|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Unto Us a Child is Born
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eurychus: A quick glance suggests that this, again, can best be translated as "maiden", i.e. it's ambiguous
What about all the references that say the word is used for someone obviously virginal?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not a Hebrew scholar. Bearing that in mind...
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What about all the references that say the word is used for someone obviously virginal?
1. How on earth does one tell if someone is "obviously virginal"?!
2. The level of the arguments put forward here may be judged by the following. In at least one case each, Motyer and Fruchtenbaum's argument appears to be "'almâ means "virgin" here because the person referred to here is a virgin". Thus Fruchtenbaum, from your link: quote:
Exodus 2:8. Used in reference to Moses' sister Miriam, who was a virgin.
It may well be that Miriam was a virgin at this point, but the use of 'almâ there is in no way evidence of this, any more than it is evidence of what colour dress she was wearing at the time. It's only evidence of her virginity if you've decided it means "virgin".
This is so disingenuous it's hard to believe let alone explain... but you don't need to be a Hebrew scholar to see the logic fail.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
3. Consider (again, if you will) the English word "maiden". It's a relative of "maidenhead", which is an old word for the hymen. So "maiden" strictly speaking can mean "technical virgin" (virgo intacta). But it has a looser (albeit archaic) meaning which is "young woman".
As far as I can see, 'almâ does not have any more of a "technical" sense than the common meaning of "maiden". In other words, when people write it, they are not seeking to emphasise whether somebody is virgo intacta or not. It's not their intent.*
Evidence that neither 'almâ nor parthenos are alone to decide on technical virginity this may be found in Scripture, because when it's really critical in the context that somebody is virgo intacta, this is spelled out.
OT: she knew no man (Judges 11:39, KJV) - and by the way, the word used for 'virginity' in this explicit sense in verse 38 derives from betulah not 'almâ.
NT: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34.
You're the one raising concerns about causing lambs to stumble. The level of deceit in these "authorities" and the consequences for those directed to them make me ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
==
* I am using exactly the same hermeneutical approach as I did to argue that it is impossible to tell from John whether Isaiah was more than one person: just as it is manifestly not John's intent in the passage in question, it is manifestly not the intent of the authors of these passage to comment on whether the maidens in question were virgo intacta (sorry, Latin plurals are beyond me).
[ 22. December 2017, 20:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It evokes
I must be a savage then.
Amongst other projects Mrs Eutychus and I have been immersed (ha ha) in translating material for this aquarium - not the mediocre stuff on that page I hasten to add, but the signs to go next to the aquariums.
The more I read about hermaphrodite fish and symbiotic molluscs the more it makes me appreciate the wonder of creation, and reinforces my conviction that there's a creator. There's no contradiction between the rational and the transcendent.
What I don't get in your position, Martin, is that this stance seems so risible to you except, apparently, when it concerns the Incarnation: as you say here: quote:
The only risk for me is that the magic of the Incarnation, of the manifest emotional genius of the divine nature as a ground of Jesus' human being being rationalizable. I have no fear of that.
Eutychus. I have every sympathy for wonder at The Creator due to the gob smacking creation. At God showing off. Protozoa with gearboxes. The sexual antics of flowering plants. But again, He doesn't. Except on a stupefying scale. The arbitrary dimensionless constants of the universe that make such things inevitable. He's SMARTER than a theistic evolutionist God. Your position isn't risible. It just lacks, in Alfred Russell, Lord Wallace's response to Darwin's self doubt in the face of organs of perfection, imagination. Daring.
The Incarnation is the most audacious claim of all. It makes groundless claims for Isaiah and Daniel risible by punching in to the stratosphere above them like a thermonuclear blast. There is no basis of comparison with scrabbling in their dirt for signs, auguries that we put there by the desperate, sad, faithless scrabbling. It's THE category error.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
This is so disingenuous it's hard to believe let alone explain... but you don't need to be a Hebrew scholar to see the logic fail
What you are denying here is that on the basis of the way the same word is used elsewhere in the Bible, it is inconclusive that Isaiah 7 should be translated virgin. I think if the case comes to trial, you lose on the balance of probabilities. You know better than both of the sources cited here? ..Doubt it.
Martin 60. You claim the unclothed emperor of the cosmos on the basis of the circularity of "It's here so nature must have done it "
You also know at the same time nothing supernatural could ever happen..EXCEPT the incarnation thus totally committing yourself to dissonance.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Sorry, I think that should have been 'what you are asserting here' ..whatever
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What you are [asserting] here is that on the basis of the way the same word is used elsewhere in the Bible, it is inconclusive that Isaiah 7 should be translated virgin.
Yes, that is absoultely what I am asserting. In short, because I believe this is too restrictive a meaning on the basis of the evidence. quote:
I think if the case comes to trial, you lose on the balance of probabilities. You know better than both of the sources cited here? ..Doubt it.
Please explain how, on the balance of probabilities, 'almâ in Exodus 2:8 (one of Fruchtenbaum's examples) means "virgin" and not "young girl". His argument consists of asserting "Myriam was a virgin at that time, therefore 'almâ must mean "virgin" here". That's like saying "Jamat is from New Zealand, therefore "Jamat" means "New Zealander"". You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to assess the worthlessness of this argument.
This is evidence that these "authorities" don't know better, or if they do, they are deliberately setting out to obfuscate what they know.
(You will note from my post here that Motyer ends up admitting that 'almâ doesn't actually mean virgin; what gets my goat is that he does this in the most convoluted language imaginable (it "opens the door to such a meaning") after spending several paragraphs giving the impression that it incontrovertibly does mean virgin. This is intellectually dishonest.)
Where I can claim expertise, if not in Hebrew, is in translation, where I make a living by being good at my job. And I can confidently assert that the best and most honest way of translating an ambiguous word is, wherever possible, to carry that ambiguity, covering a similar field of potential meanings, over into the target language.
On that basis I believe "virgin" to be a bad translation of 'almâ because it appears to overly restrict the meaning of the latter. Inasmuch as it does, it is a translation that does not respect the source text.
As far as I can see, in the source language, if people want to make it absolutely clear beyond all doubt that a woman is virgo intacta, they do not use a single word but use a phrase: "she knew no man".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Incarnation is the most audacious claim of all. It makes groundless claims for Isaiah and Daniel risible by punching in to the stratosphere above them like a thermonuclear blast. There is no basis of comparison with scrabbling in their dirt for signs, auguries that we put there by the desperate, sad, faithless scrabbling. It's THE category error.
So essentially, your grounds for upholding the Incarnation and dismissing predictive prophecy is that yours is a superior class of magic?*
==
*Sorry, can't resist another CS Lewis quote: "You are a little, peddling magician who works by rules and books. There is no real Magic in your blood and heart. Your kind was made an end of in my world a thousand years ago" (the White Witch to Uncle Andrew).
[ 23. December 2017, 06:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Absolutely Eutychus.
My magic's bigger than yours.
G:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...Jamat...I believe that texts function in both a denotive and connotative way. I'm the both/and not either/or guy, remember?
Yes, I'm influenced by post-modernism. I'm also influenced by modernism. So are you. We've been grown up in the 20th century and been exposed to the prevailing thought forms of our day.
On the ability of the scriptures to speak beyond their immediate context and to shape and mould us, I can't see how anything I've written has argued otherwise.
Nor do I see that as contingent on there being one Isaiah, two or three of him or 26.
@Martin60, I can see what you are driving at but simple soul that I am, I'm of the view that if God is God then surely he knows everything, including what might have been if things worked out differently.
He's not limited by anything.
Hence, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of predictive prophecy but that doesn't seem to be what we are dealing with here. At least not in the kind of direct way favoured by fundamentalist interpretations of these texts.
That's a fine fence. Including the to me senseless weirdness that God knows everything. Unless you mean that which is knowable by being or having been and 100% extrapolable from what is and was. Which little is. Therefore you'd have to include knowledge of what He can inexorably do.
He's not limited by anything known, no, in the sense that He can intervene.
I don't see the hence, but I see that He could demonstrate prophecy. But He hasn't.
That's entirely down to us to include it in our faith.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't see the problem.
If God is omniscient then he knows what might have been as well as what is and what is to come.
I don't see that in a deterministic though. I can live with the Mystery.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How does He know? I can live with the impossibilities. Doing what they are supposed to do. Not happen. And was the naming of Cyrus just a possibility? It wouldn't be in the canon if He'd been wrong? Like the warehouse of crap Mondrians you never see, the cringe making Sinatra recordings not on any album? There are Isaiah's deep at Qumran with 'God says of Colin, “He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please”' to cover the contingency of Colin the Great, founder of the Persian empire? Or God just got lucky guessing only Cyrus? One 'inspired' guess. Or working it out four generations in advance? Or He followed Captain Picard's order? That's the only rational possibility of course. He micromanaged two centuries of empires. But funnily enough as literature evolves, He doesn't. Mysterious eh?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Keep your hair on, Martin60. I'm not saying that the reference to Cyrus is predictive. I'd suggest it very probably isn't and it's a contemporary reference that occurs in the writings of later prophets than Isaiah the son of Amoz and which were bundled together in a compendium of writings that bore his name.
However ... as God is omnipotent as well as omnipresent and omniscience if it were an example of a predictive prophecy then it wouldn't be guess-work or anything of the kind.
I 'get' all the fuss and bother over 'process-theology' and Open Theism and so on but simple soul as I am I'm quite happy to live with the idea that God knows everything without trying to work out how determinist or otherwise that may be.
God can do whatever he wants.
If he wanted to predict the reign of Cyrus 200 years in advance then he's perfectly capable of doing so.
Whether he did is another matter.
There are other explanations for the reference to Cyrus in the Book of Isaiah, namely that it was written over a lengthy period by several authors. I really don't see any problem with that.
Nor do I see any problem with God being able to foresee things in advance. Why shouldn't he?
I find the whole predestination / free-will stuff to be an enormous turn-off, whether exposited by Calvinists, Arminians or Open Theists.
At the risk of baling out of debates, I find it all a big non-issue. I'm happy to live with the Mystery of the whole thing. I'm never going to be able to work it out.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Please explain how, on the balance of probabilities, 'almâ in Exodus 2:8 (one of Fruchtenbaum's examples) means "virgin" and not "young girl". His argument consists of asserting "Myriam was a virgin at that time, therefore 'almâ must mean "virgin" here". That's like saying "Jamat is from New Zealand, therefore "Jamat" means "New Zealander"". You don't have to be a Hebrew scholar to assess the worthlessness of this argument
This is silly and unreasonable. Fructenbaum builds a case over a number of examples, not JUST Ex2:8. He reasons inductively, building support through the scriptures, that the translators chose the right term for Almah in Isaiah 7. This is also supported by the Septuagint. If your demand was a for a case beyond reasonable doubt, it is amply met.
[ 23. December 2017, 18:45: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Why should any of us treat Fructenbaum as an authority? his education and training, then subsequent career, suggest a very idiosyncratic approach.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd not heard of the guy before today. A cursory glance at the biographies and details available online suggest that he's simply another of these Dispensationalist or Dispensationalist influenced preachers.
That's fair enough if that's what he wants to believe, but I can't see any reason for taking him any more seriously than that unless we are part of that constituency and sign up to the world-views associated with that.
Another US preacher with an idiosyncratic take on things. So what else is new? Move along, there's nothing to see ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Why should any of us treat Fructenbaum as an authority? his education and training, then subsequent career, suggest a very idiosyncratic approach.
Perhaps you should consider the case made rather than who makes it. Be a good Berean. His view is well supported by scripture and other scholars share it, one of whom, Motyer, has been discussed here though I have not read him.
FWIW, Arnold Fructenbaum is a Jewish believer whose parents were holocaust survivors. In converting to Christ, he was rejected by his father. He is in his 70s. He is indeed a pre-mill dispensationalist. He went to Dallas T Seminary and some would indeed call him idiosyncratic. I have met him and attended some of his studies. His study on the life of Christ from a Jewish messianic perspective is exceptional and available through his organisation, Ariel Ministries.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: I'm not saying that the reference to Cyrus is predictive. I'd suggest it very probably isn't and it's a contemporary reference that occurs in the writings of later prophets than Isaiah the son of Amoz and which were bundled together in a compendium of writings that bore his name
In agreeing with everyone, you might have skewered yourself on your fence. Did not Cyrus the Great pronounce permission for Jews to return? What would motivate this? Perhaps someone showing his name in a prophecy that antedated him by a couple of hundred years.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is silly and unreasonable. Fructenbaum builds a case over a number of examples, not JUST Ex2:8. He reasons inductively, building support through the scriptures, that the translators chose the right term for Almah in Isaiah 7. This is also supported by the Septuagint. If your demand was a for a case beyond reasonable doubt, it is amply met.
As with the authorship of Isaiah, I came to this thread with an open mind on the meaning of 'almâ. I pulled out Motyer and on first skim read, thought there were arguments either way. Then I took the time to read him more closely and discovered the paucity and/or inconsistency of his argumentation in favour of 'almâ meaning "virgin". It's so poor that he himself backs off it in his closing paragraph on the subject, as quoted above.
(You say Motyer shares Fruchtenbaum's views. If you look at what I've posted above, you'll find that in fact he doesn't. He throws enough sand in his core constituency's face to make them think he does, and then throws it all away in his conclusion.)
Yes, I took Fruchtenbaum's most egregious example (Ex 2:8), because it was the simplest and because it is so obviously utterly, utterly hollow: 'almâ means "virgin", he argues, because Myriam was a virgin and Myriam - in a context which has absolutely nothing to do with her virginity - is described as 'almâ. If telling me what's wrong with this argument is too difficult for you, try explaining to me what's right with it.
That Fruchtenbaum has the gall to advance this as a serious argument in favour of the meaning of the word tells me that he is either utterly lacking in linguistic ability or intellectually dishonest, or both. Again, there is no need to be a Hebrew scholar to appreciate just how bad this argument is.
Like I said, I came to this debate with as open a mind as I could, but the tactics engaged in by both the authors quoted who try to restrict the meaning of 'almâ to virgo intacta such that 'virgin' would be the best translation have quickly convinced me that attempting to do so is futile and misguided.
You say Fruchtenbaum's view is "supported by Scripture": go ahead, convince me. Merely quoting Fruchtenbaum* isn't enough. Neither is him or anyone else saying "'almâ clearly means "virgin" here in Scripture": this is not the same as actually making the argument.
I've made the case for why his argument on the grounds of Ex 2:8 is so appallingly bad and you have yet to tell me why I'm wrong.
==
*You could start by spelling his name right.
[ 23. December 2017, 21:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, by that token you could argue that the Aztec prophets were uncannily accurate too as Cortes happened to arrive in Mexico at a time when a prophesied bearded stranger was expected to arrive and conquer it ...
Do we have any record in Persian literature of Cyrus responding to a Jewish prophecy that prompted him to release the Jews from bondage?
They all seem to have been into prophecies and astrology and so on back then - as in the Magi coming to seek Christ and so on.
So in an atmosphere of that kind, a king like Cyrus might have taken a prophecy like that in his stride ...
I'm not saying it wasn't a predictive prophecy, but what I am saying is that a more likely explanation is that the reference to Cyrus is a contemporary one, in the same way that the writings of all the contributors to the compendium of writings that make up the Book of Isaiah were addressing particular concerns facing the Israelites at the time they were writing.
In a similar way, the reference in Isaiah 7 to a 'virgin' or 'maiden' (whether in a general 'young woman' sense or a 'virgin intacta' sense) will have had a contemporary application as well as being applied to the birth of Christ by the early Christians.
The virgin birth doesn't stand or fall on that one reference.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Meanwhile, I'm not 'agreeing with everyone', Jamat.
I'm sure there are things I might disagree with both Martin60 and Eutychus on.
And vice-versa.
Same with any other posters including yourself.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The virgin birth doesn't stand or fall on that one reference.
I don't think it stands or falls on that reference at all. But I think a lot of the angst fuelling the Fruchtenbaums of this world is due to believing, for some reason that I can't quite nail down, that it does.
The Fruchtenbaums of this world seem to think that unless prophecy is wholly predictive and 100% accurate, it's somehow false prophecy and useless, and Scripture collapses like a tower of Jenga bricks.
This approach sidelines all sorts of sensible and interesting insights such as Pooks discusses here, and leads to the sort of defend-this-position-at-any-costs linguistic stupidity I dissected (again) above in its attempt to stay on course.
It impoverishes rather than enriches Scripture.
It seems obvious to me that by far and away the best evidence for the virgin birth is not any prophecies but the prima facie testimony: Mary is recorded by Luke as saying, explicitly, not with some vague catch-all word that might or might not mean virgo intacta, "how shall this be, seeing I know not a man" (Luke 1:34).
If the gospel writers look back at Isaiah and take that as a fulfilment of prophecy, then that's fine by me. Doing that doesn't require a word for word match or indeed prior intent on the part of the author.
[ 23. December 2017, 21:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
And, incidentally, if would argue that the relation between the prophecy and its fulfilment in Christ is rather different.
It is precisely because the NT writers knew of the virgin birth that an otherwise insignificant prophecy in Isaiah, which hadn’t previously been seen as messianic, was now taken to have foreshadowed Christ, and treated as messianic. The prophecy in its own time was that from the time of being in utero to the age of the child being able to tell right from wrong, Israel’s situation would improve so that the child would eat curds and honey (two signs of a prosperous society). In other words the promise around the child coming to birth and growing into toddler-hood was an assurance of God’s promise to save his people. In the NT it is not the time period, but the child in himself who is important.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I remember that Pooks post.
Yes to your points too, and those are the reasons why I think that particular forms of fundamentalism, across all Christian traditions and not only evangelical Protestantism, ultimately lead to dead-ends and Dawkins.
They are just as injurious to faith as the opposite tendency on the liberal side of things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: you say Fruchtenbaum's view is "supported by Scripture": go ahead, convince
I did indeed..not doing your homework though.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jamat, I know exactly who Fructenbaum is. That does not mean that I must consider him someone whose opinion I automatically accept. He must make out his case and this is very much an instance where he does not.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It is not Eutychus' "homework" to prove claims made by others.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat, I know exactly who Fructenbaum is. That does not mean that I must consider him someone whose opinion I automatically accept. He must make out his case and this is very much an instance where he does not.
He cites a series of instances in the Bible where the Word Almah is denoting a virgin. He points out that the Septuagint agrees with the translation. .the sort of evidence a court would accept.
What more would he need to do?
ISTM that as this is a widely accepted translation that the burden of proof that it is wrong is on the naysayers.
So what would one need to do to make a case to your satisfaction or indeed Eutychus'?
I suspect it is impossible as neither of you is basing your conviction on the evidence of scripture. You demand scripture be buttressed by extra biblical scholarship which is in the end just some guy's opinion.
On another tack, scripture clearly shows Mary to be a chosen vessel to bear the saviour, but very clearly NOT a virgin forever and not a sinless person. This can be clearly demonstrated by her own words as recorded in Luke 1:47..she is, in fact, pregnant with her own saviour. The burden of proof that she is anything other that rests on tradition and extra scriptural authority. It cannot be shown by scripture. If you believe it, you do so for other reasons and faith stances.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
He cites a series of instances in the Bible where the Word Almah is denoting a virgin. He points out that the Septuagint agrees with the translation. .the sort of evidence a court would accept.
What more would he need to do?
ISTM that as this is a widely accepted translation that the burden of proof that it is wrong is on the naysayers.
So what would one need to do to make a case to your satisfaction or indeed Eutychus'?
I suspect it is impossible as neither of you is basing your conviction on the evidence of scripture. You demand scripture be buttressed by extra biblical scholarship which is in the end just some guy's opinion.
Just as what you base your case on is nought but some guy's opinion. In this case, the guy is someone of doubtful learning, As others do, he refers to scripture, but does not make out a solid case that his is a preferred interpretation.
By the way, what he does is set out evidence which a cout could accept, but not must accept. It fails in the light of the better evidence and better arguments which Eutychus puts forward.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Just as what you base your case on is nought but some guy's opinion
No, I do not believe HIM. I believe he has correctly shown what scripture teaches. He has other opinions I do not agree with. The criterion is always what the Bible says. In this case I am satisfied the word is correctly translated as I can be, not knowing Hebrew. Fructenbaum is a Hebrew speaker BTW.
[ 24. December 2017, 05:36: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
He cites a series of instances in the Bible where the Word Almah is denoting a virgin.
No he doesn't. He claims that's what he's doing; he claims 'almâ denotes virgin in these instances, which is not the same thing at all as demonstrating it does.
He claims 'almâ denotes a virgin in Exodus 2:8, but when you actually examine his reasoning it is beyond flawed. I've tried to explain why I think it's flawed several times now and instead of responding, you're trying to shift the debate to the perpetual virginity of Mary.
quote:
He points out that the Septuagint agrees with the translation.
No he doesn't, he claims that. He doesn't supply a single shred of evidence for parthenos meaning virgo intacta. Once again, I've come to that question with an open mind, and on my very preliminary investigation, its meaning is no more precise than that of 'almâ.
At the risk of repeating myself, it seems to me that if either the Greek or Hebrew want to put the matter beyond doubt, they say "a woman who has known no man". I'm willing to hear other evidence on these points but so far I've heard none.
[ 24. December 2017, 06:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Just as what you base your case on is nought but some guy's opinion
No, I do not believe HIM. I believe he has correctly shown what scripture teaches.
1. I have never said that you believe him.
2. The belief you set out as having is what I said you believe - his interpretation of scripture.
In the meantime, Eutychus has come forward with where Fructenbaum's interpretation falls down.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I seem to remember coming across Jewish material online where Hebrew speakers have to interpreted the word to mean 'maiden' or 'young woman' in a more general sense than 'virgo intacta'.
One could say, 'Well, they would wouldn't they, because they don't accept Jesus as their Messiah ...' or cite the NT references to a 'veil' covering their understanding etc ...
But that feels a bit of a stretch to me.
And once again, Jamat appears unable to differentiate between 'what scripture says' and interpretation of scripture.
Anyone he happens to agree with - on particular points at least - is simply 'saying what scripture says'.
Anyone he disagrees with - on particular points at least - is doing the opposite.
The ultimate benchmark isn't 'what scripture says' or what the consensus among scholars / believers / interpreters happens to be but what Jamat asserts that scripture says.
Scripture isn't the ultimate authority, Jamat's interpretation is.
I've seen him try to side-step or change the subject before whenever he is out of his depth, as he is here. Bless him ...
Concede defeat or else a Christmas truce, Jamat. You'll feel a lot better after a mince pie.
Merry Christmas one and all.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So the rest of us are demanding 'extra-biblical' evidence are we?
Whilst it's perfectly ok for Jamat to speculate, extra-biblically, whether Cyrus was motivated to release the Jews from Babylonian captivity on the basis of being name-checked in a document written 200 years previously?
I can't remember reading that Cyrus was motivated by that in my Bible, although I confess to not having read much Isaiah and Jeremiah recently other than the appointed liturgical readings.
I'm familiar with the broad outlines of course.
My point, of course, is that we all of us bring our tradition (small t) into the equation. It's Jamat's tradition that requires the scriptures to 'behave' in the way he expects them to, it's not an inherent requirement within the texts themselves.
Jamat expects everything to collapse like a Jenga tower unless everything is battened down because that's what his tradition expects of him.
Small wonder some fundamentalists make a seamless transition to absolute Dawkins style unbelief. Their faith is so brittle that it snaps.
It's no accident that they used yew, ash and elm to make longbows. The wood was strong but flexible. It bent but did not snap so easily under pressure.
I'd rather a springy and robust faith rather than a snappy balsa wood one based on brittle and wooden applications of biblical texts forced to fit jig-saw schemas popularised by certain southern US seminaries.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Keep your hair on, Martin60.
Sorry G. My attempt at irony goes too far to sarcasm. As ever.
quote:
I'm not saying that the reference to Cyrus is predictive. I'd suggest it very probably isn't and it's a contemporary reference that occurs in the writings of later prophets than Isaiah the son of Amoz and which were bundled together in a compendium of writings that bore his name.
Agreed apart from the 'probably'. Or 'probably'?! As I would aggressively say.
quote:
However ... as God is omnipotent as well as omnipresent and omniscience if it were an example of a predictive prophecy then it wouldn't be guess-work or anything of the kind.
Which seems to be a paraphrase of my position that the only possible way that it could be prophecy is that God would have to make it so. Not that I accept theism with regard to the omnis or much (99.99%) else of course.
quote:
I 'get' all the fuss and bother over 'process-theology' and Open Theism and so on but simple soul as I am I'm quite happy to live with the idea that God knows everything without trying to work out how determinist or otherwise that may be.
I'm simpler still. I can't possibly see how God knows what doesn't exist (the future) without instantaneous 'computation' or making it so.
quote:
God can do whatever he wants.
God doesn't even want to do whatever He can. And there's obviously not a lot He can do according to His nature and nature's. He cannot avoid suffering.
quote:
If he wanted to predict the reign of Cyrus 200 years in advance then he's perfectly capable of doing so.
By omnipotence only, of course.
quote:
Whether he did is another matter.
There are other explanations for the reference to Cyrus in the Book of Isaiah, namely that it was written over a lengthy period by several authors. I really don't see any problem with that.
If it could be proved that the prophecy is two centuries before Cyrus, then that would prove God's omnipotence to that degree. Yes. I have no problem with that.
quote:
Nor do I see any problem with God being able to foresee things in advance. Why shouldn't he?
Because apart from by omnipotence and instantaneous computation (with all the inherent limitations – true chaos, indeterminacy - of that), He can't. There's nothing to foresee.
quote:
I find the whole predestination / free-will stuff to be an enormous turn-off, whether exposited by Calvinists, Arminians or Open Theists.
Couldn't agree more. Meaningless stuff in the face of God's will in Jesus doing what He says on the tin.
quote:
At the risk of baling out of debates, I find it all a big non-issue. I'm happy to live with the Mystery of the whole thing. I'm never going to be able to work it out.
Indeed. We all have different baling out points.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And BroJames. Sublime.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
In the meantime, Eutychus has come forward with where Fructenbaum's interpretation falls down.
In your view, perhaps. To me he picked one reference, the Miriam one, to criticise and simply dismissed the line of thinking on that basis. He also completely dismisses dispensational thinking and Fructenbaum comes out of Dallas so that is sufficient grounds for dismissal.
The argument put forward is very strong scripturally. It points out a number of places where the 'almah' word occurs in the Bible, explains the likelihood that the referents here were virgins and in addition says that the Isaiah 7 reference was agreed to be 'virgin' by the Septuagint. The Septuagint was an agreed translation of the OT by 70 Jewish rabbis round 130?BC. They should know what their prophet said and such are more known for their tendency to argue rather than to agree.
The fact that the collective here is dismissive of this simply proves only that it is dismissive of the Bible which is seen as a fallible compilation of ancient manuscripts rather than the word of God. There is in fact no general ambiguity about 'almah' in scripture which is Fructenbaum's central point. The objection is per se about predictive prophecy. The motive is the usual satanically inspired one, to discredit scriptural authority and as usual it fails but the pathetic clutching at pseudo intellectual straws continues unabated.
[ 24. December 2017, 15:48: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It just shows that their grasp of Greek wasn't 100%
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: my point, of course, is that we all of us bring our tradition (small t) into the equation. It's Jamat's tradition that requires the scriptures to 'behave' in the way he expects them t
Your point is as usual, a pathetically generalised and thinly disguised piece of ad hominem nonsense based on your flawed theological assumptions about scripture and someone you do not know.
The decree of Cyrus was the first authority appealed to in the book of Ezra when the building of the 2nd temple was objected to and stopped by the locals on the grounds that the Jews were rebellious against the king. The decree was appealed to, sought and found in the archives and building continued after a hiatus. This was probably because the median laws could not be subsequently changed. If a decree was made by a previous king, it was still authoritative.
There were in fact several decrees of different kings on matters of return and building. The most important was that of Artaxerxes Longimanus evident in Nehemiah which authorised the rebuilding of the walls of the city. This is the decree predicted in Daniel 9 and Cyrus' decree obviously antedated that one.
Extra biblically, Josephus has an extensive comment on Cyrus' role in allowing Jewish return. It is easy to google. It is in the wikipedia notes on one of the entries about Cyrus the great.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Ah, yes, I am the servant of Satan, along with everyone else who doesn't go along with your naive Biblical literalism. You know it was this sort of thing that drove me away from evangelicalism?
I have stood in halls of triumph
And loudly sang its song
They threw me out when my song changed
To "how long, O Lord, how long?"
I have sat with the Lady of the Vine
Until I thought I'd drown
Peered through the curtain;
It was already torn down.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Surely anything that comes out of Dallas should be dismissed purely for that reason?
Merry Christmas, Jamat ...
It seems we are all 'satanically inspired' now for differing with you on your Dallas Texan Ten Gallon Hat theology ...
I don't see Eutychus denying any supernatural element.
But because his views differ from yours on this particular issue he is somehow inspired by Satan.
I don't know what reductionist universe you inhabit, Jamat but it must be a pretty paranoid place to live ...
Meanwhile, I do find it amusing that fundamentalist Protestants are championing the Septuagint at this point (because it accords with their views in this instance) yet in other instances will strongly champion the Masoretic text ... Again, where it accords with their particular take on things ...
Of course, unlike everyone else, they aren't championing a tradition or Tradition but only 'what the Bible says' ...
Which means that they'll back whatever version they feel backs up what they believe ...
Of course, other traditions and Traditions do the same, but at least they acknowledge as much ...
Merry Christmas to you all.
Jamat's brought us all some seasonal cheer along with his anathemas.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It just shows that their grasp of Greek wasn't 100%
Another pathetic piece of nonsense. Their job was to create a Greek OT
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The context of Exodus 2:8 includes young women, not virginity. And I wonder what the 70 thought Isaiah 7:14 was about?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah, yes, I am the servant of Satan, along with everyone else who doesn't go along with your naive Biblical literalism. You know it was this sort of thing that drove me away from evangelicalism?
I have stood in halls of triumph
And loudly sang its song
They threw me out when my song changed
To "how long, O Lord, how long?"
I have sat with the Lady of the Vine
Until I thought I'd drown
Peered through the curtain;
It was already torn down.
Karl, liberal back slider: long time no see. Seasons greetings.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, the job of Hebrew speakers by birth translating to Greek? On which they are not authorities? Unless they were brought up equally bilingual from birth? What do Hebrew speakers by birth say hā·‘al·māh means?
[ 24. December 2017, 16:28: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The context of Exodus 2:8 includes young women, not virginity. And I wonder what the 70 thought Isaiah 7:14 was about?
No one cares what they thought. They were the equivalents of today's software engineers.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Riiiiiggghhht. So what they thought parthenos meant and what they thought they were writing about can have no impact on their use of the word in a second language? And what they thought the range of meanings of hā·‘al·māh meant and why they chose that particular meaning if they did know what parthenos meant?
Satanically yours, Martin.
[ 24. December 2017, 16:33: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In the interests of accuracy, I didn't actually say that Cyrus didn't have a role in the release of the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
You appear to have misunderstood what I actually wrote.
I don't doubt Cyrus's role in that. What I am saying is that the reference to him in the Book of Isaiah is most likely to be a contemporary one.
And yes, of course there are edicts from Persian kings referenced in Nehemiah ...
Where did I say otherwise?
Also, where have I denied the Bible to be the word of God?
Where have I denied divine inspiration?
I'm not making assumptions about someone I've never met, I'm simply highlighting some of the theological assumptions you are making based on what you write on these boards.
What you write on these boards derives from your adoption of a particular tradition within Protestant evangelicalism.
Just as what anyone else writes derives to some extent or other from whatever formative tradition they have imbibed or represent.
I've never met Mousethief either, but I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I assume he's speaking from the position of someone who has adopted an Orthodox Christian perspective.
We all know where you are coming from because you've told us.
So I'm not making assumptions but going on what you've already told us about your approach to scripture, which is a highly literal one.
But whenever I point that out and indicate where I feel it's a flawed model, you cry foul.
Merry Christmas any way and pour yourself a sherry or a glass of port.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah, yes, I am the servant of Satan, along with everyone else who doesn't go along with your naive Biblical literalism. You know it was this sort of thing that drove me away from evangelicalism?
I have stood in halls of triumph
And loudly sang its song
They threw me out when my song changed
To "how long, O Lord, how long?"
I have sat with the Lady of the Vine
Until I thought I'd drown
Peered through the curtain;
It was already torn down.
Karl, liberal back slider: long time no see. Seasons greetings.
And a Merry Christmas to you too. I've not been anywhere far but I don't really have a dog in this fight; the precise meaning of Almah doesn't really matter any more than the precise meaning of Yom. They tell us what story the writer us telling us, but nothing about the relationship between that story and modernist objective reality. So I'll happily sing about virginal uteri and their non-abhorred status, and look for what that tells me about the Incarnation, but what we'd see with a time machine and a private detective? Dunno.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The context of Exodus 2:8 includes young women, not virginity. And I wonder what the 70 thought Isaiah 7:14 was about?
No one cares what they thought. They were the equivalents of today's software engineers.
Whoo-hoo good ha ha ha ...
'They were the equivalents of today's software engineers'.
Now that HAS to go in the quotes file!
No let's ask Eutychus who is a professional translator whether software engineering is an exact analogy for the process of translation ...
I'm sorry, Jamat, but you really are making me laugh ...
I've heard some pretty crass analogies for the how these things work but this sounds the most mechanistic yet.
The translators didn't think, they just translated ...
Nobody cares what they thought ...
Ha ha ha ...
This is translation, not automatic writing ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that the collective here is dismissive of this simply proves only that it is dismissive of the Bible which is seen as a fallible compilation of ancient manuscripts rather than the word of God.
It hardly proves that; you’d get nowhere with that in court. But the inadequacy and aburdity of your “proof” aside, you’re doing an excellent job of providing evidence to support Gamaliel’s assertions about your blindered approach to Scripture.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
