Hate speech in the bible? Man sues publishers

It is for God to deal with and for those that believe to not play with.

What's your view on the translation of the hebrew word 'almah', which means 'young woman', and was used to describe Jesus' mother in the Bible.

'Bethulah' is the Hebrew word for virgin. You'd think if it was truly an immaculate conception, they would've been sure to show just how miraculous it was and specify that she was a virgin. lol

This is the problem. People have to find fault instead of using language commons sense.

Do you go around calling people Virgins prior to talking about them?

It's unrealistic to think that one would continue to call someone it over and over again if they already did it once.

Such as President. He's the President. Thereafter they call him by his first name. Do you then think that they are contradicting because they are not stating President over and over again?

I don't understand what you mean calling people Virgins prior to talking about them. That sentense desn't make sense.

I'm talking about the first time they introduce her. They do not use the word "Bethulah". This is very odd indeed, if there was actually a virgin birth.

Because when one first reads about her she's not with child.

Okay, but then when she becomes pregnant, why wouldn't they emphasize this event which would be amazing to so many people, instead of just calling her a pregnant young woman.

It takes the miraculous element out of it a bit... A pregnant VIRGIN on the other hand would really inspire awe. Funny that they don't...

There are four different accounts. I don't know. I think you mean to say Greek considering those are the Greek scriptures and they were not written in Hebrew.

There are 4 different accounts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew was the Tax collector so his account is more number related. He noticed things because of his line of work. Luke was a physician so his account would most likely state what you said it should state....indication about her state.

If that word is Greek.

The confusion arose when the Greek Septuagint used the greek word 'parthenos', meaning virgin, to translate Isaiah 7:14 (which uses 'almah' meaning young woman and NOT virgin). This was the ONLY inspiration for the gospellers of the Virgin birth.

I can understand.

People fail to realize that the bible is inspired by God. Not written. Therefore humans write it. They write their style. Each of the 66 books has the style of the person who wrote it.

Such as if you and I saw the same thing or heard someone speak at a rally and we wrote our writing of what we focused on would be different.

If what you state is correct then how is Isaiah wrong? She was a young woman.

When people state there are inconsistencies in the bible I think that they are going to point to someone saying, Look over there at the Devil. Then point to another scripture of the same story stating they said look at God.

There are other inconsistencies with numbers. Some don't agree on the amount of people that were some place and why doe s that matter? In eye witness accounts the witnesses all focus on different aspects of the story. No two stories are the same even though they saw the same event. Personal backgrounds make what one focuses on different than the next person.

If the Bible was perfect without a single flaw in numbers and such people wouldn't feel comfortable reading it because it wouldn't be similar to them. Humans are imperfect. God could had angels write the Bible but he chose to have humans because who can relate to a humans? Humans.

I don't see the problem in calling Mary a young woman when she is a young woman.

Why do you use he instead of someone's name? Do you not know their name? Why use a pronoun?

I don't know what people who don't think the Bible is true want from it. I don't think if it were perfect and flawless that people would believe it more. It wouldn't matter. This idea that a single word change has someone not understanding or not believing or questioning is a tad odd.

I just don't find it as reasonable to have a problem with it as you do...though I understand where you are coming from.

Yes, she was a young woman. But if she was a virgin, which is the real point of the story, then they would have made sure to say so.

If as you say the Bible was inspired by God, there is one huge flaw to be answered: Why is there not one single thing written in it which could not have been invented at the time it was written, in that there is no mention of anything which would indicate a 'divine' inspiration, like mention of our nearby planets (which we could not observe at the time the Bible was written), or electricity, or DNA. These would be quite tantalising evidence of divinity, but as it stands the Bible contains nothing beyond the intelligence of the people at the time.

You're not looking at this with the idea that maybe you're wrong.

You're looking at this with the idea that you're right.

So coming up with what you're stating is not the purpose of the Bible. It was not created to convince the skeptics of God. It was created to show his love and how those that want to follow in his way the way in which to follow.

Why do you allude to not caring as much to be convince as you do to find loop holes instead of outright saying it? Is one suppose to conclude that you are making yourself close minded just by the way you are wording your sentences?

You would have me believe that a single word (that I don't know if you're telling the truth or not) makes you question a miracle you already don't believe in?

If you truly care to see you'd see.

The Bible stated that the Earth was round and hung upon nothing in Job way before Science came to such a conclusion and way before the Church agreed. They were not paying attention to what was there. They were using the Bible to their own detrimental needs.

It talks about the Mountain goat and how people will not know where it gives birth. And to this day no one knows where it gives birth.

It stated that the Middle East would never know peace. Unless you know of a time when there has been peace there.

There are things that are similar to what you suggest, but there are not things that scream it because it's not about providing proof of his Existence. He's dealt with the likes of similar folk such as Pharaoh. He used Moses to speak to Pharaoh and ask for his people to go and do what? Leave and never come back?

No. He simply asked for them to go out into the wilderness and pray to him. Simple. Pharaoh said no. Moses asked again. No again. The plagues start. No a lot. Then God changed it to he wanted his people to go free. Period. Pharaoh said no until the last plague the death of all firstborns.

People state that the scripture says he let Pharaoh's heart become harden. As in he made it such, but that's not what the context entails. What it states is that God allowed his heart to harden as in he did not soften it or convince him through other means other than what Moses stated in his presence.

As for cruelty of killing the firstborns of Egypt....it was Egypt that killed children of the Israelites. It is God's place to exact vengeance for vengeance is his and he reads the heart of men. Plus Pharaoh had ample time to consider and he saw massive amount of proof of who he was dealing with and still he denied it.

That is why giving the proof you claim you'd need to believe doesn't mean you would and doesn't mean anyone would. If you don't believe now you wouldn't believe after getting all that. You have your own idea of what is going on and no amount of anything would make you state you were wrong unless you decide that you are willing to believe in the possibility. Otherwise you're heart is just as hard as Pharaohs and no amount of proof will alter it.

He chased after them and saw the walls of water and he still denied God's existence. It's not a matter of proof. It's a matter of pride.

No.

You can ask the translators that do the hard work. The Bible does translate in areas to mean that homosexuality is a sin. Man lying with man means what to you?

That they are taking a nap together?

That's why languages of the past are translated to the now language so that people grasp it and are not allowed to slide off into a gray area because they feel the need to justify their behavior.

You're right. No word for that back then. Doesn't mean they cannot describe it to mean the word they used.

Do not allow your dislike for Religion and the Bible to guide your thinking into the murkiness of this entire ordeal. It would be sad that you'd slip on this slippery slop you so want to climb and make work.

That was we have a million lawyers in America. We are loosing common sense.

I agree. There have always been gays, and they've always been feared. Even in biblical times. Its a shame the writers of the bible didn't have lsd. Although an article I read recently suggest Moses was on hallucinogenic cactus when he went up the mountain.