Sorry if you got the impression that I am Christian. I am atheist and believe that we have to avoid resorting to the same kind of fantasy arguments that theists use.
That is why I feel that throwing out conjectures as if they were facts is contrary to a sound reasoning necessary to overcome theist thinking.
Thank you for taking time to look up the knowledge that are the basis of your argument.
I remain unconvinced because just the possibility of another meaning does not pose a convincing case for that alternate meaning to be the “correct” one.
The notion that there is a correct version of the story that is different than the current bible interpretation is probably also harmful because it entertains the possibility that any version is correct. But I think knowing the current version of the fantasy story is probably good so you can take it to pieces if necessary.
Why do you say this when it’s completely false? You are spreading misinformation.
That’s what set me off. You get to argue your point, you don’t get to call me a liar.
Then, using a modern English dictionary entry as “evidence” of a biblical “fact” is dishonest. As if Luke used said online modern English dictionary when writing his letters in Aramaic, or any of the subsequent translators.
Now, asserting that the whole story is fake, still claim that a translation of Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English correctly preserved the description of a young pregnant woman as being a (modern) virgin rather than, maybe, just unwed, or without ‘sin’, or blessed, or fair, or whatever.
Which is it? The perfectly preserved word of God or dubious translation of a translation of a translation?
Sorry if you got the impression that I am Christian. I am atheist and believe that we have to avoid resorting to the same kind of fantasy arguments that theists use.
That is why I feel that throwing out conjectures as if they were facts is contrary to a sound reasoning necessary to overcome theist thinking.
Thank you for taking time to look up the knowledge that are the basis of your argument.
I remain unconvinced because just the possibility of another meaning does not pose a convincing case for that alternate meaning to be the “correct” one.
The notion that there is a correct version of the story that is different than the current bible interpretation is probably also harmful because it entertains the possibility that any version is correct. But I think knowing the current version of the fantasy story is probably good so you can take it to pieces if necessary.
That’s what set me off. You get to argue your point, you don’t get to call me a liar.
Then, using a modern English dictionary entry as “evidence” of a biblical “fact” is dishonest. As if Luke used said online modern English dictionary when writing his letters in Aramaic, or any of the subsequent translators.
Now, asserting that the whole story is fake, still claim that a translation of Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English correctly preserved the description of a young pregnant woman as being a (modern) virgin rather than, maybe, just unwed, or without ‘sin’, or blessed, or fair, or whatever.
Which is it? The perfectly preserved word of God or dubious translation of a translation of a translation?