Re: Pentecost responses (virgin birth)
To: John Richards <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Pentecost responses (virgin birth)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 15:37:44 CDT
>Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by ns.dknet.dk with SMTP id AA05336 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <email@example.com>); Tue, 26 Jul 1994 23:17:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; from "John Richards" at Jul 22, 94 7:00 pm
> 3. The motive of fulfilling the "prophecy" alone explains the idea, the
> prophecy itself based on a mistranslation and a misunderstanding.
I am aware that the word translated "virgin" in the passage in
Isaiah does not actually mean chaste. I've always thought though,
that the promise made to Eve at the fall:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel.
was another prophecy of a virgin birth because ever other place
in scripture where "seed" is mentioned, it is provided by a man
and never by a woman. It seems to me that it is very surprising
that the story was told this way when it seems to contradict the
outward physical nature of the production of a child (I'm assuming
that at that time, they had no knowledge of the egg that a woman
contributes to the beginning of life).
Scott S. Bertilson