Be it unto Me According to Thy Word


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm not 100% sure (maybe no one is), but the women might be mentioned because it was for a Jewish audience.  The women mentioned are the only ones in the record who are foreigners and not Jews by birth (as far as tradition and the Old Testament go at least).   They might be mentioned to show the women who are not Jews, but who are part of the genealogical line.  This establishes a connection to other peoples as well.  Each women is from a different people than the Israelites.  Each woman comes from a kingdom or people from each direction from Israel.  

Ruth came from Moab, south of Israel.  

Matthew indicates that Bathsheba is from the Hittites, north of Israel.

Tradition and vague references in Genesis indicate that Tamar is a Canaanite , which is west of Israel. 

Rahab came from Jericho, east of the northern parts of Israel.  

This shows that Christ is for kingdoms and principalities in all directions, rather than just Israel.   

Matthew is also the one who mentions the wise-men coming for Jesus birth.  The wise-men were not Jewish either.

So although the Gospel according to Matthew  was written for a Jewish audience, Matthew goes out of his way to show that non-Jews also hold Christ as significant, such as with the genealogy and with the mention of the wide-men and that Christ was more than for just the Jews.   Otherwise the women and wise-men wouldn't be mentioned.  Matthew may have wanted to make this clear to his Jewish audience.  

At least that's my take.  

 

Excellent!

And, even though the women are mentioned in Joseph's genealogy, and thus aren't  blood ancestors of  Christ through Joseph, Mary's genealogy is the same as Joseph's except after David--Joseph's ancestors came through Solomon, whereas Mary's came through Nathan. As such, the four women are blood relations of Christ through Mary (assuming that Bathsheba was also the mother of Nathan).

The next question then becomes, "in what ways might this understanding help us and our families to progress and become more like Christ?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I posted this thread, I wasn't aware that a Study Topic forum had been sett up for  discussing Lesson 2 of Come Follow Me.

For those interested, see Here.

I will finish exploring the  conundrum  and then take my other thoughts and questions over there.

Feel free to join me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of Joseph brings up a particularly interesting thing to ponder.

If Joseph was married to Mary simply for time, there is no problem.

However, if he is sealed to marry for all eternity, as they were married before the birth of the Lord, this implies that the Lord is actually the son of Joseph as born into the covenant.

Even with a  biological immortal Father, that still places him as the Eternal Son of Joseph.

I find that could be problematic.

On the otherhand if Mary is sealed to the Father for all eternity that resolves this problem quite neatly.  The Lord then is truly the Son of the Father, and as such is the Only Begotten and eldest who stayed true to the Father (was never cast out for example such as Ishmael was from Abraham so Issac became the only heir), is all that he claims to be.

Some may say this brings up other difficulties or questions though.

In the genealogical sense this makes it so he would not be the legitimate King via the Line of David unless there were no other Male heirs (or so I would assume).

I suppose he could have been under the guise of Roman adoption, but Roman adoption normally was not applicable to how the Jews did their bloodlines.

The line through Joseph hence, while uniquely informative about his inheritance as a son of Joseph, if he were truly the Son of another biologically, as per Jewish Tradition...how much weight would the Jewish line via Joseph truly hold?

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scott said:

I'm not 100% sure (maybe no one is), but the women might be mentioned because it was for a Jewish audience.  The women mentioned are the only ones in the record who are foreigners and not Jews by birth (as far as tradition and the Old Testament go at least).   They might be mentioned to show the women who are not Jews, but who are part of the genealogical line.  This establishes a connection to other peoples as well.  Each women is from a different people than the Israelites.  Each woman comes from a kingdom or people from each direction from Israel.  

Ruth came from Moab, south of Israel.  

Matthew indicates that Bathsheba is from the Hittites, north of Israel.

Tradition and vague references in Genesis indicate that Tamar is a Canaanite , which is west of Israel. 

Rahab came from Jericho, east of the northern parts of Israel.  

This shows that Christ is for kingdoms and principalities in all directions, rather than just Israel.   

Matthew is also the one who mentions the wise-men coming for Jesus birth.  The wise-men were not Jewish either.

So although the Gospel according to Matthew  was written for a Jewish audience, Matthew goes out of his way to show that non-Jews also hold Christ as significant, such as with the genealogy and with the mention of the wide-men and that Christ was more than for just the Jews.   Otherwise the women and wise-men wouldn't be mentioned.  Matthew may have wanted to make this clear to his Jewish audience.  

At least that's my take.  

 

Matthew, as a reviled publican among the Jews, must have enjoyed doing this immensely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What am I? A dictionary? ;)

Anyhow, honestly, I almost regret my reply in that I really have no interest in discussing this particular subject, considering it inappropriate.

Whether that feeling stems from an "ick" factor or not isn't something I'm concerned with finding out.

I expect that you don’t want to engage further on this—we’re certainly flirting with some line-crossing here.  But I will simply point out that they didn’t need to be *married*; she just needed to be His “handmaiden”.

Which she was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

Yes, In my prior commentary I was trying to put forth the impersonal creation of children in our society.  Wherein you could have 3 people involved in a pregnancy.  A women who froze her eggs for the sake of children in the later part of her life, because she couldn't be bothered with the hardship of raising a family during the prime of her life.  A man donating his sperm for $$, and a surrogate mother carrying a child as a career (Surrogacy average cost is $90K - 130K)...

Dorland's 28th Edition, 1994.  My point is that conception can mean implantation.  We don't really know the specifics that produced the Virgin birth...

I listed John 10:18 because therein Jesus states that He can raise himself.  In my mind, implying that He did not require the Father to resurrect him.  No other human has the ability to do what Jesus did...  Jesus Christ will resurrect us all.  See John 11:25

I very much empathize with the social commentary. As a much younger man I was part of the "civilian" group that developed and proposed the Church Handbook policies addressing such matters (under assignment from and for the Brethren's approval).

I understand that conception can mean implantation, but I'm not sure, from what i understand of Jewish physician (rather, "healer") or husbandman practices at the time these scriptures were written, that the ancients conceived of it that way...

Yes, I think Jesus innately possessed that power by virtue of what He inherited from His Physical Father, and that He fully developed the ability to exercise that power along the way of normal human development, presumably because He remained sinless throughout His life. I think His remarks to Martha in John 11 have to do with the principle of "speaking of things to come as though they had already come," since she had already confessed her faith in the future resurrection. He was clarifying Himself as the source of that resurrection (as He had done in chapter 10 and which served as division / decision point). In verse 41-42, it is still evident that Jesus relied upon the Father to carry out this miracle of raising (not resurrecting) the dead. "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always..." In 3 Nephi, even resurrected, He prays to the Father for certain miracles, but after His resurrection His particular assertion to Martha was fulfilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I expect that you don’t want to engage further on this

Honestly threads like this are examples of something I find deeply wrong within some of the attitudes of some members.

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

we’re certainly flirting with some line-crossing here.

In my mind the line has been crossed.

Here's the end-all of what the discussion should be, imo. First, we who know better and reverence our God should not be discussing Him between ourselves in this manner. It's not productive. It's not spiritual. It's not "just for fun". It's not educational. It's simply and plainly wrong. Second, if someone outside our faith who does not know better (or is being intentionally inflammatory)  brings it up, our response should be simple. We don't know the mechanics of Mary's conception.

What we do know is that there is no scriptural support for God and Mary having physical intercourse. The scriptures call it a virgin birth. There is no reason to speculate beyond that. Wresting with the scriptures beyond that is inappropriate. We know Jesus was God's son. We know Jesus was Mary's son. The scriptures state both plainly. But we know Mary was a virgin.

Yes, speculation going beyond that is, in my opinion, line crossing -- and not only line crossing, but disrespectful line crossing.

Now I will grant that, finding the subject inappropriate, I have not read through all of the posts here. So perhaps I'm judging unfairly and too harshly. But I've read enough to believe that the line hasn't just been flirted with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Would it be useful in taking some time to dissect the reasons we think intercourse between God and Mary would be so problematic?  Are our concerns primarily born of theological concerns, or from an emotion-based “ick!” factor?

I personally see two issues with this, but only share the main one: Virgin - Virgin means not having sex with "any" and "all" males. The state or glorified state of the man doesn't matter. Virgin is virgin.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I personally see two issues with this, but only share the main one: Virgin - Virgin means not having sex with "any" and "all" males. The state or glorified state of the man doesn't matter. Virgin is virgin.

I’m inclined to believe with you, but the doubt comes from the facts that a) several important folks have thought otherwise, and b) in the OT, “virgin” is not necessarily virgin.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I expect that you don’t want to engage further on this—we’re certainly flirting with some line-crossing here.  But I will simply point out that they didn’t need to be *married*; she just needed to be His “handmaiden”.

Which she was

I just did a complete search of the words Handmaid & Handmaiden in the scriptures.

I read it as female loyal servant NOT concubine.

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Anddenex said:

And there is the kicker. A perfect glorified body which produced the "egg" could not have produced a body that was mortal and that could die. If so, our earth life also becomes obsolete because Heavenly Father and Mother could have easily born us already in such a manner. I wouldn't need an earthly father and mother to obtain a body of flesh and blood.

But it is the bearing mother who contributes the mechanisms of cell division and nutrition.  Thus the embryonic development was entirely mortal.  Hence, mortal flesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m inclined to believe with you, but the doubt comes from the facts that a) several important folks have thought otherwise, and b) in the OT, “virgin” is not necessarily virgin.  

You and I share the same thought as to why we both experience doubt. My only hesitancy with this is what @mikbone is that these leaders didn't know any other way a baby could be conceived, so they shared what they knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But it is the bearing mother who contributes the mechanisms of cell division and nutrition.  Thus the embryonic development was entirely mortal.  Hence, mortal flesh.

Full Edit: I am not sure my response was read in light of what I responded to with regards to mikbone's response. In mikbone's response he specified "Heavenly Mother" was the mother, and Mary was surrogate.

The "mother" in this scenario is not Mary. Mary is privileged with the opportunity to carry their son (which I don't agree with). The Mother in this case is the one providing cell division (not Mary). Mary in this scenario is only providing nutrition.

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see threads like this, I inwardly cringe and want to close my eyes, plug my ears, and recite nonsense poetry, the periodic table, the states and their capitals, or just about anything else. (I exaggerate only slightly.) I think conversations such as that into which this thread has morphed are why some think we are a bizarre, sci-fi-based non-Christian cult worshiping the god of Planet Kolob.

Anyway, I thought I'd respond to one aspect of this discussion.

22 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Virgin - Virgin means not having sex with "any" and "all" males. The state or glorified state of the man doesn't matter. Virgin is virgin.

Not in every case. In many old languages, including English, the word for "virgin" (such as the English word "maiden") simply means a young woman or girl, either sexually immature or just coming of age, with the suggestion but not necessarily denotation of lack of sexual experience.

I don't know ancient Greek or Aramaic (or any other ancient language). As far as I understand our doctrine, we believe Mary to have been sexually chaste, which for a never-married woman would normally imply virginity (in the sexual sense). Other than the possibly ambiguous use of the term "virgin", I don't know of any scripture that inarguably states that Mary was completely sexually inexperienced, such as is true with e.g. Rebekah, but I also don't know of any scripture that even hints otherwise. Isaiah spoke of a virgin conceiving in what looks like obviously metaphorical language; Christians long ago took that as a literal description. Until revelation to the contrary takes place, I will assume that Mary was a completely sexually inexperienced young bride who was impregnated by the power of God under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and will refrain from public (or probably even private) speculation as to how that event took place.

The point being, I agree doctrinally with Anddenex, but I don't think an argument based on the terminology used ("virgin") is useful in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m inclined to believe with you, but the doubt comes from the facts that a) several important folks have thought otherwise, and b) in the OT, “virgin” is not necessarily virgin.  

This is one of those things where it can be questionable on what they thought specifically.  They never came out and specified exactly what they meant in most of their statements, though many have leapt to what they meant with certain convolutions of logic.

The most that normally was stated was that the Lord was the Son of the Father, just as any of us our children of our Fathers.  Just as we are naturally created, so was he. 

However, they don't go into details (thankfully, that could be a little disturbing if they did so), though there have been a few (the McKonkie's were some that inferred more at times) that have implied a more direct implication towards what you have hinted at regarding an exalted man vs. a mortal man and the terminology.

However, in a world where we already know how someone could have a child without ever actually being intimate, it seems that one who is greater than us all and knows all things could have many ways beyond what we can even understand or comprehend on how a child could be his and a mortal woman.

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

When I see threads like this, I inwardly cringe and want to close my eyes, plug my ears, and recite nonsense poetry, the periodic table, the states and their capitals, or just about anything else. (I exaggerate only slightly.) I think conversations such as that into which this thread has morphed are why some think we are a bizarre, sci-fi-based non-Christian cult worshiping the god of Planet Kolob.

Anyway, I thought I'd respond to one aspect of this discussion.

Not in every case. In many old languages, including English, the word for "virgin" (such as the English word "maiden") simply means a young woman or girl, either sexually immature or just coming of age, with the suggestion but not necessarily denotation of lack of sexual experience.

I don't know ancient Greek or Aramaic (or any other ancient language). As far as I understand our doctrine, we believe Mary to have been sexually chaste, which for a never-married woman would normally imply virginity (in the sexual sense). Other than the possibly ambiguous use of the term "virgin", I don't know of any scripture that inarguably states that Mary was completely sexually inexperienced, such as is true with e.g. Rebekah, but I also don't know of any scripture that even hints otherwise. Isaiah spoke of a virgin conceiving in what looks like obviously metaphorical language; Christians long ago took that as a literal description. Until revelation to the contrary takes place, I will assume that Mary was a completely sexually inexperienced young bride who was impregnated by the power of God under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and will refrain from public (or probably even private) speculation as to how that event took place.

The point being, I agree doctrinally with Anddenex, but I don't think an argument based on the terminology used ("virgin") is useful in this case.

This is an argument that has been utilized by enemies of Christians previously.  The basis is looking at the Old Testament where a prophet was told to take a virgin to wife, but in that particular syntax it meant a young lady.   As this was symbolic of the birth of the Messiah some have leapt on it to mean that Mary was merely a young woman and that she and Joseph had done things and thus the Lord was a mere mortal instead of the Divine being that we KNOW he was. 

WE must see it in the context that it was utilized with, and the understanding that it was used in the time of translation as well as the way word itself is utilized in the New Testament.

However, one of the stronger evidences we have is that the terminology of the word in Joseph Smith's time when used was normally very similar to what we MEAN when we say Mary had never known any man in the Biblical sense and hence was pure and thus a virgin.  When he translated the Book of Mormon, in the book of Alma, chapter 7 it states...

Quote

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Thus, I tend to believe that she was as the scriptures explain and how most would understand it.  HOW this was done, I do not know except for how the scripture above states...that she was overshadowed and conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. 

As per the prophets we also know that he was the REAL son (biologically speaking) of his Father and that it was done in the natural way of things...but what this means...I do not know exactly. 

It is most likely, as we see this explanation of conception in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that it had to do greatly with the power of the Holy Ghost, but how this was accomplished is anyone's guess.  It could be as some have explained it in a more carnal way, or it could be some way that we yet cannot comprehend (and I lean more towards the latter) and thus, the best we could understand it is exactly as how the scriptures have explained it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is called an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. :D

Oh...wait....we're LDS. Authority counts in this world. :hmmm:

An appeal to authority is not per se a logical fallacy, though in classical logical thought it doesn't count as a proof. The fallacy is in saying, "I'm right BECAUSE So-and-so agrees with me, and he's an authority." Saying rather, "I'm right, AND Authority So-and-so agrees with me" is just a buttress to the argument, probably more a rhetorical flourish* than an attempt at proving the point. In a revealed religion, where truth is determined by the word of God and the word of God comes through authorized channels, I think a very strong argument can be made that a legitimate appeal to proper authority is never a logical fallacy.

* Really? "Flour-ish"? Meaning "like flour?" I first wrote "fluorish", but that didn't look right, and I got the red squiggly underneath. Normally I hate spell-check, but in this case it saved me from an embarrassing mistake. The "flour-" in "flourish" has the obvious underlying meaning of "flower", something that grows and adds an attractive accent. It is part of a family of words such as "florid", "florist", and "Florence"**, all sharing a common root (npi) in the Latin word floreo "to bloom"***, which itself comes from the Latin flos "flower". Not really sure where that following "u" comes from; my guess would be French. Frenchified words always seem to stick a "u" after the "o", which is why British English talks about harbouring honourable neighbours from humourous rumours of colourful flavours of belaboured splendour****. I wondered why I had thought that the u-first spelling, "fluor-", was correct. In researching that a bit, I found that it's the root found in the words "fluorescent" and "fluorine", and that in English it has a distinctly chemical usage. But get this: It ultimately derives from the Latin root fluor "a flow", which in turn comes from the word fluere "to stream, to flow". I'm reminded of the French word fleuve "river". Since flowers are common on river banks, I'm guessing the Latin words flos and fleure are also etymologically related. It's times like this when I wish I could split myself into different people, one of whom would be some sort of linguistic professor or researcher.

** "Florence", the beautiful Italian city, was called in Latin Florentia, taken from florens "flowering". It's built on a river in a fertile area, where there are (or used to be) lots of flowers. The modern Italian name for the city is Firenze, which sounds slightly but not really all that much like the Italian word for "flower", fiore. In this case, the English (transliterated) name for the city is closer to the original name than the modern Italian name. This is true in quite a few cases, actually; the old Greek city Neapolis (Greek neo- "new" and polis "city"—unsurprisingly, this was a pretty common name among Greek colonies) became "Naples" in English, but in modern Italian it's Napoli. I think the English is closer, but it's a toss-up. When we speak of the three-flavored ice cream, we call it "Neapolitan", which means "from the city of Neapolis", which we call Naples*****. In Italian, the same terms is napolitano, meaning of course "from Napoli". So while our English name "Naples" is arguably closer to the original than the Italian Napoli, their word is a lot more consistent and recognizable across various forms.

*** Actually, floreo means "I bloom". For some reason, Latin verbs are identified using the first-person singular present active indicative conjugation (e.g. "I eat", "I sleep", "I gesticulate", "I bloom") rather than the infinitive form that most European languages today commonly use to identify the verb (e.g. "to eat", "to sleep", "to gesticulate", "to bloom"). If you ask a Latin professor, "What's the Latin word for 'to love'?", he will probably answer you, "It's 'amo'." If the professor is a pedant—common enough among humanities faculty members—he might say, "It's 'amo, amas'", giving both the first- and second-person singular (present active indicative) conjugations. Ain't Latin great? At least, as we teach it today.

**** Don't even get me started on "foetus".

***** How many of you knew that "Neapolitan" means "from Naples"? Be honest, now. I don't think I knew that until after I had served in Naples. And if getting "Neapolitan" from "Neapolis" seems strange, compare our word "cosmopolitan", which literally means "from the cosmopolis", the "world city".

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

An appeal to authority is not per se a logical fallacy

Correct.

But an appeal to authority logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. ;)

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think a very strong argument can be made that a legitimate appeal to proper authority is never a logical fallacy.

Yes.

So the question becomes: How "legitimate" is the authority behind a statement by random apostle (often named Orson) stating in some circumstance or another that such-n-such is correct?

The fallacy, of course, is in the idea that if said person who held a position of some authority said something then it must be correct.

"Proper" is a very, very important word in the statement you have here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

*Really? "Flour-ish"? Meaning "like flour?" I first wrote "fluorish", but that didn't look right, and I got the red squiggly underneath. Normally I hate spell-check, but in this case it saved me from an embarrassing mistake. The "flour-" in "flourish" has the obvious underlying meaning of "flower", something that grows and adds an attractive accent. It is part of a family of words such as "florid", "florist", and "Florence"**, all sharing a common root (npi) in the Latin word floreo "to bloom"***, which itself comes from the Latin flos "flower". I wondered why I had thought that the u-first spelling, "fluor-", was correct. In researching that a bit, I found that it's the root found in the words "fluorescent" and "fluorine", and that in English it has a distinctly chemical usage. But get this: It ultimately derives from the Latin root fluor "a flow", which in turn comes from the word fluere "to stream, to flow". I'm reminded of the French word fleuve "river". Since flowers are common on river banks, I'm guessing the Latin words flos and fleure are also etymologically related. It's times like this when I wish I could split myself into different people, one of whom would be some sort of linguistic professor or researcher.

**"Florence", the beautiful Italian city, was called in Latin Florentia, taken from florens "flowering". It's built on a river in a fertile area, where there are (or used to be) lots of flowers. The modern Italian name for the city is Firenze, which sounds slightly but not really all that much like the Italian word for "flower", fiore. In this case, the English (transliterated) name for the city is closer to the original name than the modern Italian name. This is true in quite a few cases, actually; the old Greek city Neapolis (Greek neo- "new" and polis "city"—unsurprisingly, this was a pretty common name among Greek colonies) became "Naples" in English, but in modern Italian it's Napoli. I think the English is closer, but it's a toss-up. When we speak of the three-flavored ice cream, we call it "Neapolitan", which means "from the city of Neopolis", which we call Naples****. In Italian, the same terms is napolitano, meaning of course "from Napoli". So while our English name "Naples" is arguably closer to the original than the Italian Napoli, their word is a lot more consistent and recognizable across various forms.

*** Actually, floreo means "I bloom". For some reason, Latin verbs are identified using the first-person singular present active indicative conjugation (e.g. "I eat", "I sleep", "I gesticulate", "I bloom") rather than the infinitive form that most European languages today commonly use to identify the verb (e.g. "to eat", "to sleep", "to gesticulate", "to bloom"). If you ask a Latin professor, "What's the Latin word for 'to love'?", he will probably answer you, "It's 'amo'." If the professor is a pedant—common enough among humanities faculty members—he might say, "It's 'amo, amas'", giving both the first- and second-person singular (present active indicative) conjugations. Ain't Latin great? At least, as we teach it today.

**** How many of you knew that "Neapolitan" means "from Naples"? Be honest, now. I don't think I knew that until after I had served in Naples. And if getting "Neapolitan" from "Neapolis" seems strange, compare our word "cosmopolitan", which literally means "from the cosmopolis", the "world city".

Best footnote ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not in every case. In many old languages, including English, the word for "virgin" (such as the English word "maiden") simply means a young woman or girl, either sexually immature or just coming of age, with the suggestion but not necessarily denotation of lack of sexual experience.

I don't know ancient Greek or Aramaic (or any other ancient language).

I add the following understanding only for the purposes of semantics, not necessarily apropos to this thread.  So, take it as you will.

Some years ago, a new translation of the Bible was meeting with push back because of a number of changes in translation.  One of the most unpopular changes was the use of the word "virgin" in several cases to "young maiden" or "young woman."  Opponents declared that while the literal definition does not necessarily include sexual inexperience, it is almost always associated with it.  And in every case in the Bible, it is ALWAYS associated with it.

Whether we are talking about ancient Hebrew (bethuwlah or ha-`almah) or or ancient Greek (parthenos/parthena) the meaning is the same as the earlier English meaning of "maiden".

"Maiden" literally means "young woman" but there is an understood condition of virginity, though not necessarily denotative.  But evidence of close association can be found in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing when Hero declares,"I am yet a maid."

And specifically, the Greek root for parthenos is actually "virginity".  But we use this same term in older and modern English to mean young or unspoiled in ways that have nothing to do with sexuality.

Virgin wool

Virgin olive oil

Virgin soil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

When I see threads like this, I inwardly cringe and want to close my eyes, plug my ears, and recite nonsense poetry, the periodic table, the states and their capitals, or just about anything else. (I exaggerate only slightly.) 

This is one of several criticism of "the thread."

Could it be that you and @The Folk Prophet and others may be conflating "the thread" with "thread derailments"?

I ask because I believe there is much spiritual value that can be derived from comparing and contrasting the scriptural genealogies of Christ.

Whereas, the tangents about surrogates and exact mode of conception, not so much.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

Could it be that you and @The Folk Prophet and others may be conflating "the thread" with "thread derailments"?

"the thread" is what it is -- derailments and all.

I certainly understand your defense of the posted topic and the potential value therein. And it is entirely fair to point out that my criticism of "the thread" is for what the thread became rather than the original intent.

Along the same lines I have been decidedly disappointed in several threads I have started due to what they became. Certainly, in the fact that I started them, I was not under the impression that what the threads became was due to the original topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

* Really? "Flour-ish"? Meaning "like flour?" I first wrote "fluorish", but that didn't look right, and I got the red squiggly underneath. Normally I hate spell-check, but in this case it saved me from an embarrassing mistake. The "flour-" in "flourish" has the obvious underlying meaning of "flower", something that grows and adds an attractive accent. It is part of a family of words such as "florid", "florist", and "Florence"**, all sharing a common root (npi) in the Latin word floreo "to bloom"***, which itself comes from the Latin flos "flower". Not really sure where that following "u" comes from; my guess would be French. Frenchified words always seem to stick a "u" after the "o", which is why British English talks about harbouring honourable neighbours from humourous rumours of colourful flavours of belaboured splendour****. I wondered why I had thought that the u-first spelling, "fluor-", was correct. In researching that a bit, I found that it's the root found in the words "fluorescent" and "fluorine", and that in English it has a distinctly chemical usage. But get this: It ultimately derives from the Latin root fluor "a flow", which in turn comes from the word fluere "to stream, to flow". I'm reminded of the French word fleuve "river". Since flowers are common on river banks, I'm guessing the Latin words flos and fleure are also etymologically related. It's times like this when I wish I could split myself into different people, one of whom would be some sort of linguistic professor or researcher.

** "Florence", the beautiful Italian city, was called in Latin Florentia, taken from florens "flowering". It's built on a river in a fertile area, where there are (or used to be) lots of flowers. The modern Italian name for the city is Firenze, which sounds slightly but not really all that much like the Italian word for "flower", fiore. In this case, the English (transliterated) name for the city is closer to the original name than the modern Italian name. This is true in quite a few cases, actually; the old Greek city Neapolis (Greek neo- "new" and polis "city"—unsurprisingly, this was a pretty common name among Greek colonies) became "Naples" in English, but in modern Italian it's Napoli. I think the English is closer, but it's a toss-up. When we speak of the three-flavored ice cream, we call it "Neapolitan", which means "from the city of Neapolis", which we call Naples*****. In Italian, the same terms is napolitano, meaning of course "from Napoli". So while our English name "Naples" is arguably closer to the original than the Italian Napoli, their word is a lot more consistent and recognizable across various forms.

*** Actually, floreo means "I bloom". For some reason, Latin verbs are identified using the first-person singular present active indicative conjugation (e.g. "I eat", "I sleep", "I gesticulate", "I bloom") rather than the infinitive form that most European languages today commonly use to identify the verb (e.g. "to eat", "to sleep", "to gesticulate", "to bloom"). If you ask a Latin professor, "What's the Latin word for 'to love'?", he will probably answer you, "It's 'amo'." If the professor is a pedant—common enough among humanities faculty members—he might say, "It's 'amo, amas'", giving both the first- and second-person singular (present active indicative) conjugations. Ain't Latin great? At least, as we teach it today.

**** Don't even get me started on "foetus".

***** How many of you knew that "Neapolitan" means "from Naples"? Be honest, now. I don't think I knew that until after I had served in Naples. And if getting "Neapolitan" from "Neapolis" seems strange, compare our word "cosmopolitan", which literally means "from the cosmopolis", the "world city". 

Best threadjack ever!  (Except now I want ice cream. :( )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share