| [1] < [6] [7] 8 > [26] |
陳版友講野不嬲都無根據既，我已經習慣了。 有人話virgin即parthenos，又話係maiden，一時又話要immaculate conception，定義如此模糊沒有統一，傾黎都係牛頭唔搭馬咀、一中各表既姐。 See: http://freethoughtnation.com/isis-is-a-virgin-mother/ | |
回覆 沙文 可能是內容很有深度，現階段你無法了解文章在說甚麼。 | |
THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE "VIRGIN-BIRTH" FRAUD The most colossal of the blunders of the Septuagint translators, supplemented by the most insidious, persistent and purposeful falsification of text, is instanced in the false translation of the notoriously false pretended "prophecy" of Isaiah vii, 14, -- frauds which have had the most disastrous and fatal consequences for Christianity, and to humanity under its blight; the present exposure of which should instanter destroy the false Faith built on these frauds. The Greek priest who forged the "Gospel according to St. Matthew," having before him the false Septuagint translation of Isaiah, fables the Jewish Mary yielding to the embraces of the Angel Gabriel to engender Jesus, and backs it up by appeal to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah vii, 14: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." (Matt. i, 23.) Isaiah's original Hebrew, with the mistranslated words underscored, reads: "Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel"; -- which, falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isa. vii, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young woman has conceived -- [is with child) -- and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel." Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, bar-maid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. But in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, virgin, with the definite article 'ha' in Hebrew, and e in Greek, (the), rendered into the indefinite "a" by later falsifying translators. (See Is It God's Word? pp. 277-279; EB. ii, 2162; New Commentary on the Holy Scripture, Pt. I, p. 439.) And St. Jerome falsely used the Latin word virgo. "As early as the second century B.C.," says the distinguished Hebrew scholar and critic, Salomon Reinach, "the Jews perceived the error and pointed it out to the Greeks; but the Church knowingly persisted in the false reading, and for over fifteen centuries she has clung to her error." (Orpheus, p, 197.) The truth of this accusation of conscious persistence in known error through the centuries is proved by confession of St. Jerome, who made the celebrated Vulgate translation from the Hebrew into Latin, and intentionally "clung to the error," though Jerome well knew that it was an error and false; and thus he perpetuated through fifteen hundred years the myth of the "prophetic virgin birth" of Jesus called Christ. Being criticized by many for this falsification, St. Jerome thus replies to one of his critics, Juvianus: "I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah"! (Jerome, Adv. Javianum I, 32; N&PNF, vi, 370.) So insistent was the criticism, that he was driven to write a book on the subject, in which he makes a very notable confession of the inherent incredibility of the Holy Ghost paternity-story "For who at that time would have believed the Virgin's word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? and would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue, that when Isaiah says, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,' the Hebrew the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH"! (Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, N&PNF, vi, 336.) So the Greek Father or priest who forged the false "virgin- birth" interpolation into the manuscript of "Matthew," drags in maybe ignorantly the false Septuagint translation of Isaiah vii, 14, which the Latin Father St. Jerome purposely perpetuated as a pious "lie to the glory of God." The Catholic and King James Versions purposely retain this false translation; the Revised Version keeps it in, but with a gesture of honesty, which is itself a fraud, sticks into the margin in fine type, after the words "a virgin" and "shall conceive," the words, "Or, the maiden is with child and beareth," -- which not one in thousands would ever see or understand the significance of. So it is not some indefinite "a virgin" who 750 years in the future "shall conceive" and "shall bear" a son whose name she "shall call" Immanuel, Jesus; but it was some known and definite young female, married or un-married -- but not a "virgin" -- who had already conceived and was already pregnant, and who beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel, ... who should be the "sign" which "my lord" should give to Ahaz of the truth of Isaiah's false prophecy regarding the pending war with Israel and Syria, as related in Isaiah vii, and of which the total falsity is proven in 2 Chronicles xxviii, as all may read. Although Papal Infallibility has declared that "it will never be lawful to grant ... that the sacred writers could have made a mistake" (Leo XIII, Eneyc. Provid. Deus; CE. ii, 543), yet, the fraud being notorious and exposed to the scorn of the world, and being driven by force of modern criticism, CE. definitely and positively -- though with the usual clerical soft-soaping, confesses this age-long clerical fraud and falsification of Holy Writ, and relegates it to the junk-heap of discredited -- but not discarded -- dogmatic myth: "Modern theology does not grant that Isaiah vii, 14, contains a real prophecy fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ; it must maintain, therefore, that St. Matthew misunderstood the passage when he said: 'Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, etc."! (CE. xv, 451.) Thus is apparent, and confessed, the dishonesty of "Matthew" and of the Church of Christ in perverting this idle, false and falsified text of Isaiah into a "prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ," and in persisting in retaining this falsity in their dishonest Bibles as the basis of their own bogus theology unto this day of the Twentieth Century. The Church, full knowing its falsity, yet, clings to this precious lie of Virgin Birth and all the concatenated consequences. Thus it declares its own condemnation as false. Some other viciously false translations of sacred Scripture will be duly noticed in their place. As Thomas Jefferson prophetically wrote, -- as is being verified: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"! -- From Joseph Wheless, FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY, P.67-69 | |
這段解釋得很清楚，在此全文引述： 首先， 未講此文的內容。 作者 Joseph Wheless 只是一個律師，業餘寫下宗教話題的書（或為興趣， 或為搵外快哩）， 没有聖經文本考勘， 神學訓練背景， 他本人懂不懂希臘文， 希伯來文也成疑問， 所以有無資格在這話題上著書立說都成問題。 打個比喻， 講打網球心得， 霍金講的可靠， 還是舒拉寶娃講的可靠呢？ 當然，你話狗翕， 係唔使講資格既 咁我無話可說矣 | |
這段解釋得很清楚，在此全文引述： 其實不需要去懂希伯來文, 希臘文, 用下一般常理便知經文要強調『處女』生子. 以撒意亞先知被亞哈斯王King Ahaz問默西亞降生有甚麼預象, 先兆。 若一個年青女子 （almah) 將會生子， 有甚麼的稀奇特別可以先兆？ 那一個年青女子不會將來生孩子？ 普通過基基話今日行路可以避過一篤屎， 是神的恩典。 你聽了都會笑， 那當時的王聽了先知的先兆會唔會笑？ 明顯， 一個處女會生子，才是有力的先兆， 夠哂與別不同。 | |
首先， 未講此文的內容。 如果任何有關研究都要先看作者背景，恐怕所有非教徒研究者都沒有相關神學訓練背景，他們大都要以兼職形式作研究，說穿了就是都缺乏信徒的供給，如果都因此而disqualified，剩下的只唯有親基督教的研究者了，這招真可使基督教立於不敗之地。 作者身為律師，亦是其職業所致，對文本、引述言論出處皆十分仔細精確，如果你有仔細觀看內容就知道。 | |
| |
其實不需要去懂希伯來文, 希臘文, 用下一般常理便知經文要強調馬利亞處女生子. 馬利亞處不處，這些算是你們基督宗教的家事，不過從下文可知陳版友屬「保守基督徒」： Conservative Christians believe that the virgin birth of Jesus is predicted in Isaiah 7:14. In 1952 when the Revised Standard Version translators rendered almah as young woman, it immediately became a center of controversy. Conservative Christians accused the translators of tampering with the Christian Bible. The RSV quickly replaced the KJV in many churches across America, but fundamentalist American Christians were outraged: nowhere in the Old Testament, they argued, was an almah anything other than a young unmarried girl; moreover, the Greek translators of Isaiah had shown by the word parthenos that they believed Isaiah to predict a virgin birth for the coming Messiah, and the Gospel of Matthew had endorsed their choice by quoting the Greek. Isaiah 7:14 became a litmus test among conservatives for the acceptability of new translations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14 | |
馬利亞處不處，這些算是你們基督宗教的家事，不過從下文可知陳版友屬「保守基督徒」： 那你這帖談人的家事作甚麼？ 八卦了！ | |
出名作者 Bart Ehrmam就是聖經文本考勘學者，他本人已不是教會中人，持無神論立場來說經文纂改問題。 ... 這是由於現代反基漸多，出書有market，夠拿來糊口，你要找Joseph Wheless所屬的年代才公道。 | |
馬利亞處不處，這些算是你們基督宗教的家事，不過從下文可知陳版友屬「保守基督徒」： 維基就是你學術知識來源？ 怪不知這麼牛。 | |
Rhodes, Ron (2009). The Complete Guide to Bible Translations. Harvest House Publishers. ISBN 978-0736931366, p. 80-82. | |
那你這帖談人的家事作甚麼？ 本來都不想再查，但沙文激勵我、叫我不要放棄嘛。 | |
這段解釋得很清楚，在此全文引述： 錯誤之（三） 你引文中 Isaiah 那句"original Hebrew" 一般人以為希伯來文寫的經卷便是古遠， 是更接近原文， 更可信。 這實在是門外漢說給門外漢聽的話。 今日的所謂希伯來文寫的經， 用的是馬所拉文字， 是猶太人在公元１００年把古希伯來文改良出來的。 古希伯來文本來是無音母的， 例如YHWH 是少有仍保存下來的古希伯來字。 猶太人於是在古文中加上音母， 使方便閱讀。 用古希伯來文寫的經卷， 今日不存在。 因為在公元７０年羅馬人血洗耶路撒冷聖殿時燒毀大部份經卷， 在劫後的猶太人重組經書時把古文寫成的經書抄寫和譯翻成馬所拉文 （即今日猶太人用的文字） 至於用希臘文寫成的七十士譯本 SEPTUAGINT 卻是在公元前３００年便譯出。 比馬所拉文的經卷古， 更早。 所以, 硬要說希伯來文經卷 比 七十士譯本 更接近原文的說法， 才是正宗的『原文』 , 實在要三思三思。 我本人甚至大膽假設, 當年馬所拉學者重組經典時, 不排除要從LXX 譯本倒譯回希伯來文。 當然， 這不是一般人都知的知識， 所以， 才會叫是『學術』， 不是左聞右理的路邊消息， 或是以維基為本的網頁便可教到你。 七十士譯本與希伯來文本， 那一個更貼原文﹖？ 無錯， 七十士譯本與希伯來文本有多處地方出現不同， 在眾所周知的例子中, 依撒以亞7:14 SEPTUAGINT 是說 a virgin (Greek: parthenos) will bear a child and he shall be called Emmanuel. 希伯來的馬所拉文本卻是寫上: a young woman (Hebrew: almah) will bear a child and he shall be called Emmanuel 當年猶太人不承認耶穌便是上主派來的默西亞， 為了降低耶穌的神性，在抄寫時故意把希臘文的『處女』 改成是希伯來文的『少女』。 至少猶太人的版本有刻意修改原文來對抗耶穌是處女生子, 是默西亞的企圖。 無錯， 七十士譯本與希伯來文本有多處地方出現不同， 後來死海古卷出現， （死海古卷是公元前二世紀之物， 是比馬所拉文本更早的抄本）， 學者在有分歧的地方， 用死海古卷校對比較 發現希臘文抄譯的SEPTUAGINT 與死海古卷更吻合。 | |
| |
如果任何有關研究都要先看作者背景，恐怕所有非教徒研究者都沒有相關神學訓練背景，他們大都要以兼職 ... 你，我都是没有相關神學，經文考勘，詮釋訓練背景。 不過，我引來的，是對此有認識的學者，權威所講的。 你引來的，是張三，六婆所講的。 分別好大喔！ 你已經是本壇中十分稀有的理性份子囉，怎麼還是看不到你我分別？ | |
這是由於現代反基漸多，出書有market，夠拿來糊口，你要找Joseph Wheless所屬的年代才公道。 ... 你講得對， 要糊口，要有 market ，便要講些市埸喜歡的話題囉。 市埸上鐘意聽乜咪講乜囉。 人在江湖，身不由己。 這些二，三線的宗教揭秘書，係咁架哩 | |
你講得對， 係囉，所以唔可以怪Joseph係業餘既。 | |
錯誤之（三） 請問你這堆東西從哪位／哪些聖經學者抄出來的？不妨說出來，讓大家先分析作者的背景吧。 | |
係囉，所以唔可以怪Joseph係業餘既。 咁又係... 有人拍咸片, 都要有人鐘意睇咸野先有人拍. 唔怪 Joseph Wheless , 咁怪你呢類揭秘慾強盛的讀者囉. |
| [1] < [6] [7] 8 > [26] |
