Is the Bible mythology?

[logical bob]

Isaiah 7:14...to me the tying of that pericope to Jesus is another account where meaning trumps literal intent of the Isaiah writer. When read in context there is no way they were meaning Jesus, but just like any Sunday preacher worth their salt, the idea is take an Bible account and give it meaning for their contemporary audience without regard of what the original author meant. The writer of Matthew does that with Isaiah 7. The writer of Matthew uses Isaiah beyond it’s intent to depart the significance of Jesus.

I very much agree. Matthew also has the problem that the word (alma) which Isaiah 7:14 uses doesn't mean virgin, it means young woman. The Septuagint which Matthew's author read mistranslates it as parthenos, which does mean virgin.

 

[mondar]

[quote="Tabasco Breath":3769xfuh]Isaiah 7:14...to me the tying of that pericope to Jesus is another account where meaning trumps literal intent of the Isaiah writer. When read in context there is no way they were meaning Jesus, but just like any Sunday preacher worth their salt, the idea is take an Bible account and give it meaning for their contemporary audience without regard of what the original author meant. The writer of Matthew does that with Isaiah 7. The writer of Matthew uses Isaiah beyond it’s intent to depart the significance of Jesus.

I very much agree. Matthew also has the problem that the word (alma) which Isaiah 7:14 uses doesn't mean virgin, it means young woman. The Septuagint which Matthew's author read mistranslates it as parthenos, which does mean virgin.[/quote:3769xfuh]
I think Matthew understood Isaiah correctly. I also think that the translators of the LXX were did not make any errors, a variety of terms can be used to translate one language into another. The historical setting of Isaiah 7:14 is one where Isaiah is probably referring to his bethrothed wife. While he used the word for a young woman, that is a meaningless point that merely avoids what the text is really saying and assumes naturalism. Being a Hebrew maiden, I think we can assume that Isaiah's betrothed was most likely a virgin up until the day of their consumation.

Another thing.... That Matthew recognized a fuller meaning then what Isaiah may have understood does not mean Matthew was wrong. Matthew is not using the term "fulfilled" in the same sense that Paul did. Matthew is speaking of a "fuller meaning." Matthew had a very good concept of progressive revelation. Isaiah's understanding of what he wrote may have been more general and not as specific as Matthew later understood. But that is the nature of progressive revelation. (Anyone ever read a good book by G. Vas on this subject?) Progressively understood words would be natural because much of Isaiah is poetry. Isaiah knew the generalities that the names of his children signified some future event. He knew that something special was to come from the house of David. In chapter 8 he wrote.....
18 Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion.
While he most likely knew that the historical child (also named MahershallelHashbaz in Chapter 8) was not going to be the mighty God, or the child of 9:6-7, or the branch of Jesse (Chapter 11), or the later suffering servant of 40-53. But he also knew the names had some special significance for the future. He knew that out of the seed of David would come something unique, special, and spiritual.

To summarize what I said.. the issue of "virgin" verses "young woman" misses the real point of Isaiah. We as Christians believe that Christ was born of a virgin because Matthew said so. And Matthew, guided by the Holy Spirit, was perfectly correct in seeing a fuller meaning within the bounds of a progressive revelation. The view that there is a "mistranslation" is not the product of a correct understanding of Isaiah, but it comes from an assumed naturalistic world view that fails to read the text of both Isaiah and Matthew correctly.

 

[handy]

[quote="Tabasco Breath":2j2h6g4p]Isaiah 7:14...to me the tying of that pericope to Jesus is another account where meaning trumps literal intent of the Isaiah writer. When read in context there is no way they were meaning Jesus, but just like any Sunday preacher worth their salt, the idea is take an Bible account and give it meaning for their contemporary audience without regard of what the original author meant. The writer of Matthew does that with Isaiah 7. The writer of Matthew uses Isaiah beyond it’s intent to depart the significance of Jesus.

I very much agree. Matthew also has the problem that the word (alma) which Isaiah 7:14 uses doesn't mean virgin, it means young woman. The Septuagint which Matthew's author read mistranslates it as parthenos, which does mean virgin.

I think Matthew understood Isaiah correctly. I also think that the translators of the LXX were did not make any errors, a variety of terms can be used to translate one language into another. The historical setting of Isaiah 7:14 is one where Isaiah is probably referring to his bethrothed wife. While he used the word for a young woman, that is a meaningless point that merely avoids what the text is really saying and assumes naturalism. Being a Hebrew maiden, I think we can assume that Isaiah's betrothed was most likely a virgin up until the day of their consumation.

Another thing.... That Matthew recognized a fuller meaning then what Isaiah may have understood does not mean Matthew was wrong. Matthew is not using the term "fulfilled" in the same sense that Paul did. Matthew is speaking of a "fuller meaning." Matthew had a very good concept of progressive revelation. Isaiah's understanding of what he wrote may have been more general and not as specific as Matthew later understood. But that is the nature of progressive revelation. (Anyone ever read a good book by G. Vas on this subject?) Progressively understood words would be natural because much of Isaiah is poetry. Isaiah knew the generalities that the names of his children signified some future event. He knew that something special was to come from the house of David. In chapter 8 he wrote.....
18 Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion.
While he most likely knew that the historical child (also named MahershallelHashbaz in Chapter 8) was not going to be the mighty God, or the child of 9:6-7, or the branch of Jesse (Chapter 11), or the later suffering servant of 40-53. But he also knew the names had some special significance for the future. He knew that out of the seed of David would come something unique, special, and spiritual.

To summarize what I said.. the issue of "virgin" verses "young woman" misses the real point of Isaiah. We as Christians believe that Christ was born of a virgin because Matthew said so. And Matthew, guided by the Holy Spirit, was perfectly correct in seeing a fuller meaning within the bounds of a progressive revelation. The view that there is a "mistranslation" is not the product of a correct understanding of Isaiah, but it comes from an assumed naturalistic world view that fails to read the text of both Isaiah and Matthew correctly.[/quote:2j2h6g4p]

 

[TanNinety]

Even if you accept (I don't) the story about Mary meeting an angel, wouldn't the more logical interpretation be that she made it up because she had sex outside of marriage? As pointed out elsewhere, the supposed words of Mary are quite artificial as is the convenient dream of Joseph by the other author, who does not mention the angel-Mary meeting at all. Again, if you buy this alternative story as having any validity, the more rational conclusion would be that Joseph chose to ignore the pregnancy of his bride and made up the dream as a cover to save face.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rth-2.html

Let's say the above incident of 'virgin shark birth' that I linked to happened in the year 1200AD. Someone records the events. However there isn't any DNA fingerprinting done. What would you guys make of that tale with limited evidence other than a written down witness?
If I have to trust your ‘logical interpretation’, ‘rational conclusion’ and ‘common sense’ I will have to call bullocks on the virgin shark birth story. Though I have the satisfaction of making the right deductive reasoning decision to not believe in the story, I wouldn’t still be right.

Data trumps logical interpretation and common sense at times. So in the above, Christians are just as valid to believe in virgin birth as you are valid to not to believe in it. I personally do not believe in it for the reasons parallel to Tabasco breath’s version, but then again, it doesn’t mean I am right.

There is no reason to accept the virgin birth tale as factual except if one puts aside common sense and takes it completely on faith alone.

Without conclusive data, is there any other way to believe that the contrary is factual without 'faith'?

 

[cyberjosh]

Wow TanNinety, long time no see! Where have you been? I seem to recall having some good discussions with you in the past. Welcome back at any rate.

~Josh

 

[Physicist]

But we have overwhelmingly conclusive data

.

There is no reason to accept the virgin birth tale as factual except if one puts aside common sense and takes it completely on faith alone.

Without conclusive data, is there any other way to believe that the contrary is factual without 'faith'?

However, in this case we have overwhelmingly conclusive data, This is not a case of assigning equal probability to competing claims. Billions of children have been born, and except for those conceived by artificial conception, sexual relation with a human father was required. Moreover, we have evidence of false claims of god-virgin intercourse in Pagan beliefs of the time (unless you think that Herakles was really the Son of Zeus and Alcemene). The authors of the competing virgin birth tales had motives to lie about the origins of Jesus, as pointed out by Celsus. Hence, any competent and impartial judge would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the story was false.

Suppose an anonymous email claimed that he saw somebody dressed like Superman fly past his window. Now, you would know that previous stories of Superman were fictional and that humans that tried to fly without being attached machines fell to the ground. Would you assign this anonymous author a 50/50 chance of being true, particularly if he asked you to join his Superman worshipping cult? I think not.

 

[Physicist]

[quote="Tabasco Breath":39vheoh7]Isaiah 7:14...to me the tying of that pericope to Jesus is another account where meaning trumps literal intent of the Isaiah writer. When read in context there is no way they were meaning Jesus, but just like any Sunday preacher worth their salt, the idea is take an Bible account and give it meaning for their contemporary audience without regard of what the original author meant. The writer of Matthew does that with Isaiah 7. The writer of Matthew uses Isaiah beyond it’s intent to depart the significance of Jesus.

I very much agree. Matthew also has the problem that the word (alma) which Isaiah 7:14 uses doesn't mean virgin, it means young woman. The Septuagint which Matthew's author read mistranslates it as parthenos, which does mean virgin.

I think Matthew understood Isaiah correctly. I also think that the translators of the LXX were did not make any errors, a variety of terms can be used to translate one language into another. The historical setting of Isaiah 7:14 is one where Isaiah is probably referring to his bethrothed wife. While he used the word for a young woman, that is a meaningless point that merely avoids what the text is really saying and assumes naturalism. Being a Hebrew maiden, I think we can assume that Isaiah's betrothed was most likely a virgin up until the day of their consumation.[/quote:39vheoh7]

However, the most logical tense that applies to the Hebrew text is that the young maid is with child (i.e. she was already pregnant). Isaiah's clear words should not be dismissed as mere naturalistic interpretation just because they don't agree with later theology. He, as a poet, was using poetic language to say that the King, in a few years (before the unborn child was old enough to know right from wrong), would be free of his enemies. Why postulate anything else that's not supported by his actual words?

Another thing.... That Matthew recognized a fuller meaning then what Isaiah may have understood does not mean Matthew was wrong. Matthew is not using the term "fulfilled" in the same sense that Paul did. Matthew is speaking of a "fuller meaning." Matthew had a very good concept of progressive revelation. Isaiah's understanding of what he wrote may have been more general and not as specific as Matthew later understood. But that is the nature of progressive revelation. (Anyone ever read a good book by G. Vas on this subject?) Progressively understood words would be natural because much of Isaiah is poetry. Isaiah knew the generalities that the names of his children signified some future event. He knew that something special was to come from the house of David. In chapter 8 he wrote.....
18 Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion.
While he most likely knew that the historical child (also named MahershallelHashbaz in Chapter 8) was not going to be the mighty God, or the child of 9:6-7, or the branch of Jesse (Chapter 11), or the later suffering servant of 40-53. But he also knew the names had some special significance for the future. He knew that out of the seed of David would come something unique, special, and spiritual.

Or maybe Isaiah just knew the child would be his son and the Matthew dialogues were pure (and typical) first century Hebrew midrash.

To summarize what I said.. the issue of "virgin" verses "young woman" misses the real point of Isaiah. We as Christians believe that Christ was born of a virgin because Matthew said so. And Matthew, guided by the Holy Spirit, was perfectly correct in seeing a fuller meaning within the bounds of a progressive revelation. The view that there is a "mistranslation" is not the product of a correct understanding of Isaiah, but it comes from an assumed naturalistic world view that fails to read the text of both Isaiah and Matthew correctly.

How do you know the anonymous author of the Matthew text was 'guided by the Holy Spirit'? What you call a naturalistic interpretation most people would call a realistic one since it accepts the standard meaning of the Isaiahic text and doesn't attach fanciful interpretations to it.

 

[logical bob]

I think Matthew understood Isaiah correctly. I also think that the translators of the LXX were did not make any errors, a variety of terms can be used to translate one language into another. The historical setting of Isaiah 7:14 is one where Isaiah is probably referring to his bethrothed wife. While he used the word for a young woman, that is a meaningless point that merely avoids what the text is really saying and assumes naturalism. Being a Hebrew maiden, I think we can assume that Isaiah's betrothed was most likely a virgin up until the day of their consumation.

Another thing.... That Matthew recognized a fuller meaning then what Isaiah may have understood does not mean Matthew was wrong. Matthew is not using the term "fulfilled" in the same sense that Paul did. Matthew is speaking of a "fuller meaning." Matthew had a very good concept of progressive revelation. Isaiah's understanding of what he wrote may have been more general and not as specific as Matthew later understood. But that is the nature of progressive revelation. (Anyone ever read a good book by G. Vas on this subject?) Progressively understood words would be natural because much of Isaiah is poetry. Isaiah knew the generalities that the names of his children signified some future event. He knew that something special was to come from the house of David. In chapter 8 he wrote.....
18 Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion.
While he most likely knew that the historical child (also named MahershallelHashbaz in Chapter 8) was not going to be the mighty God, or the child of 9:6-7, or the branch of Jesse (Chapter 11), or the later suffering servant of 40-53. But he also knew the names had some special significance for the future. He knew that out of the seed of David would come something unique, special, and spiritual.

To summarize what I said.. the issue of "virgin" verses "young woman" misses the real point of Isaiah. We as Christians believe that Christ was born of a virgin because Matthew said so. And Matthew, guided by the Holy Spirit, was perfectly correct in seeing a fuller meaning within the bounds of a progressive revelation. The view that there is a "mistranslation" is not the product of a correct understanding of Isaiah, but it comes from an assumed naturalistic world view that fails to read the text of both Isaiah and Matthew correctly.

I think this line of reasoning leads to an "anything goes" approach to the Old Testament, in which it would be impossible for prophecies not to be fulfilled. If event X is prophesied and event Y occurs it's not a problem because a fuller understanding of the prophecy has been discerned.

As Physicist says, the context of Isaiah 7:14 suggests that the prophet is saying that only a short time will pass until the two kingdoms are defeated. It appears to be the defeat and not the birth that is the sign. The virginity or otherwise of the young woman in question has no bearing on this. There is a perfectly good word for virgin (bethel) which the book of Isaiah uses six times, so the author would surely have said virgin had he meant it.

Matthew, meanwhile, doesn't suggest that he's reinterpreting Isaiah 7:14, he quotes it in the words of the LXX.

You seem to take the view that the meaning of an Old Testament writer can be something that he not only didn't say, but didn't intend or understand and which doesn't take account of the context. If you accept that then truly anything goes.

 

[Godfrey]

There is a perfectly good word for virgin (bethel) which the book of Isaiah uses six times, so the author would surely have said virgin had he meant it.

Although I don't believe wikipedia so much as I used to since this climategate shenanigan, the article there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah#Isaiah_7:14_controversy suggests that it is debatable whether you can assign definite virgin/nonvirgin categorisations to either almah or bethulah (or even parthenos).

 

[logical bob]

The passage that illustrates that alma can mean non-virgin is Proverbs 30: 18-20. Here alma is used to describe a woman who is specifically stated to be with a man and who is then identifed as promiscuous/an adulteress.

 

[mondar]

However, the most logical tense that applies to the Hebrew text is that the young maid is with child (i.e. she was already pregnant).

I will admit I do not know Hebrew. However, every major translation uses a future concept in Enlgish. Can you quote a source or explain this? Sources please?

Isaiah's clear words should not be dismissed as mere naturalistic interpretation just because they don't agree with later theology.

Your sentence might be unclear here. When I used the word naturalism previously, I was not referring to Isaiah and his world view but you and your world view. You have a naturalistic presupposition that you are trying to justify in the text. It is not supported by the text. Neither Christianity nor Judiasm is a naturalistic religion. Neither is the scriptures of those world religions. So why insist on naturalism within the text of the scriptures?

I agree that in the historical situation, Isaiah was not referring to any miracle. When Mrs Prophet had her son, Mahershallelhashbaz in chapter 8, it was the product of natural procreation. This birth in Chapter 8 was the fulfillment of the "sign" of 7:14. I was not saying anything different. However, due to the names of the sons (Immanuel), Matthew recognizes a "fuller meaning" in the text. The concept of progressive revelation must be understood to correctly understand how Isaiah and Matthew relate. Not everything has to be spelled out explicitly in Isaiah for Matthew to recognize a later "fuller meaning" to the text of Isaiah. Matthew does the same thing later in 2:18 with regard to the "Rachel, weeping for her children" issue. (I hesitate to use the word prophecy---because we too often then expect a "fulfillment" in the Pauline sense and not the Matthew sense of the word as a "fuller meaning.") Just look at 2:18 and see what Matthew is doing. Then think about 1:23 and Matthews use of the term "filfilled."

The poetry of Isaiah focuses on the names of his children (Much like Hosea) and speaks of the birth of a child. Also, if you look at Matthew 1:23, he merely quotes the Isaiah and does not explain specificly what he is referring to. In fact he only mentions the name issue.
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
As I was saying, other then the interpretation (translation) of the name of the son, Matthew makes little comment. In verse 22 when Matthew uses the term "fulfilled" he is not using the term in the sense of a "fuller meaning." So then, Immanuel has a fuller meaning in that Christ was actually deity and became incarnate. Matthew can also add to this that Christ was born of a virgin and the text of Isaiah 7:14 allows for that concept also. The hebrew word for Virgin does not have to be explicit, but can be implicit. That is the "fuller meaning" Matthew is talking about.

He, as a poet, was using poetic language to say that the King, in a few years (before the unborn child was old enough to know right from wrong), would be free of his enemies. Why postulate anything else that's not supported by his actual words?

Very obvious. Who is "postulating anything else?" Is your naturalistic world view making you assume that I cannot be saying that the text of Isaiah refers to a historic "sign" that relates to a natural childbirth? In fact the text says this twice... Once with Immanuel....
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
And then in Chapter 8 with the fulfillment of the sign (the birth of Immanuel/Mahershallelhashbaz).....
Isa 8:4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.
The land abhorred by Ahaz was Samaria. The son was born to Mrs Prophet in Chapter 8 to fulfill the sign given in Chapter 7. Simply not a problem!

Another thing.... That Matthew recognized a fuller meaning then what Isaiah may have understood does not mean Matthew was wrong. Matthew is not using the term "fulfilled" in the same sense that Paul did. Matthew is speaking of a "fuller meaning." Matthew had a very good concept of progressive revelation. Isaiah's understanding of what he wrote may have been more general and not as specific as Matthew later understood. But that is the nature of progressive revelation. (Anyone ever read a good book by G. Vas on this subject?) Progressively understood words would be natural because much of Isaiah is poetry. Isaiah knew the generalities that the names of his children signified some future event. He knew that something special was to come from the house of David. In chapter 8 he wrote.....
18 Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion.
While he most likely knew that the historical child (also named MahershallelHashbaz in Chapter 8) was not going to be the mighty God, or the child of 9:6-7, or the branch of Jesse (Chapter 11), or the later suffering servant of 40-53. But he also knew the names had some special significance for the future. He knew that out of the seed of David would come something unique, special, and spiritual.

Or maybe Isaiah just knew the child would be his son and the Matthew dialogues were pure (and typical) first century Hebrew midrash.

I have read this before. I must admit I am not familiar with "midrash" enough to know of the similarity between Matthew and midrash. However, from the beginning, I have been saying about Matthew understands things to be a "fuller meaning" and not the usual literal understanding of a prophecy that is explicitly fulled according to the letter of the prophecy. This is the way Paul worked with the Hebrew scriptures, but Matthew is doing something slightly different.

To summarize what I said.. the issue of "virgin" verses "young woman" misses the real point of Isaiah. We as Christians believe that Christ was born of a virgin because Matthew said so. And Matthew, guided by the Holy Spirit, was perfectly correct in seeing a fuller meaning within the bounds of a progressive revelation. The view that there is a "mistranslation" is not the product of a correct understanding of Isaiah, but it comes from an assumed naturalistic world view that fails to read the text of both Isaiah and Matthew correctly.

How do you know the anonymous author of the Matthew text was 'guided by the Holy Spirit'? What you call a naturalistic interpretation most people would call a realistic one since it accepts the standard meaning of the Isaiahic text and doesn't attach fanciful interpretations to it.[/quote]
And how do you know that Matthew cannot mean "a fuller meaning" by the word "fulfilled." As I previously mentioned concerning 2:17-18 and "Rachel, weeping for her children...." The demands you are placing on the word "fulfilled" do not fit the text. Again, you only do this because of your naturalistic world view which looks only at the text to find naturalism in it.

 

[Godfrey]

The passage that illustrates that alma can mean non-virgin is Proverbs 30: 18-20. Here alma is used to describe a woman who is specifically stated to be with a man and who is then identifed as promiscuous/an adulteress.

But Joel 1.8 shows bethulah used in a non-virgin context:

Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.

I will stand on my last answer, Mr St Clair.
- John Dean, during the Watergate hearings

 

[logical bob]

OK, I stand corrected. Bethulah can sometimes mean a non-virgin. It doesn't, however, alter the fact that the word used in Isaiah 7:14 doesn't mean virgin either.

 

[Godfrey]

Quite - but (for a believer ) Mary's status will be clarified by her statement in Luke 1.34 that she "knows not a man".

 

[TanNinety]

Suppose an anonymous email claimed that he saw somebody dressed like Superman fly past his window. Now, you would know that previous stories of Superman were fictional and that humans that tried to fly without being attached machines fell to the ground. Would you assign this anonymous author a 50/50 chance of being true, particularly if he asked you to join his Superman worshipping cult? I think not.

Unfortunately yes, I would give him his fair share of 50/50 chance if I cannot provide evidence that superman indeed did not fly past his window. Being a biased person however, I wouldn’t believe in that story. But the beauty is that I realize I am biased towards not believing such a story. Let that bias come from probability theory or deductive reasoning or whatever the case may be.

Billions of children have been born, and except for those conceived by artificial conception, sexual relation with a human father was required.

Right. So it is highly unlikely to have a virgin give birth to a child. I stop my analysis at that statement, however you go a step further to conclude that unlikely=untrue. That takes faith. Unfortunately you deny that faith even though you seem to have it. Billions of sharks give birth through a mating ritual. That makes a virgin shark birth highly unlikely. But it isn’t untrue. Now that we have data that sharks can make a baby without a mate, it becomes ‘common sense’, it becomes logically plausible. Probability can make a prediction but doesn’t actively control the outcome of a virgin shark birth.

You are thinking among the same lines of a creationist who claims that there are billions of chances for the tuning of a universe in which we do not exist. Since we exist, there exists a fine-tuner.
But in this case, I assume you would rather see that fine tuning as, “we do not exist against all odds, but indeed we are the odds that prove we can existâ€. If billions of kids require a father and a mother, and it makes your argument against virgin birth more valid, does billions of chances of non-existence make the theists argument more valid?

Howdy cybershark. Thanks and yes, long time. I have been good, hope you the same.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

]Your sentence might be unclear here. When I used the word naturalism previously, I was not referring to Isaiah and his world view but you and your world view. You have a naturalistic presupposition that you are trying to justify in the text. It is not supported by the text. Neither Christianity nor Judiasm is a naturalistic religion. Neither is the scriptures of those world religions. So why insist on naturalism within the text of the scriptures?

I'm a wee bit confused here.

If I understand you correctly you are saying the pericope as written by the writer of Isaiah is written from the perspective of naturalism, yet you state that the poster in question is trying to "justify" the text by reading it the way it was intended to be read?

If the point is Matthew had a "fuller meaning" as well as "progressive revelation" coupled with the need to hold a supernatural presupposition to accept that view, then that makes any similar faith position of fuller meaning and progressive revelation just as viable, including the spin of Islam and the Mormons given the Abrahamic traditions would it not?

 

[Tabasco Breath]

syn•cre•tism
Pronunciation: \?si?-kr?-?ti-z?m, ?sin-\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin syncretismus, from Greek synkr?tismos federation of Cretan cities, from syn- + Kr?t-, Kr?s Cretan
Date: 1618

1 : the combination of different forms of belief or practice
2 : the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms

— syn•cre•tist \-tist\ noun or adjective
— syn•cre•tis•tic \?si?-kr?-?tis-tik, ?sin-\ adjective

Syncretism, a rather natural phenomenon as differing cultures overlap.
Given syncretism, the Bible again is not immune from fusing mythology into their traditions.

 

[izzy]

I did some research on the Isaiah 7:14 text and found an article about one of the early church father's arguments concerning the Hebrew word almah. It is not a scholarly or peer reviewed article, but it seems solid.

• Jerome uses philological arguments for this prophecy in Isaiah, and bases his argument on the Hebrew text, not the Greek text as the early Greek Fathers and Origen did.
  
  First he agree with the Jewish argument that the word hml( (almah), which underlies the Greek parqenoj/neanij in Isaiah 7:14 is not the normal word used for virgin. The other normal word used for virgin is the Hebrew hlwtb (bethula). This is the Hebrew word which indicates a woman has had no sexual relations with a man. But he then argues that neither is the Hebrew word "almah" the normal word for young woman (adolescentula), which is properly signified by the term hr(n (na’ara). He has given the Jews a dose of their own medicine!
  
  In order for the Jews to prove that "almah" does not mean virgin, they claim that there is another word for this, viz. "bethula." Jerome likewise argues that the word "almah" does not mean purely and simply "adolescentula," (young girl) for there exists another word for this, viz., "na’ara." He argues negatively that "almah" means neither virgin, or even means young girl.
  
  His positive contribution to what "almah" means runs like this. He shows the etymological meaning of "almah" (hml() stems from the Hebrew root "alm" (Ml(), which means to "hide" or "conceal." He noted, as well, that Aquila translates "almah" with apokrufoj ("apocryphos"– which according to "Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words," is from the root apokrupto to conceal from or keep secret, and the BDAG [Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Christian Literature," means hidden treasures, secret wisdom). Jerome then notes to the Jews that "abscondita" involves another condition as does "almah" which also involves another condition. The virginity of such a girl who is "abscondita" is guaranteed as there is no opportunity for her to know a man in the literal sense, let alone in the biblical sense. In other words, being hidden means cloistered. Even though the term "almah" itself does not mean virgin, it necessitates virginity. So "almah" does not of itself mean virgin, but it entails more than virginity in Jerome’s argument.
  
  Hence Jerome claims that the word "almah" is always used of virgins in the Hebrew Bible. Since "almah" is always used of virgins in the Bible, the female described at Isaiah 7:14 must be a virgin. Jerome, in contrast to Origen, claims not that there are cases where "almah" is used of a virgin, but that it always is. And in fact, in the final form of his argument he showed that even if "almah" is used as a mere substitute term for "na’ara – young girl," it still can indicate virginity, because "na’ara" can be used in this sense. Jerome used considerable philological acumen in showing his argument can be worked from the Hebrew text of the scriptures, not just the Greek.
  
  And in fact, this argument of Jerome’s is further strengthened when we note that "almah" is used in the Hebrew Bible at Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19; Iaiah 7:14, demonstrating Jerome’s contention, that, indeed, every time "almah" is used in the Bible, it definitely means virgin. Hence, Jesus was born of a virgin, which is how the Isaiah prophecy was applied messianically to Jesus by the Gospel writers.

[/list]

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Languages throughout the Bible as it has been pointed out change. Writers of the Bible used words like almah in a variety of different contexts. Rather then scouring the Bible and early church father commentary to see how almah is used, look at how the writer of Isaiah used it.

They used what is the proper word, for virgin (b?thuwlah) in these verses:

Isa 23:12 He has said, "You shall exult no more, O crushed virgin (b?thuwlah) daughter of Sidon. Arise, pass over to Cyprus; even there you will find no rest."

Isa 37:22 this is the word that the LORD has spoken against him: "She has despised you and mocked you, The virgin (b?thuwlah) daughter of Zion; She has shaken {her} head behind you, The daughter of Jerusalem!

Isa 47:1 "Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter (b?thuwlah) of Babylon; Sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no longer be called tender and delicate.

Isa 62:5 For {as} a young man marries a virgin (b?thuwlah) , {So} your sons will marry you; And {as} the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, {So} your God will rejoice over you.

It is quite clear on more then one occasion the author used the specific word "b?thuwlah" to mean virgin. Yet here we have a verse in Isaiah 7:14 that uses a different word, "almah" and it is the only time they used it to signify something so paramount as the prophesied virgin birth of Jesus?

The writer used almah because they meant maiden, not a virgin.

 

[Physicist]

Suppose an anonymous email claimed that he saw somebody dressed like Superman fly past his window. Now, you would know that previous stories of Superman were fictional and that humans that tried to fly without being attached machines fell to the ground. Would you assign this anonymous author a 50/50 chance of being true, particularly if he asked you to join his Superman worshipping cult? I think not.

Unfortunately yes, I would give him his fair share of 50/50 chance if I cannot provide evidence that superman indeed did not fly past his window. Being a biased person however, I wouldn’t believe in that story. But the beauty is that I realize I am biased towards not believing such a story. Let that bias come from probability theory or deductive reasoning or whatever the case may be.

You are an apparently extremely trusting person. However, it is common sense, not bias, that says that extraordinary claims (e.g flying man) require an extraordinary amount of evidence to justify their acceptance.

[quote:35vbbw79]Billions of children have been born, and except for those conceived by artificial conception, sexual relation with a human father was required.

Right. So it is highly unlikely to have a virgin give birth to a child. I stop my analysis at that statement, however you go a step further to conclude that unlikely=untrue. That takes faith. Unfortunately you deny that faith even though you seem to have it. Billions of sharks give birth through a mating ritual. That makes a virgin shark birth highly unlikely. But it isn’t untrue. Now that we have data that sharks can make a baby without a mate, it becomes ‘common sense’, it becomes logically plausible. Probability can make a prediction but doesn’t actively control the outcome of a virgin shark birth. [/quote:35vbbw79]

Absolute certainty only applies to formal logic systems. For observations of the real world, we can only assign degrees of confidence. I am quite confident that if I put a pot of water on a hot stove that it will eventually boil but, mathematically, there is a microscopically small chance that it would freeze. Similarly, we can, to a high degree of confidence, reject the virgin birth tale.

For purposes of brevity, I did not discuss parthogenesis in my earlier posts but others have pointed out that such 'virgin' births would require female offspring.

You are thinking among the same lines of a creationist who claims that there are billions of chances for the tuning of a universe in which we do not exist. Since we exist, there exists a fine-tuner.

And I would say the Creationists do not understand either modern cosmology or probability theory. To calculate probabilities, one needs a sample set larger than one. Our sample set of the Universe is exactly one.

But in this case, I assume you would rather see that fine tuning as, “we do not exist against all odds, but indeed we are the odds that prove we can existâ€. If billions of kids require a father and a mother, and it makes your argument against virgin birth more valid, does billions of chances of non-existence make the theists argument more valid?

See my comments on probability (odds) above.