Conspiracy Theory... Just for Fun

Yes, it would be. I actually think the Isaiah passage should be translated "young woman" or "maiden" because I think it referred to a child born at that time as well, and certainly that child couldn't have been born to a virgin.

 

Agreed.

 

What kind of a sign would a virgin having a son 1000 years later be to king Ahaz, to whom the sign was being given since he was told to ask for one???

 

You guys are chopping the prophecy in half.

So you're telling me King Rezin and King Pekah had to wait around for a few centuries for Jesus to be born so they could be overthrown? Too bad the Assyrians apparently jumped the gun.

 

Sorry but I'm not following any of your leaps here. I see five completely unrelated statements that I have numbered. Each statement I have some disagreement with.

 

English Versions Compared

Some facts may be useful at this point.

The following modern translations use the word "virgin" in both Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:27

NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, CEV, ESV, The Message, HCSB, NAB, NJB

The following modern translations use the word "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 and "virgin" in Luke 1:27

RSV, NRSV

I don't have a problem with the translation choice of the RSV and NRSV which is arguably more faithful to the hebrew and the context of the passage. It does not change the messianic nature of the verse nor does it cast doubt on Jesus being born of a virgin as clearly indicated in Luke 1:27 in all the modern translations listed above which include almost all of the common ones used by conservative, liberal, protestant and catholic english speaking Christians.

 

Challenging Christ's deity or his virgin birth is nothing novel. This has been around since the beginnings of Christianity and the DaVinci Code doesn't really add anything new to that debate.

What Dan Brown does bring to the table is a popularization of the idea that Jesus was married and had children. While this theory is not new with Dan Brown, it was obviously not a popular view until his fictional work seems to have spurred new interested in the theory.

This is not difficult to debunk when one critically looks at the rest of recorded Christian history instead of just the little bits and pieces that appear to support one's pet theories.

I appreciate Dan Brown's book because it helps to encourage research and reflection on the truth of these important historical and spiritual matters. This appears to be one of his motivations in writing the book.

 

One correction and some additions.

The NJB belongs in the lower list.

Other less common translations that also belong to the lower list include:

NET, BBE, NEB

 

Sorry but I'm not following any of your leaps here. I see five completely unrelated statements that I have numbered. Each statement I have some disagreement with. </font>[/QUOTE]Gold Dragon is basically right as to "the leaps", here. I might not necessarily agree with a 'specific' leap he lists, but that modus operandi is the basic model of "The Da Vinci Code", as well as most other " `'aipesis ", especially those that purport to be "Bible based".

Interestingly enough, there are even 'verses in the Bible', which clearly defines how this happens.
They are found in Isaiah 28:9-13, which reads:

These verses tells us how it is supposed to be done, and the results.

As I see it, the problem comes when another passage 'kicks in', so to speak, namely II Tim. 2:3-4, which reads:

With too many, unfortuantely, having "itching ears", however, a search "for some new thing" is often 'just the ticket'. Someone, maybe even with all good intentions, comes 'down the pike' posessing the 'gift of gab'. The individual has happened upon a 'line or two' or a word or subject, that drew his or her attention, too often with little regard for context.

Picking from "here a little, there a little," in an attempt to 'put it all together', the building of "line upon line", continues, and from this assemblage, we move to "precept upon precept", out of this.

In the political realm, the late Sen. Everitt McKinley Dirksen (A Christian, BTW) once commented about Washington spending by politicos. Although there is some question of the exact words, he is alleged to have said, regarding a proposal that a supporter claimed was "...only a billion dollars", in that inimitable, 'gravelly', and at the same time, 'golden toned' voice, words to the effect of:

We too often see a sort of reverse progression as to the Bible. 'A word here; an idea there; (here a little, there a little); a verse that speaks about the idea added, other verses added; [line upon line, (then) precept upon precept;] It adds up! Put it all together- The first thing you know, you're talking about REAL heresy!

Fortunately, this sort of "reverse construction" is something we almost never see on the Baptist Boa...!

Ed