RE: Virgin Birth

From: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM (
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 18:01:53 EST

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "Re: Good bye Eve!?"

    Thanks, Dave, for presenting points that I was hoping to make, but didn't
    get around to do.

    Just to add, a couple of points.

    I always have mixed feeling when a biblical phenomenon like a "virgin
    conception" goes from an "impossibility" to an explainable event, because
    once we can explain a miracle, maybe we lost more than we gained, replacing
    faith with knowledge.

    Second of all, I cannot understand how someone can hope to negate the event
    by parsing Isaiah 7:14. What ever those words mean, Mary herself made the
    claim that she "knew no man" (Luke 1:34.) One can call her a liar, or claim
    that the passage is in error, but that is a far cry from claiming Virgin
    Conception is a misunderstanding of scripture.

    Lastly, there was some mention earlier about the early belief that men
    solely produce the "seed" that produced children.

    I supposed that all you Genesis fans know of the claim that Genesis 3:15 is
    a messianic prophesy:

    God told the serpent-
    "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and
    her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the
    heel." (NAS)

    The reference to "her seed" has been proposed as an indication of Immaculate

    Norm Woodward
    Robins AFB Georgia

    -----Original Message-----
    From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. []
    Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:08 PM
    Subject: Re: Virgin Birth

    On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:21:31 -0500 (Keith B Miller)
    > Jon asked:
    > >> Now I take the Virgin Birth as a "given". In that case, in the
    > light of
    > >> the modern understanding of what happens at conception, how do
    > we
    > >> understand it, and more importantly, what is the theological
    > >> justification?
    > My currrent view on this is that the virgin birth was a "sign"
    > pointing to
    > the incarnation. It, like the resurrection, was an affirmation of
    > Jesus'
    > divine character. I guess I would say that the virgin birth was not
    > a
    > requirement for the incarnation but a sign pointing to it.
    > I would value the response of those with theological training of
    > which I
    > have none.
    > Keith
    Though there have been other items in this chain, I go back to put in
    some general comments on the matter of the virgin birth. First, if Jesus
    were normally conceived, then for the divine to take over would have been
    identical to the action of demons in taking over the identity of a
    person, a usurpation. This does not seem to be appropriate to the way God

    Second, if a person could live a perfect life so as not to be under
    condemnation, and decide to give his perfection to a sinner and take up
    the sinner's guilt, this would juridically be sufficient only for the
    one, not for all the other children of Adam. The value of the sacrifice
    has to be equal to the total guilt to provide an atonement for all. The
    only way for this to occur is for the infinite to be joined to the finite
    to produce a human life of infinite value. This cannot be an explanation
    of the hypostatic union, but indicates its necessity.

    Third, any form of human parthenogenesis without direct divine
    involvement could only duplicate the haploid female genome, which lacks
    the genes on the Y chromosome necessary for developing as a male. I
    believe that there are a few persons with two X chromosomes who have bits
    of Y inserted in a somatic chromosome, who have a male phenotype that may
    be "messed up." As a consequence, I think the virgin birth goes beyond
    being a sign or affirmation to being a necessity.

    Finally, although the term in Isaiah 7:14 means "young woman," LXX makes
    it "virgin," which is the way Matthew 1:23 cites it. There must be a
    solid reason for the virgin birth, since both Matthew and Luke state it.
    (Yes, George, I know you differentiate the virgin birth from the virgin
    conception, but I use the familiar terminology.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 18:02:27 EST