Yeah - the word, used in the scriptures actually means nothing more than "young".

You gotta know your translations there Mr Knox.

quote:

Originally posted by Nico:

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:

The phase "born of a vigin" wouldn't have anything to do with the constellation of Virgo would it? That might explain the reference to a virgin, as a time rather than an event.

There is absolutely no proof for that claim, especially because the part about Mary being a Virgin may have been added later.

And, the final nail in the coffin:

"c.1200, "unmarried or chaste woman noted for religious piety and having a position of reverence in the Church," from O.Fr. virgine, from L. virginem (nom. virgo) "maiden, unwedded girl or woman," also an adj., "fresh, unused," probably related to virga "young shoot." For sense evolution, cf. Gk. talis "a marriageable girl," cognate with L. talea "rod, stick, bar." Meaning "young woman in a state of inviolate chastity" is recorded from c.1310. Also applied since c.1330 to a chaste man. Meaning "naive or inexperienced person" is attested from 1953. The adj. is recorded from 1560 in the lit. sense; fig. sense of "pure, untainted" is attested from c.1300. Virginity is attested from c.1303, from O.Fr. virginite, from L. virginitatem (nom. virginitas), from virgo."

While the latin root word of "virgin" is related to "vergo" the Greek word for "virgin" is completely unrelated to the word "virgo".

What should be a long-ago discounted attempt at a linguistic link, as conceived by 19th century indo-european nationalists and social darwinists in favor of an Aryan Race, is not only outdated but completely unfounded.

I opened up my Strong's Concordance, and the word translated as virgin used to describe Mary is:

"Parthenos".

just another little reference here for those of the astronomical bent:

http://seds.org/Maps/Stars_en/Fig/virgo.html

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:
Yeah - the word, used in the scriptures actually means nothing more than "young".

You gotta know your translations there Mr Knox.

Doug Spaulding. I know what the word means. But you left out a part. Possibly you don't know the entire meaning. It means a young woman unmarried. Meaning a virgin.

patrask. Let me save you a whole lot of trouble in trying to debate scripture. Scripture is spiritually discerned. The depth of meaning in scripture is not discerned thru human reasoning. You are missing the absolutely vital understanding when you use human reasoning .

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nico:
There is absolutely no proof for that claim, especially because the part about Mary being a Virgin may have been added later.

The other interesting thing is that many of the much older religions, using Christianity as a reference in time, also had their god as born of a virgin. This idea is not exclusive with Christianity, and therefore there must be a reason for the aspect in the former religions that is traceable back to an astronomical orientation that was used as a reference to the counting of time, as the Earth moved against the background of the apparently stationary stars.

Folks, we of this era think that we are the smartest humans to have ever lived, since all the others before us were still in a reduced state of learning, and only what we learn today has significance. Wrong. We are but now re-discovering knowledge that was encoded in the various stone monuments scattered around the globe that demonstrate very detailed knowledge of the working of the heavens, including the idea of prescession of the equinoxes, and idea that our present scholars think they only just discovered. If so, then why is it so prevalent in the ancient documents that have come to light in the last 200 years or so? We lost much of this knowledge due to deliberate destruction of historical documents by the Catholic Church in order to establish its right to serve as the controlling power over the lives of people. This resulted in the Dark Ages, and, where it not for certain precautions taken by groups of people concerned that the old knowledge should be preserved, we would still be on that course.

I began my search for truth in reading Hamlet's Mill - An Essay Investigating The Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth by Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha Von Dechend. It is a difficult read, but I recommend it to anyone who is interested in this topic, as it was the "seminal and original thesis, a book that should be read by anyone interested in science, myth, and the interactions between the two."

Start there and the path will be very exciting and shocking as well. Enjoy.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:


patrask. Let me save you a whole lot of trouble in trying to debate scripture. Scripture is spiritually discerned. The depth of meaning in scripture is not discerned thru human reasoning. You are missing the absolutely vital understanding when you use human reasoning .

I hope you are truly happy in your certaintude that "Scripture" is the source for all knowledge. You would have been so much happier in the Dark Ages.

What about those other guys around the world that believe their "Book" is the final word and their god is bigger and better than yours? Don't you see where this has taken us? "....when will they learn that too many people have died? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind..."

I chose to believe that my creator gave me a mind to question and to use for the purpose of learning about my place in the universe, and to be wise and tolerant and not dogmatic about what I belive, subject always to new information and revision as needs be.

Doug Spaulding you mentioned that patrask knows more of the Bible than I thought. Well, if so, why didn't he answer my questions instead of going off explaining how well he read the Bible? That reminds me of a time I was in a big church in Los Angeles and they had, supposedly, a religious exhibition going on. So I asked the man at the front desk a point blank question on the Christian validity of the play, and he, instead of answering me, went on for a good 3 or 4 minutes explaining the intricate carvings of the church and what they represented. And never answered my question.

So, patrask, since you read the Bible, the same questions are again presented here for your answers:



Well, let's see:

Tell me, since you think all this belongs to the Dark Ages, what exactly is your take on the letter to the people in Philippi, when it is telling people to live as citizens of heaven? Do you think it's fair to be applied to people today? Or is this for people in the Dark Ages?

Peter talks about redemption. Do you think it's a mental delusion relocated to the Dark Ages?

Scripture writes that every word you ever spoke will someday be shouted from housetops to the entire world to hear. What sort of nonsense do you think would cause someone to say write this? An audience strictly from the Dark Ages?

Psalms are songs. And many of the lyrics were written by David. In one of the many Psalms, David writes in Psalm 119,
"The suffering you sent was good for me, for it taught me to pay attention to your principles." What exactly did he mean by that? Dark Age principles?

Do you think you will answer anything here, no matter how inconsequential? If it be spiritually understood thru the Holy Spirit, then one must look at it with perfect moral eyes. So how are you going to understand any of it? Much easier to throw it onto the pile of the Dark Ages, eh?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil Knox,

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:

The other interesting thing is that many of the much older religions, using Christianity as a reference in time, also had their god as born of a virgin. This idea is not exclusive with Christianity, and therefore there must be a reason for the aspect in the former religions that is traceable back to an astronomical orientation

No. Not at all. That is an incredible non-sequitur.

You take social and cultural processes completely out of the equation and put human development into the hands of a secret conspiracy of astrologer-priests.

You don't take notice of the fact that your sources are all either obsolete or based on obsolete conjecture.

You have a bad case of confirmation bias.

You need to be objective! I've evaluated all of these theories already, so don't accuse me of the same. I have heard the same preachy schpiel, filled with convenient logical breaks, outdated sources, and a rigid dogma that would make any evangelical preacher proud.

Do you think the NWO did 9/11 too? Where does the insanity end?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nico,

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
It means a young woman unmarried. Meaning a virgin.

I know it means a young unmarried woman, but it doesn't necessarily mean untouched.

I keep thinking of C.S. Lewis who could think, research, and write rings around all these modern heretics, and who was a more knowledgeable atheist than these blokes (and blokettes) and still fell at the feet of the Saviour.

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
The other interesting thing is that many of the much older religions, using Christianity as a reference in time, also had their god as born of a virgin. This idea is not exclusive with Christianity...

Mr Trask is correct - I came across many in my studies. The old "born of a virgin" mythos is widespread in several religions.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
Do you really have any idea about what scripture is about? Have you ever read it? Can you convince anyone that you have some sort of ideas about what it is saying? You have not really considered it, have you? You don't know what it is saying, do you?

My good friend, the Latter Day Saint, likes to chastise me when I say I reject the Book of Mormon as authoritative. He always asks, "have you read it?"

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:

Do you really have any idea about what scripture is about? Have you ever read it? Can you convince anyone that you have some sort of ideas about what it is saying? You have not really considered it, have you? You don't know what it is saying, do you?

Well, let's see:

Tell me, since you think all this belongs to the Dark Ages, what exactly is your take on the letter to the people in Philippi, when it is telling people to live as citizens of heaven? Do you think it's fair to be applied to people today? Or is this for people in the Dark Ages?

Peter talks about redemption. Do you think it's a mental delusion relocated to the Dark Ages?

Scripture writes that every word you ever spoke will someday be shouted from housetops to the entire world to hear. What sort of nonsense do you think would cause someone to say write this? An audience strictly from the Dark Ages?

Psalms are songs. And many of the lyrics were written by David. In one of the many Psalms, David writes in Psalm 119,
"The suffering you sent was good for me, for it taught me to pay attention to your principles." What exactly did he mean by that? Dark Age principles?

Do you think you will answer anything here, no matter how inconsequential? If it be spiritually understood thru the Holy Spirit, then one must look at it with perfect moral eyes. So how are you going to understand any of it? Much easier to throw it onto the pile of the Dark Ages, eh?

In fact, I have read both the Old and New Testament, beginning with the Torah, and have also been made aware that that there probably at least four separate authors of the Old Testament: see "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard E. Friedman, is essence:

Scholars in late 18th century Germany noted that in most of the duplicated stories, one set described God using the Hebrew word Elohim (usually translated "God") [which as noted by Zachariah Sitchin in his books, should be correctly translated as Gods - plural Hebrew] while the other set tended to use God's four-lettered Name Y-H-W-H (usually translated "Lord," sometimes miscalled "Jehovah.") This gave rise to the theory that there were two different authors, one called E and one called J (German for Y), whose works were somehow combined to form a single text.

Later analysis of the grammar, vocabulary, and writing style provided evidence for two other authors--called P for the Priestly author (mostly Leviticus, and lots of the genealogy) and D for the Deuteronomist, since the book of Deuteronomy seemed different (grammatically and politically) from the earlier books. The multiple-author view has come to be called the "Documentary theory." [source:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1985/who-wrote-the-bible-part-1 ]

I have also read The Book Of J which I recommend.

When I first began to read from the New Testament, it was not readily apparent to me that so many inconsistancies were in existance. Since the invention of the computer and word processing software, it has become trivial to sort and to match parts of one gospel to those of another in great detail. There is much to discuss here, as little is consistanct in any of the four primary sources of the Jesus story, MMLJ. So what you say, I should not use my reasoning to perform this task, but should use my spiritual being to understand the true meaning behind the words.

If that was God's intent, then he has made it a very difficult task for thinking people to perform.

Faith is a marvelous thing. It can grant troubled people a great sence of relief and give them hope that by following the regimen of a religion, from 'to regulate', or a set of behavioral rules, they may live a better life and achieve happiness in the belief that they may achieve a place in the Heaven that is accessible only to the true believers.

The problems with this is, who made the rules, and if there are several sets of such rules, Christian rules, Muslim rules, Jewish Rules, Buddist, Hindu, and such, who has really got the handle on the correct set of rules to follow?

Now, if you are following your chosen set of rules and resulting beliefs, and not judging others who do not share your beliefs, I am your friend and am glad that you are in harmony with those beliefs. But, when you start to say things that critisize me for not following your bliefs, then I must protest.

"What a person is for himself, what abides with him in his loneliness and isolation, and what no one can give or take away from him, this is obvisously more essential for him than everything that he possesses or what he may be in the eyes of others...for one's happiness in this life, that which one is, one's personality, is absolutely the first and most essential thing. (Schopenhauer 1851, vol. 1 348-349.)

Ha!

Sounds like patrask knows a bit more about the scriptures that you thought Mr Knox.

The comments about Elohim being plural is exactly right.

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:

In fact, I have read both the Old and New Testament, beginning with the Torah, and have also been made aware that that there probably at least four separate authors of the Old Testament: see "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard E. Friedman, is essence:

Scholars in late 18th century Germany noted that in most of the duplicated stories, one set described God using the Hebrew word Elohim (usually translated "God") [which as noted by Zachariah Sitchin in his books, should be correctly translated as Gods - plural Hebrew] while the other set tended to use God's four-lettered Name Y-H-W-H (usually translated "Lord," sometimes miscalled "Jehovah.") This gave rise to the theory that there were two different authors, one called E and one called J (German for Y), whose works were somehow combined to form a single text.

Later analysis of the grammar, vocabulary, and writing style provided evidence for two other authors--called P for the Priestly author (mostly Leviticus, and lots of the genealogy) and D for the Deuteronomist, since the book of Deuteronomy seemed different (grammatically and politically) from the earlier books. The multiple-author view has come to be called the "Documentary theory." [source:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1985/who-wrote-the-bible-part-1

Two things:

1. Most of what you said about the Old Testament is correct. One thing I saw right away: Jehovah is not a "miscalling" of "YHWH" it is a latinized version of YHWH.

2. Zachariah Sitchin is the laughing stock of Sumerian scholars, and his material is considered science fiction today.

And not just because of the Nibiru/Planet X fiasco.

Nard-----very, very sorry to hear your news. I wish all the best for you and your family.