General Chit Chat

[Montreal Wanderer]

That Tango could take anything whatsoever that Paisley said as supporting his vision of the Christian faith is extraordinary... Phew... not going back...

Just to clear this up I have to point out that I searched around for views on the Virgin Birth and opinions on the translation of the term. I came up with the Hebrew experts views from that. It just happened to be in the middle of a Paisley article. I paid no heed to his views on life, just the link to the translation bit. Unless he's deliberately lying about that, then it makes a valid argument that some people actually do see the translation as "Virgin". All those Hebrew chaps. Hope that clarifies my position.

Paisley thinks you are the Antichrist... Wow... Scary... Come on, fight back... Could you not find any Catholic sources about 'amlah'?... Surely both sides are at least equally capable of nonsense?

There's no fight back, William. Tango, our unreconstructed Irish Catholic, quoted Paisley to support his argument against the bish, whose religious views are hard to comprehend to all but GG. Nothing the poor old dancer says later will have any resonance after that. While the bish - well, he is a great photographer but his views on the afterlife (we will all go to Heaven) may strike many as the triumph of hope over logic. Time to lock the thread I suppose except it's about something other than the true meaning of virgins. There is room for other general chit chat.

[Gooner Girl]

Hey! Don't think I agree with all of thebish's views on Christianity! His theology is far more liberal then mine. I'm a baptist. We often 'discuss' stuff, just thought I wouldn't wade in on here.

So anyway, moving on.... On holiday on the isle of wight at the moment. Daughter not sleeping so well in a strange place which means the rest of us aren't either. Last night appeared promising with her dropping off quickly til the stupid smoke alarm decided to go off in the early hours, this should probably go on the angry thread really cos I was not a happy bunny 1am this morning...

[thebish]

That Tango could take anything whatsoever that Paisley said as supporting his vision of the Christian faith is extraordinary... Phew... not going back...

Just to clear this up I have to point out that I searched around for views on the Virgin Birth and opinions on the translation of the term. I came up with the Hebrew experts views from that. It just happened to be in the middle of a Paisley article. I paid no heed to his views on life, just the link to the translation bit. Unless he's deliberately lying about that, then it makes a valid argument that some people actually do see the translation as "Virgin". All those Hebrew chaps. Hope that clarifies my position.

It doesn't clarify YOUR position - it simply says you have tried to reference someone elses's position..

be that as it may - and in the spirit of adding summat positive..

it isn't simply down to translating an isolated word..

You don't need to be a fantastically gifted scholar (or wear a cassock) to see what has happened...

Luke, in his gospel, is referencing a prophecy Isaiah made and applying it to Jesus' birth

the "prophecy" can be found in Isaiah 7:14 which you will now find translated: (KJV - because that is the version people outside the church are most familiar with) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

this is where the whole thing began.

now - there is a danger of taking an isolated verse out of its context and applying it elsewhere - and the gospel writers were never afraid to do this...

Isaiah was not writing about an even that would happen many many years away - he was writing about an immediate event - the fall of Israel & Syria - and the "sign" is not a miraculous birth - but a child who is specifically named "Immanuel" - God-with-us. It was very common for children to be named as signs... (see the naming of Isaiah's own children for instance!) If Isaiah had been talking about the sign of a miraculous conception - then he had the word "bethulah" available to him - which did/does mean "virgin".

As you will know - the "Old" Testament was translated into Greek in the 3rd century (BCE) - the septuagint (aka LXX) - and the greek translators chose to use the word "parthenos" to translate "amlah" in Isaiah 7:14.. this is the version most often (bit not always) use for the "New" Testament writers - including Luke..

parthenos DOES mean "virgin"

then - as you will know - the LXX was translated into Latin - and the official catholic Bible - the Vulgate (4th century AD) was born..

it translated Isaiah 7:14 - not from the Hebrew - but from the LXX - thus:

"propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuhel."

then - of course - eventually, english translations appeared - and they translated FROM THE LATIN...

that's how this whole sorry tale developed...

hebrew-greek-latin-english... but - NOT going back to the original texts... more modern scholarship (of course) DOES use original texts as primary sources - and compares them to other contemporaneous material to see how words were used.. - and so they are more accurate and reliable...

this is a simplified version of a complicated tale - but I hope it is helpful nonetheless...

that - of course, is before pointing out that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew (non-existant in the earliest gospel manuscripts) - and not mentioned in the earliest gospel (Mark) - or, indeed, in John - were added on later purely to make a theological point - and probably didn't actually happen... (but I don't want the Forum to be put under the threat of some thunderbolt from on high for the appearance of such controversial ramblings!!)

[thebish]

There's no fight back, William. Tango, our unreconstructed Irish Catholic, quoted Paisley to support his argument against the bish, whose religious views are hard to comprehend to all but GG.

eh??

I don't understand where GG fits into this - she and I disagree quite strongly over many things religious! I can't remember she and I ever agreeing on religion on TW! what are you referencing - anything in particular?

is what I have written really so hard to comprehend? if so - which bit don't you understand - I will happily try to explain it better...

[Montreal Wanderer]

There's no fight back, William. Tango, our unreconstructed Irish Catholic, quoted Paisley to support his argument against the bish, whose religious views are hard to comprehend to all but GG.

eh??

I don't understand where GG fits into this - she and I disagree quite strongly over many things religious! I can't remember she and I ever agreeing on religion on TW! what are you referencing - anything in particular?

is what I have written really so hard to comprehend? if so - which bit don't you understand - I will happily try to explain it better...

No special reason for GG - just she seems to understand you (I never said she agreed) and has had long discussions with you offline.

In a football forum it is hard to follow people who say things like:

parthenos DOES mean "virgin"

then - as you will know - the LXX was translated into Latin - and the official catholic Bible - the Vulgate (4th century AD) was born..

it translated Isaiah 7:14 - not from the Hebrew - but from the LXX - thus:

"propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuhel."

then - of course - eventually, english translations appeared - and they translated FROM THE LATIN...

that's how this whole sorry tale developed...

This is but a small exert from a much longer text. I'm sure a good few would have trouble following the whole thing. Then there is this 'everyone goes to heaven' thing - that is hard to follow for those from the Christian tradition.

Not to worry - I was just struck by the irony of Tango quoting Paisley to prove something to you - you may consider any remarks about you and GG gratuitous.

[Prufrock]

Confusingly enough 'Parthenos' doesn't just mean virgin. That too was used to mean simply 'young girl'.

[thebish]

Then there is this 'everyone goes to heaven' thing - that is hard to follow for those from the Christian tradition.

hmmm... really?? hard to follow - or "disagree with"?

is an explanation of (presumably your?) explanation of how a loving and ever-forgiving God could have built a place called "Hell" (as popularly conceived) EASIER to follow?

if so - try me!

[TANGODANCER]

- I was just struck by the irony of Tango quoting Paisley to prove something to you

Well, quoting the Catholic view would hardly have carried much weight with thebish, would it now, Monty? I'd just have been accused of favouritism

For what it's worth, Ian - law-unto-himself- Paisley, is an idiotic man who all Catholics laugh at. For many years his wild-eyed ranted views have been based on "the one who shouts loudest has to win" philosophy. He's hardly worth the effort of discussion. Even he, however, is capable of quoting a fact that Hebrew scholars tend to disagree with other views on the topic of the word "virgin" and its translations from times past. I wasn't trying to prove anything other than people, even historians and scholars, disagree on the topic. I'd suggest thebish takes it up with them. Ian Paisley v thebish is an event I'd buy a ticket for.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Then there is this 'everyone goes to heaven' thing - that is hard to follow for those from the Christian tradition.

hmmm... really?? hard to follow - or "disagree with"?

is an explanation of (presumably your?) explanation of how a loving and ever-forgiving God could have built a place called "Hell" (as popularly conceived) EASIER to follow?

if so - try me!

First I have to confess to being an atheist. However, it seems to me that the Christian tradition in just about every denomination has a concept of Heaven and Hell, and that people will be judged in the after life. Jesus certainly said it was not easy to get into Heaven (if you were rich). So you'd have to go somewhere else - Hell, Limbo, wherever. Just about all Christian traditions state that Hell is where unsaved souls go, although not all (I think) state that Christ went there. All I meant by hard to follow is that if the Christian tradition envisions a Hell (and I think it does) and you state that everyone will go to Heaven, your view is contrary to the Christian tradition.

Of course as an atheist I do not find any religious dogma easy to follow - they depend on a faith that I do not have.

[Montreal Wanderer]

- I was just struck by the irony of Tango quoting Paisley to prove something to you

Well, quoting the Catholic view would hardly have carried much weight with thebish, would it now, Monty? I'd just have been accused of favouritism

For what it's worth, Ian - law-unto-himself- Paisley, is an idiotic man who all Catholics laugh at. For many years his wild-eyed ranted views have been based on "the one who shouts loudest has to win" philosophy. He's hardly worth the effort of discussion. Even he, however, is capable of quoting a fact that Hebrew scholars tend to disagree with other views on the topic of the word "virgin" and its translations from times past. I wasn't trying to prove anything other than people, even historians and scholars, disagree on the topic. I'd suggest thebish takes it up with them. Ian Paisley v thebish is an event I'd buy a ticket for.

I can't believe Paisley is still around. I remember him sewing his bigotry over fifty years ago. I can't believe he was made a life peer. If there really is a Hell, I would anticipate seeing him there.

[TANGODANCER]

I can't believe Paisley is still around. I remember him sewing his bigotry over fifty years ago. I can't believe he was made a life peer. If there really is a Hell, I would anticipate seeing him there.

Our church used to have visits from Jesuit priest missionaries at one time. Never did quite get how shouting fire and brimstone coincided with Jesus's teachings myself. I guess Paisley is his church's version of a Jesuit. When in doubt, shout.

[thebish]

Then there is this 'everyone goes to heaven' thing - that is hard to follow for those from the Christian tradition.

hmmm... really?? hard to follow - or "disagree with"?

is an explanation of (presumably your?) explanation of how a loving and ever-forgiving God could have built a place called "Hell" (as popularly conceived) EASIER to follow?

if so - try me!

First I have to confess to being an atheist. However, it seems to me that the Christian tradition in just about every denomination has a concept of Heaven and Hell, and that people will be judged in the after life. Jesus certainly said it was not easy to get into Heaven (if you were rich). So you'd have to go somewhere else - Hell, Limbo, wherever. Just about all Christian traditions state that Hell is where unsaved souls go, although not all (I think) state that Christ went there. All I meant by hard to follow is that if the Christian tradition envisions a Hell (and I think it does) and you state that everyone will go to Heaven, your view is contrary to the Christian tradition.

Of course as an atheist I do not find any religious dogma easy to follow - they depend on a faith that I do not have.

ahhh - the "hard to follow" doesn't have the sense of "contrary to popular opinion" over here"... I have read your erudite posts over many years and did not believe for one second that you found my post in the least bit hard to follow!! the idea that something translated from language to language without reference to the original sources can cause major language confusion is NOT a difficult idea to follow!

I think you'd find if you looked into it (but why would you?!!) - that Universal Salvationism has a very rich and long tradition within Christianity across the ages... Of course it is not the mainstream view shouted from the rooftops by the most loudly heard christian groups dominating the airwaves in the 21st century - but it is far from the bizarre and goofy minority pecadillo that you seem to think it is...

BTW - i don't see why Jesus saying it is hard for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God (which you have translated as "heaven" - which isn't really the entirety of what "Kingdom of God" means) means logically that they have to go somewhere else... why can't they enter the Kingdom of God - but that it is just hard??

as I said earlier - it will be hard for all of us - that encounter with God will shine a light deep into places we'd rather not see the light of day - it'll be a sobering, painful encounter... but then so much transformation comes through painful experiences - so I don't think it's a contradiction...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Then there is this 'everyone goes to heaven' thing - that is hard to follow for those from the Christian tradition.

hmmm... really?? hard to follow - or "disagree with"?

is an explanation of (presumably your?) explanation of how a loving and ever-forgiving God could have built a place called "Hell" (as popularly conceived) EASIER to follow?

if so - try me!

First I have to confess to being an atheist. However, it seems to me that the Christian tradition in just about every denomination has a concept of Heaven and Hell, and that people will be judged in the after life. Jesus certainly said it was not easy to get into Heaven (if you were rich). So you'd have to go somewhere else - Hell, Limbo, wherever. Just about all Christian traditions state that Hell is where unsaved souls go, although not all (I think) state that Christ went there. All I meant by hard to follow is that if the Christian tradition envisions a Hell (and I think it does) and you state that everyone will go to Heaven, your view is contrary to the Christian tradition.

Of course as an atheist I do not find any religious dogma easy to follow - they depend on a faith that I do not have.

ahhh - the "hard to follow" doesn't have the sense of "contrary to popular opinion" over here"... I have read your erudite posts over many years and did not believe for one second that you found my post in the least bit hard to follow!! the idea that something translated from language to language without reference to the original sources can cause major language confusion is NOT a difficult idea to follow!

I think you'd find if you looked into it (but why would you?!!) - that Universal Salvationism has a very rich and long tradition within Christianity across the ages... Of course it is not the mainstream view shouted from the rooftops by the most loudly heard christian groups dominating the airwaves in the 21st century - but it is far from the bizarre and goofy minority pecadillo that you seem to think it is...

BTW - i don't see why Jesus saying it is hard for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God (which you have translated as "heaven" - which isn't really the entirety of what "Kingdom of God" means) means logically that they have to go somewhere else... why can't they enter the Kingdom of God - but that it is just hard??

as I said earlier - it will be hard for all of us - that encounter with God will shine a light deep into places we'd rather not see the light of day - it'll be a sobering, painful encounter... but then so much transformation comes through painful experiences - so I don't think it's a contradiction...

Well, you've got me on the Kingdom of God. I actually won the common entrance scripture knowledge prize in 1957 and was relying on my memory - but even King James (<open bias>the only acceptable version as far as I am concerned <close bias>) says the Kingdom of God. However, if we all end up in Heaven - hard though this may be to achieve - why have the other place at all? Why even bother to follow the teaching of Christ (which I consider are pretty good stuff even if I reject the son of God business, or even God him/herself - there is little wrong with the Christian ethic - or those of some other religions)? If we all end up in the good place, one could be a real bastard down here, do all kind of nasty things, have fun at the expense of others and even be a scum fan. Where is the incentive to do the right things - other than our own conscience which too many lack? Logically, this is hard for me to follow.

[thebish]

Well, you've got me on the Kingdom of God. I actually won the common entrance scripture knowledge prize in 1957 and was relying on my memory - but even King James (<open bias>the only acceptable version as far as I am concerned <close bias>)

{why pick the one of the most inaccurate english translations? Surely accuracy of translation is important if you are going to argue about what something says??}

says the Kingdom of God. However, if we all end up in Heaven - hard though this may be to achieve - why have the other place at all?

{good point - in fact - precisely the one I made quite some time ago!}

Why even bother to follow the teaching of Christ (which I consider are pretty good stuff even if I reject the son of God business, or even God him/herself - there is little wrong with the Christian ethic - or those of some other religions)? If we all end up in the good place, one could be a real bastard down here, do all kind of nasty things, have fun at the expense of others and even be a scum fan. Where is the incentive to do the right things - other than our own conscience which too many lack? Logically, this is hard for me to follow.

{because - as I also wrote some time ago - I don't believe the point to following Jesus's teaching and seeking to imitate his life is all about booking your seat in heaven - and he didn't think that either as far as I can gather. I don't think heaven is there as a reward for doing good stuff on earth, like some kind of huge cosmic audition.

I believe that living a christ-like life is a gateway to richness of life, I believe that a christlike life is the best life you can live on earth both for myself and for those who my life touches...

of course i fall well short, but it's worth striving for, and is worth striving for completely without recourse to a gold-star-for-being-good idea of heaven.

it's not THAT hard to grasp, is it? Is it really more "logical" or attractive to you to imagine a world where there are some people who live decent lives because they are promised a massive reward and others who miss that offer - or actively rebel against it - and end up with a huge punishment? Personally, I would much rather see my kids make the right choices in life not because I will massively reward them if they do - but because they know it is the right thing to do... but if they do the wrong thing or live in different way than I would have hoped for them - I don't throw them out and disown them!! I reckon God must be like that too - only much more perfectly forgiving and loving and accepting...

as for other religions - if you're asking - I'm also a universalist!}

[Gooner Girl]

More importantly then all this religion talk I have discovered another girlie shirt wearer amongst you. Bruce is not alone! Is it a pre-requisite that all blokes that live in Bolton should look pretty in pink?! (or peach...)

[ohjimmyjimmy]

More importantly then all this religion talk I have discovered another girlie shirt wearer amongst you. Bruce is not alone! Is it a pre-requisite that all blokes that live in Bolton should look pretty in pink?! (or peach...)

We're all comfortable with out metrosexuality

[Gooner Girl]

More importantly then all this religion talk I have discovered another girlie shirt wearer amongst you. Bruce is not alone! Is it a pre-requisite that all blokes that live in Bolton should look pretty in pink?! (or peach...)

We're all comfortable with out metrosexuality

Is that why you tried to pretend it was red?!

[ohjimmyjimmy]

DUSKY red !

[truewhite15]

I'd look fecking weird in pink. I bear a passing resemblance to Adam Bogdan, so picture him in last season's goalie kit, and you get the gist.

[TANGODANCER]

More importantly then all this religion talk I have discovered another girlie shirt wearer amongst you. Bruce is not alone! Is it a pre-requisite that all blokes that live in Bolton should look pretty in pink?! (or peach...)

Got shirts of all colours. One of my favourites is pale pink, although "pretty" is not a word normally associated with me.