Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Okay, I'll include the disbelieving believers. As for VS's disbelief, that's between him and God. After many, many attempts to get him to back up his claims with actual Scripture I gave up and sent him to ignoreville. It's easy to say, "the Bible doesn't say that." However, when 15 versions of the Bible all same the same thing in more or less the same words and you present nothing to validate your assertion that they are all wrong, then you lose all your credibility.

Jesus stated that the Scriptures were true, inspired by God, and worthy of using for teaching and instruction. Was He lying? He mentioned Noah by name and spoke of the great flood. Was He lying? He spoke of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, created by God and made one flesh through marriage. Was He lying?

Since we have no way to determine if what we have recorded is what he actually said. In any event, simply because he believed it doesnt make it true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible. I wonder how many of them our disbelieving believers believe actually happened.

I am betting that some of those aren't even real prophesies. Many of the prophesies that Jesus "fulfilled" have evidence that these "fulfillings" were written in after the fact. The virgin birth, being called Emmanuel, are two of the most egregious.

 

[KWCrazy]

I am betting that some of those aren't even real prophesies. Many of the prophesies that Jesus "fulfilled" have evidence that these "fulfillings" were written in after the fact.

So which ones do you believe? Water into wine? The floating ax head? Walking on water? Calming the seas? Parting the Red Sea? Manna from Heaven?

The virgin birth, being called Emmanuel, are two of the most egregious.

Complete falsehood. Isaiah spoke of both over 700 years before Jesus was born.

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7:14

Written between (circa) 740-680 B.C., toward the end of the reign of King Uzziah and throughout the reigns of King Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So which ones do you believe? Water into wine? The floating ax head? Walking on water? Calming the seas? Parting the Red Sea? Manna from Heaven?

Complete falsehood. Isaiah spoke of both over 700 years before Jesus was born.

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7:14

Written between (circa) 740-680 B.C., toward the end of the reign of King Uzziah and throughout the reigns of King Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah.

Me? None of them. If Jesus existed he was a man just like you and I. The obvious answer is the right one, there were no miracles. How much of the Paul Bunyan stories do you believe? How about Harry Potter? Spiderman?

I know you don't believe any of those, why do you believe the Bible?

ETA: And no, that is not the prophecy that Isaiah made. He predicted that a "young women" would have a child and that his name would be Immanuel. The word "virgin" was a mistranslation of the OT by the Greek writers of the Gospels. Also, the only time he was supposedly called Immanuel is in one verse in the Gospels. In other words it was just stuck in there to make it look like the prophecy was fulfilled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a link to an article that deals with the virgin birth and Emmanuel deception:

Isaiah 7:14-Deception In The Name Of Jesus

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So which ones do you believe? Water into wine? The floating ax head? Walking on water? Calming the seas? Parting the Red Sea? Manna from Heaven?

Personally, none of them.

Complete falsehood. Isaiah spoke of both over 700 years before Jesus was born.

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7:14

Written between (circa) 740-680 B.C., toward the end of the reign of King Uzziah and throughout the reigns of King Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah.

That's the whole point. The authors had to reverse engineer the gospels to fit as many prophecies as they could.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Personally, none of them.


That's the whole point. The authors had to reverse engineer the gospels to fit as many prophecies as they could.

Besides, the prophet didn't say "virgin" anyway. It's remarkably clear that the "prophecy" was relating to an ongoing event - not some distant messiah. The boys who wrote the Gospels spent a great deal of time trying to connect Jesus to some rather vague, ancient prophecies, which varying levels of success.

 

[OllieFranz]

The Hebrew word "almah" (in Isaiah 7:14), like the English word "maiden," refers to a young, unmarried woman of marriageable age. If we do not already know her personally, we generally presume that she is a virgin, until proven otherwise. The Greek translators of the LXX could not think of an exact equivalent of the word, so they used the Greek word "parthenos" which means an intact virgin -- not what the word "almah" designates at all. When Matthew's Gospel was written down in Greek, the LXX translation of Isaiah 7:14 was used. It is only our faith that Matthew was inspired that allows us to claim that Isaiah prophesied that Mary would give birth while remaining a virgin.

 

[AV1611VET]

The authors had to reverse engineer the gospels to fit as many prophecies as they could.

And then died a martyr's death? so you're saying they wrote their own death certificates?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Hebrew word "almah" (in Isaiah 7:14), like the English word "maiden," refers to a young, unmarried woman of marriageable age. If we do not already know her personally, we generally presume that she is a virgin, until proven otherwise. The Greek translators of the LXX could not think of an exact equivalent of the word, so they used the Greek word "parthenos" which means an intact virgin -- not what the word "almah" designates at all. When Matthew's Gospel was written down in Greek, the LXX translation of Isaiah 7:14 was used. It is only our faith that Matthew was inspired that allows us to claim that Isaiah prophesied that Mary would give birth while remaining a virgin.

Let's see what Mary, herself, had to say.

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

 

[KWCrazy]

Here is a link to an article that deals with the virgin birth and Emmanuel deception:

Isaiah 7:14-Deception In The Name Of Jesus

Oh, don't forget to call Luke a liar as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

TAINTED SOURCE????

Yes, it was already shown how the prediction of a virgin birth was due to the mistranslation of ancient Hebrew by the Greek writers of an OT prophesy where the mother of Emmanuel was a young woman, not a virgin. Also if you followed my link the mother was supposed to call him Emmanuel, she didn't, she called him Jesus. In the New Testament the only incidence is when his followers supposedly called him that. And that is written out clearly only once. A clear sign of writing the prophesy into the book after the fact.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

And then died a martyr's death? so you're saying they wrote their own death certificates?

No, I'm not, because we don't know who the authors were. I'm beginning to wonder if there is a single part of the house of cards that you call your beliefs that isn't wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I'm not, because we don't know who the authors were. I'm beginning to wonder if there is a single part of the house of cards that you call your beliefs that isn't wrong.

Like I said, should scientists get their way, eventually every single jot & tittle of Scripture will be demonstrated to be wrong; as the tares outgrow the wheat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, don't forget to call Luke a liar as well.

What was the point of the link? Did you look at Isaiah 7:14 from any more modern sources? They finally get around to admitting in some of them that the word was not "virgin" it was "young women". And Mary was married to Joseph, in your myth. It was not expected for her to be a virgin after marriage. You are not being consistent. But then you can't be. Consistency debunks the myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, don't forget to call Luke a liar as well.

One more point, do you actually think that Luke wrote Luke? It does not even say that in the title. Someone took Luke's story and wrote it down. Even if Luke told the truth do you think that the writer had to stick to that? You don't know writers every well if you believe that.

 

[KWCrazy]

What was the point of the link? Did you look at Isaiah 7:14 from any more modern sources? They finally get around to admitting in some of them that the word was not "virgin" it was "young women". And Mary was married to Joseph, in your myth. It was not expected for her to be a virgin after marriage. You are not being consistent. But then you can't be. Consistency debunks the myth.

A young woman who has not "known man" is called a virgin. There is no difference. Perhaps today, when so many young unmarried women have sex with multiple partners that virginity is a rarity there might be a difference, but by all accounts Mary was both a young woman and a virgin.
From Matthew 1:

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

The truth is not in you, nor do you recognize it. After quoting from Matthew and calling him a liar, you ignore the clear statement that Mary and Joseph were married but Mary remained a virgin.

Is there nothing you will not distort, no truth you will not deny?

I pray that one day you will find the truth. As it stands, you should hope that happens before you stand before the God you so completely reject and He rejects you likewise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I distort no truth. I uncover lies and inconsistencies. There are more than enough to go around in your Bible.

Once again, the original prophesy, which was not about Jesus, used the Hebrew word for young woman of age to marry. It did not use the Hebrew word for virgin. Now lets try to use some common sense here. If a virgin was foreseen to give birth wouldn't you say "I predict a virgin will give birth" rather than "I predict a young woman will give birth"? The fact that the original prophesy did not use the word for "virgin" is almost undeniable evidence that the women who had this child was not a virgin.

And where did I say that Luke or Matthew were liars? Did either one of those characters write the gospels? Since they were probably illiterate it is highly doubtful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

KWCrazy, no atheist rejects god. They reject the written word of bronze age shepherds. The last time I checked that was not the word of god.

If I put in a book that every word in it is true does that make every word in that book true? To see if every word in that book is true you need to look at evidence outside of that book. When we do that the Bible fails. Heck the Bible disagrees with itself. There is hardly any need to go to another source.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, the original prophesy, which was not about Jesus, used the Hebrew word for young woman of age to marry. It did not use the Hebrew word for virgin. Now lets try to use some common sense here. If a virgin was foreseen to give birth wouldn't you say "I predict a virgin will give birth" rather than "I predict a young woman will give birth"? The fact that the original prophesy did not use the word for "virgin" is almost undeniable evidence that the women who had this child was not a virgin.

It's because of this kind of mindset that the KJVO movement got started.

Please answer me this:

Does the 1611 KJV say Jesus was born of a virgin?

Can you answer that YES or NO, without going through the usual song-and-dance clarification routine that scientists usually take?