Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Catholic Questions Re: Mary query

Expand Messages
  • terry dieringer
    Well put. I have never found in the bible where it teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Terry. ... Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design
    Message 1 of 39 , Apr 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
        Well put. I have never found in the bible where it teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Terry.


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
    • the_spacemouse
      ... Faulty translations of what? I m a bit confused here. Regarding Most s Old Testament examples of the word brother being used to describe relatives other
      Message 39 of 39 , Apr 7, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        > > ******Les replies,
        >
        > I think you are basing a very tenuous argument at best on faulty
        > translations. Probably the Septuagint.

        Faulty translations of what? I'm a bit confused here.

        Regarding Most's Old Testament examples of the word brother being used
        to describe relatives other than brothers: I asked my fiance to look
        up the Hebrew word in Genesis 13:8, since he knows biblical Hebrew.
        He was somewhat reluctant to help me defend a doctrine he doesn't
        believe in, but he did look up the Genesis passage for me to see what
        the word that the NAB translates as "kinsmen" actually is. He said the
        word is "brothers," not "kinsmen." The modern translations that say
        "kinsmen" are, as I explained, merely interpretating the term in context.

        All this proves, of course, is that in Hebrew culture the word for
        brother could be used for other relatives. The rest of the argument
        --that Hebrew speakers who wrote in Greek might be influenced by the
        Hebrew use of "brother" to use the greek term "adelphos" to describe
        other cousins-- is, admittedly, a hypothesis, and you are free to
        reject it.


        > What else might this lead us to believe about the competence of what
        > is written in the New Testament?

        It might lead us to believe that the human authors weren't polished
        users of Greek-- or it might be more accurate to say that they were
        influenced strongly by Hebraic and Aramaic language, such that they
        used Greek in ways a Grecian author wouldn't have chosen. When
        cultures adopt other languages, they change them. It doesn't prove
        that the New Testament isn't inspired, because to be "inspired"
        doesn't mean that it uses flawless Greek!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.