<p>"Who told you that, Debaser? Dan Brown? Or did you just manifest that accusation in your mind? You have been reading the Da Vinci Code way too much I reckon!"</p>
<p>"Debaser, I think you clearly have your own misconceptions. The virgin Mary a bad translation? That's at least as much a kooky conspiracy theory as Intelligent Design."</p>
<p>You are both idiots. I haven't even touched the DaVinci code. There is no conspiracy, and this is UNDISPUTED by biblical scholars. Quit talking out of your ass.</p>
<p>-Look up "almah," the word used in the original hebrew scriptures. Translated, it means "young woman." If "virgin" was intended, "bethulah" would have been used instead.</p>
<p>-When the scriptures were translated into Greek for the Septuagint, the word was mistranslated into "parthenos." Virgin.</p>
<p>QED.</p>
<p>But yeah drummerdude, you're obviously more versed on the material than I am, so I'll take you up on that advice. I should "read the other side," as you have obviously done.</p>
<p>^ burned! so badly!</p>
<p>You are both idiots. I haven't even touched the DaVinci code. There is no conspiracy, and this is UNDISPUTED by biblical scholars. Quit talking out of your ass.</p>
<p>Uh, okay, no matter how you slice it, you are still discussing a THEORY about a fallacy of the Bible. The Da Vinci Code deals with many of these "conspiracies". I most assuredly believe that you did not come up with that accusation yourself. Also, which Biblical Scholars made this "undisputed fact" I need proof before you make such claims!</p>
<pre><code> Oh, and cut the slander, if you can't argue in a civilized manner, go to the Princeton Review forums. Okay?
</code></pre>
<p>BobX3,</p>
<pre><code>Who was burned so badly? Not I, of course!
</code></pre>
<p>-Look up "almah," the word used in the original hebrew scriptures. Translated, it means "young woman." If "virgin" was intended, "bethulah" would have been used instead.</p>
<p>-When the scriptures were translated into Greek for the Septuagint, the word was mistranslated into "parthenos." Virgin.</p>
<hr>
<p>I think thats a burn. Right there. Can you see it?</p>
<p>Yes, that's some pretty hardcore burnage evidence.</p>
<p>Even if it were a complete lie (which I doubt), I liked the delivery.</p>
<p>Well played, Debaser.</p>
<p>Well, we could use the pithy proverb as follows: You say tomatoe, I say Tomata." The inspired writer of God may have used that word instead for symbolism, or another means. There are so many "ifs", Bob, that we can not warrant this small variation as the "be all to end all" for the Bible. Lets analyze a tad more; perhaps we will find out more!</p>
<pre><code> A good writer would not use the exact same word each time needed. I find this "detrimental find" of the Bible to be superficial at best.
</code></pre>
<p>Slander? Are you joking? You did the same thing, thinly veiled by accusing me of being a DaVinci Code fan, because you assumed I wasn't presenting facts, only conspiracy theories. So you're a civilized idiot. Thumbs up.</p>
<p>And now you sound like a pretentious, civilized idiot. You apparently don't know what a fallacy is, since what I'm arguing has nothing to do with logical proposition. I'm explaining a simple mistranslation, which you have done nothing to refute. This is not a theory, these facts are easily verifiable, NOT TO MENTION IN THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, TRANSLATED CORRECTLY.</p>
<p>The authors of the Bible were inspired by nothing except their thirst for power.</p>
<p>In any case, the mistranslation in this case changes doctrine, the pronunciation of a word does not change its meaning.</p>
<p>oh man its esquared, whats up? where ya going?</p>
<p>Oh nothing much at all, my sexy friend. I am going to hell.</p>
<p>As far as schools though, It's U Chi.....some may consider the two one in the same.</p>
<p>Hell? Awsome man, I meet you there in about 60 years. Congrats on the Chicago, watch for the squirrels.</p>
<p>Yes, I've heard they really have it in for nuts.</p>
<p>har har double entendre.</p>
<p>Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmp</p>