can't judge you for any blasphemy because I'm guilty of it and that would make me a hypocrite. YOur post about me wanting a nicey nicey Jebus mary Forum is silly.

I made it very clear that resistance is a good thing. That's another reason why I'm not at a Christian forum

It's simply amazing the endless sentimental drivel ("prefigurement") religionists cook up, connecting and reconnecting imaginary dots.
Why would atheists give a rip about that ? But I suppose in as much as it's a "(covered) box", there may be some relationship to Mary and a pregnancy, after all. :p
Next you're be telling us Adam and Eve and Abraham were actually true.

Don't know about the story of Adam and Eve. THere is a good lesson in it but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it isn't nothing more than a story. I do believe in original sin. I turn on the news and see examples of it everywhere in our fallen world.

Bucky Ball, I never thought I'd see Aractus kick your ass in a debate. He actually proved some of your bold assersions wrong. YOu say everyone that disagrees with you is full of shit, and you know the facts, and are so much more educated. How much you boast of your education is becoming a broken record you know.

Then you make absurd comments that can be easily refuted by someone with an education. I foolishly believed your credibility however, including when you said "No scholar says they weren't written after 70 AD". I completely swallowed your bullshit unwisely believing you knew what you were talking about.

I really don't give a shit when they were written, but what I learned is that you're a fucking liar who will make a bold assertion without checking to see if it is fact.

Now I realize you were taking advantage of my knowledge gaps. See, I quote Historians and scholars and you say "no that's full of shit". THen you (apparently) rewrite the facts and I can't prove you wrong and assume you're very educated and maybe right.

Well, the more I see, the more convinced I am that you don't know nearly as much as you boast you do, and in many cases you're straight up full of shit!

---

Too abrasive to the ears of the Children of Mary? I just got done telling you to be fowl to your hearts content. Also, it was an Atheist who originally told you on this thread that you're being too abrasive and need to chill out.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24860-page-8.html

[Bucky Ball]

---

It's simply amazing the endless sentimental drivel ("prefigurement") religionists cook up, connecting and reconnecting imaginary dots.
Why would atheists give a rip about that ? But I suppose in as much as it's a "(covered) box", there may be some relationship to Mary and a pregnancy, after all. :p
Next you're be telling us Adam and Eve and Abraham were actually true.

Don't know about the story of Adam and Eve. THere is a good lesson in it but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it isn't nothing more than a story. I do believe in original sin. I turn on the news and see examples of it everywhere in our fallen world.

Bucky Ball, I never thought I'd see Aractus kick your ass in a debate. He actually proved some of your bold assersions wrong. YOu say everyone that disagrees with you is full of shit, and you know the facts, and are so much more educated. How much you boast of your education is becoming a broken record you know.

Then you make absurd comments that can be easily refuted by someone with an education. I foolishly believed your credibility however, including when you said "No scholar says they weren't written after 70 AD". I completely swallowed your bullshit unwisely believing you knew what you were talking about.

I really don't give a shit when they were written, but what I learned is that you're a fucking liar who will make a bold assertion without checking to see if it is fact.

Now I realize you were taking advantage of my knowledge gaps. See, I quote Historians and scholars and you say "no that's full of shit". THen you (apparently) rewrite the facts and I can't prove you wrong and assume you're very educated and maybe right.

Well, the more I see, the more convinced I am that you don't know nearly as much as you boast you do, and in many cases you're straight up full of shit!

---

Too abrasive to the ears of the Children of Mary? I just got done telling you to be fowl to your hearts content. Also, it was an Atheist who originally told you on this thread that you're being too abrasive and need to chill out.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24860-page-8.html

"Original Sin" was cooked up by ignorant Christians who knew nothing about the Hebrew concept of evil. Thanks for demonstrating yet again you know nothing about Psychology, Religion, the Bible, and the ancient Near East.

Aractus has done nothing except demonstrate he can't follow an argument, AND it's logic. Your claiming he "kicked my ass" does not help you, in aligning yourself with the stupidity, attempted deflection, and rambling off-point crap in his replies.

[Phatt Matt s]

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden.

Though it wasn't called original sin, the curse that was placed on the descendants of Adam and Eve is in the Old Testament, not something invented by Christianity.

Read the book of Genesis and get a real education please instead of growing like a mushroom: keeping yourself in the dark and feeding yourself with shit.

[Bucky Ball]

Fuck your logic is so far up your ass. You're deflecting because you can't provide me with any evidence.

I do realize it's hard to accept. But if you really think there was a zombie invasion, and the people who wrote the book it's in are credible, you're beyond help.

So sorry dear. You've missed the ENTIRE POINT of the Ahaz/Isaih prophecy. Let me try to make it very very simple for you, dear.

1. The POINT of the Isaiah story was that the King's wife was was PREGNANT, and THAT was the "sign". NOT the manner of the birth. Isaiah did not tell the King (or make any reference for the King) that the child his "non-virginal" wife was going to have, was a "miraculous virginal" child. The CHILD itself was the sign. No one disputes THAT. Apparently you do.

2. In importing and referencing the story, Matthew's intent was obviously to say the CHILD (Jebus) was also a sign. Matthew, (and NO OTHER EARLY Christian) made no claim about "virginity" in Mary.

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". The POINT is that the manner of the birth is irrelevant, as THE KING'S FUCKING WIFE IN THE ORIGINAL STORY WAS NOT, COULD NOT, AND DID NOT CLAIM to be VIRGINAL. NOT ONE PERSON in all of history and scholarship (except you) ever once claimed King Ahaz's wife WAS a virgin. If the parallel is drawn between the two, (Mary and her), then the parallel is drawn. In fact NO ONE EVER claimed Ahaz's wife was a "virgin mother" which IS what you two retards ARE doing. The parallel the editors of Matthew cooked up, interpreted as "virginal" MAKES NO SENSE IN CONTEXT and does not bear up under close inspection. Sorry dude. You lose. THE FUCKING PARALLEL DOES NOT STAND if you're claiming "virginal" was the intent. Isaiah NEVER claimed Ahaz's wife was a virgin, and neither did anyone else. Ever. Not once. Is that too hard for even a retard to get ?

Where did the other fucking 23 chromosomes come from ?

I'm done here with you two retards. But thanks for playing, and demonstrating how fucking retarded Christian believers are, and how totally ignorant you fools are with respect to you own damn books.

I could care less how many times the word is incorrectly translated. Sometimes "maiden" means "maiden". Sometimes "alma" means "young women of marriageable age". Sometimes it means "vrigin". It depends entirely ON CONTEXT, as anyone who knows anything about Archaic Hebrew knows. You do not know Archaic Hebrew. The CONTEXT here was MISAPPLIED. It's not my problem. The LOGIC of the (supposed) parallel between the two women is more than enough to debunk the Christian crap claim, (as IF science and genetics were not). The Councils cooked up the claim he was "fully human, fully divine". No human ever once had 23 chromosomes.

Scholars agree the word was mistranslated. You have provided NOT ONE reference or scholar of Archaic Hebrew IN THIS CONTEXT meant "virgin".
You can't. Nice try at affirming the preposterous notion that yet another (of course YOURS) of the vast number of ancient "virgin born" human-divine beings just happens to be THE one that's true.

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden.

Though it wasn't called original sin, the curse is in the Old Testament, not something invented by Christianity. Read the book of Genesis and get a real education please instead of growing like a mushroom: keeping yourself in the dark and feeding yourself with shit.

So you don't know if there was no Adam, but someone "fell". I see. Are you drunk or on drugs ?
Original Sin does not "fit" the Hebrew concept of evil, (which was "chaos") They got it from Sumeria/Babylonia. But since you know nothing about ancient cultures and mythology, you also wouldn't know that. The Hebrews NEVER said anything about "Original Sin", (not once) and the OT made perfect sense to them, without it. Christians cooked up the idea to justify their invention, ("salvation"). Is the world better since "Jebus saved you" ? Nope. It's the same. It failed in fact, and failed as a concept. Obviously YOU wouldn't know anything about that, since you have no education in these matters. Read Martin Buber's (the Jewish Philosopher/Talmud scholar's) "Good and Evil". The fact is, you NEED an explanation for the complex confusing world you see around yourself, and being uneducated, you have no better explanation. So you use religion. Just like billions before you. It's a crutch, as your brain NEEDS an explanation for what you see, and it's the only one you have. And it's easy. You read ONE old book. How idiotic.

Now let me try to help you too dear. You see, honey, IF THERE WAS NO "garden of Eden", there was no "fall". Oh oh oh. I know that blows your little mind. You on the one hand say you don't know "if there was an Adam", and then you claim there was an "Adam's fall". I could care less if something is "written in the OT". The writers were ancient desert dwellers who were TOTALLY ignorant of human psychology, science in general, and who, during the Babylonian Exile, cooked up a set of books, (the Torah of Moses), to unify, politically, a defeated nation, and to try to explain how their deity, (the Babylonian war-god whose name was Yahweh Sabaoth) had or could, let his "chosen people" be defeated, when he had promised to protect them. Instead of "reading the book of Genesis" how about reading ABOUT the Book of Genesis and ancient Near Eastern Literature, and how it was formed, and why, and what its origins were. You really are one of THE most ignorant theists EVER to stumble in here. You don't even know the history of the "doctrine" of Original Sin, and how and why and when it was cooked up. There is not a shred of evidence that humans EVER lived in a "perfect" state, or that the natural world "fell" from "preternatural" perfection. Dinosaurs got cancer. There never was a state of perfection. Any educated person knows that. There is no such thing as "free will" Modern Neuroscience has debunked it. In order for a human to be "morally culpable", he/she must be fully conscious of ALL the elements,simultaneously, that go into a moral decision. Science knows decisions are made in brains before they are fully conscious of the choice. If THAT is true, the entire "Christian" moral system is FALSE, and preposterous, So much for the crap of "Original Sin". There is no "mechanism" for perpetuating it from one generation to another.

[Phatt Matt s]

Well, goes to show that you will never fail to post more bullshit and an extremely large quantity at that. Not saying all of the content is bullshit because, I don't know for certain, but your narrow minded view that these conclusions you've come to and these books you recommend are without error and those who disagree are uneducated and retarted, is infantile and a copout. This behavior is common in children. How old are you?

I never said I know anything about Adam or the Fall. I know what the Bible has to say about it and I see the evidence of a fallen humanity throughout History and everywhere around me.

If I read a book like this:
http://www.christianbook.com/now-thats-a...ew=details
Which declares there to be over 300 specific prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

How do you know that is false?

IF I read books that you recommend that don't jive with other accounts, Who's right and who's wrong? One option is I could adopt your arrogant style, taking it upon myself to be the absolute authority that decides which ones are authentic facts, and call everyone retarted that doesn't agree with me.

[Silver]

And then I read a book like this:
http://www.christianbook.com/now-thats-a...ew=details
Which declares there to be over 300 specific prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

How do you know that is false?

You do realize how easy it is to create a new story based on past prophecy, right? One just has to read the past prophecy and build a new story around it. There is nothing logical in assuming that Jesus actually fulfilled a prophecy. Rather, man created a character around the already existing prophecy, which is quite obvious in the inconsistency of the first four gospels of the new testament.