WAS MARY A VIRGIN OR WAS SHE NOT?

[sami]

[font=Arial][/font][font=Arial]
Was Mary a virgin or was she not? What does the Bible prove?

I’ve read many internet posts that not only deny but make a
mockery of the virgin birth of Jesus. It seems they use as evidence for their theoretical position - the Hebrew word used to depict Mary as a virgin, ALMAH.

In the Bible books of Matthew and Luke, when compiling and penning their histories, used the term ALMAH ( maiden) or HA ALMAH (the maiden).

Those opposed to the biblical account, take that to infer that Mary was not a virgin – chaste. One must understand that under the ancient Hebrew system, a woman who was betrothed was looked upon as married. However, the couple were not to have sexual relations until the man took her from the home of her parents to his home.

To further define the betrothed state, if a betrothed woman had sexual relations with a man whom she was not betrothed, she was looked upon as an adulteress and the two who committed such an offense were to be executed. It is in this light, because of the binding nature of engagement, Joseph planned to divorce Mary, although no ceremony had united them in wedlock. Joseph could plan to give Mary, his betrothed, a certificate of divorce after he took her to his home. An engaged woman (virgin/almah) had a legal standing different from an unengaged woman (virgin/betulah). (Exodus 22:16, 17; Deuteronomy 22:23-29)

The controversy or issue arises because neither Matthew nor Luke used the Hebrew word BETULAH (fem.)VIRGIN: An unmarried young woman who is absolutely chaste. Strong's #: 1330

But used ALMAH - most often used to depict a female who has moved from child to young adult and of the age to marry. The Hebrew word NA-ARA can also be applied to a young unmarried woman-virgin.

The base of their argument lies in their understanding or lack thereof, of these Hebrew words.( BETULAH - ALMAH)

There is an example found in the Hebrew texts which sets a standard for defining BETULAH and ALMAH.

This example is that of Abraham who sent his servant (Eliezer) to find a wife for his son, Isaac. Genesis chapter 24

When Eliezer reached the land of Abraham’s relatives, he prayed to Jehovah for a sign that his choosing would be in harmony with God’s will. Genesis 24:13,14

Verse 16 describes the young woman - Rebekah as betulah (virgin) Strongs 1330 “An unmarried young woman who is absolutely chaste.� (not yet betrothed)

Eliezer asked the young woman for a sip of the water she had just drawn from the well. (in harmony with his prayer) Rebekah responded exactly as he had petitioned Jehovah as the sign that she was the one Jehovah had approved.

In verse 22 when all the camels had finished drinking “, the man took out for her a gold nose ring weighing a half shekel and two bracelets of gold weighing ten shekels.� – When Rebekah accepted these gifts, she became a betrothed, engaged woman -(Almah)

In verse 23 he inquires “Please tell me, whose daughter are you? Is there any room at your father’s house for us to spend the night?�

In vss. 24 - 27 She responds “I am the daughter of Be·thuʹel the son of Milʹcah, whom she bore to Naʹhor.�

25 And she added: “We have both straw and much fodder and also a place to spend the night.�

26 Then the man bowed down and prostrated himself before Jehovah

27 and said: “May Jehovah be praised, the God of my master Abraham, for he has not abandoned his loyal love and his faithfulness toward my master. Jehovah has guided me to the house of the brothers of my master.

In vss. 28 - 31 And the young woman (Hebrew, han na ara - virgin, girl; Greek, par·theʹnos ) ran to tell her mother’s household about these things.

29 Now Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laʹban. So Laʹban ran to the man who was outside at the spring.

30 When he saw the nose ring and the bracelets on the hands of his sister and heard the words of his sister Rebekah, who was saying, “This is the way the man spoke to me,� he came to meet the man, who was still there standing by the camels at the spring.

31 At once he said: “Come, you who are blessed by Jehovah. Why do you keep standing out here? I have made the house ready and a place for the camels.�

Eliezer proceeds to tell Laban and his family the entire story vss. 32-52… notice that in verse 43 Rebekah is now referred to as “the maiden� or in some translations “young woman� (Strongs 5959) in Hebrew ha-almah, the same word used for Mary in the accounts written by Matthew and Luke. A Virgin girl who had become betrothed, engaged.

So what was it that changed her status from BETULAH (verse 16) and ALMAH (verse 43)? The answer is in vss. 22 and 47. When the nose ring and the bracelets were placed upon her she agreed to the marriage, she was then engaged, betrothed to Isaac. Had she had sexual relations between vss. 16 and 43? No, she was a virgin, but her status changed from BETULAH ( not betrothed, engaged) to ALMAH (betrothed, engaged).[/font]

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes but when I asked why you believe Mary was a virgin, you didn't say "because faith". You said "because the gospel writer Luke has proved under examination to be extremely accurate".

That is one of a list of reason for WHY I have faith. Faith is another word for being personally convinced (believing) something is true. My conviction (faith) is based on an analysis of the content and context of the book itself, which in my opinion has proved to be extremely accurate.

[Justin108]

Yes but when I asked why you believe Mary was a virgin, you didn't say "because faith". You said "because the gospel writer Luke has proved under examination to be extremely accurate".

That is one of a list of reason for WHY I have faith. Faith is another word for being personally convinced (believing) something is true. My conviction (faith) is based on an analysis of the content and context of the book itself, which in my opinion has proved to be extremely accurate.

So that's a no on providing an example of an "extremely accurate Gospel" from Luke?

Nothing in the Quran can be proven to be false, so by your logic, the Quran is just as accurate as Luke and Acts.

Have you read the Quran? Do you know the Quran well enough to make such an assersion?

Yes. I know enough about religious claims in general to know that they can never be disproved. And even if one would disprove them, there will always be an excuse. Take Genesis for example. Despite how wildly inaccurate Genesis is, apologists will make an excuse, often involving appeals to metaphors, mistranslations, etc. You infamously tried to make the argument that Genesis is actually about volcanic gasses in an attempt to explain away the blatantly false claim that the sun and stars were made after the earth and plants.

But anyway, I digress. My point is you cannot disprove the Quran just as you cannot disprove the Bible. But one's inability do disprove a claim in no way makes that claim accurate. Feel free to try and prove me wrong. Prove the Quran is false.

[JehovahsWitness]

So no matter how radical a claim is, you would believe it based on how much integrity you suppose the author has?

That would be one consideration, not the sole consideration by any means but an analysis would definitely involve an assessment of the credibility and integrity of the source. I have outlined and explained other considerations above. An unbias approach should not be undertaken with a predetermined bias to reject options before they be given due consideration because the examiner perceives them personally to be too "radical" to accept. This is probably why we have the expression "Truth is stranger than fiction".


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Suppose Mary lied about her virginity and Luke believed her? His reputation for having integrity wouldn't matter if the person he placed his trust in lied.

In this case Mary would be the primary source; any analysis would involve intergrity of the source. A reporter's integrity is not the only consideration in this case as he is not the primary source, others would include anything we can learn or deduce about his intellgence and the liklihood of gullibility surrounding the possible circumstances of his obtaining and reporting the information.

Relavant questions might be

* What influence would Mary have over Luke or Lukes source of her words (as a possible source of information)?

* What reasons would Mary have to lie about the matter? How easily could she convince her listener(s) of her lie if it were the case?

* What would be other more expedient lies?

* What factors may be in play if She were telling the truth? (Are miracles possible)

* What might she have lost/gained by what she said?

... and much more.

As I said in my initial post on this subject, each reader is in the end in a position to personally weigh up the availale information and come to a personal decision as to whether they believe (have faith) in what they are reading or not.



FURTHER READING Jesus’ Birth—How and Why It Happened
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002921

[Justin108]

An unbias approach should not be undertaken with a predetermined bias to reject options before they be given due consideration because the examiner perceives them personally to be too "radical" to accept.

An approach should not be undertaken with a predetermined bias to accept options before they be given due consideration because the examiner personally perceives the source to "have integrity".

I do not reject options before they are given due consideration. Considering the possibility that Mary may have lied is part of the due consideration. Rejecting claims based on the lack of probability is part of due consideration. If someone went missing, is it equally probable that they were abducted by aliens than that they were abducted by someone else or that they ran away? Or do you agree that mundane explanations should be considered prior to radical explanations?

[JehovahsWitness]

And in what way does the genuineness of a belief matter?

It is not the only consideration (for the other numerous considerations please see my series of posts above) but a logical analysis of an assersion should I believe include whether someone making the assersion of a personal first hand experience, gives evidence of believing what they are saying.

For example: If I said an angel appeared to me and explained that anyone that eats McDonald's will burn forever in hell; If you saw me the next week chowing down on a a big mac it might be taken as an indication I don't actually believe what I'm reporting and that my report may well not be true.

I might genuinely believe I DID see an angel, but I have a mental disease which is why the character and mental stability of the individual may also be an issue (and I have already addressed the issue of gullibility - see above) but one consideration must be, do the person's life decisions consistently indicate they believe what they what they report they experienced?

[Justin108]

In this case Mary would be the primary source; any analysis would involve intergrity of the source.

How much information do we even have on Mary to conclude with confidence that she did not lie about her virginity? Given the harsh laws at the time, it seems she had a lot of motive to lie.

* What influence would Mary have over Luke or Lukes source of her words (as a possible source of information)?

Not exactly sure what you're asking.

* What reasons would Mary have to lie about the matter?

Not being stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage.

How easily could she convince her listener(s) of her lie if it were the case?

Well considering that all she ever gave was her word, it would seem that the answer is 'very easily'.

* What would be other more expedient lies?

People have gotten away with bad lies before. The fact that there could have been better lies does not mean that this is not a lie.

* What factors may be in play if She were telling the truth? (Are miracles possible)

You believe in miracles. Would you have believed your girlfriend if she told you that she was still a virgin after telling you she was pregnant?

* What might she have lost/gained by what she said?

She would not have been stoned to death.

[JehovahsWitness]

An unbias approach should not be undertaken with a predetermined bias to reject options before they be given due consideration because the examiner perceives them personally to be too "radical" to accept.

An approach should not be undertaken with a predetermined bias to accept options before they be given due consideration because the examiner personally perceives the source to "have integrity".

True but in a systematic analysis, the integrity of the source would be one of the first considerations as it would provide the bedrock for other questions.

For example if we are examining someone's testimony in court, but it was first extablished that the individual was a compulsive liar, they have been proven to take bribes in the past and failed a lie detector test when asked about the subject at hand, (and/or have a mental disease) then we may have reasonable basis for questioning the the authenticity of their claims, especially if those claims might be perceived as rather radical.

By the same measure, the integrity of the source, should be one of the first considerations and if that integrity is established, it can and should be bought to the table when considering if something is "too radical to be true". This is one reason in courts they have "expert witnesses".

[JehovahsWitness]

Nothing in the Quran can be proven to be false, [...].

Have you read the Quran? Do you know the Quran well enough to make such an assersion?

Yes. I know enough about religious claims in general to know that they can never be disproved.

That wasn't my question, I didn't ask you about "religious claims in general" I asked if you have READ the Quran.

- Have you read the Quran? (This would usually require a "yes" or a "no" answer)
- Do you know the Qurant well enough to make such an assersion? (ditto)


JW

[Justin108]

An unbias approach should not be undertaken with a predetermined bias to reject options before they be given due consideration because the examiner perceives them personally to be too "radical" to accept.

An approach should not be undertaken with a predetermined bias to accept options before they be given due consideration because the examiner personally perceives the source to "have integrity".

True but in a systematic analysis, the integrity of the source would be one of the first considerations as it would provide the bedrock for other questions.

One of the first, yes, but not the most important. Or do you consider witness testimony to be more important than forensic evidence?

For example if we are examining someone's testimony in court, but it was first extablished that the individual was a compulsive liar, they have been proven to take bribes in the past and failed a lie detector test when asked about the subject at hand, (and/or have a mental disease) then we may have reasonable basis for questioning the the authenticity of their claims, especially if those claims might be perceived as rather radical.

Suppose there were two witnesses. One witness is a known liar (let's call him Jack) whereas the other is not (let's call him Bill).

However, everything Bill says is supported by the evidence whereas everything Jack says is not. Bill claims he saw a man named George shoot the victim. Forensics agree that George's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. Jack, however, claims that a chimpanzee shot the victim and it just so happens the chimp's fingerprints are identical to George's. Should we believe Jack over Bill just because of Jack's reputation? Should we dismiss Bill, even though his claims agree with our understanding of the world? We don't know for a fact that Jack's story is impossible, but it is surely very unlikely.

Who would you believe? Bill or Jack?

By the same measure, the integrity of the source, should be one of the first considerations and if that integrity is established, it can and should be bought to the table when considering if something is "too radical to be true". This is one reason in courts they have "expert witnesses".

An expert witness is not a witness of the event. An expert witness is someone who is an expert in the field relevant to the case. A doctor would be a good example of an expert witness. What do you suppose a doctor, the expert witness, would say if a pregnant woman claimed to be a virgin?