XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
      
   On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:17:10 -0400, Vincent Maycock  wrote:   
   .   
   >On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:22:20 -0400, mur wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:36:34 +0100, "Alex W."  wrote:   
   >>.   
   >>>On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:36:27 -0600, David Johnston wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 5/22/2015 10:03 AM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>> On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:01:33 -0600, David Johnston    
   wrote:   
   >>>>> .   
   >>>>>> On 5/8/2015 8:03 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:49:38 -0600, David Johnston    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>> On 4/29/2015 5:58 PM, mur wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:45:06 -0500, duke  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> .   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:58:32 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2015 7:24 AM, duke wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:07:02 -0600, David Johnston    
   David@block.net> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2015 2:14 PM, duke wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 14:32:02 -0600, David Johnston   
    wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2015 5:28 AM, duke wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Too much hair splitting.  Evidence exists for the presence of   
   God - it can't be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denied.  One may not like it, but none the less, it stares   
   them in the face,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hence:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An atheist denies   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that you regard consistency as too much trouble to   
   bother with.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You see wrong.  I'm highly consistent.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Either it can't be denied, or atheists deny it.  Pick one.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The item that nails the supposed atheist is that he rejects   
   evidence we see.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah.  I've seen a bible too.  But Harry Potter was a more fun   
   read.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> But not any truth at all.  Unless you think you can ride a broom   
   stick.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>        These people can't distinguish between things we know are   
   fiction and things   
   >>>>>>>>> no one could know are fiction.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Really?  So we can't know that there was no world wide flood that   
   wiped   
   >>>>>>>> out all life on land some four thousand years ago?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>       Sure we can.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Then what were you referring to?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      We can't know if Jesus was a virgin birth.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Does that matter when the only indication that he was a virgin birth is   
   >>>> a book that claims that all life on land was wiped out four thousand   
   >>>> years ago?   
   >>>   
   >>>We know it doesn't matter because we now know that the issue   
   >>>of Mary's virginity was a translation error.   
   >>   
   >>    How did we find that out?   
   >   
   >Alex is talking about the passage from Isaiah that supposedly predicts   
   >Jesus' virgin birth centuries in advance of its supposed occurrence.   
   >It's difficult to tell *when* we first learned that there was a   
   >mistranslation there.  The Hebrew just means "young girl," and I   
   >suppose everyone who can read Hebrew would have known about it.   
   >   
   >In the Gospels, Jesus is clearly portrayed as being born to a virgin   
   >girl (part of the non-historical portion of the Gospels --  AKA most   
   >of each of them); there's no mistranslation there.   
   >   
   >But the Isaiah passage has more problems than just having been   
   >mistranslated for centuries: it's not even talking about Jesus to   
   >begin.   
   >   
   >The setting of the prophecy is the land of Israel soon before it was   
   >demolished by Assyria, and in the story Isaiah tells King Ahaz about   
   >the timescale of the military problems he would have when dealing with   
   >Assyria --   
   >   
   >namely, about as long as it would take for a young woman to become   
   >pregnant and raise a child that was old enough to eat curds and honey,   
   >and choose right from wrong; that is, Ahaz's military destruction   
   >would happen *that quickly.*   
   >   
   >So Isaiah 7 (the reference in question)  isn't even referring to   
   >Jesus, and  if the bizarre idea of a virgin birth were found in this   
   >passage, it would refer to the child that King Ahaz knew about that   
   >Isaiah was threatening him with, and not to Jesus.   
      
       Then why does it refer to Jesus having had a virgin birth in the Koran?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)