You can't just say "no" without backing up why. Though really, you've been giving your opinion without backing up why this entire thread.
Any "evidence" you give is refuted with Biblical verses, and all you do is say "well, this doesn't necessarily that, even though it could".
^ That is speculation. Not evidence.
You've also shown you don't even know what evidence mean.s You're even arrogant enough argue against the translators of the Bible, like you're more of an expert.
And the translators you cite are working against the reading of those who did not require a translation, but were reading their own language.
It is not merely a matter of "it can mean". It is that the terminology is not a straight translation to a different language in a different culture in a different era.
To choose among the various meanings without factual evidence is indeed speculative.
Evidence is required to be factual. You'v been given facts. Direct quotes from the Bible, for instance. Like the fact that Joseph was engaged to Mary, showing why it's logical that the translators would call Mary his wife.
I have also given facts; the facts of the language in which the account appears in its oldest (extant)* version.
Oh, btw....it's not just one translator that believes this, but MANY translators and Biblical scholarsl. Almost EVERY Bible translation from Biblical scholars hold that Mary was Joseph's wife...yet YOU know better?
And these translators are more knowledgeable about the language than those who are native speakers of the early centuries ?
Note that now, even, definitions are only expanded as texts from the era are discovered and translated. Meaning is being recovered presently; the meaning was never lost by those who understood and maintained the scripture from the earliest centuries; they did not need to "recover" the meaning.
The lexicons used in NT study are typically abbreviated and do not always contain the full range of a words meaning. Nor do they consider the cultural reality of the language. The absence of parallel tenses in English have led to misunderstandings by those reading in translation.
I've shown that that the Bible says over and over that Jesus had brothers. You've shown NO Scriptual evidence that this isn't what the Bible means. Only "brother might not necessarily mean brother, though it could mean brother".
You have pointed out repeatedly that Jesus had adelphoi; you have not provided any factual evidence from the Bible or elsewhere that describes the actual relationship of those adelphoi to Jesus.
If we are to rely on facts to support teachings, then I ask to provide factual evidence for the particular relationship that is meant. You are certainly welcome to believe according to your own tradition, but absent factual evidence it is a tradition.
This is stubornness through and through.
No, I am asking that you support your tradition exclusively using factual scriptural evidence.
No "inference" is necessary. God clearly told Hosea to marry a prostitute.
The question remains unanswered: can one reasonably infer from what precedes the book of Hosea that God would command a chosen prophet to marry a prostitute ?
*edit
