Who Are You Calling a Virgin ...?

[StuartJ]

The Jesus character burst onto this the planet of his creation through the hymen of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(How he got there in the first place can be the subject of another thread.)

Most people of faith seem to have the same understanding of the term "virgin".

But sexist, racist Jewish men who put quill to parchment in writing their cult propaganda seem to have an added meaning that inconveniently takes the mystery away from the delightfully fanciful Virgin Birth of the Saviour of the World.

Please note:

And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her Gen 24:16

Seems Rebekah was a Virgin and a virgin ...?

And :

Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth. Joel 1:8

An old wife who was still a standard-meaning virgin ...?

Maybe her husband came from Sodom or Gomorrah ...?

Maybe one doesn't need to be a virgin to become a Virgin ...?

Maybe the mystical, magical nativity of God in flesh appearing has a mundane meaning ...?

Unless people of faith can back belief with evidence, of course ....

[The Tanager]

To try and explain the distinction, clearly made in the KJV:

And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, NEITHER had any man known her Gen 24:16

Publishers of certain later version also recognise the distinction and smooth it away.

Are you a Hebrew scholar? I don't mean that as an accusation that you are not; I'm truly just curious to know. I'm not. I'm trying to understand why you think different translations smooth over the distinction and the KJV is the one that gets this one exactly correct.

The BVM character in the Jesus propaganda may well have been written as a virgin AND a Virgin - just like Rebekah.

Do you mean it is written that way in the text we have now?

Do you mean the lost originals may have had it written that way? And you are basing that hypothesis on these other two passages alone?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 11 by The Tanager]

I suspect the translators who compiled the KJV believed they genuinely were dealing with the Word of God and were reluctant to change too much of what didn't seem to fit with what they believed.

Later compilers, I suggest, know fine well they are dealing with human writings and try to smooth away the bits they don't like.

The Virgin/virgin distinction makes it uncomfortable for the Virgin Birth belief,so, as with a number of things, they will smudge the Word of God.

No one ever offers a shred of evidence that any "scripture" comes from any version of "God", so it's informative to try and figure out what the humans who wrote it were trying to promote.

[bjs]

[Replying to StuartJ]

The use of “neither� in Genesis 24:16 in the KJV exists because the KJV was translated prior to various changes that have taken place in the English langue over the past several centuries. The changes are due to the fact that English is a living language and all living languages change with time and use.

In modern English we would use the word “and� instead of “neither.� Each word is correct in its respective historical context.

In terms of modern English, the word “neither� is not found in the Hebrew text. Here is a link to a Hebrew-English interlinear translation if you would like to check:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/24-16.htm

The hypothesis that “Later compilers… try to smooth away the bits they don't like� is wishful thinking and nothing else.

[StuartJ]

Putting aside for a moment that mythological gods breeding with human virgins looks like make-believe, the hypothesis that the BVM was a member of a religious order is worthy of examination - in my view.

There are six Marys in the Christian writings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testa ... named_Mary

The name Mary is Miriam in Christian renderings of the Hebrew writings.

Miriam is written as the sister of the Moses character.

There may have been an Order of Miriam in Jesus' time (acknowledgment to B. Thiering again).

Joseph is written as a descendant of the deposed David kings, and it would be appropriate that princes-in-waiting came from a mother who was a Virgin of the Order of Miriam in the carefully controlled breeding program.

For me, the hypothesis of a down-to-earth political explanation is far more plausible than the fantasy of angels and virgin-born god-men.

It's worth noting that in Hebrew writings much is made of a messiah coming from the House of David, and nothing is said of the local Jewish deity Yahweh breeding with one of their virgins.

It would make sense if the deposed David kings were believed to be god-kings.

And the biblical writings as they are now won't promote that idea, because, I suggest, the propaganda has been updated by those who ousted the Davids.

Unless, we take a close look at the Sons of God from Genesis who were breeding with the Daughters of Men ....

And brought about the genocidal global Flood from the God of Love ....

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 13 by bjs]

Christian publishers of the Word of Yahweh have obviously had great difficulty with Genesis 24:16.

You can observe quite a bit of uncomfortable smudging going on here for various reasons.

https://biblehub.com/genesis/24-16.htm

There is obviously a distinction between Rebekah being a Virgin and also a virgin.

Otherwise, why would "God" need to explain to readers what a sexual virgin was ...?

In the link, Young's Literal Translation is very informative:

and the young person is of very good appearance, a virgin, and a man hath not known her

You really do have to want the distinction not to be there to make it go away.

[bjs]

[Replying to StuartJ]

I followed the link provided. There is no hint of any form of “uncomfortable smudging� at any point.

There is nothing in the text to suggest a distinction between “being a Virgin and also a virgin.� There has never been any concern about this concept, nor has there ever been any widespread discomfort in Christian tradition surrounding this verse.

The quote from Young's Literal Translation effectively destroys this theory of a distinction, since it translates the verse as “…a virgin, and a man hath not known her.�

Hebrew writers often used repetition to drive home the importance of a point. Even if that were not true (which it clearly is), the natural reading is still that the last phrase explains the one before it. There is nothing anywhere in the text of Genesis to suggest a concept of “Virgin� that is separate from the word’s normal meaning. It is unreasonable to suggest that, with this single phrase, the author was creating a complex idea of a “Virgin,� separate from the normal meaning of the word, but without giving any additional explanation.

I am sure that someone can make something up to justify a belief, but if we limit ourselves to the evidence then the case is settled, the hypothesis of the opening post is false, and I will take my leave of it. Go well.

[The Tanager]

I suspect the translators who compiled the KJV believed they genuinely were dealing with the Word of God and were reluctant to change too much of what didn't seem to fit with what they believed.

Later compilers, I suggest, know fine well they are dealing with human writings and try to smooth away the bits they don't like.

Many translators today believe they are dealing with the Word of God as well, so this can't be it.

The Virgin/virgin distinction makes it uncomfortable for the Virgin Birth belief,so, as with a number of things, they will smudge the Word of God.

No one ever offers a shred of evidence that any "scripture" comes from any version of "God", so it's informative to try and figure out what the humans who wrote it were trying to promote.

I'm trying to figure out which exact point you are making here. Are you saying that Luke is saying that Mary was a Virgin of a religious order, but had sex with a man and got pregnant and our modern translators smudge the original language from this? Or are you saying that Luke heard Mary was a religious Virgin and misinterpreted that title when writing his account?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 17 by The Tanager]

One of the things I'm saying is that stories of human virgins giving birth to baby god-men are the stuff of fantasy.

And I search for answers that are alternatives to accepting apparent fantasy and make-believe as articles of faith.

Vestal Virgins are well known.

For me, Virgins of the Order of Miriam (or something of the like) from an obscure pagan culture on the frontier of the Roman Empire is plausible.

For me, the "Mother of God" notion is not in the least plausible.

[The Tanager]

One of the things I'm saying is that stories of human virgins giving birth to baby god-men are the stuff of fantasy.

And I search for answers that are alternatives to accepting apparent fantasy and make-believe as articles of faith.

Vestal Virgins are well known.

For me, Virgins of the Order of Miriam (or something of the like) from an obscure pagan culture on the frontier of the Roman Empire is plausible.

For me, the "Mother of God" notion is not in the least plausible.

How is this a better explanation to you than that the gospel writers just made it up? That seems more plausible to me than that they completely misunderstood the earliest Christians of which we have no record of, who were claiming that Mary was a member of a religious order.

[rikuoamero]

And, if you've nipped out of the convent for a quick visit to the boys in the carpentry shop, and you find yourself in an interesting condition - you can just claim the Holy Ghost did it, and still be a Virgin.

Perpetually.

Polite cough
https://www.medicaldaily.com/nun-birth- ... dal-267403

Doesn't it seem odd that the Mother Superior is too quick to say "It seems she was not able to resist temptation."? Would this Mother Superior say the same about a certain woman named Mary?

" A spokesman for Delio Lucarelli, the bishop of Rieti, told The Telegraph that the nun may be severely admonished for breaking her vow. "It would be preferable that she now lead a secular life with her baby, away from religious institutions," he said."

Ah...but when Mary claims her son Jesus was born while she was a virgin, she doesn't get told to stay away from religious institutions!