Parthenos Definition
NAS Word Usage - Total: 15
a virgin
a marriageable maiden
a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
one's marriageable daughter
a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
one who has never had intercourse with women
I can’t reason you out of your faith. That’s not how faith works.
No matter what evidence I provide it won’t be enough to counter your faith in the written word of god.
What I will say is that modern English has been around for a few hundred years. When was the old new testament written down and in what language? About two thousand years ago in Hebrew Aramaic. English word definitions are irrelevant.
Peace be with you.
Edits: inline.
Edit: damn it, I will argue.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke describe Mary as a virgin.
From the Greek: παρθένος; Matthew 1:23 uses the Greek parthénos, “virgin”, whereas only the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, from which the New Testament ostensibly quotes, as Almah – “young maiden”. See article on parthénos in Bauercc/(Arndt)/Gingrich/Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauercc/(Arndt)/Gingrich/Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1979, p. 627.).
“Young maiden” here indicates youth and un-married.
Different translations of Luke also use “handmaiden of God” to describe Mary as a servant of God.
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?
Virgin in this context means unwed.
But good luck convincing a Christian of that ;-)
Do you have a source on your claim? Why do you say this when it’s completely false? You are spreading misinformation.
Source:
Go and find the Hebrew or Latin word and try again.
No, thanks. Your turn.
I can’t reason you out of your faith. That’s not how faith works.
No matter what evidence I provide it won’t be enough to counter your faith in the written word of god.
What I will say is that modern English has been around for a few hundred years. When was the
oldnew testament written down and in what language? About two thousand years ago inHebrewAramaic. English word definitions are irrelevant.Peace be with you.
Edits: inline.
Edit: damn it, I will argue.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke describe Mary as a virgin.
From the Greek: παρθένος; Matthew 1:23 uses the Greek parthénos, “virgin”, whereas only the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14, from which the New Testament ostensibly quotes, as Almah – “young maiden”. See article on parthénos in Bauercc/(Arndt)/Gingrich/Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauercc/(Arndt)/Gingrich/Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1979, p. 627.).
“Young maiden” here indicates youth and un-married.
Different translations of Luke also use “handmaiden of God” to describe Mary as a servant of God.
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?