The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 7: The Virgin Birth
Up until now, I've have been focusing on the biblical stories of the Old Testament. For part 7 of the series, I will look at what is one of the most famous and celebrated stories of the New Testament, The Virgin Birth. After all, it does have its own national holiday. Never mind the actual origins of said holiday, as that is a separate discussion all its own. But it seemed God needed a makeover from his smite-happy Old Testament self into a kinder, gentler, less smitey New Testament form (at least until Revelations-again, a different discussion). And what better way to do this than by selecting a human vessel to carry and give birth to his progeny, because why not? Anyway, the Virgin Birth story goes something like this:
Mary was a Jewish woman living in Nazareth with her betrothed/husband Joseph. Mary was selected by God because she was supposedly righteous and a virgin. Because apparently, women back then were valued based on their sexual activity, or especially the lack thereof. I suppose a new car is at its most valuable before it is driven off the dealership lot. Regardless, the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary with God’s seed and without sexual intercourse (when you think about it, God made Joseph became a cuckold). I suppose that was the ancient theological version of artificial insemination. Mary later gave birth to Jesus, who would later grow up to be Savior of mankind and even a “decoration” hung in churches or on some necklaces.
Christian religions and denominations accept this story as authoritative because, religion/faith/feelings. And apparently, some people are programmed to never question religion. Fortunately, I am here to examine this story from a more logical and rational standpoint to see if it is plausible by examining any available evidence. So let’s get to it!
1. Is a virgin birth possible? Well, yes and no : First, a quick biology lesson. Mammals (including humans) reproduce through sexual reproduction. The male inseminates the female and when a sperm fertilizes the egg, a zygote (a single undifferentiated cell) is formed (not yet a human or child, just saying) and after becoming a blastocyst/embryo, implants in the uterus of the female, where it is gestated until birth occurs. The key to this is “sexual reproduction,” as in both a male and female is required. But Mary was impregnated without sexual intercourse. Therefore, she reproduced asexually. Some organisms can reproduce asexually. But here is the catch: While some reptiles and fish can reproduce asexually, humans cannot! Of course, religion explains this away by what is essentially magic. Sorry to break it to theists, but humans are biologically incapable of parthenogenesis. As Professor Jenny Graves of La Trove University (2015) states, “So the answer to the question of whether virgin birth is a real possibility is: yes, unless you are a mammal.”
2. The Virgin birth (unsurprisingly) borrows from other ancient sources : Like many other biblical stories which clearly borrow from previous cultural sources, the Virgin Birth is no different. Egypt is always a good go to source. According to John D. Keyser of Hope of Israel Ministries, about 2,000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian Virgin Queen Mut-em-ua supposedly gave birth to the Pharaoh Amenkept (or Amenophis) III, who built the temple of Luxor, on the walls of which were represented. First was the Annunciation, the god Taht announcing to Mut-em-ua that she will become a mother. Second was the Immaculate Conception, where the god Kneph (the holy spirit) mystically [magically] impregnated Mut-em-ua by holding a cross to her mouth. Third was the birth of the Man-god Amenkept. Fourth was the Adoration of the infant by gods and men, including 3 kings, who offer gifts. Is this story starting to sound familiar?
Egyptian mythology is not the only source of such stories. Hindu myth has the Ramayana, where Rama was conceived by his mother drinking a potion prepared by god Vishnu. Buddhism holds that Buddha was born from a virgin mother, Queen Maya (Mary) after she had a vivid dream in which four angels carried her high into white mountain peaks and clothed her in flowers. A magnificent white bull elephant (a symbol of fertility) bearing a white lotus in its trunk approached Maya and walked around her three times. Then the elephant struck her on the right side with its trunk and vanished into her. Greek and Roman myths are full of stories where the gods visit mortal women for some nookie, resulting in the births of demigods. To be fair, the Greek & Roman gods still needed to engage in sexual intercourse to produce their offspring. The Christian version just skips the mechanics of the process. In certain Native American stories, Deganawida (The Great Peacemaker) was born a Huron and his mother was supposedly a virgin. There are other similar examples from other cultures. But you get the idea. The Virgin Birth of the Bible is not a unique or original idea.
3. Other alternative explanations : What are other possible explanations for the "virgin birth?" Well, Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she became pregnant. It's possible that they did the Bronze Age boink before they were married. As such an act was frowned upon in those times, Mary could have simply claimed it was an immaculate conception. Or maybe they were married and simply copulated like a married couple, resulting in pregnancy. The flair of the story was simply added later. Or it might have happened like this . Perhaps the midi-chlorians in her body were powerful and numerous enough to create life. 
After all, that's about as plausible as the biblical version.
Considering that it is biologically impossible for a human to asexually reproduce and given that the Virgin Birth story is similar to, if not outright taken, from numerous older sources, it's quite unlikely that the story as depicted in the bible actually happened. It also makes no logical sense that God, who can create an entire universe from nothing, would need a human vessel to create an offspring. When one looks at such stories without religious blinders or emotional needs, one can see just how absurd stories like this actually are!
How does this story, or the alternative explanations, sound to you?
I interpret this as I do most of the Bible: historical fiction (in this case, substantially more fiction than history). As you noted, the biblical authors drew from stories that had been passed down to them. (Modern day authors do this all the time. In fact, design engineers, advertisers, artists and other creative people routinely observe patterns in the work of predecessors and peers and work these patterns into their own creations.)
If one is selling something, it is good to have an interesting story. Well, virgin birth certainly is a notion that could be spun into an interesting yarn.
Indeed. Throw God into the mix with a miracle and you have a best seller.
That's how I view it too.
Stories which do not seem to deviate too much from their source material. It's basically a retelling. We see this in media all the time.
I guess my question would be, if Mary was in fact a virgin and she was married to Joseph, was Joseph either impotent or gay, or maybe just celibate?
If there are those who believe that the story is true, then they should also believe that the Rosemary's Baby story is true as well.
One can only speculate. But Mary & Joseph did have children after Jesus. Supposedly, they did not consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born. Joseph must have had some serious blue balls by then.
I wouldn't be surprised. People believe all kinds of things where religion or religious claims are concerned.
Such an inquiry is beside the point. The story is not presented as a natural phenomenon. It's presented as a miracle from God. Whether or not it's possible under some kind of normal circumstances is, therefore, irrelevant.
You present poor evidence for this. Finding similarities in other stories doesn't demonstrate that the authors drew from those sources as opposed to it being a coincidence. Citing to both ancient Egypt and India actually hurts the proposal. An author might reasonably draw from one of those disparate sources, but both? Or more? No.
Cultures all over the world tell stories, and may develop similar ideas and styles. It doesn't mean they are getting those ideas from somewhere else.
In fact, we have no reason to believe that the authors of the gospels specifically borrowed an idea from the stories of any foreign culture that predated them by centuries - perhaps millennia. Remember that someone writing in the first century likely didn't have a strong education in the stories of myriad ancient cultures. Why would they? Or access to Google, for that matter. Claiming that the authors drew from other sources assumes an education in those sources for which there is no evidence.
It would be far more likely that they would borrow from their own Jewish culture or Greek culture, anyway. There are similar examples to be found there, but that doesn't mean the gospel writers drew upon those either, or any other particular sources. If we had their personal notes, we might be able to say for sure, but just finding a similar story written by someone else is proof of pretty much nothing.
Here's one you may not have considered. The author of Luke or Matthew simply made it up. The detail of the virgin birth does not appear in Mark, which is the oldest gospel. That doesn't mean Mark is the only source we should use. Mark is a bit of a rough survey of Jesus and there is nothing wrong with later sources adding in things they thought needed including. That happens with the telling of any story.
But assuming it's fiction, why would they do this? Most likely, to enhance the perception that Jesus was divine. The early church was very concerned with the nature of Jesus. The plain truth is that they didn't know what to make of him. Was he a just a man? Was he a divine being posing as a man? Was he some form of God?
I have always marveled at how much early church leaders around the Mediterranean argued over this. If you consider the teachings of Jesus, it's all really kind of beside the point. I doubt very much that it was even in the Top 10 of thing Jesus wanted people to spend time thinking about.
Or it could have gone down exactly as described. We don't really have a specific reason to assume these people were liars. In fact, they probably placed a high value on truth-telling. Therefore, it would not be fair to assume they were lying.
In defense of Luke, he begins by stating that the account to follow is exactly as it was told to him, so he admits to not being an eyewitness. However, we don't know his source(s). Did he hear it straight from Mary? or from someone else? We just don't know. It is apparent, though (at least by his own claim) that he didn't invent the story himself.
The notion that what you claim you would do doesn't mesh with what God might do is a poor argument against God. Four year-olds make decisions no adult would make, but both are real, and the decisions they make seem reasonable to them at the time. The same is true for men versus women, modern people versus ancient people, rich and poor, black and white, and on and on.
I am pretty sure Gordy considered that:
In other words, it was magic. But such a circumstance is not logically or biologically possible. Therefore, any claim of divine influence is empty.
It's the similarities between the stories that make it possible the Virgin birth story was borrowed from another source or sources. Especially since many of hose other stories already occurred. As I pointed out, many cultures share the same theme. Especially in the same general geographical region. So while it could be a coincidence, it is also possible it was not.
But as different cultures interact with travel and trade, especially over the course of years, those ideas can certainly spread elsewhere.
It's the stories themselves that survived and were passed down, either in writing or orally or both. Again, stories could have spread from one region to another. Kind of like a game of telephone. Or with exaggerations and edits.
The fact that there are similar examples lends credibility to the notion that they did look to other sources. Does that mean that is what actually happened? Of course not. But such a notion cannot be dismissed either.
Actually, I did consider that and yes, that is certainly one possibility. But some do not think the story is made up and instead is actually true.
While adding things may help a story, there is no way to determine the veracity of the additions. For all we know, the "Virgin Birth," or any other biblical story for that matter, may not have actually occurred as depicted (which is what is concluded in every part of the series so far), if at all, and just needed a story telling flair to it. Something to make it a more interesting read.
I would say control.
Spinning a story to make Jesus like a man-god who can perform miracles and such is certainly more interesting and captivating than merely saying he was just another guy.
Jesus had some good ideas. But making Jesus as a godlike figure would only cause people to look up to him and the church (as the "experts" of Jesus and his teachings). Again, it's about the aforementioned control.
There is no evidence to assume the Virgin Birth story (or any other biblical story) happened exactly as depicted. Based on the analysis of the previous biblical stories, it likely did not happen as depicted and is best viewed as a story written by ancient men with pens.
Truth telling or truth bending?
Which makes the story itself highly dubious.
I wasn't arguing against god. More like his methods.
Whether or not the decisions are reasonable to them is immaterial. We can examine their decisions as a third party and determine just how reasonable they might actually be.
Your statements logically contradict themselves. It doesn't matter if it is logically or biologically possible if divine influence is involved. All the biology observation does is demonstrate that if it did happen, it was probably divine intervention, since we know of no other ordinary way that it could happen.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. Of course, it's possible. But there is no direct evidence of this. No reason to prefer that explanation.
Sure, but as I pointed out, that doesn't mean they borrowed the stories. They could have come up with the stories independently. It tells us nothing about what the gospel writers actually did.
No, it simply demonstrates that it was possible, which actually isn't very useful. But it isn't important, either. If your central inquiry is "is the story fact or fiction?" the existence of a similar story (be it fact or fiction) doesn't answer the question.
I don't think that's a likely reason. In the first century, when these stories were first written down, Christian leadership controlled pretty much nothing. They were either tolerated or persecuted. They often met in secret and identified themselves to each other with coded symbols like the fish.
And apparently, their society wasn't structured in such a way that would fit with our standard concepts of power structures. Early Roman writers derided the Christians for basically living a communist existence. They shared property in common, for example. They sought neither wealth nor power and the non-Christians around them thought of them as lunatics for it.
As I describe above, the church simply did not exist in that way at that time.
The fact that you know about it is because of the evidence. The evidence is written. You can analyze and ultimately dismiss it, if you choose, but it's just a weird denial of reality to say there is "no evidence."
Your analysis of previous Biblical stories is not relevant to an examination of this particular story. It is inappropriate to base this analysis on previous ones. The Bible is not a single composition. It is an anthology - a collection of writings - by some 40 authors written in at least three different languages over a period of centuries. It may be presented in modern times as "the book" of the church, but it certainly did not develop that way. It is many books.
What makes you say so? Have you been God? On what basis do you presume to know what would be logical for God? I don't think you can speak authoritatively for God's reason any more than you could for a person you never met leading an existence you have no experience with. And we're talking about a whole other level of being that we probably aren't equipped to begin to comprehend.
Divine intervention is only a claim. There is no evidence to suggest the story happened as described, divine or otherwise.
All I said was that it was possible the story was borrowed from other sources. Other biblical stories also share similarities to earlier stories. So we're starting to see a pattern emerge.
See previous statement. Sure it may have developed independently. But as examination of biblical stories continues to show a pattern of retelling from earlier stories, it becomes less likely a particular story like the Virgin birth story was developed independently.
I'm not declaring if a story is absolute fact or fiction. I'm looking at the veracity of the story itself.
As time went on and christianity become more powerful and influential, stories could have been tweaked and edited to assert a level of control over the populace.
Perhaps not at that particular time. But rather as time went on.
I know about it because it's a well known story. That is not evidence that the events of the story actually happened as described. There is no evidence. That's like saying the story of Harry Potter is evidence that Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort exist or the events of the books happened as described. What "evidence" are you referring to?
Not directly. But it does establish a pattern.
That only diminishes the veracity of the bible.
Depends on whom you ask.
I never claimed to speak for God. I can only examine what God supposedly did and why as a third party.
I don't think so. These were your words:
and:
I don't see the word "possible" or anything like it in your article. I see "clearly borrow" and "is not a unique or original idea." You are making unequivocal declarations. Now, if you want to concede that it's merely possible the story was borrowed from another source, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind or adjusting your position. It's just not the initial claim that you made.
Can you explain what you think the difference is?
You are proceeding from an incorrect assumption. The church wasn't powerful or influential at all before the late 3rd century to early 4th century and that only happened gradually. Its true power didn't develop until after the fall of the empire in the 5th century.
Before that, Christians were routinely persecuted both by official edict and from ordinary crowds. The "populace" you mention liked to stone Christians in the street or slaughter them in the Colosseum.
As for the content of the stories, we have physical manuscripts of the gospels and Acts predating that point in history, so we would know if they were subsequently tweaked or edited.
Culturally, it was very important in the Hebrew tradition to maintain the integrity of their stories so that the telling would be the same from place to place and generation to generation. New Testament scripture were merely written copies of oral stories.
That oral tradition was at the core of Hebrew culture for centuries. It was nothing at all like a game of Telephone. We're talking about sacred stories telling the most important story ever. The stories were told to listeners, who memorized it and repeated it back repeatedly for verification. Everybody knew these stories in the same way. You couldn't have gotten away with walking around telling a different version of a sacred story.
To the extent that tweaking or editing was done in the case of the gospels, it would have been for the sake of completeness, not to wield power.
I don't see how. The only pattern I see is that you feel the same way about all the biblical stories. As I pointed out, the stories were written by different people, in different places, in different times, in different languages. As a reminder, we are referencing this comment from you:
You are determining the truth or falseness of the story based on your analysis of other unconnected stories. You should analyze the story on its own terms.
How does the Bible's existence as an anthology diminish the veracity of either the whole collection or of any particular part? Logically, if unique, unconnected authors encountered similar experiences that would tend to validate those stories. Perhaps you should explain what you personally mean by "veracity of the Bible."
Gordy did not use the word 'possible' but one could easily take that by implication. But he has, given your objection, clarified that he is not arguing that the virgin birth story necessarily was borrowed from other sources.
The veracity of the Bible per its claim of being divine and containing the words of the perfect, omniscient supreme entity. A collection of authors over time who recount their human 'experiences' in errant and contradictory ways is evidence supporting the hypothesis that the Bible is indeed merely an anthology of human historical fiction rather than the divine Word of God.
Then he doesn't get to say "All I said was that it was possible." It's simply not true.
I will ask you this one time to not try to speak for Gordy when speaking to me. I will ignore this and any further attempts to do so. I am interest only in hearing direct from Gordy about what he means when he says anything.
I don't care what you think of my policy or even what Gordy thinks of it. This is how I feel about it and I will not change. If you want to tell me what you think of the topic, or of your own words, I may respond to that.
There are rarely a plethora of rational arguments, most of the time when using logic and reason to examine a subject people will come to similar conclusions unless they already held a counter pre-conceived belief. When I see two long parallel white lines in the sky I can reasonably conclude they are the contrails of an airplane, not that God is doing cocaine lines in the sky. Most other rational people not emotionally invested in looking for a supernatural explanation will come to similar conclusions based on the evidence.
TiG & I have been in many discussions regarding various topic's for years. We tend to think alike too and agree on many points. He's just more eloquent than I.
Gordy's writing is straightforward, his arguments are logical, his use of language is consistent and we are both very familiar with the subject matter. Also, we have been discussing this topic with each other (and others) on forums for years.
Why is this even noteworthy?
Three comments in a row so far that have nothing to do with thoughtful discussion and everything, it seems, to do with trolling.
removed for context
It's an illustration of how two people can look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusion without coordinating their arguments. That seemed like a fairly clear analogy to me.
Yes, and?
You also don't see the implication of what I wrote. If the Virgin Birth story was borrowed from other sources, then that means it was surely possible it was. Especially given the numerous other sources available.
So the Virgin Birth story doesn't resemble or directly take other similar stories from other cultures?
That was the whole point behind the second part of the article.
Perhaps you missed this part of the article [emphasis mine], "the Virgin Birth story is similar to, if not outright taken, from numerous older sources, it's quite unlikely that the story as depicted in the bible actually happened. "
Plausibility.
Thank you for agreeing that the church became more powerful and influential as time went on.
So every version of the bible will say the exact same thing?
And you don't think something could be changed or lost in dictation or translation? Especially over a period of several thousand years?
The thing about story telling is, it's quite easy to err on the telling and retelling of a story, even if it's unintentional. And it seems you're saying that story tellers never made a mistake or change in a story, especially given the timespan and audience.
Big changes might get noticed. Small changes, incrementally over time, less likely to be noticed.
The pattern that biblical stories may not have occurred as depicted and that their veracity is questionable.
You are ignoring other stories which share similar details and themes. They can all be analyzed the same way.
Which parts actually happened (as some people believe) and which parts are fables? If inconsistencies can be found in one story, then there might be inconsistencies in other stories too. The more stories that are shown to have inconsistencies, the greater the possibility the majority or even the entire collection can have diminished veracity.
The conformity to facts, accuracy!
You don't get to tell TiG for whom he can or cannot speak for anyone other than yourself. TiG is free to speak for me. If I disagree with what he says, I will offer a correcton.
First, why the attitude? Second, what do you mean by 'my policy' — what is 'your' policy? Is your 'policy' that you will not respond to comments other than from the individual to whom you replied? If so, see below: ☟
Why are you complaining that I chimed in on a public thread? You have been on social forums for years and know how they work. We all can and do add our comments to public threads. Have you even seen me try dissuade you from commenting, topically, on a thread?
It's your claim. You can't prove they took the story from anywhere. Furthermore, I demonstrated that why I think it is unlikely. You have ignored my arguments on that point.
A single word is not an explanation.
I don't know why you are thanking me. As I explained to you at some length, it happens to be irrelevant.
Maybe you should look into that.
I have explained to you why the Hebrew oral tradition is actually very reliable. Meanwhile, the fact that we have manuscripts - or parts of manuscripts - going all the way back to the late 1st and early 2nd century has allowed biblical scholars to check for discrepancies and ensure the accuracy of modern publications. You are implying an unreliability in the documents for which you have supplied no evidence and you also are ignoring evidence that the documents are really quite reliable and verifiable.
Translation across the centuries and languages is a different matter and not relevant to the current discussion.
You are ignoring what I have told you about ancient oral traditions. You will get nowhere if you refuse to open your mind to the possibility that what you know about story-telling is not all there is to know.
You haven't demonstrated that they should be applied to an analysis of this particular story.
They weren't written by the same people. So, an analysis of one has zero bearing on an analysis of another.
I didn't tell TiG what he could or could not do. I asked him not speak for you when talking to me. I even used the word "ask" so as to be clear. However, recognizing that he will do as he pleases, I warned him that I will ignore such comments. That is my prerogative.
I see no reason for personal jabs.
This has already been stated. Why do you persist in this line of meta? I recommend you just let it go and discuss the article.
If you had not engaged in meta, I would not have replied to same. Yes, discussing the article is much preferred.
As I said before, there are multiple biblical stories that share similarities to other sources. So that infers it is likely.
I can't make it simpler than that.
The original question you asked which started this particular point was, "why would they do this?" I simply said control, which christianity developed as time went on. Make a story more fanciful with miracles and such, people are more easily swayed. It had added appeal. Look at how some people revere Mary or regard the Virgin Birth story today. Some treat it as literal or fact. That's not entirely irrelevant.
No thanks. You're the one who seems to think the story is unchanged.
Again, does every version read exactly the same? Straight from those manuscripts?
Not at all. If you're going to focus on oral traditions, especially Hebrew traditions, it's unlikely that they would say Jesus was born from a virgin birth, as they do not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was the son of God. But the key to the virgin birth story is that it's still just a "story." As that's all it likely is. Just like every other "virgin birth" story from other cultures. You seem to be focusing too much on the story aspect while ignoring the actual crux of the article: how plausible is the "Virgin Birth?"
Because they all share the same theme.
You can ask him not to speak for you. You do not get to ask/tell him not to speak for me, as that is for me to decide. I said I approve of him doing so.
Are you accusing Gordy and TiG of engaging in a conspiracy?
I do think you are only here to troll and not engage in actual discussion.
If that comment warrants a ticket I will gladly accept it
Saying TiG is pulling my strings is not a question. Especially after I already explained how we have engaged in discussions.
No, I didn't think it was directed at me. I simply made a comment. If you feel ganged up on you don't have to re-visit this seed.
And as far as minding my own business...you have only made comments in here about TiG and Gordy engaging in a coordinated effort to debate others. You did make one comment to me about me minding my own business besides your last comment to me.
Now....enough meta.
What's so odd about us participating in each other's articles or discussions? Now, with that said, I will reiterate my previous question: do you plan to address the article of discussion or just go meta or troll?
[deleted]
I see you prefer to engage in meta. If so, then might I suggest a different article for you to participate in. Meta won't fly here!
MUVA, good grief, either engage in discussion on the topic (or at least something close to the topic) or go elsewhere.
I answered your question. Then you decided to go meta, which i also addressed. Now you're just being obtuse about it. How about enough of the BS and actually discuss the article!
If that's what you think is going on, then 1. You're wrong, 2. You missed the point entirely, and 3. You don't have to bother with the article in the first place.
No, you dont! And now you're going meta again.
And therein lies your problem. Totally applaud your effort but you're speaking with people for whom the highest authority imaginable is the natural world as viewed through the lens of science. No miracles allowed, in other words. Ironically, if you did present them with one, it would only be allowed as evidence if it could be naturally explained, thus removing it as a miracle. That's why all the effort spent on explaining the biological process involved in women becoming pregnant. Virgin births cannot happen because that is not explainable in the natural world. End of discussion, for them. Just look at what's said in response to what you've said here.
How can one argue with someone who thinks this makes logical sense? Pretty much why I have been ignoring his "Fallacies of Biblical Stories".
I've repeatedly said throughout the series that I examine the bible stories from an objective and logical perspective. Simply proclaiming something to be a miracle or that a story happened as biblically described are just empty claims without supporting evidence. And there has been no evidence presented to support the stories. If anything, available evidence has largely contradicted the stories as described. Bur "it was a miracle" or "God did it" is not an explanation for anything. It's just wishful thinking or an emotional based belief. But that doesn't mean it's actually true.
It's the same as saying "You just have to have faith" which one usually only says about something they have zero actual evidence to support but desperately want to believe it anyway. Saying "it was a miracle" is admitting that there is no rational explanation behind a fantasy story that the believer is already emotionally invested in most often due to where a person was born and indoctrinated.
If you're born into a majority Muslim country , then you're likely indoctrinated in Islam and told the Koran is fact, so later in life when parts of it are questioned that person is likely to defend the fantasy they've emotionally invested in and proclaim "it was a miracle" without wanting to look any further because it risks sabotaging their investment if they keep listening to rational thinking and reason.
If you're born in a majority Christian nation you're likely indoctrinated in Christianity and almost immediately lied to with stories of Santa Claus and magic reindeer and baby Jesus, and then later in life you're told the truth about Santa but then try to convince their kids it's baby Jesus in the sky watching everything you do. They know that if they don't indoctrinate their children from a very young age, they are less likely to stay Christians later in life because there is less emotional investment. If they get their children invested in their fantasy, then later they will use the same language to defend their fantasy beliefs with "it was a miracle", "God did it" and "you just have to have faith". Religion is not rational, it's emotional which is why believers forgo evidence and reason and reward and praise fellow believers who have "strong faith" which is just another way to say someone is strongly emotionally invested so would never stop believing regardless of the evidence or facts presented.
While we have been examining the many fantasy stories found in the bible and rationally poking holes in them, believers see it as a test of faith which for them is only won by doubling down and showing how strong their emotional investment in the fantasy is regardless of the rationale. The same is true of virtually every religion on the planet. There are hundreds of millions of Hindus and Muslims who all have faith in their own beliefs, Gods and miracles that Christians discount without another thought because they aren't emotionally invested in them, they weren't raised and indoctrinated in those religions.
I think you hit upon a key aspect: emotion. People are invested emotionally into religious beliefs or derive emotional comfort from them. While there's nothing wrong with that on the surface, it can cause one to reject or ignore any rational explanation or contradiction to the belief. After all, how many people would seriously consider their beliefs could be wrong? Then the problem becomes they equate belief or religious story as fact, sans any supporting evidence and/or rejecting any contradictory evidence. This just leads to willful ignorance, intellectual laziness or dishonesty, or the propagation of misinformation. Case in point: there are those who deem evolution "pseudoscience and a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists," despite all the empirical evidence supporting evolution. That's not just willful ignorance, it's a disconnect from reality.
I try to keep an open mind. If something occurs that is unexplainable I accept that it could be supernatural until it is explained with science, reason, and logic.
Virgin births in mammals doesn't happen. It just doesn't.
These articles shine a light on the veracity of the Bible as the divine Word of a perfect, omniscient God. Underlying all of these articles is the notion that contradictions and errors illustrate imperfection. A perfect God is not imperfect. Further, the Word of a perfect, omniscient God would not be limited to the knowledge possessed by ancient men nor would it be limited by the culture of ancient times.
Yet we see countless examples where the Bible contradicts itself (e.g. an omniscient God who is surprised, learns or changes His mind) is in error (e.g. rainbows did not exist prior to Noah's flood) or is limited by ancient culture (e.g. nowhere in the Bible does God condemn as immoral the owning of human beings as property).
In contrast, nowhere does the Bible put forth knowledge that is beyond that of the ancient writers that, after now thousands of years, could be corroborated today. Genesis speaks of the sun and the moon as the light of the day and the light of the night — a conclusion easily drawn by naive human beings; yet here is a prime area where God could have provided clues of knowledge beyond these ancient men. Indications that the Earth revolves around the Sun (rather than the opposite) is an ellipsoid (vs. a flat circle or rectangle with 'four corners') or that the little lights in the sky are actually planets, other stars, galaxies, etc. would be evidence of a source of knowledge unattainable in ancient times.
But what we see, time and time again, is that the Bible reads as though it were written by many ancient men over many years with nothing for them to go on other than looking around at their reality and borrowing from stories handed down by predecessors to which they then applied their own imaginations. If one views the Bible as the work of errant ancient men, all the issues make sense. If one views the Bible as divine, the issues are in abundance.
To wit this series illustrates that the Bible is its own best evidence that it is merely the work of ancient men with pens and imagination and not the divine Word of the singular perfect, omniscient, supreme sentient entity.
Yeah, I can see this isn't going anywhere useful.
I know, right?
How so? You addressed certain points and I explained them. But I'm not simply going to accept or believe what someone or some book says as is, no questions asked. The point of the series was to look beneath the surface of the stories and question them. Then examine the available evidence and determine what is the most probable or plausible explanation.
I often wonder if they would accept my Book of Shadows if I presented it to them with no questions asked.....
This is part of the issue in that something verifiable has to occur before it needs an explanation. Humans had to observe the sun rising to invent stories of it being a fiery chariot of the Gods.
We have no verifiable evidence of any mammal experiencing a virgin birth, though there are flatworms who can reproduce asexually (technically it's planarian fission). We can study the flatworm and see the science behind it tearing itself into pieces that then grow new flatworms with no need for different genders or even genitals, and that is super natural, but not supernatural.
People could, if they want to bad enough, read the story of Rudolph the Red Nosed reindeer and get emotionally invested (as has happened to many young Christians).Instead of growing up and realizing or accepting it was just a fictional story with some decent morals thrown in, they could double down on their belief and proclaim Santa is real, his reindeer can fly and he delivers presents to all the children in the world in one night and fits the hundreds of millions of gifts in a large sack he can heft over his shoulder and zip down narrow chimneys regardless of his jolly girth. But such a belief is simply an exercise in emotional investment. It hurts too much to stop believing because the belief made them feel so good inside. I see no difference between believing in the Santa fantasy and believing in biblical fantasy.
People who are emotionally invested in a belief, something they've believed as long as they can remember, will do almost any amount of twisting and contorting of logic in an effort to keep their desired delusion alive. Ignoring science, reason and logic is an easy thing to do if someone simply doesn't want to stop believing, their emotional attachment is almost always stronger than evidence, and in fact they use that emotional attachment as evidence. They "feel" it's truth so when you ask them for evidence I have often been told that one just has to experience it or "feel" the connection to a higher power for themselves.
Sounds like rationalization to me. Even if Gordy was as closed minded as you allege, this is a public forum. Your rebuttals are read by others who might chime in; you are not privately chatting with Gordy.
Further, disagree with him or not, Gordy will read your rebuttals and give a line-by-line response providing quotes for clarity and context. Short of agreeing with you, that is an honest and direct way to engage you. Compare that with some of the intellectually dishonest tactics at play on forums.
I would never ask you to. But if you are going to ask questions, you should at least pay attention to the answers. You have made incorrect assumptions and reached illogical conclusions. You can tell yourself you are being logical, but that doesn't make it so.
If the believers would just own up to the fact that their "faith" requires no evidence and admit that their faith is all based on emotion, they might not get tortured**** like they do. I know many a Christian who live their faith not "talk" it.
*****not real torture like Christians in Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia. "Tortured" as in belittled, bemeaned, and dumped on. Tho some of them deserve it
"Once formed, impressions are remarkably perseverant.”
"Even after the evidence for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted."
We can walk someone through the science of radiocarbon dating, you can show them how it works and they can run the tests themselves and get the same exact answers scientists have. They can go visit Gobekli Tepe and see a 10,000 year old construction. Yet many continue to believe the earth is only 9,000 years old or younger. Facts and faith are often like oil and water, and if someone wants to believe in their faith there simply is no reasoning or appeal to facts and science that can deter their belief because it had never been based on facts, so facts can never undermine it. Most peoples belief in miracles is purely based on that emotional investment made which goes hand in hand with sunk cost fallacy.
"This is the sunk cost fallacy , and such behavior may be described as "throwing good money after bad," while refusing to succumb to what may be described as "cutting one's losses".
"People demonstrate "a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made."
I think one can reasonably add 'emotion' to the list of investments along with "money, effort or time". If they abandon their already invested in beliefs, they likely feel as if they'll lose out on the promised reward even when there is little to no evidence they will actually receive said reward, or even evidence indicating the reward is pure fantasy.
Many people seem to believe that which brings them comfort.
I didn't say it was. What I want is people to stop trying to "prove" to me that every word in the Bible is infallible and literal. Like insisting that the Noah's Ark story is real or the Virgin Birth is real. It's all based on faith not evidence.
If people mind their business I will most definitely mind mine
Somehow, I doubt it.
So far, the only "answer" given is along the lines of "it was a miracle." But again, that is just the claim surrounding the story and/or personal belief. There is nothing objective or empirical to demonstrate or support that.
Very true. The sad thing is that most of them claim their emotion, how they "feel" connected to a higher power is their evidence.
I suppose it's something like someone who loves sky diving and wants to share that exhilarating feeling with as many of their friends and family as they can. The problem is some "feel" the exact opposite about jumping out of a plane at 10,000 ft. By trying to force their feeling on someone else and force them to jump can in fact traumatize someone. So is skydiving really an exhilarating wonderful feeling or the scariest trauma one could ever experience? The answer is of course different for each person.
Thankfully, most zealous sky divers understand this and don't try to force their hobby on others who show no interest or are cringing in fear at the thought of skydiving. With the religious, they often feel it is their duty to get their friends and family and others around them to validate and experience their hobby with them, and when some push back they often don't just accept it and move on, they double down on their efforts trying to get others to participate in their beliefs by telling them how wonderful it is and how much "evidence" they have of their faith being wonderful and fulfilling.
Also note, I never outright dismissed the Virgin Birth or any of the other stories covered in the series outright based solely on their premise. I try to look at all the available evidence and information to evaluate the veracity of the stories. I've said the stories as described were highly unlikely or improbable. But if one does a little realistic tweaking and overlooks the religious flair, then the stories come more within the realm of possibility. IMO, I think I best demonstrated that when i covered the 10 Plagues of Egypt. I said all the plagues could have happened and even supplied the known circumstances that might have accounted for them. It just lacked the theistic flair as depicted in the Bible. If someone disagrees with my conclusions, then present a counter argument back with empirical evidence. But some biblical proponents either fail to do that, or they double down on the theistic basis, while dismissing anything contradictory to it outright.
This is true.
Because they're told that it's their duty by their religion.
I don't think that my afterlife BELIEF is factual; it's a feeling, it's based on personal experiences. I can't prove it with physical evidence; therefore, it's not factual. Belief is fine as long as it's understood as a belief. It's interesting to hear religious people tell me things as though it's all factual. Oh well.
But I keep trying....
That has not been the focus of my comments beyond pointing out that it's not necessary (or even relevant) to seek a naturalistic explanation to prove something presented as a miracle. I have not been trying to prove to you that the virgin pregnancy is a real thing. We have been discussing your claims that it's not.
What I have seen of your analysis seems to indicate a process of confirmation bias. You made a series of assumptions about story-telling and record-keeping in Hebrew and Greek culture, along with assumptions about the early Christian church that support your conclusions, but all of which are just incorrect.
One can believe in miracles; whether or not a miracle has happened personally to the individual. However, it's just that, a belief. I can only speak for myself here, but I don't think that potentially dispelling belief or miracles with science makes it any less credible for the believer. It's as simple as admittance to oneself and the acceptance of it that a miracle or belief cannot be proven with physical evidence.
For example, I have my personal belief in the afterlife, creator(s), and religion; however, I don't really care if someone believes the same as I do or not. I still respect someone else's belief even if it differs from mine. I also don't claim my belief as factual simply because I can't provide physical evidence. It really is a strong feeling and attachment to that belief; that's really all I can claim it to be.
I thought it was pretty clear what I meant but I'll try again.
Admit that their beliefs are all based on faith and stop trying to prove that the Great Flood actually happened the way it says in the Bible. Or that Jonah was actually swallowed by a big fish. Jesus feed the crowd with 3 loaves of bread and 5 fish. Believe what you want, I really don't care, but don't come at me with stories that you believe are true and you have no facts to back them up.
And admit that faith is not based on reason or logic. It wouldn't be faith if it was based on reason
Well you know there is a tendency to restate one's argument to something that can be debated. It is certainly easier to debate:
The Virgin Birth is false
rather than
The Virgin Birth is extremely unlikely
I admire your persistence.
Then presenting anything as a miracle is as good as saying it's magic.
The evidence I presented in the article supports the notion that it is not.
I provided links to various sources. You have yet to provide anything to refute the article.
So true.
If you like. The story is what it is. You're left with the personal choice to either believe it or not. This story in particular is the kind of thing that we just can't prove one way or the other. In contrast, with the Flood, you could look for evidence of flooding. There's just no way to establish the process by which the DNA of Jesus was formed.
That is a ridiculous thing to say. I offered several facts that refute your assumptions.
You mention only the extremes: proof of vs. proof of not. There is a continuum between these extremes where one can apply information and reason to establish a likelihood that the grandest possible sentient entity who is perfect, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. would choose to impregnate (miraculously of course) a virgin (as opposed to a non-virgin) so that Jesus could be born of her. That certainly makes Jesus divine (or at least partially divine) given the seed (so to speak) came from God. But God has already demonstrated that He can form a fully grown woman from a man's rib so He could certainly form Jesus as a grown man. Or He could have a fully formed infant Jesus appear to Mary and Joseph to raise as their own.
On the other hand, given zero evidence that any of this actually happened, this might just be one of any number of catch tales to capture the imaginations of the people and encourage them to spread the word.
Does a gratuitous virgin birth seem more like the act of an omnipotent entity or the musings of ancient men with pens?
Given the Bible is demonstrably not divine it seems reasonable to hold that it is entirely the work of ancient men and that any words and deeds attributed to the grandest possible entity are simply stories ... just like the stories told by the countless thousands of historical and extant religions. One thing that human beings excel in is dreaming up imaginative stories and communicating same. We are also quite good at believing these stories.
Ergo, to me the most reasonable hypothesis is that the virgin birth is merely the result of clever ancient imagination — one of countless other imaginative notions found in ancient tales.
Yes, and it's most likely just a story, and nothing more.
I go by evidence, not belief.
But since we know mammals cannot reproduce asexually, Then Jesus could not have been conceived, much less be born from a virgin. Like with the Flood, the evidence was examined and it did not support the Flood story as depicted. The same analysis is applied to the Virgin Birth: the evidence does not show it to be possible, especially from a biological standpoint.
You focused largely on how reliably the story is passed down. Not on the veracity of the story itself. You seemed to go with the "it's a miracle" explanation and left it at that.
Okay.
Yes, I know this. I've been doing this for several years now. If I offer rebuttals, as Tacos has gamely done, all I will get is what Tacos has gotten.
Um, no. What Gordy will do is ignore whatever I say and give some inane response, as he almost always does on this subject.
Like what I see happening to Tacos in this discussion? For crying out loud, TiG! I know you don't believe what I believe but how can you possibly support the mush Gordy presents here as a logical, rational argument? I'm going to put what Tacos has already said into my own words to illustrate what I mean. I say that because I'm not bringing anything new here. Tacos has already said it. I'm just rewording it and adding a point or two.
What is the purpose of Gordy's article on the virgin birth? Well, it's stated right in the title.
It's not, "Why the virgin birth story may not be true". According to the title, he's presenting definitive reasons why the virgin birth is false. The first point he brings up is...
And then talks about asexual reproduction, as if that is what the virgin birth claims. Where in the virgin birth account is it claimed that Mary was with child due to asexual reasons? That her body just spontaneously began producing a child? Gordy's claim?
Are you kidding me? It says right there in the account that God caused her to be with child. She didn't become that way due to asexual reproduction. He just ignores the fact. And by fact, I mean it is a fact that the passage gives God as the reason she became with child, not asexual reproduction.
So Gordy's first point fails totally because he doesn't actually address the claim of how Mary became with child. Could God make Mary with child if He wills it to be so? Even if one doesn't believe that God exists, only an idiot would claim that, given the abilities God is described as having in the Bible, God could not be responsible for Mary's being with child.
So, again, Gordy's first point fails on all accounts. Whether one believes in God or not, according to the Biblical narrative, there's no barrier to the virgin birth. All that is left concerning whether or not God actually exists and is as the Bible describes. How does one go about proving that empirically?
Next, Gordy gives us...
This isn't presented as "maybe this accounts for the story". It's presented as this is what is behind the story. It is presented as fact, not possibility. The grammar, here and elsewhere in the statement, doesn't allow for anything else. So, the entire basis for this claim is solely that other cultures have stories of virgin births, so therefore this one is no different. That is about as valid as "All the Asians I've seen eat rice, therefor all Asians eat rice". Can you honestly tell me you could see this reasoning pass even a first year course in logic and critical thinking?
The only evidence he presents is that other cultures have a story of virgin birth as well. That's it. Not one shred of other empirical evidence. Really?
(Sigh) Critical thinking, people! We could hold a contest with a million dollar prize for alternative explanations but unless you could prove one true, it still doesn't prove the virgin birth false. Remember? The title of this piece is The Fallacy Of Biblical Stories, Part 7: The Virgin Birth.
Everything I've said is completely logical. It employs critical thinking. It addresses the actual issue. It's completely true. But watch what happens now, TiG. See why what I've just done is pointless.
You begin with saying you try to keep an open mind, but then immediately refute that claim. In saying...
... you are saying that, left to nature, it just doesn't happen. But you do not leave room for the possibility that, with God, it certainly could. That is not indicative of an open mind. Science can't explain the virgin birth, but reason and logic can. All one has to do is consider the possibility of God.
This is not said as a dig on you. It is said as an obvious solution to your inability to consider that a virgin birth could happen, if one includes God as a possible explanation. This doesn't mean you have to believe in God to consider it. You don't. It is simply that, if God does exist, there's no reasonable or logical barrier to the claim.
On a related note, that virgin births among mammals not happening is why this would be a miracle and not a part of nature. Gordy calls it "magic". This gives the impression of some unexplainable... something. Not sure what. Certainly something that doesn't actually exist. That's his opinion, of course, but remember, he has no proof of it. It's just an opinion.
What is your objective? Are you looking to convince Gordy (for example) that the virgin birth actually happened? I doubt that. Your most likely objective is to point out what you consider to be flaws in Gordy's logic. Actual, truthful flaws. I will assume that as your objective for this post.
So let me respond to your points (skipping the Gordy bashing):
Gordy has clarified this point:
Gordy, per the above, is arguing (in this article) why the virgin birth story is most likely false (highly unlikely or improbable). Not why the virgin birth story is false. You certainly can take issue with the title, but when an author provides clarification of his intent and his position, why not accept it? And if you think I am in some way misunderstanding his words (above) I suggest you ask him directly if he is offering proof that the virgin birth story is false.
He started with a strictly biological analysis which, ultimately, rules out pregnancy without fertilization. He established the human biological fact that Mary's egg would have to be physically fertilized for her to become pregnant. He explicitly ruled out asexual reproduction as not being part of human capabilities. So, given the times, it is very unlikely that one could physically place living sperm in the vicinity of an egg to achieve conception while retaining the woman's virginity. Having noted the biological challenge Gordy notes that the religious explanation ignores the physics of biology:
The magic he was referring to is described in passages like Matthew 1:20:
and Luke 1:34-35:
Mary, per the Bible, became pregnant through a purely spiritual ( thus non-physical ) encounter. The agent was the Holy Ghost. Thus no physical DNA entered her body. Gordy's upfront ruling out of asexual reproduction addresses this interpretation. But if one ignores the non-physical factor then one can read this as the Holy Spirit physically placed God's ' sperm ' which carried God's DNA into her and caused fertilization of an egg. In both cases, biology is violated: the religious explanation is magic (aka a miracle).
Per above. Gordy ruled out every possibility except magic (aka a miracle). Now, if you ask Gordy if an omnipotent God could somehow cause a fertilized egg to simply appear in Mary, I suspect he would say ' yes '. I suspect he would then mention that now you need to establish that this omnipotent God actually exists for your explanation to have value.
I agree, the language should have included the word ' likely '. The point he was making in his explanation is that virgin birth stories were in existence and that borrowing that pattern and weaving it into a new tale was likely. (Just as it is likely for modern stories to borrow patterns from other stories.)
You can always ask him for clarification if you think otherwise. I truly doubt he will tell you that he is claiming the virgin birth story necessarily was borrowed.
I am sure that Gordy is not claiming to prove the virgin birth story false:
Rather he is making an argument that it is most likely false. You recognize the difference between those two and you know the implications. But, again, if you think Gordy is arguing that the virgin birth store is necessarily false then just ask the man. Just to be sure.
Why would you object to deeming a miracle to be magic? A miracle is, by its very nature, an unexplained phenomenon. Magic, per Oxford is defined as:
And there we go. Thanks for proving my point. This is completely pointless. As expected, you defend Gordy by claiming what he said doesn't really mean what he said. It means something else, which you call a clarification. How do you clarify definitive statements that something could not have happened into "likely didn't happen"? How do you change the stated purpose of the article from falsifying something into being highly unlikely? Intellectual dishonesty, remember?
Here's the intellectually honest fact. Gordy tried to falsify the virgin birth and failed miserably. When pointed out, you and Gordy tried to claim that what he said isn't really what he said. That it means something different. If I had tried that, you guys would have been on me like flies on stink. So, to reiterate, this is why I have mostly ignored these posts of Gordy's. It's completely pointless.
Simple enough to answer. Magic is humans taking advantage of some sort of force in order to achieve some objective through non-natural means. It is something human will can manipulate according to that will.
A miracle, within Christianity, is something that God causes to happen according to His will and power. It is never a product of human will or manipulation. A Christian can ask God for a miracle, but it is never something caused by human will. It is something either granted or denied by God in accordance with His will.
Also, as an aside, I have read a lot of fantasy/science fiction. Generally, magic is presented as some sort of force that arcane knowledge or innate ability allows the wielder to practice. This leads me to wonder, why is it called magic, then? In nearly every case, there are rules applied to the application of magic, which would lead one to believe that magic is actually a natural force that one only needs either a. sufficient understanding of in order to wield or b. some genetic ability. In every story, the reality is that magic is just a part of the natural world and only requires either knowledge or natural talent to access. This leads me to believe that, even if magic really did exist, it wouldn't really be magic in the sense most think of it as. In nearly all the stories, it operates by definable rules.
Put another way, to a primitive, someone who can calculate the height of an obelisk using trigonometry would seem like magic but it really isn't. It might appear as the application of arcane knowledge to the primitive and seem like magic, but really, we understand that it isn't.
This observation has nothing to do with this current discussion. It is simply my observation concerning the way magic is treated in literature.
I quoted Gordy clarifying his intent and you just ignore that. What you are doing is sticking to specific words in his article like a pit-bull and refusing to accept any clarification from the author. And you call that being intellectually honest? Refusing to accept any explanation from an author on what he meant? The man is right here to explain his position yet you refuse to accept his explanation. That is incredible Drakk.
On the first point, I gave a quote from Gordy where he clarified his intent.
On the second point, I agreed with you that Gordy should have used the word 'likely'.
Regardless, seems to me that you do not want Gordy to clarify. Rather it seems you wish to focus on specific words and insist that no matter what Gordy says, your interpretation of those selected words is the only acceptable truth. That you know Gordy's intent better than he does.
Would you prefer Gordy not offer any clarification on his meaning? I mean, after all, what is your objective here?
Throughout I suggested that you directly ask Gordy for clarification. For example:
But you will not ask because the answers will screw up what seems to be a gotcha game. Theatrics.
Last, but not least, and not in any way related to this, this has to be one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
Oxford does not share your definition. It makes no requirement that the agent be human.
Are you now going to insist that Gordy's definition of magic MUST be exactly as you have stated? That Gordy cannot use a more common understanding of the word such as that I offered from Oxford?
No, what you did was quote Gordy backtracking what he actually said and trying to make it sound like he said something completely different, calling it a clarification. This isn't a gotcha thing. If Gordy submitted this post in some philosophy class it would have been shredded by the instructor. The only thing he can truthfully do is say that his post was wrong and present it as his opinion as to why he doesn't think the story is valid.
You know, what makes me see what your doing here as so hypocritical is that you don't apply the same standards to everyone. In the "Chinese Virologist Says She Has Proof COVID-19 Was Made In Wuhan Lab" post, you go after MAGA the same way and for the same reasons I am going after Gordy. What MAGA said was unsupportable. It doesn't matter how he tried to clarify it. Yet, when Gordy does the same thing as MAGA did, clarification is somehow okay?
So, I'm done with this. There's nothing I can say that will get you to admit that Gordy was wrong. All I will do if I continue is waste time and effort. As I said, this is pointless.
No. What I stated is what I see as the difference between magic and miracles. You and Gordy can consider it whatever you want it to be, obviously.
Also, if this is so, to whom else does the Oxford dictionary refer to in it's definition?
Who is the user? That is, who is using the "mysterious or supernatural forces"? What other candidate are you suggesting as user?
Uh no. I generally address each point made. If you think that's what I do, then you haven't been paying attention.
Perhaps because my arguments are logical and rational. I do not base my arguments or conclusions on belief or emotion.
The purpose is the same for all the stories covered in the series thus far: to examine the veracity of the story as it's presented in the bible.
The story may not be true is the conclusion reached after examining the evidence.
According to the story, Mary became pregnant and reproduced without sexual intercourse. That's asexual reproduction.
God being the reason is just the biblical claim. There is no evidence to suggest that claim to be true.
So it was magic then? That's essentially what the claim is.
I noted how the biological aspect makes it unlikely that Mary reproduced asexually. You're starting from the conclusion that God did it and going backwards from there. So did God have sexual relations with Mary?
S once again, we're left with declaring it was a "miracle" or magic.
I beg your pardon. Would "The Virgin birth was most likely (and unsurprisingly) borrows from other ancient sources" have been better?
The difference is, we see other biblical stories (Some of which I already covered in previous installments) that also share similarities with stories from other cultures.
I never said it proved it false. I simply tried to come up with other possibilities. I didn't claim those possibilities to be true either.
I haven't falsified anything. I simply presented information which shows the Virgin Birth may not have occurred as depicted in the bible. Neither do I start with the assumption that it was a miracle or that "God did it."
Magic is magic, whether human or deity. "Miracles" caused by a deity is still just magic. "Miracle" is just a religious designation.
For clarification purposes, I will answer the 3 questions presented at the end of your post:
No
No
Not necessarily, but most likely.
That was not called for. There is no reason to get personal, and especially no reason to do so with a falsehood.
I believe in a Higher Power call it God if you want (She probably goes by a much better name) but I certainly don't believe in the Christian God. So....I don't think I contradicted myself.
And since I don't believe in your God, I stand by my comment
You reject clarification from Gordy and call it backtracking.
If an author clarifies his/her intent and the reader rejects the clarification and deems it 'backtracking', that reader is playing a slimy game. The way you are operating, it does not matter what Gordy writes; you will reject everything except your desired scenario.
That is, you are trying to frame Gordy's argument as one of absolute certainty and refuse to accept anything from him to the contrary.
Again, and you call this intellectual honesty.
Entirely different Drakk. In that case I asked MAGA to back up his claim that "the communist party of China is openly backing and supporting Biden in this election". He never backed it up nor did he provide a single word of clarification. His response was that he doubled down and stood by what he said. Had he clarified his comment I would have gone with the clarification. That is something I consistently (and purposely) do. What he did was instead confirm that his words should be taken as written. See? You are not reading what took place, you are totally twisting reality and again being intellectually dishonest.
In this case Gordy has responded to the question and clarified his comments. You are pretending that he 'doubled down' and is 'standing by what he said' when in reality he took the time to be more clear. Here you reject Gordy's clarifications.
Good grief man, read the definition without supplying additional information from your imagination:
This definition has no agency. There is no ' else '. Magic is defined as a power; there is no mention of who is allowed to be the agent wielding that power.
(see above)
It has not escaped my attention that you have spent time trying to read things into an Oxford definition for magic (as if this is an important point) yet you refuse to spend the time to ask Gordy the three questions that I handed you (you could have copied and pasted):
Do you want to be clear on Gordy's position or not?
Horseshit, TiG. You and Gordy are the ones operating that way. You are arguing that it literally doesn't matter what one writes, it's only the clarifications that come later that matter. I'm rejecting everything because it doesn't support what he actually freaking said! If Gordy turned this in as an argument to his philosophy teacher and the teacher pointed out the same flaws Tacos! and I did, what do you think would happen?
A. Gordy "clarifies" what his paper actually says and the teacher says, okay then.
B. Gordy clarifies and the teacher says, this isn't what your paper says. Go write it according to what you say you meant.
You already know the answer is B but you're going to keep on going as if Tacos! and I are being willfully unreasonable.
Drakk it is extremely obvious that you refuse to accept any clarification from Gordy.
When Gordy responds to a question about what he wrote and offers clarification of his meaning, you should accept his clarification. Instead you reject his clarification and insist that you know his position better than he.
Not only is this rude and intellectually dishonest, it is obvious slimy theatrics. You are clearly not here to engage in thoughtful discussion or debate but rather to flat out misrepresent Gordy's position.
If there is confusion or question surrounding a statement or point made, then is a clarification not in order? It seems you want to focus entirely on one particular aspect of something that's said and ignore or reject anything that comes after. Not to mention it seems you prefer to argue what you think I said rather than discuss the point of the article itself.
Well, I suppose there might be some stories for which this approach would work.
If, for example, we were considering the Norse god Thor, or the Greek god Zeus as explanations for thunder and lightning. In that case, you might point out that those are actually natural phenomena, easily explained by science, and it's not necessary to have a god for them to happen.
Or with the Flood, you might argue that we have looked all over the Earth and found no physical evidence that a flood like that described in Genesis ever happened. Contrariwise, if you did find such evidence, you could make an argument that it was a natural flood and not God-made. Because sometimes it just rains a lot. (I'm skipping past a lot science there, but I digress)
But here, we're talking about something that doesn't fit into those paradigms. We're talking about something that could only happen through divine intervention, so far as we know. It's a key reason why Point 1 of this article just doesn't work at all.
By extension, Point 3 doesn't work either, because - again - no one was ever trying to say that this unnatural event happened naturally.
Another difference is that thunder and lightning demonstrably happen. Nobody can reasonably claim that they don't.
Anybody can reasonably claim that Jesus was likely not born to a virgin.
I already covered the Great Flood previously. And that story, like all the others, has the presumption that there must be a divine influence or intervention or "miracle." The articles do not approach the story with the automatic assumption of divine intervention. Especially since there is no evidence or proof showing that to be the case. Rather, the evidence leans towards there not being any miracle and can possibly and logically explain the phenomenon presented in these stories. Anyone can claim God/miracles as a reason for something. But such claims are empty without supporting evidence (and sometimes has contradictory evidence). So rather than saying "X happened because God," the articles take the approach of "let's look at what happened as reported and see how or if they happened."
For the simple reason you can't make the clarification mean what was actually said. How hard is that to understand? The "clarification" is actually another position altogether. There is a big difference between "The Fallacy of Biblical Stories" and "Arguments Against Biblical Stories".
You would appreciate it if I accepted his clarifications. Fine. Gordy, just edit your article to what you actually meant and I'll accept your clarifications. Until then, your article says what it says.
Well, TiG, you can feel any way you wish to feel about it. But here's my position. How intellectually dishonest is it to write one thing and then say it actually means another, calling it a "clarification"? Maybe intellectual dishonesty means something different to you?
Do any of Gordy's points in his article falsify, as the title of the article claims, the virgin birth? No? Yet you keep advocating for it even though the "clarifications" themselves point it out as wrong. If anyone is misrepresenting Gordy's position it is you and Gordy. The article states one thing but you guys are trying to sell it as meaning something else, calling it a clarification. And that doesn't mean intellectual dishonesty to you? Apparently not. Apparently intellectual honesty means to disregard what it says and just go with what we say it means. Sure.
For you to claim intellectual honesty you need to at least acknowledge that @3.3.51 Gordy answered the questions I posed @3.3.42 ☞
If Gordy had answered any of those questions "yes" then you could legitimately proceed with your rebuttal on the grounds that he is making a claim of certainty and thus bears the burden of evidence.
But that is not Gordy's position —demonstrably given his clarifications— so you should be arguing why you think the virgin birth story is most likely true to counter his argument that it is most likely the product of human imagination.
I can and do acknowledge that Gordy answered those questions. I can and do acknowledge that Gordy's "clarifications" reflect is actual position. But that still doesn't change what he wrote. What he wrote doesn't represent his position. You cannot write "Annex the Sudentenland" and then claim later you only meant you wanted to make dinner reservations for several thousand troops in perpetuity. You cannot write an article titled "The fallacy of Biblical stories" and then just claim you meant they are just highly unlikely. They are totally different concepts.
What is the purpose of an article that doesn't say what he actually means? What's the point of having to provide additional clarification? Isn't it better to write the article to reflect your actual position? As it stands now, anyone who reads the title is going to be expecting an argument that is intended to falsify the virgin birth story. How does explaining "well, what I really meant was not falsifying it as such, but just that it's highly unlikely" fix it?
Um, no, I shouldn't. The subject of this is Gordy's article. What we should be discussing is the numerous ways in which it is wrong. That's the purpose of him putting it up in the first place, right? Or were you guys just expecting an echo chamber? If he can't defend it, it shouldn't have been posted.
Fallacy works just fine. What all the stories thus far, including this one, have in common is that they require some sort of miracle and/or divine intervention. In other words, they are acts of God. That is the fallacy: the Divine Fallacy. My analysis of the stories do not outright declare (for the most part) the story did not or could not have happened. Only that they probably didn't happen as described in the bible or they may have occurred under a different set of circumstances which do not necessarily require divine intervention. That is why I also included alternative explanations in the 3rd point of the article. It offers a more plausible, real-world situation.
The article says what I meant!
The article was not meant to falsify the story. I never declared the story as absolutely true or false. You on the other hand seem to think, and correct me if am wrong or inaccurate, that the Virgin Birth story did occur as described? Is that correct? If so, then on what basis do you make that determination and what evidence can you produce to support that position? If not, then what is your take on the Virgin Birth story?
It's funny that you presume to know more about my position than myself! And TiG has a far greater understanding of my position and meanings than you do!
There is no confusion on my part. I responded to your article as written. Now it seems that in order to avoid the points both Tacos! and I made you wish to claim that what you said is not what you meant. Okay, fine. Rewrite your article according to what you meant and we can move on. Until then, you can't just claim what is right there for anyone to read actually means something different from what it says. I'm not going to argue with people who do that. In fact, it's not really possible to argue with people who do that because you can't hold them to anything they say.
But I'll tell you what. I'll ask you some clarifying questions.
How do you square this statement with the title of your series "The Fallacy Of Biblical Stories", which declaratively states biblical stories are false? This title does not suggest "highly unlikely" or "improbable". It claims they are false. If your actual goal is to show biblical stories as described were highly unlikely or improbable, do you not find the title of your series misleading?
Why do you avoid the actual question you ask in "Is a virgin birth possible" by flippantly dismissing it with " Of course, religion explains this away by what is essentially magic "? Since the virgin birth story has God as the reason for Mary's pregnancy, what was the purpose of spending so much time on a subject not part of the virgin birth claim? How can the concluding remark (in red) be taken as anything other than the virgin birth not being possible rather than highly unlikely or improbable? If you really wanted to answer this question, would you not need to first eliminate God as an explanation, and if so, why didn't you?
Why did you make the statement without proving the virgin birth was actually just a borrowed story? Asked another way, how does the existence of virgin birth stories prove Mary's is a fallacy?
How do other possibilities prove the biblical story is a fallacy?
How do you go from presenting your argument as proof of the fallacy of the biblical story and then change your conclusion to "quite unlikely"?
Why do you assume that God being able to create entire universes from nothing would not have a logical reason to do it the way the story purports that He did? Why do you recognize God's power in this (if only notionally, even) but dismiss it flippantly in considering the virgin birth? Why would He not use a human vessel?
Does not this statement, combined with the condescending tone of all of your articles on biblical stories reflect the true reason for this post? Isn't your actual goal to demean people who believe in God?
Okay, so if you can just clarify your positions on these questions I think it might go a long way toward moving this discussion along. Thanks.
You were saying???
Nope! This is your article. We're here to discuss it's merits, not my beliefs. Sorry.
Apparently you didn't read my previous reply where I explained it. Here it is again: What all the stories thus far, including this one, have in common is that they require some sort of miracle and/or divine intervention. In other words, they are acts of God. That is the fallacy: the Divine Fallacy. My analysis of the stories do not outright declare (for the most part) the story did not or could not have happened. Only that they probably didn't happen as described in the bible or they may have occurred under a different set of circumstances which do not necessarily require divine intervention .
Is that clear enough for you?
No dismissal. I explained how it's actually possible. It's not so possible in the way you seem to think.
See first statement!
If you'll notice, I was quoting someone.
You're starting from the assumption that the Virgin Birth actually occurred as described.
Other possibilities show the story may not have occurred as is described.
I never presented my argument as proof.
What's the logical reason then? Especially since god could do anything and skip the middleman, as it were.
Why would he need to?
Is that what you think is happening here? If so, then clearly you do not understand and are confused, despite your claim to the contrary. I have made my intention behind the articles very clear, right from the beginning of Part 1 : ... objectively examining popular biblical stories to establish their veracity or likelihood of having actually occurred. While many people might view the stories as fables and allegories, some do view them as actual, literal events that have occurred. These stories have significantly influenced people and societies throughout the centuries. So I will analyze the empirical evidence which either supports or refutes the stories as portrayed .
No where do I say my intention is to demean anyone. If you think analyzing biblical stories and determining their veracity is demeaning, then that's on you.
Go ahead! Explain what is wrong and why! Perhaps you should have been doing that instead of complaining about it!
And I have. Now, if you want to move the discussion along, then begin by answering my question to you in post 3.3.65. Then try to discuss the actual points of the article and produce something to either support your position and/or refute my points. If you want to argue the Virgin Birth actually did happen as described, then produce the evidence for review and discussion. If you think it happened differently than described, then explain your take on it. If you think it didn't happen at all, then explain why not. That will really get the discussion going.
Then why are you complaining when you think I'm declaring the story false? Discuss the merits then!
Do you need more clarification on something?
Not at all. The first half of your paragraph contradicts the second half. How is that supposed to be clear?
Where did you explain that it was possible for the virgin birth story to be true? From what I read in your article, it seemed to explain why the account could not be true.
The way I think it happened is as described in the account. God caused her to be with child. What, in your article, even attempts to disprove this?
The first statement doesn't answer the question, so....
I noticed. What was the purpose of using the quote if it does not reflect the point you wished to make? If it does in fact reflect your point then, again, h ow can the concluding remark (in red) be taken as anything other than the virgin birth not being possible rather than highly unlikely or improbable?
Incorrect, nor is it necessary for me to involve my assumptions at all. We aren't discussing them. We're discussing why you believe your points in the article constitute a fallacy on the part of the Biblical account. In this instance, w hy did you make the statement without proving the virgin birth was actually just a borrowed story? Asked another way, how does the existence of virgin birth stories prove Mary's is a fallacy? Whatever my assumptions may be, they certainly don't inform your reasons for posting what you did concerning this. So....
Yes, they do actually do that. But they do not show the account as an actual fallacy, the stated purpose of your article.
Okay, so if I wrote an article titled, "The Fallacy of Scientific Findings Concerning the Earth Being Round" and then proceeded to talk about merely anecdotal evidence, you would not consider such evidence as an attempt to pass them off as proof on my part? Am I not actually claiming that the Earth being round is a fallacy (since I literally say so in the title)? You really wouldn't see my use of anecdotal evidence as an attempt to pass them off as actual proof? Because, after reading the title, what's the point of the rest of the article if it isn't being presented as evidence in support of the conclusion???
The answer to this question is as long as the Bible. Here are three that I think are probably the most important.
You're avoiding the question.
Let's see...
Is this what you consider objective analysis? Unbiased? I wonder what you would have wrote if you chose to be decidedly un-objective? Would I be able to tell the difference?
Um, yeah. Like that's a thing. " I'm writing this article because I intend to demean others and their beliefs ." Do you really think it's an intent you have to state in order for it to be demeaning?
3.3.35
Because the article isn't about why I believe what I do. Off topic.
Again, 3.3.35
Wrong, you are exploiting the inherent ambiguity in common English and inserting your own meaning. And that would be fine in your first comment; especially if you noted that you were paraphrasing for clarity. But after more than a dozen interactions later where Gordy has clarified his position, you are still playing games. That is intellectual dishonesty in raw form.
If you actually were here to engage thoughtfully you would have accepted Gordy's clarifications as the baseline and then made your argument accordingly. In spite of your protestations that it is pointless to engage in topics like this, here you are playing superficial semantics games.
Pretending to not know what a fallacy is? The word fallacy is primarily defined by Oxford as: " A mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. " You do not see how "The Fallacy of Biblical Stories" could be restated as "The Mistaken Beliefs of Biblical Stories"? The author of such a piece would logically argue that the topical belief is not based on a sound argument. There is no necessary statement of absolute certainty here. You are trying to impose it even when the author has repeatedly told you that such was never his intent.
Also, note Gordy's answer @ 3.3.65 where he offers his reasoning for his theme title.
You offer nothing more than a strawman argument. You (it would seem) cannot debate Gordy's argument so instead you spend all your time pretending that Gordy really is making a statement of certainty. Further, after years of reading Gordy you know he does not think in terms of absolutes but rather argues lines and quality of evidence and confidence vs. certainty. Your objection is bullshit and you know it — intellectual dishonesty.
[deleted]
How so?
Did you even bother to read the article? I never said it was a human virgin birth that was possible. As the article points out, a "virgin birth" is biologically possible in certain species. Just hot homo sapiens.
Then I'm not sure why you were resistant to share your beliefs when I inquired.
Once again, you fail to understand what was said. Or perhaps you insert your own meanings or interpretations. I never said the article disproves the Virgin Birth. Only that it shows the virgin birth was highly unlikely.
You asked why I spent time on it. My earlier explanation explains it.
The quote reflects a biological fact, which the 1st part of the article focused on.
Incorrect? So you were lying when you just said " The way I think it happened is as described in the account. God caused her to be with child" ?
I've made no mention of my beliefs. I pointed out a logical fallacy, which is a common theme in all the articles: The Divine Fallacy.
I explained ad nauseum now why the virgin birth was likely a borrowed story.
They show that the story may not have happened as described. I already explained that too. Now, assuming any other possible explanation is actually true, then that would make the virgin birth story as described false. But I never said other explanations were factually true. Only that they were (realistically) plausible.
Go right ahead. I would be interested in reading it.
Out of all of those, I think the 3rd explanation is the best. After all, lots of other gods in mythology supposedly did things for their amusement or pleasure. Why should the Abrahamistic god be any different?
And you're avoiding answering.
I see the injection of levity is lost on you. You only cited the stories as I presented them. But underneath the levity, are they inaccurate? You also left out the meat of all the articles. Namely, where each story is broken down and examined. which was presented in a generally much more serious tone. So if you couldn't tell if i was being objective or not, then that is your problem. Others seemed to figure it out just fine.
That's just your own invention which you are attempting to inject. Even after I explained it to you. That is a rather slimy and obvious tactic!
Sorry, but you don't get to decide what is on or off topic in my article. I do. Your deflection is noted.
And as I said previously, you're starting with the assumption of divine influence or miracles. You don't bother to look under the surface and explore the story itself or examine its veracity objectively. And you imply that I'm being biased? Too funny!
And you should really consider not making things personal. It doesn't help your case.
Seems to me you are reading only what you wish to read and then interpreting as you would prefer rather than attempt to honestly understand what the author is arguing.
From the article summary:
Quite unlikely means possible but very improbable. It does not mean impossible.
When all else fails make a juvenile comment about a user name.
I'm beginning to think I should use as simple words as possible when writing these articles.
It does not matter Gordy. It is not as if you have failed to explain your meaning and your intent. And I do not believe for a second that your interlocutors are unable to comprehend your meaning. There is no interest in actually understanding your position and then honestly debating you on same. Instead, this is pure theater. A show which pretends you have written an article that claims the virgin birth is impossible.
A common approach — if one cannot engage in a cogent rebuttal, one can always engage in intellectually dishonest tactics and put on a show.
That is a sound assessment.
Anyway, any requests or suggestions for the next story to cover? The walls of Jericho was one suggestion offered.
The parting of the Red Sea?
The Exodus itself (to generalize). That is, the grand biblical description of the Exodus including the parting of the Red Sea as opposed to a small band of escapees.
Those are good suggestions. Thanks. The parting of the Red Sea seems to be a climatic point in the story too. So that will definitely need to be covered if I address the Exodus itself. That can be something of a sequel to my 10 Plagues of Egypt article.
Thanks guys.
I'm looking into the Exodus story. It is a long one and I am trying to figure out how to edit it down to a manageable article. But I'll start putting it together when I have enough time. Hopefully within a week or two.
I saw a documentary on the History Channel once about the Parting of the Red Sea and how the scientists explained it could have happened
Funny you mention that, as my next article on the fallacy of biblical stories will focus on the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea.
Cool!
I'm going for cool. But also more rationally informative, using evidence and reason.
that probably won't inhibit responses by most of the faithful represented here ...
Some of them have not been able to provide a logical counter argument to any of the analyses of the biblical stories. Instead they restate belief or faith to back their position. By little else of substance.
Consider that it may be a misinterpretation. One of the scriptural supports used in Matthew for Jesus as the Messiah and son of God borne by a virgin is a supposed prophecy in Isaiah, referring to an "almah" who will conceive and give birth to Immanuel. "Almah" means a girl old enough to bear children, but makes no reference to her virginity or lack thereof. Did the author of Matthew mistranslate, or were his words mistranslated from Hebrew to Greek? Did he twist "facts" to suit a preconceived narrative?
Two of the four gospels make no mention of Jesus being born to a virgin. Mistranslation or embellishment seem likely.
A misinterpretation is quite possible. That would also cast doubt as to the veracity of the story itself.
There are several mis-translations throughout the KJV. Some accidental, but many of them on political. The Reformation was in full swing and Puritans were swiftly gaining converts in England. Several versions of the Bible were available with various different translations that meant different things. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus told his followers “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In the Greek New Testament pneuma means breath or spirit. But the King James Bible translated pneuma as ghost instead.
Another fun fact - The 1631 KJV had a printing error in the 10 Commandments: Thou shalt commit adultery.
Given all the edits, copies, and translations of the Bible over the centuries, there is bound to be errors or mistranslations. Even subtle difference's can be misconstrued.
King James changed the true verse to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, ".
That makes one wonder just how much of the Bible has been changed over the centuries to suit ones purposes?
Not to mention the original stories were written by men to suit their purposes - then rewritten when the purposes changed.
All the rewrites is one of the things that caused me to question religion
And, this is another fine article
Or they were simply borrowed from other sources to suit their purposes. Either way, a cursory look at biblical stories shows they were products of ancient men with pens.
Thank you. I appreciate that
Yes. I've read that as well as the many times it mentions unicorns.
I'm waiting for you to get to the resurrection... resurrection myths date back 7000 years before Christ.
Well you know that Noah left them behind.
Me, too because it has always fascinated me that the entire Bible is the literal truth while Revelation is allegorical and full of symbolism....according to Bible literalists that is
Somebody wrote a song about that. The unicorns were busy playing and not paying attention and the boat left without them.
Noah left the unicorns, but forgot to swat the mosquitos?
He was a dumbass.
Hmm, that one might be a little skimpy on the details. The Resurrection is one of those stories that is just a claim with little or no supporting evidence to affirm or refute it. But I'll look into it more.
Would you believe mosquitoes actually serve a purpose?
I think Noah left them on purpose since they were magickal.
Mosquitoes are an annoyance, but are probably some Biblical punishment for something.
No.
Ok, so I know they do. But their purpose is outweighed by fact that they're annoying as hell.
They only like virgins anyway
They're bat food and their larvae are fish food and food for other critters that aid in decay.
I know you like bats and wouldn't want to live without them
I'm a virgin......
Who am I to doubt you?
I also had 2 virgin births - boy were they rough......
I bet
A group of people found around Göbekli Tepe would dig up the heads of their dead and display them the home. Anthropologist link this to a type of ancestral worship - a precursor to multiple resurrection myths including Egypt.
I suppose I can believe in 'virgin births' if that just means during the pregnancy the mother didn't put any Rum in her daiquiri's...
Or perhaps that's what they should call natural births with no epidural...
I do like bats, but mostly because they eat mosquitos.
Oh, all right, I guess they're cute, too.
Hey bats can be just like us. Social creatures.
Here they are at a nightclub...
Then I guess I did have 2 virgin births after all.
Those are some cool club clothes
Fancy dance moves.
That's interesting. And also a little macabre. But that's just another dot connecting the line between the Virgin Birth with other simar storylines. It reinforced the pattern I've noticed regarding the story among other cultures at various points in time.
Oh wow Ender! That is sooo cool!
Yes. It's fascinating and we can trace religion stories along known trade routes and watch over time as they change.
Indeed. Then there the multitudes of interpretations of those stories.
Good point. However, one important thing you may not know to consider is, how did the people to whom these things were written understand it? The Jews of that time definitely expected a virgin.
This is because each writer of the four gospels were trying to emphasize something different. It is like four different witnesses seeing the same event but noticing different things. Each was trying to highlight something different.
So, they expected a virgin birth, and created one in their own minds.
Also, your "Translation of the Seventy" seems not to be accepted by all, including mainstream rabbis. Is it possible that your source, which is obviously in favor of the concept of the virgin birth, chose biased evidence to support it, and neglected the flaws in that evidence?
The fact that your source says it was seventy rabbis, and every other source says 72 is telling, IMO. Even the number of translators was subject to change, to make the legend seem more fitting.
It is irrelevant what the bias of the source is. The relevant point is that your speculation of "Did the author of Matthew mistranslate, or were his words mistranslated from Hebrew to Greek? Did he twist "facts" to suit a preconceived narrative?" is untenable since the expectation of a virgin birth predates Matthew by about 200 years, at least by some portion of the Jewish community.
I don't see the relevance of your britannica quote as it only describes events subsequent to Matthew. Your purpose may be in discrediting the Septuagint as a whole due to the rejection of the Jews, even though they created it in the first place. If so, it should be noted that the Jews discontinued using it as a valid text not because it was invalid but because they felt Christians were misusing it.
It is relevant when the source's bias causes it to disregard problems with the translation on which the source builds its case. If a translation is incorrect, it leads to incorrect conclusions. Odd, don't you think, that your source accepts as fact that which is described by less biased sources as legend? Inconsistent legend, at that.
My quote refers to the same Septuagint as your quote does. Criticism of it occurred after Matthew, but the problems existed all along. As for why Jews stopped using it:
I agree that incorrect translations lead to incorrect conclusions. However, your treatment of the issue is a little superficial, no disrespect intended. We are both getting our information concerning the Septuagint from rather shallow sources. Five paragraphs from the Encyclopedia Britannica and a Wiki entry.
In spite of that, it seems obvious that the Septuagint had problems. However, it is necessary to understand not only what those problems were but when they came about. If I understand the sources you presented correctly, translation issues didn't become a problem until much later after Matthew and Luke. It also seems reasonable that, since both Matthew and Luke lived in the very heart of Judaism, whatever version of the Septuagint would have been less corrupted, if at all, than those versions 200 years or more later.
Further, it's not genuine to think that all of the Septuagint was mistranslated from the get go. The fact of its widespread use would argue against this. In order to conclusively settle this we would have to know what Jewish scholars thought of the virgin translation prior to Matthews time. One thing seems evident, however. Matthew and Luke seemed to expect his readers to understand what he was referring to concerning Christ's birth to a virgin.
(Oh, crap. I just learned that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. I hope she rests in peace. Crap.)
I looked further than one biased source treating legend as fact.
I never said all of it was mistranslated. But some of it certainly seems to have been. Perhaps the authors of Matthew and Luke expected, or expected their readers to accept, a virgin birth, based on a bad translation, which it seems the Septuagint was, particularly in its reference to an "almah" who would conceive. It is not clear whether that scripture even referred to a future birth, or a birth in Isaiah's own time. Either way, once it was accepted as a prophecy, it would hardly be surprising for a narrative to have been invented to fit that supposed prophecy.
In order for this statement to stand, what the Bible says about Jesus would have to be entirely fictional from beginning to end. If the idea is that the narrative was invented to fit that particular prophesy, then one has to consider all claims of fulfilling prophesy as invented. One cannot selectively choose which are valid and which aren't. All of them hang together or fall apart together. While you might not find it surprising, do you have evidence that it was invented?
That is the exact opposite question to ask.
We know ancient men wrote the Bible so there is no question as to how the words wound up on pages. Without evidence to the contrary, the Bible is man-made by default.
The question then is if those words are in some way divine. The claim that men wrote the Bible is not disputed. However, the (extraordinary) claim that the Bible is in some way divine requires evidence.
So where is the evidence that the Bible is divine?
Drakk, you're assuming, and you should know by now that you're assuming wrongly, that I believe any of the supposed prophecies concerning Jesus, or indeed, any prophecies at all, ever, are valid. Other than the historical narrative, which is questionable in the extreme (the Great Flood, for example), and the geography, I have no reason to accept any of the Bible as anything other than the invention of men.
The claims within it are so extraordinary as to require extraordinary evidence to support them.
Indeed. And there's no reason to believe or assume it's anything more than just that, as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The contradictions in the bible only further supports the notion it's just a collection of writings by ancient men and not divine in any way.
Virgin birth = all the pain & none of the fun......
Great article.
Thank you. I'm glad you liked it.
Thank you. I'm glad you like it. Time to start pondering which biblical story to cover for Part 8. Perhaps return to the OT stories?
The Walls of Jericho
that one is easily explained by physics
That one is good, but also almost too easy to explain. Not as miraclely as other biblical stories. But might still be worth a look. Thanks for the suggestion.
First was the Annunciation, the god Taht announcing to Mut-em-ua that she will become a mother. Second was the Immaculate Conception, where the god Kneph (the holy spirit) mystically [magically] impregnated Mut-em-ua by holding a cross to her mouth. Third was the birth of the Man-god Amenkept. Fourth was the Adoration of the infant by gods and men, including 3 kings, who offer gifts. Is this story starting to sound familiar?
To me that sounds like a prophesy.
Mary was selected by God because she was supposedly righteous and a virgin. Because apparently, women back then were valued based on their sexual activity, or especially the lack thereof.
Well yes, they were. That way you knew the first child they gave birth to was actually their husbands and, if a son, the rightful heir and an "Almah" was very careful to protect that.
A simple explanation was that Joseph being betrothed to be married to Mary, as a dowry, Joseph, being also a young man and had no real skills yet, Mary's father offered an apprenticeship of becoming a carpenter, a very lucrative profession for the time. This meant he moved in with the family and therefore he and Mary did more things together including some fun and, without penetration, some semen made it in and sperm made the highly unlikely long journey. Jesus was Joseph's son. A simple check by her parents and the hymen was still intact and therefore she was pregnant but still a virgin, therefore the marriage could proceed (she didn't need to be shunned or stoned) but if anyone questioned the timing of the pregnancy and the marriage, to save face in front of the community demanding an explanation, show them she is a virgin as was prophesied in Isaiah and apparently Egyptian writings also.
I like your theory of fooling around and a sperm or two travels up the vaginal canal....and Miracle of Miracles a virgin shall give birth to a son! (ok that last part is a bit mocking and I apologize)
But your theory has merit. Pregnancy doesn't usually happen without penetration but it can.
always empty and sanitize a shared hot tub before entering ...
The Biblical punishment for a woman for fornication was stoning - so there was obviously an incentive to come up with whatever cockamamie story you could. Mary was apparently betrothed at the time and Joseph considers leaving her over the pregnancy - so she's also trying to justify it to him.
In reality - much more likely the Virgin Birth in it's entirety was a later addition to the mythology of the Christian cults. Demi-gods - sired by philandering deities - which is what Jesus essentially is - were a hallmark of Roman mythology, and that mythology was prevalent throughout Judea at the time. This form of deification is also woven into the stories of many historical figures at the time like Caesar and Alexander, as well as other mythic figures like Mythras and Hercules.
Claiming the Christian cult story is 100% true, but the similar stories of other cults are all bullocks when all have exactly the same objective support for their beliefs is just a bad case of special pleading.
There are those (including here on NT) who absolutely will claim that biblical stories are 100% true and any other religions stories are false. It's a clear bias as well a's intellectually dishonest/lazy, as they won't even consider other stories or if their own are flawed.
... which is in and of itself the ultimate in religious hypocrisy.
Indeed.