Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBe careful. The NLV is a paraphrase, not a translation. It's just trying to tell you what the paraphrasers think the author meant. It's not trying to necessarily translate literally.
Actually, Matthew 1:25 of the NLV says "she remained a virgin until her son was born."
This is logically different than the version you gave, which states, "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son."
I could construct various scenarios in which one holds but not the other.
I imagine my source was referring to the original Greek text regarding Luke's unique account of virgin birth. Can anybody comment on that?
So you're really reading what the NLV paraphrasers think Matthew meant when he said Joseph didn't have any union with Mary.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesComment on your imagination? The Greek? Only one account? What are you looking for, exactly?
Actually, Matthew 1:25 of the NLV says "she remained a virgin until her son was born."
This is logically different than the version you gave, which states, "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son."
I could construct various scenarios in which one holds but not the other.
I imagine my source was referring to the original Greek text regarding Luke's unique account of virgin birth. Can anybody comment on that?
1 edit
Originally posted by joelekThis is what all translations are. A literal translation would be incomprehensible in the target language and in most cases impossible to achieve.
It's just trying to tell you what the paraphrasers think the author meant. It's not trying to necessarily translate literally.
So you're really reading what the NLV paraphrasers think Matthew meant when he said Joseph didn't have any union with Mary.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI want to know if it is the case that
Comment on your imagination? The Greek? Only one account? What are you looking for, exactly?
1) None of the original texts of Matthew, Mark and John describe Mary as a virgin at the time of conception, and
2) The original text of Luke does describe Mary as a virgin at the time of conception.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm quite sure there aren't ANY "original texts" of any of the Gospels. Matthew pretty clearly states that Joseph hadn't had sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. Are you suggesting somebody else might have?
I want to know if it is the case that
1) None of the original texts of Mattheew, Mark and John describe Mary as a virgin at the time of conception, and
2) The original text of Luke does describe Mary as a virgin at the time of conception.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOnly Mark jumps into the action, post birth. Matthew, Luke and John all describe Mary as a virgin.
I want to know if it is the case that
1) None of the original texts of Matthew, Mark and John describe Mary as a virgin at the time of conception, and
2) The original text of Luke does describe Mary as a virgin at the time of conception.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell, I would say Luke says she was a virgin explicitly and Matthew strongly suggests it. I can't find any mention in John of a virgin birth and Mark doesn't address his birth at all.
For this thread, I am concerned only with the texts themselves, not with their factuality.