Jesus Resurrection

[Jollybear]

Nope, it also uses bethula. You lost this one. Bethula (lol, when capitalized my autocorrect insists on changing that to "Gerbils") is a specification for virgin. It was used by the author. Almah has more than one meaning. Why would the author use a vague term when a specific one that he used elsewhere existed? You are not using that took correctly.

The hebrew lexicon i gave you says almah in isaiah 7, not bethula.

And it says

"virgin, young woman

1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin"

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you read isaiah chapter 7, its obviously a prophesy because God tells what he is going to do and what will happen. Now you can say its not a prophesy about Jesus if you want, but to say its not a prophesy PERIOD is a bit rediculoius.

This shows poor reading comprehension. At best it was a prophesy on something that was imminent. It was not a prophesy of an event hundreds of years in the future. That was why it was history at Luke's time. It was no longer prophesy. It either occurred and was fulfilled or did not and was just another of the many failed prophesies of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The hebrew lexicon i gave you says almah in isaiah 7, not bethula.

And it says

"virgin, young woman

1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin"

Again, that was the word that was used in the original. Is this so hard to understand? The standard definition of that word was "young maiden", though it could mean virgin. The same author used a word that definitely meant "virgin" elsewhere. If he meant virgin, and one would want to make sure that there was no question if it was a virgin birth, something that does not happen all that often, then he would almost certainly have used the word "bethuala' and not "almah".

 

[Apologes]

It depends upon how serious that I am. And the two are not even in the same ballpark. There may be some disagreement among historians about some of the claims of jesusneverexisted.com. In the world of science there is no conflict about the flood myth of the Adam and Eve myth, both of which are heavily and dishonestly supported by CARM.

To say there is some disagreement is a huge understatement. The claim that Jesus never existed is rejected by virtually all scholars in the field.

 

[Jollybear]

This shows poor reading comprehension. At best it was a prophesy on something that was imminent. It was not a prophesy of an event hundreds of years in the future. That was why it was history at Luke's time. It was no longer prophesy. It either occurred and was fulfilled or did not and was just another of the many failed prophesies of the Bible.

Well atleast you admit its a prophesy, wer getting somewhere, lol.

Ever hear of the saying "history repeats itself. Well, that can be in Isaiah.

 

[Jollybear]

Again, that was the word that was used in the original. Is this so hard to understand? The standard definition of that word was "young maiden", though it could mean virgin. The same author used a word that definitely meant "virgin" elsewhere. If he meant virgin, and one would want to make sure that there was no question if it was a virgin birth, something that does not happen all that often, then he would almost certainly have used the word "bethuala' and not "almah".

Ok, you admit that almah can be translated as virgin. Great.

Oh and almah was translated in greek as parthenose and that is virgin in english.

Wiki

"The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, which was completed in the late 2nd century BCE, translated almah into Greek as παρθένος (parthenos), which generally means "virgin". For example, the Hebrew word "betulah" for "virgin" is translated as "parthenon" in Exodus 22:16 in the Septuagint."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well atleast you admit its a prophesy, wer getting somewhere, lol.

Ever hear of the saying "history repeats itself. Well, that can be in Isaiah.

You still don't see your error. It is not a prophecy in the sense that you are trying to claim that it was. If it was fulfilled long before Jesus's birth it would have history by his time. It did not apply to him. Read it in context Don't quote mine. That is a dishonest approach to the Bible. The Bible says at least twelve times "there is no God" if quote mining is a valid way to argue.

And please, don't be dishonest. History repeats itself is merely an inaccurate saying. It does not apply to prophesy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, you admit that almah can be translated as virgin. Great.

Sorry, you are being dishonest here. It is an alternative interpreation.

Oh and almah was translated in greek as parthenose and that is virgin in english.

Wiki

"The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, which was completed in the late 2nd century BCE, translated almah into Greek as παρθένος (parthenos), which generally means "virgin". For example, the Hebrew word "betulah" for "virgin" is translated as "parthenon" in Exodus 22:16 in the Septuagint."

Correct, that was an error. It should have been translated into the Greek equivalent of maiden. A maiden can be a virgin and often is. If the author of Isaiah meant virgin he would almost certainly have said betulah. That is always a virgin. Let's work on those logic skills a bit. In fact some modern translations are fixing this error:


Isaiah - Chapter 7 - Bible - Catholic Online

Just one example.

 

[lukethethird]

To say there is some disagreement is a huge understatement. The claim that Jesus never existed is rejected by virtually all scholars in the field.

Of course they reject it, they can't bear the thought of their saviour not existing, I mean heavens to Murgatroyd.

 

[Jollybear]

Sorry, you are being dishonest here. It is an alternative interpreation.

Of course i was dishonest, good golly, how could i have missed that? (Sarcasm)

Ok, so....its an alternative interpretation you got.

Not a proven fact though. You do admit that, yes, no?

Correct, that was an error. It should have been translated into the Greek equivalent of maiden. A maiden can be a virgin and often is.

Wait, wait, wait, the wiki article did NOT say it was an error for the hebrew word almah to be translated into the greek word parthenose, no, it didnt. And the hebrew lexicon i showed you also made clear that there is no instence almah could be translated and NOT MEAN VIRGIN.

If the author of Isaiah meant virgin he would almost certainly have said betulah. That is always a virgin. Let's work on those logic skills a bit. In fact some modern translations are fixing this error:

ALMOST certainly. But not quite. You dont know what he would have used.

Isaiah - Chapter 7 - Bible - Catholic Online

Just one example.

I looked. Gee, they did that editing for nothing. And for what, to APPEAR honest to the perception of outsiders? Thats not real honesty. Honesty is not ACTING honest, its BEING honest.

Look here

Exodus 2:8 - STR - with Study Resources - with Context - Study Desk

Click on "maid"

This shows

Exodus 2:8 - STR - with Study Resources - with Context - Study Desk

Almah. In this passage they translated almah as maid, not virgin.

You see, even if the catholic site wants to translate it as young woman instead of virgin. Fine. But, the change of english does not change the hebrew word isaiah chose to use, which was almah. And almah PER the greek lexicon CAN be translated as virgin or maid or young woman, ect.

Again, one more time, right from the horses mouth

"virgin, young woman

1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course i was dishonest, good golly, how could i have missed that? (Sarcasm)

Ok, so....its an alternative interpretation you got.

Not a proven fact though. You do admit that, yes, no?

When your errors are pointed out to you the proper action to take is to correct them. And no, it is not an "alternative interpretation" it is known to be an incorrect one.

Wait, wait, wait, the wiki article did NOT say it was an error for the hebrew word almah to be translated into the greek word parthenose, no, it didnt. And the hebrew lexicon i showed you also made clear that there is no instence almah could be translated and NOT MEAN VIRGIN.

You are not paying attention. This is a frequent problem of yours. It has one major meaning and it can also mean virgin. You are ignoring the fact that there was a word that specifically meant virgin that the author could have used, had used in other circumstances when he wanted to make sure that people knew someone was a virgin, and yet did not in this case. You are in effect claiming that he is an incompetent writer.

ALMOST certainly. But not quite. You dont know what he would have used.

I know what he would have used if he was a competent writer. You are claiming that he was not.

I looked. Gee, they did that editing for nothing. And for what, to APPEAR honest to the perception of outsiders? Thats not real honesty. Honesty is not ACTING honest, its BEING honest.

Look here

Exodus 2:8 - STR - with Study Resources - with Context - Study Desk

Click on "maid"

This shows

Exodus 2:8 - STR - with Study Resources - with Context - Study Desk

Almah. In this passage they translated almah as maid, not virgin.

You see, even if the catholic site wants to translate it as young woman instead of virgin. Fine. But, the change of english does not change the hebrew word isaiah chose to use, which was almah. And almah PER the greek lexicon CAN be translated as virgin or maid or young woman, ect.

Again, one more time, right from the horses mouth

"virgin, young woman

1. of marriageable age
2. maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin."

Clutching at straws again.

Besides that, this whole conversation is moot. The so called prophecy was not about Jesus in the first place.

 

[Jollybear]

When your errors are pointed out to you the proper action to take is to correct them. And no, it is not an "alternative interpretation" it is known to be an incorrect one.

When your errors are pointed out to you the proper action to take is to correct them.

You are not paying attention. This is a frequent problem of yours. It has one major meaning and it can also mean virgin. You are ignoring the fact that there was a word that specifically meant virgin that the author could have used, had used in other circumstances when he wanted to make sure that people knew someone was a virgin, and yet did not in this case. You are in effect claiming that he is an incompetent writer.

You are not paying attention. This is a frequent problem of yours. It has DIFFERENT meanings and it can also mean virgin.

I know what he would have used if he was a competent writer. You are claiming that he was not.

Its a fact he used almah in isaiah 7. Its a fact almah means maid, young woman and virgin.

Bethula means only virgin.

So, yes, isaiah was competent and was trying to clarify that it would be a virgin, who is a young woman.

Clutching at straws again.

Besides that, this whole conversation is moot. The so called prophecy was not about Jesus in the first place.

What was lukes motive for making up the census? Lets get back to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When your errors are pointed out to you the proper action to take is to correct them.





You are not paying attention. This is a frequent problem of yours. It has DIFFERENT meanings and it can also mean virgin.



Its a fact he used almah in isaiah 7. Its a fact almah means maid, young woman and virgin.

Bethula means only virgin.

So, yes, isaiah was competent and was trying to clarify that it would be a virgin, who is a young woman.



What was lukes motive for making up the census? Lets get back to that.

Behaving like a two year old is not a winning tactic. But then you were losing anyway so I can understand your desperation.

 

[Jollybear]

Behaving like a two year old is not a winning tactic. But then you were losing anyway so I can understand your desperation.

You can call me dishonest, childish or whatever you like. THAT tactic is NOT dealing line on line with the points and content.

I repeated back to you as a statement to say, that dont work on me. It never will.

In otherwords, you can continue to percieve me a certain way. But i know better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can call me dishonest, childish or whatever you like. THAT tactic is NOT dealing line on line with the points and content.

I repeated back to you as a statement to say, that dont work on me. It never will.

In otherwords, you can continue to percieve me a certain way. But i know better.

But I dealt with all of your objections until you were merely making weak excuses.

 

[Jollybear]

Behaving like a two year old is not a winning tactic. But then you were losing anyway so I can understand your desperation.

Ok....change of course for a moment. Im curious how youl deal with this.

My mom told me she was going to the bungalo in the country with my niece, her grandaughter. When she got there she prayed and was crying. She said she heard a lightning bolt hit the ground outside. She went out to look and it put a hole in the ground. She went back inside and a man appeared radiant with light. She said it was Jesus. However, he went through the wall and after that was gone.

The next morning the hole was gone too.

My niece told me she saw the SAME thing.

Niether of them did or have done or do drugs.

Another interesting veridical part to this was that she noted the time this happened. It was 2am at night.

Interestingly, i was praying at that hour and i started to cry too, BUT HAD NO IDEA WHY i was.

Explain that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok....change of course for a moment. Im curious how youl deal with this.

My mom told me she was going to the bungalo in the country with my niece, her grandaughter. When she got there she prayed and was crying. She said she heard a lightning bolt hit the ground outside. She went out to look and it put a hole in the ground. She went back inside and a man appeared radiant with light. She said it was Jesus. However, he went through the wall and after that was gone.

The next morning the hole was gone too.

My niece told me she saw the SAME thing.

Niether of them did or have done or do drugs.

Another interesting veridical part to this was that she noted the time this happened. It was 2am at night.

Interestingly, i was praying at that hour and i started to cry too, BUT HAD NO IDEA WHY i was.

Explain that?

All religions have anecdotes.

 

[Jollybear]

All religions have anecdotes.

I asked you to explain it, not dismiss it.

How do you deal with the veridical aspects of this experience?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked you to explain it, not dismiss it.

How do you deal with the veridical aspects of this experience?

It is a nothing burger. All it rates is dismissal.

 

[Jollybear]

It is a nothing burger. All it rates is dismissal.

Nothing burger? Say what? Explain that?