Yes and no. It's a fact that the Hebrew language is short and simple compared to English, Greek or even Latin, so the important point in this translation is to understand the cultural norm of that time for a maiden or young woman...........they were virgins. Those who weren't were stoned at the edge of the city or fled with their lives.
To clarify: the above study note (14) was written by contemporary Jewish Biblical scholars. My case is simply that there is disagreement over the matter. Brothers and Sisters in a search for truths. I take the point about the manners of the time. That is interesting.
Hi I'm an agnostic though I don't seek to proselytise people to my views. You are onto it about the virgin birth. There is at least a lot of doubt about the subject. I feel you won't be able to make up your mind from just reading things. If there was convincing logic or evidence to prove God ,then Christianity would cease to be a faith based religion. If you do want a pro Christianity book to read then I can recomend "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stobel as Lowly Layman also recomended, though I do have at least one issue with it. Stalwart said Agnostics and Christians both agree that the universe had a beginning. Stephen Hawkings has come up with a theory that is plausable scientifically that the universe could be created from nothing without the need for God in the equasion. Anglican 74 said This may be true but what do the pre Christian copies of the septuagint say?
If you can believe that God made man came to earth for our salvation, the rest should present no real obstacle to one with an open mind and willing to learn. By the way, the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth is a small matter when compared to the breadth and depth of Christianity. The idea is that you believe the Revelation of Christ, once made to the Saints, or Holy people of God and recorded in Scripture. These are taught by the apostles and explained, interpreted and completed by the Bishops in the Seven Councils.
I understand, but as was pointed out, it's not in the best interest for a Jewish scholar to translate Almah as virgin. :think: Jeff
Some philosophers use the 'principle of charity': "charity, principle of a principle recommending favourable interpretation: if a speaker's utterances can be understood in different ways, one should prefer the one which maximizes the number of statements which come out true, or which invite assent..." From: "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy", Penguin Books, 2000, ISBN: 0-14-051250-0.
Can we all agree that the meaning of the Hebrew word "`almah" in the Tanaka, and the meaning of "virgin" as used in modern English translations of the New Testament, are not incompatible?
Absolutely, there are many variables possible since our language has 7 words to their 1, but do we now call Mary a liar, or the historical scriptures as false? Some would like to implicate millions of people over several thousand years as duped or dishonest simply because they feel scripture provides inadequate evidence. As others have said, the virgin birth is not a salvific issue, but this same lack of faith towards the resurrection is a fatal error. I would again suggest a read of Josh McDowell's book, he wrestled through the same issues that trouble you. Jeff+
I'll put Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" on my reading list. I have bought the book "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel, via my eReader. I thank Lowly Layman and AnglicanAgnostic for the suggestion.