If the Bible contains much that is unreliable, what should we do about it?

[beamishboy]

Hi,

I think things are getting unnecessarily complicated. Some of you make me sound as if I've done something wrong, or that I'm obstinate, or that I'm proud!!! I don't want to go round defending myself but I'll just explain a few things:

It starts off quite simply like this. I have been told that the Bible is holy. It reveals God's truths, doctrines, teachings, laws, prophecies, etc etc. I read it for myself and I find a lot of inconsistencies. As a young boy, I naturally thought it was because I couldn't understand it that I thought there were inconsistencies. I understand now that even adults tell themselves this when they encounter inconsistencies. It's their fault, not the Bible's.

I then decided to study the Bible more thoroughly. I began with Matthew. I had only read the first chapter when it became clear to me that I needed help so I looked up a very scholastic commentary. Not the typical two-volume commentary for the whole Bible but this was truly scholastic - a huge volume for just Matthew. I was surprised to discover that whenever Matthew quoted OT prophecy and I checked the OT, Matthew always got it wrong. The commentary explained why. The commentary did not pull any punches when it said that there were dubious parts in Matthew. Not just Matthew but all over the Bible. Some, like John 8, are huge chunks and are more famous. I decided that it'd only be responsible if I studied how the Bible came into being, particularly the NT.

That was when I searched for the most scholastic works (ie honest and academically sound) and I found Metzger's "The Canon of the NT" and FF Bruce's "The Canon of Scripture".

It was more like opening a can of worms when I read both books. I realise ignorance is bliss in Christianity. The more you know, the more knotty the problems become.

So there, I'm not obstinate or difficult or proud as drich seems to think. I searched for the truth honestly and diligently. That only led me to more confusion.

 

[drich0150]

Defining "Faith": faith // Audio Help /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom 9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

But the answers HE seeks are important ACADEMIC ones! How historically reliable is scripture? How did the canon develop? Who authored the different books

Again if there was an answer to be found out side of faith you or someone a whole lot smarter would have published a book on the subject.. there by aleaving beamishes "Spiritual" itch.

Imagine if a doctor came up with a combination of chemicals that he faithfully thought might cure a terrible disease. He didn't have much reason for thinking it could work, except that he had a good feeling about it. Should he do research and TEST his new medicine first, or simply give it to a patient and hope they don't get even more sick, or even die?!

Seriously? I know you chomping at the bit to dismis me or make me look foolish for my faith, but this is a tremendous stretch. I have validated the need for academics in there proper context. Medical research obviously being one of them. The Bible, on the other hand was not written the sameway a medical text would be.. how many medical Thesis's contain, "visions and parables?" So any good researcher will yield to the Idea of being able to extract the same kind of answers from a book like the bible.. Why? To take it in context rather than trying to make it fit a known standard. So again faith for the faith inspired, and research and devlopement for the "Learn-ed"

I was implying that he didn't do any of that because there is no reason why 'he' would even exist in the first place.

Then what are you doing here in the first place? trying to convert the lost souls of faith to your holy religion of "Academia" Will your gods of history a science be angry for having me look up the definition of faith for you? What about "Beamish" Is he here with you? Are you two trying to get in your heaven together by making monkeys out of us too?

 

[drich0150]

I know you and "others" seem to be desperately trying to label my efforts so they can be over looked. I don't have an opinion of you in so far as this. I gave you examples of your own writings, holding "contempt" for you Aunt because her's was a position of faith and not reason. And I've continued to state over and over by song and story, that you will have to approach the matters of the bible with faith, to understand them.. that's it.
Since you've heard my stories, then the rest is up to you. If you seek answers then finish what you start. Ask God for understanding and finish reading the bible. without commentary at first. let what you learn be your's instead of what someone else might think.

Because this is your thread if you wish i will remain silent. I will. Just ask anyone else who wishes to speak with me to do so by a PM.

 

[CShephard53]

I know you and "others" seem to be desperately trying to label my efforts so they can be over looked. I don't have an opinion of you in so far as this. I gave you examples of your own writings, holding "contempt" for you Aunt because her's was a position of faith and not reason. And I've continued to state over and over by song and story, that you will have to approach the matters of the bible with faith, to understand them.. that's it.
Since you've heard my stories, then the rest is up to you. If you seek answers then finish what you start. Ask God for understanding and finish reading the bible. without commentary at first. let what you learn be your's instead of what someone else might think.

Because this is your thread if you wish i will remain silent. I will. Just ask anyone else who wishes to speak with me to do so by a PM.

Please don't start dishing us the 'faith is believing without seeing' junk. It doesn't fly around here.

 

[CShephard53]

Beamish - I'm going to ask this again, because you obviously missed it the first time.

Why does the Bible have to be 100% reliable? I don't expect that kind of reliability from any other collection of books from the 1st century, why should I expect if from the Bible? It's still the closest we can get to direct knowledge of the historical Jesus; the Gospels are at least 1st century in origin, unlike a lot of the Apocryphal Gospels.

Why should it not be 100% reliable? We honestly don't care what you expect. That doesn't matter. What matters is what the truth is.

Maybe you should relax a little; of course there's lots of manuscript problems with the Bible. But I think we're as close as we can get to the original works. After all, your faith is in Christ, isn't it, not the Bible?

In order to know what Christ says, one must be able to trust the Bible. Otherwise you have pure speculation.

Personally, I think the Bible is reliable enough for it to be the foundation document of Christianity. I don't subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration and other Protestant notions. To me, it turns the Bible into a paper Pope. And I'm not terribly in favour of popes. Actually, as a Quaker, I'm not a great believer in priests, deacons, pastors, ministers and the rest of the hireling shepherd lot. But if you like going to a steeple house, that's your affair.

And if you want to reject the foundation of Christianity, go for it. Christ clearly taught that some should be teachers and that everyone has a ministry.

Some religious language (eg having "a relationship with Christ") does seem silly to me too, frankly.

So it seems silly that 'one should have a relationship with God through Christ'? What else would you call it?

 

[beamishboy]

Beamish - I'm going to ask this again, because you obviously missed it the first time.

Why does the Bible have to be 100% reliable? I don't expect that kind of reliability from any other collection of books from the 1st century, why should I expect if from the Bible? It's still the closest we can get to direct knowledge of the historical Jesus; the Gospels are at least 1st century in origin, unlike a lot of the Apocryphal Gospels.

Maybe you should relax a little; of course there's lots of manuscript problems with the Bible. But I think we're as close as we can get to the original works. After all, your faith is in Christ, isn't it, not the Bible?

Personally, I think the Bible is reliable enough for it to be the foundation document of Christianity. I don't subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration and other Protestant notions. To me, it turns the Bible into a paper Pope. And I'm not terribly in favour of popes. Actually, as a Quaker, I'm not a great believer in priests, deacons, pastors, ministers and the rest of the hireling shepherd lot. But if you like going to a steeple house, that's your affair.

Some religious language (eg having "a relationship with Christ") does seem silly to me too, frankly.

Hi, I'm sorry I didn't answer your question because there are a lot of posts here and most of you guys don't vary the posts with different fonts and colours. Hehe.

The Bible does not have to be 100% correct for me. I'm not an inerrantist or literalist. I thought it was OK for a while. And then, when one by one, each doctrine slowly crumbles, I begin to worry what there might be left to hold on to.

The first major problem came with the virgin birth doctrine. When I realised that Matthew was straining to prove Jesus' virgin birth because of a misconceived prophecy that does not appear in the Hebrew Isaiah but only appears in the Septuagint version which Matthew quotes, the nagging thought that came to me was "What else have the gospel writers cooked up?" In other words, the original Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 had no "virginity" in it. "Almah" simply means "young woman". But the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14 reads "parJemoV" which means virgin. The embellishing of a story in order to make it fulfil a non-existent prophecy has a huge impact on me.

The question "what else have they cooked up?" is very crippling for me. I really wish the Bible didn't have all this trouble. But it has and I'm not one who can pretend there's none.

 

[CShephard53]

Hi, I'm sorry I didn't answer your question because there are a lot of posts here and most of you guys don't vary the posts with different fonts and colours. Hehe.

The Bible does not have to be 100% correct for me. I'm not an inerrantist or literalist. I thought it was OK for a while. And then, when one by one, each doctrine slowly crumbles, I begin to worry what there might be left to hold on to.

The first major problem came with the virgin birth doctrine. When I realised that Matthew was straining to prove Jesus' virgin birth because of a misconceived prophecy that does not appear in the Hebrew Isaiah but only appears in the Septuagint version which Matthew quotes, the nagging thought that came to me was "What else have the gospel writers cooked up?" In other words, the original Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 had no "virginity" in it. "Almah" simply means "young woman". But the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14 reads "parJemoV" which means virgin. The embellishing of a story in order to make it fulfil a non-existent prophecy has a huge impact on me.

The question "what else have they cooked up?" is very crippling for me. I really wish the Bible didn't have all this trouble. But it has and I'm not one who can pretend there's none.

Let's compare, shall we?
H5959
עלמה
‛almâh
BDB Definition:
1) virgin, young woman
1a) of marriageable age
1b) maid or newly married
Part of Speech: noun feminine

G3933
παρθένος
parthenos
Thayer Definition:
1) a virgin
1a) a marriageable maiden
1b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
1c) one’s marriageable daughter
2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
2a) one who has never had intercourse with women
Part of Speech: noun feminine

Does the Greek have a word similar enough to the original Hebrew, or was that word the closest they got?

Don't get wishy-washy on us. Before you said you wanted it to be true.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Does the Greek have a word similar enough to the original Hebrew, or was that word the closest they got?

What about the similarity of the Hebrew words for "Saul" and "sheol" in the OC?

I assume the "Saul" of the NC was a type of him before he "converted" and his name changed to "Paul"

1 Samuel 9:2 And to him he became a son, and name of him Sha'uwl, choice/0970 bachuwr and goodly/02896 towb. And there is no man from sons of Yisra'el better from him from shoulder of him and upward tall from all of the people.

2 Samuel 22:1 And David is speaking to YHWH these words of the song, this, in day of YHWH rescued him from palm of all his enemies and from palm of Sha'uwl

Isaiah 28:15 Because ye-say: `We-cut/karath a-Covenant with Death, And-with Sh@'owl we-made a seer/02374 chozeh, a-scourge overflowing that passeth-over, ..........................

07586 Sha'uwl {shaw-ool'} pass part of 07592;; n pr m
AV - Saul 399, Shaul 7; 406
Saul or Shaul = "desired"
7586 Sha'uwl shaw-ool' passive participle of 7592; asked; Shaul, the name of an Edomite and two Israelites:--Saul, Shaul.

07585 sh@'owl {sheh-ole'} or sh@ol {sheh-ole'} from 07592; TWOT - 2303c; n f
AV - grave 31, hell 31, pit 3; 65
1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit

2374 chozeh kho-zeh' active participle of 2372; a beholder in vision; also a compact (as looked upon with approval):--agreement, prophet, see that, seer, (star-)gazer.

Acts 13:9 Saul/sauloV <4569> yet the even Paul being filled of spirit, holy-one, staring into him,

 

[beamishboy]

Let's compare, shall we?
H5959
&#1506;&#1500;&#1502;&#1492;
&#8219;alma&#770;h
BDB Definition:
1) virgin, young woman
1a) of marriageable age
1b) maid or newly married
Part of Speech: noun feminine

G3933
&#960;&#945;&#961;&#952;&#949;&#769;&#957;&#959;&#962;
parthenos
Thayer Definition:
1) a virgin
1a) a marriageable maiden
1b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
1c) one’s marriageable daughter
2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
2a) one who has never had intercourse with women
Part of Speech: noun feminine

Does the Greek have a word similar enough to the original Hebrew, or was that word the closest they got?

Don't get wishy-washy on us. Before you said you wanted it to be true.

I don't know where you get your "virgin" definition for "almah" but that is not the accepted definition from my reading - even in fundamentalist sort of books. I'm reading from a highly fundamentalist Dallas Theological Seminary definition and again, it simply means maiden or young woman with NO implication on virginity. There's another word for virgin in Hebrew which eludes me at the moment. My point is simply that the Isaiah "prophecy" has no reference to virginity at all. No Jew reading the Hebrew Isaiah would have paused and said to himself, "Wow, a virgin giving birth! Fancy that!" He'd simply think, "OK, there is a young woman who will give birth."

 

[beamishboy]

By the way, why is it that my Greek writing appears garbled in your quotations? Does this look greek in your computer? - parJenoV

 

[CShephard53]

I don't know where you get your "virgin" definition for "almah" but that is not the accepted definition from my reading - even in fundamentalist sort of books. I'm reading from a highly fundamentalist Dallas Theological Seminary definition and again, it simply means maiden or young woman with NO implication on virginity. There's another word for virgin in Hebrew which eludes me at the moment. My point is simply that the Isaiah "prophecy" has no reference to virginity at all. No Jew reading the Hebrew Isaiah would have paused and said to himself, "Wow, a virgin giving birth! Fancy that!" He'd simply think, "OK, there is a young woman who will give birth."

I'm using BDB:
"Brown-Driver-Briggs&#8217; Hebrew Definitions
All of the original Hebrew and Aramaic words are arranged by the numbering system from Strong&#8217;s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. In some cases more than one form of the word &#8212; such as the masculine and feminine forms of a noun &#8212; may be listed.
Each entry is a Hebrew word, unless it is designated as Aramaic.
Immediately after each word is given its equivalent in English letters, according to a system of transliteration.
Next follows the Brown-Driver-Briggs&#8217; Definitions given in English.
Then ensues a reference to the same word as found in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. This section makes an association between the unique number used by TWOT with the Strong&#8217;s number."


Now, I suggest that you give sources rather than claims, Beamish. I don't accept claims unless they are backed, and claiming what something says isn't the same as linking the source. I also hope you realize that Mary was about 14 when she had Jesus, certainly qualifying as a young woman. And along with that, the name in Isaiah was 'Immanuel' or 'God with us', and Jesus does claim to be God. So I fail to see how that's much of a contradiction.

 

[CShephard53]

By the way, why is it that my Greek writing appears garbled in your quotations? Does this look greek in your computer? - parJenoV

Nope. Hope you're able to fix that! I usually just copy paste.

 

[beamishboy]

Hi,

Sorry I didn't give any sources. I'll give them now.

In Leon Morris' "The Gospel according to Matthew" on page 31 (footnote 53), it says, "Isaiah uses the word &#1506;&#1500;&#1502;&#1492; which is usually understood to mean a woman of marriageable age. The word occurs 7 times and is apparently not used for women who are married (though Prov 30:19 may be an exception).

In Edward J. Young's "The Book of Isaiah- A Commentary" Volume 1, on page 288, it says: "Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried womanand children born to an almah would be illegitimate."

From Edward Young's book, children born to an almah are illegitimate. So, it's nothing strange for unwed mothers to be called almah.

My reading tells me that Bethulah is a better word for virgin. But the Bible, where virginity is emphasized, will always add "a bethulah who has known no man". If virginity is an important point, Isaiah 7:14 would have read "a bethulah who has known no man shall be with child and his name shall be called Emmanuel."

When I told my vicar these problems, he tells me that it's OK because CoE has just announced through the Archbishop of Canterbury that a belief in the virgin birth is not crucial for the faith. My family are friends with the Bishop of Oxford (incidentally, he is the chap Richard Dawkins says he respects). The Bishop has said that we can always accept the tradition of the virgin birth. You may not accept it as fact but you can still accept the tradition of the virgin birth.

I really think it is all right to think that Jesus' birth was not a virgin birth as long as we believe he is fully God and fully man. A virgin birth might technically make him not so fully man.

 

[Chickapee]

Now, I suggest that you give sources rather than claims, Beamish. I don't accept claims unless they are backed, and claiming what something says isn't the same as linking the source. I also hope you realize that Mary was about 14 when she had Jesus, certainly qualifying as a young woman. And along with that, the name in Isaiah was 'Immanuel' or 'God with us', and Jesus does claim to be God. So I fail to see how that's much of a contradiction.

Hi jawsmetroid ,

JESUS CLAIMS THE FATHER is within Him ,doing the works and He was SENT by the Father /GOD into the world but was never from this world ..


I dont see Jesus saying He is God anywhere ??
Please show me where Jesus claims to be God /The FATHER ? I see the Jews accusing Jesus of saying this NOT JESUS saying this though ..

and the Father are one.'

in agreement Union same WITNESS ..SPIRIT [HOLY SPIRIT /ONE]]

31Therefore, again, did the Jews take up stones that they may stone him;
32Jesus answered them, `Many good works did I shew you from my Father; because of which work of them do ye stone me?'
33The Jews answered him, saying, `For a good work we do not stone thee, but for evil speaking, and because thou, being a man, dost make thyself God.'
34Jesus answered them, `Is it not having been written in your law: I said, ye are gods?
35if them he did call gods unto whom the word of God came, (and the Writing is not able to be broken,)
36of him whom the Father did sanctify, and send to the world, do ye say -- Thou speakest evil, because I said, Son of God I am?
37if I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me; 38and if I do, even if me ye may not believe, the works believe, that ye may know and may believe that in me [is] the Father, and I in Him.'

this confusion has caused many of divisions in the Truth/Christ the Father and His Son / HOLY SPIRIT to me
God bless .. Jesus Peace c ................
If i am wrong i will gladly apologize for being wrong , knowledge is in part and i accept it , but GODS Love is whole /complete entire needing nothing in GOD THE FATHER and His Christ /annointed...

 

[CShephard53]

Hi jawsmetroid ,

JESUS CLAIMS THE FATHER is within Him ,doing the works and He was SENT by the Father /GOD into the world but was never from this world ..

Yes, but He also makes other claims.

I dont see Jesus saying He is God anywhere ??
Please show me where Jesus claims to be God /The FATHER ? I see the Jews accusing Jesus of saying this NOT JESUS saying this though ..

Amazing how you miss John 8 and 10...

Joh 8:41 "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."
Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
Joh 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
Joh 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Joh 8:45 "But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
Joh 8:46 "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me?
Joh 8:47 "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."
Joh 8:48 The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?"
Joh 8:49 Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.
Joh 8:50 "But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges.
Joh 8:51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."
Joh 8:52 The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.'
Joh 8:53 "Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?"
Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God';
Joh 8:55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word.
Joh 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Joh 8:59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

Do you know the cultural significance of this 'I am' statement? God Himself said the same thing in the OT:
Exo 3:13 Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?"
Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

A quick look at the Hebrew of that passage and the Greek of John 5:58 shows that it's talking about the same thing:
H1961
&#1492;&#1497;&#1492;
ha&#770;ya&#770;h
BDB Definition:
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) -----
1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
1a1b) to come about, come to pass
1a2) to come into being, become
1a2a) to arise, appear, come
1a2b) to become
1a2b1) to become
1a2b2) to become like
1a2b3) to be instituted, be established
1a3) to be
1a3a) to exist, be in existence
1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
1a3d) to accompany, be with
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone
Part of Speech: verb

G1510
&#949;&#953;&#787;&#956;&#953;&#769;
eimi
Thayer Definition:
1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
Part of Speech: verb

And even if that did not show them to be the same, we have the Jews trying to stone Jesus. The only reason the Jews would stone someone without permission from the Romans would be if they claimed to be God.

Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
Joh 10:26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
Joh 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
Joh 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
Joh 10:29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

and the Father are one.'

in agreement Union same WITNESS ..SPIRIT [HOLY SPIRIT /ONE]]

Then why did the Jews try to stone Him for 'making [himself] out to be God'?

this confusion has caused many of divisions in the Truth/Christ the Father and His Son / HOLY SPIRIT to me
God bless .. Jesus Peace c ................
If i am wrong i will gladly apologize for being wrong , knowledge is in part and i accept it , but GODS Love is whole /complete entire needing nothing in GOD THE FATHER and His Christ /annointed...

Um, Christ is fully man, fully God. That's part of the basic trinitarian doctrine.

 

[CShephard53]

Hi,

Sorry I didn't give any sources. I'll give them now.

In Leon Morris' "The Gospel according to Matthew" on page 31 (footnote 53), it says, "Isaiah uses the word &#1506;&#1500;&#1502;&#1492; which is usually understood to mean a woman of marriageable age. The word occurs 7 times and is apparently not used for women who are married (though Prov 30:19 may be an exception).

In Edward J. Young's "The Book of Isaiah- A Commentary" Volume 1, on page 288, it says: "Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried womanand children born to an almah would be illegitimate."

From Edward Young's book, children born to an almah are illegitimate. So, it's nothing strange for unwed mothers to be called almah.

My reading tells me that Bethulah is a better word for virgin. But the Bible, where virginity is emphasized, will always add "a bethulah who has known no man". If virginity is an important point, Isaiah 7:14 would have read "a bethulah who has known no man shall be with child and his name shall be called Emmanuel."

When I told my vicar these problems, he tells me that it's OK because CoE has just announced through the Archbishop of Canterbury that a belief in the virgin birth is not crucial for the faith. My family are friends with the Bishop of Oxford (incidentally, he is the chap Richard Dawkins says he respects). The Bishop has said that we can always accept the tradition of the virgin birth. You may not accept it as fact but you can still accept the tradition of the virgin birth.

I really think it is all right to think that Jesus' birth was not a virgin birth as long as we believe he is fully God and fully man. A virgin birth might technically make him not so fully man.

No virgin birth would mean he could not be God. Basic biology- when a boy is created, they need the sperm for the Y chromosome. Otherwise, it's just a period and not a pregnancy. If Jesus got his X and Y from humans, then the claim that he is God would be very difficult to make and back.

Anyhow, I fail to see how Matthew is unreliable in saying this. Does Matthew need Isaiah to back his claim? The Greek used has two meanings, not one.

 

[xmoongirlx]

Who said it was unreliable?

ALL in the bible is reliable!

The ppl who wrote the bible were meant to write it by God, his way of reaching us!

 

[VictimofChanges]

Who said it was unreliable?

ALL in the bible is reliable!

The ppl who wrote the bible were meant to write it by God, his way of reaching us!

Try reading more than the thread title before replying!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Try reading more than the thread title before replying!

Her heart was in the right place.

Matt 24:30 "Then shall be appearing the sign of the Son of the Man in heaven, and then shall be wailing/koyontai <2875> (5695), all the Tribes of the land and they will shall be seeing the Son of the Man coming on the clouds of the heaven with power and glory, much
.
Reve 18:9 and shall be lamenting/klausontai <2799> (5695) and shall be wailing/koyontai <2875> (5695) over Her the kings of the land, the ones with her fornicating and indulging, whenever they may be observing the smoke of the refining fire of Her

 

[beamishboy]

Her heart was in the right place.

In a forum of this nature, the position of the heart is immaterial. The head is something else.