Zone1 Do I Understand These Biblical Stories Correctly?

[hadit]

There's no way you can conclude that of my understanding. I'm certainly aware that a minority of Christians were once nonbelievers.

You're speaking for a minority in which you personally fit yourself.

If you want to disqualify atheist's debating points then you're entitled to do that for yourself only.

I'm only hearing your own personal excuse to run away from the discussion. I have to wonder why you even started?

Perhaps the OP will tell us if he/she wants to disqualify the talking points of atheists that displease him/her?

I think that perhaps any OP could stipulate the bounds of his/her topic beforehand if those bounds are consistent with forum rules.

She has a vaild point, however. It is much like the phenomenon I've seen re Joe Biden. Almost without fail, every time anyone dares to mention a criticism, someone will jump on and start yammering about TRUMP!. The same thing plays out here. A Christian asks a valid question, seeking understanding from fellow believers, and atheists immediately start trying to drag the conversation away from its stated purpose an onto something THEY want to talk about. If you don't believe, that's your business, but stay out of threads that clearly are not about debating God's existence and trying to turn them into such.

 

[Woodznutz]

He was born of a 'virgin' due to a poor translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The Hebrew word in Isiaih (?) was 'young girl' which was translated into Greek with a word that meant either 'young girl' or 'virgin'. The early Christians used the Greek translation and settled on the 'virgin' meaning when they wanted to show that Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew prophesies.

A "young girl" that "had not known a man" was probably a "virgin". However (contrary to Catholic belief) she did not remain one.

 

[Donald H]

She has a vaild point, however. It is much like the phenomenon I've seen re Joe Biden. Almost without fail, every time anyone dares to mention a criticism, someone will jump on and start yammering about TRUMP!. The same thing plays out here. She asks a valid question, seeking understanding from fellow believers, and atheists immediately start trying to drag the conversation away from its stated purpose an onto something THEY want to talk about. If you don't believe, that's your business, but stay out of threads that clearly are not about debating God's existance.

She has no valid point unless she attempts to exclude atheists from the conversation. If she does that and it's accepted to be in accordance with the forum's rules, then of course I'll abide by the rules.

If not then I can't see any other course for her than to just ignore the comments that displease her, that come from atheists.

What do Christians want? I think they want the participation of atheists too.

 

[hadit]

She has no valid point unless she attempts to exclude atheists from the conversation. If she does that and it's accepted to be in accordance with the forum's rules, then of course I'll abide by the rules.

If not then I can't see any other course for her than to just ignore the comments that displease her, that come from atheists.

What do Christians want? I think they want the participation of atheists too.

No, they do not want that when they are asking other Christians for insight into what Scripture says. Let's put it this way, if forum threads are opened by European futbol fans talking about last week's matches, would they REALLY want a bunch of American football fans jumping in on every thread to trash futbol and insist that American football is the only REAL sport? I think not.

In this case, there are no rules that dictate only certain people can join certain threads, and there really shouldn't be. We would, however, expect that common courtesy would make those not really involved in or interested in the premise of a thread to go elsewhere.

 

[Donald H]

The OP understands the biblical stories correctly, but is clearly not contented with what she is told to believe.

And hence, asks the question, as is asked by Christians time after time on account of them hearing no answer that can completely satisfy.

And so the atheist tries to contribute and justifiably so!

But the atheist's answer can't be accepted and so the OP has to remain with hearing no satisfactory answer that can suit the Christian dogma.

Can the forum contain a new section that prohibits atheists or any non-believers?

 

[Donald H]

In this case, there are no rules that dictate only certain people can join certain threads, and there really shouldn't be. We would, however, expect that common courtesy would make those not really involved in or interested in the premise of a thread to go elsewhere.

Are you suggesting that I or any other non-believer is not interested or not courteous? If so then you should definitely appeal to the forum's moderators on the issue.

I will gladly abide by the forum's rules but I won't abide by your special rules you try to impose because you don't want to hear the opinions of others.

 

[hadit]

The OP understands the biblical stories correctly, but is clearly not contented with what she is told to believe.

And hence, asks the question, as is asked by Christians time after time on account of them hearing no answer that can completely satisfy.

And so the atheist tries to contribute and justifiably so!

But the atheist's answer can't be accepted and so the OP has to remain with hearing no satisfactory answer that can suit the Christian dogma.

Can the forum contain a new section that prohibits atheists or any non-believers?

You do not understand why Christians ask these kinds of questions. They are looking to understand the true meaning and purpose of what they are reading. It's called looking for a deeper understanding. Atheists jumping in to declare that they know better because none of it is real is like a group of theoretical physicists arguing over string theory when an engineer jumps into their discussion to declare it doesn't matter because string theory isn't real. The physicists don't care about his opinion and it's just annoying.

We don't need a section that prohibits atheists from joining, we need atheists with the common courtesy to not attempt to turn every spiritual discussion into yet another argument over God's existence.

 

[hadit]

Are you suggesting that I or any other non-believer is not interested or not courteous? If so then you should definitely appeal to the forum's moderators on the issue.

I will gladly abide by the forum's rules but I won't abide by your special rules you try to impose because you don't want to hear the opinions of others.

Where have I ever stated anything about rules? In fact, I have specifically argued against them, and yes, I do believe that incessantly trying to turn every conversation about spiritual matters into an argument over God's existence is extremely discourteous.

 

[alang1216]

Please delete my personal information

A maiden, more specifically, or an unmarried daughter (Strong's Concordance, s.v., "parthenos" (Strong's 3933)), Isaiah being irrelevant, as it does not relate the virgin birth.

Also, a young unmarried man (Rv 14:4).

The term implies that they had not had sexual relations, clearly the implication in Matthew as Joseph assumed Mary had had relations with another man (1:19).

The translation is just fine. Or perhaps you will post the correct one?

I'm not a Biblical scholar so I'll just stick with what I wrote. If you want more info look here.

IMHO, Matthew's story of Jesus' birth is pure theology not history. For example, Jesus is held up as the fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures so theology demanded he be born in Bethlehem. To accomplish this Matthew concocted a Roman census as the cause while Luke claimed everyone had to register in their ancestral home for taxation. Neither event occurs in historical records and neither makes any sense when you think about it. Both stories are fine as theology but fail as history.

 

[norwegen]

I'm not a Biblical scholar so I'll just stick with what I wrote. If you want more info look here.

IMHO, Matthew's story of Jesus' birth is pure theology not history. For example, Jesus is held up as the fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures so theology demanded he be born in Bethlehem. To accomplish this Matthew concocted a Roman census as the cause while Luke claimed everyone had to register in their ancestral home for taxation. Neither event occurs in historical records and neither makes any sense when you think about it. Both stories are fine as theology but fail as history.

Who's arguing theology v history?

As to the virgin birth, will you post the correct translation?

 

[alang1216]

Who's arguing theology v history?

The OP is trying to understand the Bible. I contend that if you read it as history, you misunderstand it. Seems simple to me.

As to the virgin birth, will you post the correct translation?

The Hebrew and Greek are in the link I posted but as I said, the correct translation of Isiaih 7-14 is young girl, not virgin. Seems simple to me.

 

[Indeependent]

It’s always funny when a Christian asks a sincere question in regard to Christianity, and then non-Christians or atheists quickly show up to “answer” it. Or to get into the usual theism vs atheism debates.

Sigh.

Don't expect no reaction when mistranslating someone else's Bible.

 

[Indeependent]

The OP is trying to understand the Bible. I contend that if you read it as history, you misunderstand it. Seems simple to me.


The Hebrew and Greek are in the link I posted but as I said, the correct translation of Isiaih 7-14 is young girl, not virgin. Seems simple to me.

הָעַלְמָה "The young girl.
B'sulah is a virgin.

 

[buttercup]

Don't expect no reaction when mistranslating someone else's Bible.

I didn't translate or mistranslate anything, I didn't even reply to her questions in the OP, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Road Runner]

Why would he have to be virgin born to not be a sinner?
Can a woman even be a virgin if she has a child?

What does the word 'virgin' mean to you?

Virgin means somebody who has never had sex before so no a woman can't have had a child and still be considered a virgin and I was just told that all original sin comes from the father.

Is that based on fact or faith?

Faith as all things are based on that and around that when it comes to Christianity.

I’m saying that when she’s wanting to learn the scriptures, I highly doubt she’s looking for answers from people who don’t even believe the Bible and in fact mock it and attack it. But then again I’ll let her speak for herself.

No, I don't and I don't want to get too off topic, but I see that you can be nice after all.

I don’t want to get off topic but what you don’t seem to realize is that many of us WERE nonbelievers for many years.

We’ve already been on that side, we’ve already done the research, we’ve already reconciled any questions or apparent contradictions for ourselves, we’re not just believing for no reason blindly and ignorantly.

I’ve been on these discussion forums for years… and it’s always the same. Atheists always, always, always want to argue the existence of God and the supernatural. But here’s the problem. They always do it on threads that have nothing to do with that specific debate. But again, I don’t want to speak for the OP, so if she’s OK with the thread turning into a theism versus atheism debate then no worries, i’ll just go somewhere else, I shouldn’t even be posting right now anyway, i’ve got real life stuff I’ve gotta do, so… carry on.

Yes, please don't get off topic, I seriously want to know.

 

[alang1216]

Faith as all things are based on that and around that when it comes to Christianity.

That's fine, there's no refuting that.

 

[Donald H]

Virgin means somebody who has never had sex before so no a woman can't have had a child and still be considered a virgin and I was just told that all original sin comes from the father.

No, a woman doesn't need to have sex to have a child.

 

[Road Runner]

No, a woman doesn't need to have sex to have a child.

Unless it's adopted or a stepchild or Jesus then yes they do.

 

[Donald H]

Unless it's adopted or a stepchild or Jesus then yes they do.

No, you've trapped your mind in a box. One example is artificial insemination but maybe you could think of some other possibilities?

 

[Road Runner]

No, you've trapped your mind in a box. One example is artificial insemination but maybe you could think of some other possibilities?

Read my response again. I was obviously speaking of biological children.