Re: Don't forget to send your favorites!

J. Clarke wrote:
> Wilba wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens said:
>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
>>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that
>>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or
>>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a chastity
>>>>>> belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or
>>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never
>>>>>> put out
>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
>>>>> mutated
>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation
>>>>> would be
>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>>>
>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was
>>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>>>
>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore
>>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages
>>> in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language
>>> of JC and his motley crew.
>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of
>>> the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.
>>
>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the
>> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no
>> Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek
>> based on what was heard in Aramaic.
>
> Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and there were
> verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the final form of the
> New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll never know
> how much revisionism existed.
>
> However if Neil Douglas-Klotz is an "Aramaic scholar" and he holds that
> Aramaic was never written then he blew his credibility, as it is fairly
> well
> known that Aramaic writing dates to around 1000BC and Hebrew writing is
> generally considered to be derived from Aramaic writing. Now, it may be
> true that no Aramaic writings of any of the Disciples are known to exist
> but
> that is another issue entirely.

Blame my memory before you dismiss him. :- )

Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became
"virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was miraculously
impregnated.

Wilba

"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> Wilba wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> Eric Stevens said:
>>>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
>>>>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that
>>>>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or
>>>>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a chastity
>>>>>>>> belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>>>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or
>>>>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never
>>>>>>>> put out
>>>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
>>>>>>> mutated
>>>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was
>>>>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>>>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore
>>>>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages
>>>>> in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language
>>>>> of JC and his motley crew.
>>>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of
>>>>> the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.
>>>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the
>>>> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no
>>>> Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek
>>>> based on what was heard in Aramaic.
>>> Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and there were
>>> verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the final form of
>>> the
>>> New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll never
>>> know
>>> how much revisionism existed.
>>>
>>> However if Neil Douglas-Klotz is an "Aramaic scholar" and he holds that
>>> Aramaic was never written then he blew his credibility, as it is fairly
>>> well
>>> known that Aramaic writing dates to around 1000BC and Hebrew writing is
>>> generally considered to be derived from Aramaic writing. Now, it may be
>>> true that no Aramaic writings of any of the Disciples are known to exist
>>> but
>>> that is another issue entirely.
>>
>> Blame my memory before you dismiss him. :- )
>>
>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became
>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was
>> miraculously impregnated.
>
> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't accept.

Interesting discussion...

One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as
things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after
Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.

A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...

Take Care,
Dudley

Dudley Hanks

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
> news: ...
>> Wilba wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>> Eric Stevens said:
>>>>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
>>>>>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that
>>>>>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or
>>>>>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a
>>>>>>>>> chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>>>>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or
>>>>>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she
>>>>>>>>> never put out
>>>>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe
>>>>>>>> her has mutated
>>>>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct
>>>>>>>> translation would be
>>>>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>>>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was
>>>>>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>>>>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore
>>>>>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the
>>>>>> languages in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all
>>>>>> likelihood the language of JC and his motley crew.
>>>>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of
>>>>>> much of the myth they would have written the original drafts in
>>>>>> Aramaic.
>>>>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the
>>>>> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and
>>>>> no Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in
>>>>> Greek based on what was heard in Aramaic.
>>>> Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and
>>>> there were verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the
>>>> final form of the
>>>> New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll
>>>> never know
>>>> how much revisionism existed.
>>>>
>>>> However if Neil Douglas-Klotz is an "Aramaic scholar" and he holds
>>>> that Aramaic was never written then he blew his credibility, as it
>>>> is fairly well
>>>> known that Aramaic writing dates to around 1000BC and Hebrew
>>>> writing is generally considered to be derived from Aramaic
>>>> writing. Now, it may be true that no Aramaic writings of any of
>>>> the Disciples are known to exist but
>>>> that is another issue entirely.
>>>
>>> Blame my memory before you dismiss him. :- )
>>>
>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass"
>>> became "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary
>>> was miraculously impregnated.
>>
>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't
>> accept.
>
> Interesting discussion...
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written
> as things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years
> after Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>
> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...

And the Disciples who wrote the gospels no doubt had discussed matters among
themselves at some length--still, their stories don't exactly agree.

There's also the possibility that they embellished the truth a bit. For all
we know Mary could have been a hooker--we don't have any other information
about her than what they wrote and they wrote what would suit their
purposes.

>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

J. Clarke

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Alan Browne
<> wrote:

>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>> news: ...
>>> Wilba wrote:
>
>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass" became
>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was
>>>> miraculously impregnated.
>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't accept.
>>
>> Interesting discussion...
>>
>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as
>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after
>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>
>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>
>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas
>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by
>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and
>declaring it "The Word of God".

Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?

What had you expected the topic to be?

Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by
someone asking you to vote for them.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Alan Browne
> <> wrote:
>
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>>> news: ...
>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>
>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass"
>>>>> became "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary
>>>>> was miraculously impregnated.
>>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't
>>>> accept.
>>>
>>> Interesting discussion...
>>>
>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't
>>> written as things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 -
>>> 50 years after Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted
>>> down.
>>>
>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>
>> A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas
>> service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed
>> by the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and
>> declaring it "The Word of God".
>
> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
>
> What had you expected the topic to be?
>
> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by
> someone asking you to vote for them.

Amen.

J. Clarke

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:41:12 -0800, "Bill Graham" <>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>>>> news: ...
>>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass"
>>>>>> became
>>>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was
>>>>>> miraculously impregnated.
>>>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't
>>>>> accept.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting discussion...
>>>>
>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written as
>>>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after
>>>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>>
>>>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas
>>>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by
>>>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and
>>>declaring it "The Word of God".
>>
>> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
>>
>> What had you expected the topic to be?
>>
>> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by
>> someone asking you to vote for them.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
>In my case, I would call it stupid.

Then it would be stupid of you to go to church. They tend to say
things like that in churches. Especially priests.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:33:12 -0800, "Bill Graham" <>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:41:12 -0800, "Bill Graham" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:43:07 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news: ...
>>>>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, the point is, I find it completely plausible that "lass"
>>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>> "virgin" in translation, but utterly implausible that Mary was
>>>>>>>> miraculously impregnated.
>>>>>>> Yes. Occam's razor. Something the "faithful to the book" can't
>>>>>>> accept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting discussion...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing to keep in mind is that the original texts weren't written
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> things happened. I believe it was probably around 40 - 50 years after
>>>>>> Christ's crucifiction before anything was jotted down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of inconsistancies can kreep in in that amount of time...
>>>>>
>>>>>A few years ago, for sentimental reasons, I attended midnight Xmas
>>>>>service at the local Anglican church. Within minutes I was repulsed by
>>>>>the priest holding up the bible (after some reading from it) and
>>>>>declaring it "The Word of God".
>>>>
>>>> Why would you be repulsed by a priest's comment in a church about God?
>>>>
>>>> What had you expected the topic to be?
>>>>
>>>> Your reaction is like going to a political rally and being offended by
>>>> someone asking you to vote for them.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>>
>>>In my case, I would call it stupid.
>>
>> Then it would be stupid of you to go to church. They tend to say
>> things like that in churches. Especially priests.
>>
>Exactly. - And I don't. But if I did, and the pastor were to say something
>like that, I would ask him afterward if he were a literalist, and if not, I
>would call him on his comment that the Bible was, "The word of God". I would
>probably point out the discrepancy between Matthew 19:24 and Ecclesiastes
>10:19 (for example), and ask him if God was just having a bad day when he
>wrote one or the other of those two contradicting passages.

I can imagine that. Easily. I can imagine you going to a church with
the sole intent of starting an argument with a priest. I can imagine
you going to a place where you absolutely know something will be said
that you absolutely disagree with just so you can have the opportunity
to voice an opinion that you know the other person will absolutely
disagree with. Cheap entertainment, I guess.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

tony cooper wrote:
>
> I can imagine you going to a place where you absolutely
> know something will be said that you absolutely disagree
> with just so you can have the opportunity to voice an
> opinion that you know the other person will absolutely
> disagree with. Cheap entertainment, I guess.

No! What? Like... that could happen here?! :- )

Wilba

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:22:49 -0800, "Bill Graham" <>
wrote:

> I wouldn't, "Start an argument with a priest".

>I would, however, bring to his/her attention that the Bible is very probably not the, "Word of God".

Only Bill, and perhaps John Navas, would not see the conflict between
those two sentences.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:22:49 -0800, "Bill Graham" <>
> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't, "Start an argument with a priest".
>
>> I would, however, bring to his/her attention that the Bible is very
>> probably not the, "Word of God".
>
> Only Bill, and perhaps John Navas, would not see the conflict between
> those two sentences.

Both of them could benefit from "attitude adjustments".

J. Clarke