Source of virgin myth in Christianity? Biblical Mistranslations

Originally posted by Flavian

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by casenately

 

Makes you wonder how much the bible was rewritten using pagan myth.

Hello, even if it is a "maiden", a devout Jewish girl 2,000 years ago wasn't sleeping around like your average 14 year olds today. This was before miniskirts and clear heels. And also, how would a simple "maiden" having a child be a miraculous sign from heaven?

Sorry but how do you know? We have no idea in reality what the bedroom habits were of people 2000 years ago. At 14, she would most likely have been married for a few years and already have a child.

We know form historical records that people in other places around the ancient world at that time frame were just as sexual as they are today so i would suggest this behaviour was more commonplace than you perhaps wish to believe.

Okay, for sake of argument I'll agree with you. My next question is: How exactly is a young promiscuous girl having a baby a "miraculous sign" from Heaven of the Messiah? Also, why did the best of the 70 Hebrew scholars of Ezra's and Nehemiah's day and age translate it into "virgin" three centuries before Christ in the Greek Septuagint?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Hey, i don't even really believe - at least not in the accepted sense. If true, like i say, i think Pelagius was on the right lines.

However, Jesus allegedly left no written records. As such, it doesn't really matter what any of it was translated as or even at what point in history it was translated - the fact is they were all written centuries after the event.

reply to post by Flavian

However, Jesus allegedly left no written records. As such, it doesn't really matter what any of it was translated as or even at what point in history it was translated - the fact is they were all written centuries after the event.

Im not sure what this has to do with the OP, he is still THE MOST influential figures to have ever lived in all of humanitys history. So much so , that people argue over him even to THIS day (as seen in this thread)

Either, there indeed is an other worldly power keeping alive the idea of a "Jesus Christ" to this day, or a bunch of ancient people in the middle east so good at spreading a certain (religious) message, that they would put all of the modern eras advertising professionals to shame.

Originally posted by Jordan River
wow, first vatican ufos, now more bibilcal mistranslation? well looks like we need a crazy new age translation for all you believers

The Vatican UFO guy is going with literal and well researched documents, highly credentialed and uses the Vaticans publications as its own source.


Mauro Biglino: Unexpected Bible - Translating it literally (1 of 6) - Eng. subs

--Let's do this one, let's freewheel, let's ride the Elohims' RUACH

that is the Elohims' wind, the one that in the Bible is called, is translated as “God's spirit”

But the term RUACH doesn't mean spirit, it means wind, or anything flying in the air quickly and causing wind

The later theological elaboration, when God's figure was created, led to attaching to RUACH the meaning of spirit.

But actually, this is not there.

(he draws a sketch on a piece of paper and passes it around as to how the RUACH was represented in the Sumerian pictograms.)

Roughly 11 11 in the video.

At 11 14, it shows this craft, and wind RU and A. I suppose it could be an acorn wearing a strangely bent streamlined helm or something like that. Hmmmm......

--He says, because the word isn't Jewish, but Sumerian origin.

--That is the pictogram made by those that saw the first RUACH, which is where the RUACH of the Hebrews come from.

So, that is a thing we don't know what it is, let say we don't know it, so we can take it easy, but which decidedly hovers on the water.

--That is the pictogram made by those that saw the first RUACH, which is where the RUACH of the Hebrews come from.



---]As we don't know what it is, we'll name it by borrowing the name directly from the Vatica, so that we won't go wrong.

[bIf you read last editions of the “Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis”, published by the “:Liberia Editrice Vatican” where they insert the latin neologisms, you'll find that the Vatican inserted “navis sideralis”, which means “starship” They inserted “areia navis”, thus “airship”, they inserted “aireus viator”, that is “astronaut” and they inserted an acronym, “R.I.V” which means: res inexplicatae volantes”, that is UFO's.




And yes, its been known for years, even in my grandparents generation that there was probably a translational error, there are both Catholics AND Protestants who disagree with the Popes All Knowing Declarations and have for centuries.

This stuff isn't new. And I come from a big family of Catholics, generationally, on the one side.

I wouldn't say translations are the source of the problem, more like AGENDA. Also she may very well have been a virgin. ETs do create hybrids.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Flavian

 

However, Jesus allegedly left no written records. As such, it doesn't really matter what any of it was translated as or even at what point in history it was translated - the fact is they were all written centuries after the event.

Im not sure what this has to do with the OP, he is still THE MOST influential figures to have ever lived in all of humanitys history. So much so , that people argue over him even to THIS day (as seen in this thread)

Either, there indeed is an other worldly power keeping alive the idea of a "Jesus Christ" to this day, or a bunch of ancient people in the middle east so good at spreading a certain (religious) message, that they would put all of the modern eras advertising professionals to shame.

I would have to take the counter stance to this and say it actually has everything to do with the OP. The OP is about is about biblical mistranslations. If no written records were taken until a couple of centuries after the life of Jesus then it is pure conjecture - and the evidence so far discovered shows there were in fact no written records until a couple of centuries after Jesus. In other words, it was made up centuries after his death.

That is not to demean Christianity - indeed just tje opposite. It demonstrates that whoever this man actually was and whatever he actually achieved, it made enough of an impression to resonate through the centuries.
On the other hand, it does demean any translations of the bible.

Put it this way, i may write a collection of stories based on, for arguments sake, the accomplishments of Sir Isaac Newton (centuries after he was alive). In 1200 years a copy of this may be unearthed and then the academics of the time will be arguing about what different translations will mean. However, the whole thing would be irrelevant as what i was writing could only be conjecture.

reply to post by Flavian

The OP is about is about biblical mistranslations. If no written records were taken until a couple of centuries after the life of Jesus then it is pure conjecture - and the evidence so far discovered shows there were in fact no written records until a couple of centuries after Jesus. In other words, it was made up centuries after his death.

If a mere biblical mistranslation survived for 2000 years, and humans as a species failed to correct it (even the ones in charge of the book), then perhaps we, as humanity, deserve religion, and everything else that comes with it.

The fact remains that this "Jesus" character, whether or not you believe in him, remains the MOST important person in all of humanitys existence. He had no army or an empire, but instead was someone who was marked for death and tortured by powerful people. Yet, he outshines all other historical figures... and is still relevant to this day...

You know whats the most interesting part....? Jesus is not finished yet. He is believed to return some day.

Originally posted by alonzo730
Funny, the Catholic priests at the mission church on my reservation were fond of calling traditional native Americans pagans. And odd that our savior, the Peacemaker, Tekanawita, was born of a virgin birth. It's not just in Christianity. I don't think it's a myth. Krishna was born of a virgin. Buddha was born of a virgin.

Says who? Since there are no sources of that and somebody (Zeitgeist movement) just made that up, doesn't make that a fact

Originally posted by casenately


oh and here is why the entire new testament has to be re-translated. All of Christianity is based on misconceptions about what the whole thing is really about. Evidence of Semitic origin of the NT

www.youtube.com...

edit on 23-1-2012 by casenately because: fix

Semitic Origin of the New Testament huh? Interesting for a somebody who doesn't believe in Jesus.

The New Testament was written in Greek! And it still is like it was written for the first time.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by Aleister

 

Virgin births are technically possible. If a man ejaculates around the vaginal opening there is a minute possibility that some sperm could find their way up. Again minute, but possible.

This is off topic, but this happened to my aunt.

Her first daughter was born of a virgin birth. This side of my family is devoutly catholic, so this was confirmed by her doctor to appease her parents.

And yeah, watch how militant the JF's get when you can show evidence that their "word of God" has been twisted and perverted with the word of man. Yeah, the same man who would see you suffer to make his life a tiny bit better.. That guy.

reply to post by Hellas


no sir it was not written in Greek. It was written in a Semitic language

I never said I dont believe in Jesus. Just not the way my 14+ years in Catholic school taught me. Sorry, but this is a fact. The oldest SURVIVING version of the NT is in Greek, proven fact based on modern linguistics.
Mathew was written in hebrew.

actually watch the video. This is from the Ancient Hebrew Research center. This is no BS source.

www.youtube.com...

Utterly misinformed bunk.

Look, anything that can totally dissemble a human down to subatomic particle level, convert it to energy at the tempeature of over 1,000,000 degrees c in less than 1/1000000th of a second and then ressaemble that human 3 feet away with all physiological terminal damage repaired in a split second should have non difficult in reassembling a DNA molecule to turn an unfertilised egg into a fertilised one without a sperm.

To doubt this as possible for such a being is absolutely absurd and requires the use exclusively of nineteenth century, out of date, science.

(cf My other current thread on the Turin Shroud)

reply to post by ballisticmousse


I dont really understand who that was directed at, ? my OP or someone´s post later. This argument is bunk,? because super beings have done this, scientifically proven it as possible, or what

So if I used the force as I can say I do, levitating stones and x-wings would be scientifically provable, ? If I could at the least move a person across a hangar bay let's say. The rest would be possible?

I am not saying it's not possible to have virgin births, or that they are not somehow divine maybe, just that we are led to believe something because its culturally enforced, not because the facts lead us to that conclusion.
Fact, the entire NT is mistranslated from a language that has sometimes over 70 meaning for a word and is based on concrete concepts, into one where the ether is almost as real as a stone and where a word has a limited range of possible meanings.

That coupled with the fact that ancient Hebrews didn't learn other languages, especially Greek since the Greeks invaded them and forced them to follow the Greek culture over their own. There was a real resentment preventing an actual "native speaker" from sitting down when these things were translated from Greek into other languages , many years later.

reply to post by casenately


Hi Casenlately -

Have you read through ALL the posts in the old (2004) ATS AMADEUS Threadlet entitled, "Was Iesous a Bastard (i.e. Mamzer - 'one born of an illicit union') and did the Church Cover it Up With The Virgin Birth Stories ?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read through the AMADEUS comments (from beginning to end - you can skip most of the inane and ignorant comments from those who are NOT in a position to know the nuanced differences between the paleoHeb 'ALMAH' ('young woman of mariageable age') and 'BETHULAH" ('virgo intacta' = i.e. chaste virgin)

The earliest copies of the scroll of the Book of Prot-oIsaiah (including the ancient ones found at Qumran in 1QIsa-A and 1QIsa-B) in chapter 7:14 all say ALMAH ('young woman' - not necessarily a VIRGIN) and NOT 'Bethulah'
(untouched Virgin Girl')

Just PLEASE be VERY wary of all the IGNORAMUSES on these kinds of threadlets who parrot what their Mommies told them (and now what their pastors are trying to shove down their throats) !!!

reply to post by Sigismundus


will do, and thanks. Good looking out. nice

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by Hellas

 

no sir it was not written in Greek. It was written in a Semitic language

I never said I dont believe in Jesus. Just not the way my 14+ years in Catholic school taught me. Sorry, but this is a fact. The oldest SURVIVING version of the NT is in Greek, proven fact based on modern linguistics.
Mathew was written in hebrew.

actually watch the video. This is from the Ancient Hebrew Research center. This is no BS source.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 24-1-2012 by casenately because: fix

First of all I never meant YOU personally.

It is a proven fact the the NT was written in Greek. A video on youtube is no credible source, nor is anything posted here as a 'finding'.

The "ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ" or "Novum Testamentum Graece" was first written in greek

www.wcma-usa.org...

Regarding this subject, researchers ask, and rightly so, "Are there any proofs that the original language was Hebrew, and not Greek or Aramaic?" The answer is "Yes! There most definitely are many: there are both internal and external proofs." I will deal with the internal proofs first—since they are more decisive and then I will move onto external proofs.


Proofs Found Within Scripture Itself

Scriptural proofs for Hebrew being the original language spoken by Rab Yahushua Mashiyach are direct and even more convincing than external proofs, for one can take the New Testament (Covenant) and prove this question right away, no matter what language you speak. Thus, there is no need for ?experts? to tell a person what to believe on this issue because the obvious is easy to find.

First of all, Scripture itself says the language of the Rab Yahushua and His disciples was Hebrew, not Greek, nor Aramaic/Aramit.

Luke 23:38: "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

IF Yahushua and the Jews spoke ARAMAIC, as many have been misled to believe, why is not Aramaic listed rather than Hebrew? After all, this sign was written for the vast majority of Israelis, including the common folk. Just this single scriptural proof alone is overwhelmingly compelling, but there is much more.

Yochanan/"John" 5:2: "Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches." Notice that the Greek says here, as in every one of the quotations below, "hebraisti," (obviously), "Hebrew."

Yochanan/"John" 19:13: "When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Yahushua forth, and sat down on the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha."

Yochanan/"John" 19:17: "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha."

Yochanan/"John" 19:20: "Many of the Jews then read this title: for the place where Yahushua was nailed was near to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin."

Acts 21:40: "And when he had given him permission, Shaul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand to the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, saying..."

Acts 22:2: "(And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)"

Acts 26:14: "And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking to me, and saying in the Hebrew language, Shaul, Shaul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goads."

HEREIN (above) IT SAYS DIRECTLY, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT YAHUSHUA DID NOT SPEAK GREEK NOR ARAMAIC, BUT HEBREW! Whom should one trust: man, who has attempted to beguile many or scripture (and Yahushua Himself)? And obviously Shaul (later Apostle Paul, in English) understood Hebrew, who was educated at the feet of a Hebrew speaking scholar. All added proofs that Hebrew was very active in Israel during the times of Yahushua and beyond.

Revelation 9:11: "And they had a king over them, who is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew language is Abaddon, but in the Greek language he hath his name Apollyon."

Revelation 16:16: "And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Har Meguido (Mount Meguido)/"Armageddon."

Other interesting scriptures to consider are John (Yochanan) 1:41 and John (Yochanan) 4:25. Both of these scriptures utilize interesting phrases.

"...we have found the Messias (Mashiyach) which is, being interpreted, the Christ (Mashiyach)." John (Yochanan) 1:41

and

"...I know that Messias (Mashiyach) cometh, which is called Christ (Mashiyach)..." John (Yochanan) 4:25

First, the rendering of the above scriptures are odd. But it does provide two infallible proofs that the Greek usage of Christos (Christ) is a translated (interpreted-methermeneuo) deviation from the proper (Hebrew) word Mashiyach. The Greek translators clearly admit/confirm that Christos is a Greek translation and NOT the original Hebrew word that was used; this is included within the scriptural text itself.

Secondly, the above two scriptures provide an inextricable link to Daniel 9:25 and Daniel 9:26 where the term Mashiyach first appears in Old Testament (Hebrew) scripture. And, Yahushua confirmed that he was in fact the Mashiyach (Daniel 9:25-26) of whom Daniel the prophet spoke of and the one about which the woman of Samaria referred to (John 4:26). What is interesting to note is that Yahushua called Daniel a prophet (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14) when the Jewish cannonized Bible (Old Testament) did not include/recognize Daniel among the prophets.

reply to post by casenately


By the way maybe this could be of interest for you.

It's a Paper by Corey Keating titled "Evidence from History and the Gospels that Jesus Spoke Greek"

www.ntgreek.org...


I know it is another Topic, but it has some parallels.

answering-islam.org...

The Language of New Testament Times
Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) conquered the Middle East in about 332 B.C. or over 300 years before the time of Jesus Christ, so the common language of the conquered peoples inherited by the Latin speaking Romans was the "koine" form of Greek, as we read in ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (vol. 1, p. 576, 1973):
"Alexander's short reign marks a decisive moment in the history of Europe and Asia ... it spread Hellenism in a vast colonizing wave throughout the Near East and created, if not politically, at least economically and culturally, a single world stretching from Gibraltar to the Punjab, open to trade and social intercourse and with a considerable overlay of common civilization and the Greek "koine" as a lingua franca. It is not untrue to say that the Roman Empire, the spread of Christianity as a world religion, and the long centuries of Byzantium were all in some degree the fruits of Alexander's achievement."
This led to the translation of the Old Testament into Koine Greek (as opposed to classical Greek of the philosophers) in the Septuagint (LXX) in Alexandria in the middle of the third century B.C. This is affirmed in the Interpreter's DICTIONARY of the BIBLE (Vol. R-Z, p. 277, Abington:1962):
"NT Koine is not simply the everyday Greek of an Eastern people in the first Christian Century; its religious vocabulary derives ultimately, not from the Greek world, but from the Hebrew world of the OT through the medium of LXX Greek."

so now you know why Greek , and this particular Greek was used, this last one is from a source even you would agree with. no, not good enough. I dont care. Facts speak louder than blind faith.

reply to post by Hellas


this is why Jesus might have spoken Greek, but not the traditional everyday Greek. No, a purposeful Greek ,much like church Latin, which is only used for scriptural teaching and dissemination.

reply to post by casenately