Yup, just want to reverse-engineer the lost definitions, just for the sake of wanting to restore anything that was lost. I'm not hoping or expecting to learn anything super interesting as a result. Though that would be a nice bonus.
OK, to get back on track, that is why I addressed the differing assumptions based on looking at 2000 or 3000 years ago through a modern lens that has so many distorted filters inserted into the process in the interim (and I won't waste additional time refuting the assertion that it is only I who is looking at things through a modern morés prism). Can we all acknowledge that the translations have, in fact in many cases purposefully, introduced pollution into God's Word (while not as egregiously as the Vulgate or the Authorized Version, didn't even the Septuagint Project purposefully alter some passages of Scripture with the intent of currying favor with the Greeks into whose language they were bastardizing the Hebrew)? Studying the English word 'virgin' as it pertains to Scripture is just one of hundreds of examples ('rib' is another; and then if you're really ready to blow your mind, study the etymology of 'Hell' in regard to how that word and concept was introduced hundreds of years post-Christ and thus post-the-completion-of-Scripture).
To reverse-engineer (I love that phraseology) the word 'virgin,' or any other term, especially when one discovers that translators unnecessarily combined three words into one when English or any other language has the capability of representing the three original words, one can approach such an endeavor from many angles.
One is to just discover the three other words and go, "Huh! That's cool," and move on to one's midnight snack.
Another angle is to contemplate the superficial contexts of the passages and wonder what difference in our understanding of those passages might be inspired if we consider the specific meanings of the three words in those contexts -- and then leave it at
that.
A further angle would be to take one's study to the point of not just wondering but contemplating and determining what the motivations likely were for introducing pollution into The Word on the part of the translators -- who, I might add, were in almost all cases part of highly-organized Church-sanctioned group efforts to produce what they considered to be a more
acceptable version of Scripture.
If one took that angle to a more thorough approach, one would question not only the motivations but what was behind those motivations.
We could have massive fights here about whether or not 1st-Century B.C. Israelites were predominantly successful in preventing their youngsters from fooling around before reaching marrying age, but we'd likely get nowhere, given that everyone can haul out their favorite historical documents buttressing their own points of view -- just as last night's debate on FNC about how grade-school kids watching a cartoon in which a little cartoon boy talks about how his cartoon penis gets hard when he plays with it is going to lead to mass cultural degradation will never convince the vast majority of people who have any knowledge about what almost all 4-year-olds initiate and experience if they're not watched like hawks every waking moment -- so we should probably not waste any more time demonstrating that we have differing conclusions about what kinds of sex are bad or good. However, no matter how much you disagree with me (and no matter how convinced you are that you're not predominantly hypnotized by Catholicism because you're a Protestant) that the vast majority of how those in 2021 America view sexuality flows not from anything in Scripture but instead from the paganism and anti-sexuality introduced by Constantine in the 4th Century as part of his faux-conversion and takeover of the Roman Catholic Church, getting to the nub of whose agendas were furthered by scriptural pollution is of value to anyone seeking the actual truth about Scripture.
So I'm going to ask
@Philip a question in a minute, to drill down on his original post, but I will assert that I do so because these are literally life-and-death concerns. We all say we are part of the Body of Christ. We all say we believe in the One True God. We all say we believe that Scripture is God's Word and that we believe it is all true. But even just a cursory read of any three random English Bible translations will demonstrate that 'truth' is fungible. Originally, only
one thing was written down in the case of every word, verse, passage, chapter or book of Scripture. One thing. It's unlikely that what Moses transcribed from our Creator was considered open for interpretation as far as either he or YHWH were concerned. Therefore, it should be incumbent upon
all of us to seek out the most
accurate rendering of the entire Word of God. This should be especially true for those of us who support Biblical polygyny, because the truth about the legitimacy of polygyny has been purposefully obscured by the translators and the Big Church organizations that funded them.
@andrew has pointed out on repeated occasions that discovering the truth about biblical polygamy is just one of a number of 'gateway drugs' into what should be a comprehensive inquiry into the extent to which we've all been lied to by churches, organized religions and the very people we've been led to believe we should most trust: pastors, priests and theologians. The Adversary uses these people to distract us from the actual messages our LORD intended for us to receive; he perhaps most perniciously uses the tactic of falsely elevating such matters as sex or dancing or food or drugs above the key messages of Scripture, creating the impression (start paying attention to sermon content) that, for example, if we just very strictly follow the guidelines we've received from church authorities about how to properly use our penises we will get a prime seat on the dais next to the Throne of Christ (and thus
denigrating the intended primacy of Torah and the Gospels). However, what we are far more likely to accomplish is just validating the old saw about how the most accurate definition for 'promiscuity' is anyone who's getting more than I am. I swear that 'promiscuity' is one of the most ill-defined and abused words used to justify chest-beating about human sexuality related to Scripture -- although it doesn't hold a candle to the rampant misinterpretation of the term 'fornication,' which apparently was a word invented so that any individual human being can use it to condemn any sex of which s/he disapproves.
So back to the topic at hand . . . first off, Philip, I was at first wondering if you were some kind of wolf in sheep's clothing when you showed up here at Biblical Families, but at this point I'm very much looking forward to meeting you later this month at the conference. I always appreciate people who have a heart for digging beneath the surface.
Secondly, here's my question:
after you discover the true meanings behind the words that translators saw fit to boil down into 'virgin,' what, if anything, will be your additional purpose to doing so beyond discovering true definitions? Where will your curiosity take you? What function does an accurate definition of 'virgin' serve for you in your life? That is, what difference might it make to you to discover that your understanding has been skewed up until now?
What's the point of such reverse engineering?
