/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6332030]

I remember reading something about how Jesus' 'virgin' birth may just be a mistranslation of being birthed by a very young woman. Can anybody confirm this?

[Anonymous No.6332037]

>>6332030
Yes, you did read that. I can confirm. Steve and I were there with you, it was that time in 8th grade that the school bus broke down outside of that Walmart and we were stuck there for like an hour and missed the annual penis inspection in gym class.

[Anonymous No.6332062]

>>6332037

>missed the annual penis inspection

Oooooooh, busted.

[Anonymous No.6332064]

>>6332030
>yfw the vatican's "it's a metaphor" effort will eventually fall back onto this kind of interpretation to survive

[Anonymous No.6332073]

>>6332064
It's not even a metaphor, it's textually explanative.

Jesus is the partial incarnation of perfection.
Yeshua could have been born from the seed of Joseph and still be the son of God.

Read the Bible.

[Anonymous No.6332077]

>>6332030
you mean the opening sequence of "Snatch"?

[Anonymous No.6332082]

>>6332030

Not necessarily a mistranslation. The term being translated is "parthenos", and it does in fact mean maiden for the most part, especially in Attic Greek, but the Koine usage in large part is used for virgins. It's not necessary that both ideas (maiden, virgin) be connected, but at least in the case of the gospels, the context is outright suggesting a virgin birth.

[Anonymous No.6332126]

>>6332082
This is exactly what I read. Thanks for clearing things up!

[Anonymous No.6332331]

>>6332064
Isn't religion supposed to give wisdom instead of explaining what happened thousands of years ago? In this case, metaphors are great. No sane person would actually believe that everything written in the bible literally happened.

[Anonymous No.6332341]

the "virgin" birth just meant she was unmarried but retards had to get all mystical about it

[Anonymous No.6332344]

>>6332331
My grandfather thought dinosaur bones were in the ground by the devil to test us.
He was not a bright man.

[Anonymous No.6332349]

>>6332331
>Isn't religion supposed to give wisdom instead of explaining what happened thousands of years ago?

where did you get that idea? that it should give "wisdom" and not history?

[Anonymous No.6332360]

>>6332064
>yfw any admission of metaphor into holy scriptures has to prove the entire corpus completely metaphorical and therefore there are no fixed signifiers.

[Anonymous No.6332365]

>>6332344
As implausible as that is- as likely as it is that biology's view of the progression of life on Earth is correct- I'd like to point out that if God DID want to just make everything up and put dinosaur bones in the ground to test us, he could, and we'd never know the difference.

Omnipotence, yo.

[Anonymous No.6332437]

>>6332344
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A

[Anonymous No.6332467]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=virgin&allowed_in_frame=0

[Anonymous No.6332645]

>>6332030
The word the Matthew writer(s) translates from Isaiah means 'young woman' (particularly one who has just come of age) but can also connote 'virgin,' which is probably how the gospel writers meant it. Later on, I think, the word largely or totally (not sure) lost the virgin connotation.

[Anonymous No.6332678]

>>6332365

Never understood why omphalism isn't more popular. No more conflict at all.

[Anonymous No.6332693]

>>6332349
Religion seems to want to make people behave in a certain way by showing them "the right way" and what is "wise" to do. I'm not saying that it's "good" wisdom, but it's trying to be so.

[Anonymous No.6332706]

>>6332064

[Anonymous No.6332722]

>>6332341
So everyone was excited about Mary's pregnancy because Jesus was going to be a bastard?

[Anonymous No.6332756]

>>6332706
So what is the general consensus on whether or not Genesis was meant to be taken literally? Not what one prefers to believe, but what the authors actually intended?

[Anonymous No.6332762]

>>6332706
Fucking Protestants, when will we gas them

[Anonymous No.6332767]

>>6332706

>playing the old metaphor card

And how is a reliable distinction made between a metaphor and a literal report? What is this based on?

[Anonymous No.6332818]

>>6332767
>And how is a reliable distinction made between a metaphor and a literal report?

By the principle of charity? I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't seem all that hard. Does it make a claim which cannot be true? Does the claim's literal falsehood undermine the essence of the context (ie, does its falsehood "Prove Christianity false" or whatever)? If yes to the former and no to the latter, then it's probably not a literal claim.

But 'metaphor' isn't really the right word, I don't think (I mean, a metaphor for what?) Christians are better off saying the whack-a-doodle stuff is figurative or symbolic of some 'hidden truth' etc. 'Metaphor' suggests we should be able to understand it beyond that.

[Anonymous No.6332840]

>>6332767

Whether it conforms with reason, empirical evidence or historical testimony by a trustworthy source would be a good criteria imo. But hermeneutics is it's own discipline, and just like every other discipline there are going to be different views on how to interpret different pieces of Religious literature, there is no simple solution that you could fit into a 4chan post, which is not different from any other academic discipline. To ask that question would be like: so how do you determine what the fundamental ontology of the world is and what is just explanatory metaphor ? It's not so simple, and your best bet is to actually get involved in the discipline for a few years before you try to pass judgement.

[Anonymous No.6332946]

>>6332767
>how is a reliable distinction made between a metaphor and a literal report?
It's actually very simple if you don't have autism.

[Anonymous No.6333013]

A theological friend of mine and me agreed on the term "literature" to circumvent the "it's a metaphor!" argument cluster.

Just my two cents.