Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus

Almah/parthenos translation

The description as a "mistranslation" is POV. Scripture translators have considered this a perfectly acceptable translation. Others see it as controversial. Elizium23 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

But Almah does not mean virgin. Pet the main article on the term: "scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity". Matthew invented a tale of virginity that did not exist in Isaiah 7:14. Dimadick (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that modern scholars are smarter than that pesky Matthew dude! Elizium23 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not about being smart, they have more sources and better methodology. Cinadon36 06:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The word "almah" conveyed the concept of a woman of childbearing age who had not yet borne a child. As girls were married at 12 or 13, it followed that the almah was a virgin, but the primary idea was fecundity, not virginity. Greek culture, of course, was Western, and so virginity was the primary meaning of "parthenos". Achar Sva (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

My edits today

Honestly, why bother having an edit function if it is just the most insistent and persistent editor that wins regardless of all logic? I am speaking of my reasonable edits today. I assure you I will never donate to Wikipedia and will forever disparage it’s reliability. The mills of God grind exceeding slow but exceedingly fine. You have been warned! BibleWatchman (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, your opinion has been ground since long ago by the mills of mainstream academia. Wikipedia has no other option but to side with mainstream academia. WP:NOTTHEOCRACY. We're not Conservapedia, and this has never been a secret.

So, if you mean that every knee will bow down to the Abrahamic God, Wikipedia editors have agreed to disagree about that. We're not Anti-Christian to the same extent we're not Anti-Muslim, Anti-Hindu, and Anti-atheism. Unlike you, Wikipedia takes religious neutrality seriously, so it is a non-sequitur to admonish us with punishment from the god of your own religion. According to epistemology, you have no way of knowing that the Abrahamic God is The True God™. Threatening Wikipedia with punishment from the Abrahamic God comes across as extremely histrionic.

While it is technically possible for a virgin to remain pregnant, this always happens through sperm leaking into her vagina and never through the Holy Spirit. So "Jesus was born of a virgin" is a theological claim, and it is as far from being a historical fact as Tokyo is far from New York. So much for the birth of Jesus prophesied by Isaiah.

The idea that historical scholarship could verify that Isaiah made a genuine prophecy about Jesus is simply put malarkey. All Christian historians can tell you that.

We don't even know for sure if Jesus was Mary's first born son. Paul could have had knowledge of such matters, but he does not tell it, he does not even tell that Mary was a virgin. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)