Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Global Anglican Episcopal Leader Rowan Williams Says Belief In Virgin Birth Unnecessary

Posted by Job on December 20, 2007


6 Responses to “Global Anglican Episcopal Leader Rowan Williams Says Belief In Virgin Birth Unnecessary”

  1. Eden Hadassah said

    Geez, next they will be saying that Paul may have been “gay”.
    Or maybe they will even say that the reason only the woman caught in adultery was presented to Jesus was because he was the man that was the adulterer! They were trying to point out the fact that she was married.

    Next they will probably say that Yeshua was probably a woman, but patriarical religion refused to recognize it.

  2. Rush Limbaugh is more a man of faith than the Archbishop of Canterbury 😆 !!!

    That Archbishop is obviously doing anything he can to get more money in the coffers! An unsaved pimp he is.

  3. Job said

    Independent Conservative:

    Rush Limbaugh? Oh PLEASE man do not make me ill! You have already forced me to back off Ron Paul, so what are you trying to do to me today!

  4. I’m sorry about that Ron Paul matter brother, I really am. I’m just saying, what kind of world is it when one of these oh so highly exalted “Archbishop” folks (a title you can’t find in scripture, unless you compare it to the nonsense warned against in Matthew 23) seems to have less of the essentials for salvation than the reprobate living (and please nobody ask why he’s living reprobate, I really don’t want to have to dig into that) radio announcer who functions as a tool of the cult of the golden elephant (Republican Party).

    Hey God saved Saul, there’s still hope for the both of them.

  5. You may find these articles on virgin birth of interest and coming from an unusual angle

    and, similarly the debate on TheologyWeb:

    Forum — General Theistics 101
    Thread — Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

    PS The Archbishop of Canterbury conceded the word in Isaiah 7:14 is not ‘virgin.’ However he claimed to still believe in the virgin birth. You can see an excerpt of his comments on my website in ‘Important News.’

  6. Job said

    T Crosthwaite:

    If the word in Isaiah 7:14 is not “virgin”, then why did the LXX, the Septuagint, the Greek version of the New Testament written hundreds of years before Jesus Christ was born, translate the word “almah” to “parthenos”, which can only mean virgin? The meaning of “almah” in that context to “virgin” was only asserted when there came the need to deny the virgin birth. Up until people began to deny the virgin birth, no one – including unbelieving Jews – ever denied the meaning of “almah” in that verse. I wish people would stop claiming otherwise.

    Also, the alleged range of meanings of almah that would deny that it means “virgin” in that context has been overstated. The truth is that in its context and how the word was commonly employed and also in the culture of the time (when unmarried women who conceive or even so much have been found to have had sexual intercourse would have been ostracized at minimum and very likely stoned to death), it would have been practically impossible for “almah” to mean anything other than virgin. “Virgin” is well accepted within the range of meaning of almah (indeed, it is the #2 meaning that comes up in a Hebrew concordance), it was a common usage of the word, and the literary context AND the social context greatly precludes any other meaning. Face it: the SEVENTY JEWISH SCHOLARS who translated the Old Testament into Greek used parthenos for a reason … THERE WAS NO OTHER WORD THAT FIT! The result: the only reason why anyone would deny that almah in Isaiah 7:14 means virgin are those who are determined to deny the virgin birth and for that reason deny virgin birth prophecies. So-called Christians, including alleged “evangelicals” who claim that the Jewish scholars who translated the LXX somehow failed to understand their own language and culture and did not have midrashes and targums available to them to explain the meaning of their own books in their own language for their own religion are only trying to be acceptable in the eyes of modern scholarship, modern scholarship which they very well know to be biased and dishonest. In other words, they are loving the world, and the Bible makes it clear that those who love the world are adulterers and adulteresses who are at enmity with God.

    But you tell me: why did the Jewish scholars choose “parthenos”, which again CAN ONLY MEAN VIRGIN, in Isaiah 7:14? The ball is in your court. Why did the translators of the LXX get it so horribly, completely and totally wrong with such huge consequences? After all, Matthew cited the LXX version of Isaiah 7:14 in his gospel. Instead of acknowledging this obvious fact, people – including so-called Bible believing evangelicals – actually accuse Matthew of embellishing or making a dishonest use of prophecy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: