> General Discussions
Luke,Matthew,and the virgin birth
hillsbororiver:
So on your authority the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are null and void?
You can just skate past this extremely well researched version, and its comment on word usage? (Commenting on Isaiah 7:14)
Rotherham's sidenote to the root Hebrew word translated virgin in this verse;
"It is true that the Hebrew word here is almah and not bethula; but an examination of all the occurrences of the former shows it is synonymous with the latter and properly means virgin"
I think I will stick with this (Matthew, Luke & Rotherham) for now, but thanks for your input.
Joe
hillsbororiver:
--- Quote from: gmik ---alchemist why don't you tell us where you get your information that Matt etc aren't the inspired word of God??
Also, what is your byline saying?
I get the feeling you are stringing us along, playing with us as it were.
--- End quote ---
Gena,
He has this cloak and dagger thing going complete with ever changing and secret identities, if this is what he desires, so be it. It is just that I won't be playing secret agent dungeons and dragons any more.
Take care,
Joe
Daniel:
alchemist
Still really don't get the problem, forget I asked at all alchemist. I can be a bit dense in trying to understand where someone is coming from. . You all continue on if you'd like.
:D
Daniel
mercie:
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver ---So on your authority the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are null and void?
You can just skate past this extremely well researched version, and its comment on word usage? (Commenting on Isaiah 7:14)
Rotherham's sidenote to the root Hebrew word translated virgin in this verse;
"It is true that the Hebrew word here is almah and not bethula; but an examination of all the occurrences of the former shows it is synonymous with the latter and properly means virgin"
I think I will stick with this (Matthew, Luke & Rotherham) for now, but thanks for your input.
Joe
--- End quote ---
The Book of Rotherham , the 5th book of the Gospels?
Joe, your sounding a little frayed around the edges. :wink:
Have a Great evening :D
shibboleth:
Unless you have some concrete proof that Matthew and Luke are corrupt, I will keep on believing in a LITERAL virgin birth of Jesus. I don't think the accounts are pretty straight forward.
1.Mary was engaged, not married, to Joseph
2.Mary and Joseph had not had sex. ( Before they came together )
3.Joseph knew he wasn't the father of the babe because he wanted to protect Mary from public disgrace. If it was his babe, he would have married her.
4.An angel told Joseph the Holy Ghost would impregnate Mary.
As I said before, I don't know what I'm missing. Even if there is another spiritual meaning, that doesn't negate the truth about the physical aspect of this scripture.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version