Don't forget to send your favorites!

Wilba wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew
and Luke said so.
We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
team of whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time
or whether Joseph
complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
pregnant
anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
mutated through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct
translation would be "lass" - simply a young woman.

Interesting that a major article of Catholic dogma could stem from a
translation error. If that is the case then somebody screwed the pooch
royally.

On 2009-11-01 15:46:30 -0800, "Wilba" said:

J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
so.
We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
Joseph
complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
pregnant
anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has mutated
through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would be
"lass" - simply a young woman.

....but look at what that translation error was turned into.

Just think, the largest corporate religion has its foundation in a
translation error.

What if they had got it right and made the translation as "knocked up bimbo"?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

J. Clarke wrote:
Wilba wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew
and Luke said so.
We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
team of whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time
or whether Joseph
complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
pregnant
anyway or what.
It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
mutated through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct
translation would be "lass" - simply a young woman.

Interesting that a major article of Catholic dogma could stem from a
translation error. If that is the case then somebody screwed the pooch
royally.

Mary was a pooch? Is that the dogma? Jesus was a dog Ma?

Now I'm really confused.

(My Karma ran over my dogma...).

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-11-01 15:46:30 -0800, "Wilba" said:

J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
so.
We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
Joseph
complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
pregnant
anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
mutated
through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation
would be
"lass" - simply a young woman.

...but look at what that translation error was turned into.

Just think, the largest corporate religion has its foundation in a
translation error.

What if they had got it right and made the translation as "knocked up
bimbo"?

Las Vegas is the new Vatican?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Wilba wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew
and Luke said so.
We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
team of whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time
or whether Joseph
complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
pregnant
anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
mutated through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct
translation would be "lass" - simply a young woman.

Interesting that a major article of Catholic dogma could stem from a
translation error. If that is the case then somebody screwed the pooch
royally.


Even worse (arguably) was when they mistook "celebrate" for "celibate".
A shame.
I like the idea of a whole bunch of happy, celebrating priests.
Instead of what there is.

--
Jeff R.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:46:30 +0800, "Wilba"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
so.
We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
Joseph
complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
pregnant
anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has mutated
through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would be
"lass" - simply a young woman.

A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was written
in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.



Eric Stevens

On 2009-11-01 19:44:18 -0800, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:46:30 +0800, "Wilba"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
so.
We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
Joseph
complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
pregnant
anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has mutated
through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would be
"lass" - simply a young woman.

A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was written
in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.



Eric Stevens

Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore there
is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages in most
use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language of JC and
his motley crew.
If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of
the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.
Greek translations came later, as Koine Greek was the language of the
colonial Romans, (only the Roman military spoke Latin) and translations
from Aramaic to Greek would have been a natural progression with the
spread of Christianity into Roman territories, and Constantine's
political adoption of Christianity.

What we ended up with with King James and various Monastic Latin
translations has led us into the middle of the twisted,
politico-religious myth we have now.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
Eric Stevens said:
Wilba wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
so. We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
team of
whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never put out
and got pregnant anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
mutated
through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would
be
"lass" - simply a young woman.

A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was written
in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.

Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore there is
no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages in most use in
Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language of JC and his motley
crew.
If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of the
myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.

According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the Aramaic
scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no Aramaic texts
exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek based on what was
heard in Aramaic.

Wilba wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Eric Stevens said:
Wilba wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that
Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or
whether God told them or whether they personally put a chastity
belt on her or if they had it from a team of
whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or
whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never
put out
and got pregnant anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
mutated
through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation
would be
"lass" - simply a young woman.

A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was
written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.

Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore
there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages
in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language
of JC and his motley crew.
If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of
the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.

According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the
Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no
Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek
based on what was heard in Aramaic.

Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and there were
verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the final form of the
New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll never know
how much revisionism existed.

However if Neil Douglas-Klotz is an "Aramaic scholar" and he holds that
Aramaic was never written then he blew his credibility, as it is fairly well
known that Aramaic writing dates to around 1000BC and Hebrew writing is
generally considered to be derived from Aramaic writing. Now, it may be
true that no Aramaic writings of any of the Disciples are known to exist but
that is another issue entirely.

On 2009-11-02 04:46:14 -0800, "Wilba" said:

Savageduck wrote:
Eric Stevens said:
Wilba wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
so. We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
team of
whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never put out
and got pregnant anyway or what.

It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
mutated
through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would
be
"lass" - simply a young woman.

A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was written
in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.

Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore there is
no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages in most use in
Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language of JC and his motley
crew.
If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of the
myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.

According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the Aramaic
scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no Aramaic texts
exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek based on what was
heard in Aramaic.

It appears that even scholars have personal agenda. It seems there were
Aramaic writings which pre and post dated the ...er "time of JC".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic

What remains, regardless of the original language of the odd public
relations & sales documents which became the New Testament, is the
creation of a mythical hero on the same scale as a Hercules, Superman
or Luke Skywalker.

It would have been so much better if they had just documented the man's
philosophy and life, rather than this fictional attempt to go the
messiah route, and then to deify him.

Why is man so gullible in his need for a god to explain things?

Virgin birth indeed.


--
Regards,

Savageduck