Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The
virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him
Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18)
But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”
“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God.”
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her. (Like 1:30-18)
For a long time, scientists and those who worship them said that these passages are proof that the Bible is a lie. Everyone knows that it requires a male and a female to produce a child. Somewhere along the line, however, they noticed something about certain animals. They discovered that some plants, nematodes, water fleas, scorpions, aphids, mites, bees, parasitic wasps, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and (rarely) birds are able to produce offspring using only the female’s eggs.[1] It is a process known as parthenogenesis.
Several years ago, an agnostic/atheist friend challenged me with this concept. He notes that sharks are capable of parthenogenesis, so the so-called virgin birth is no longer miraculous. It’s just an extremely rare normal biological event in most of the animal kingdom. The noted exception is the mammal, because mammal genetic development involves an imprinting of genetic information that is not present in all the other classes of animals.
Even so, scientists are even claiming now to induce parthenogenesis as a means of producing a blastocyst, which can be mined for stem cells.[2] According to the scientists involved, this does not involve killing a human because when this sort of thing happens naturally in humans, the embryo either dies on its own, or becomes a tumor. It is incapable of developing into a human being. “If sharks… then humans” doesn’t happen to be true, and if it did happen, according to scientists, the resulting child would be a girl. Rather than discounting the possibility of the miracle of Jesus being born of a virgin, science is proving that it would have taken a miracle. Funny how scientists are verifying what Scripture says even as they claim that what Scripture says is wrong.
The next objection is more reasonable. The word in Isaiah that is translated virgin can also be, and often is translated as “young woman,” or “young maiden.” It does not specifically have to refer to a virgin. The young woman to whom the verse in Isaiah immediately referred was very likely a virgin at the time the prophecy was given, but did not remain so through the birth of the child described. It’s been suggested to me that hijacking the verse and applying it to Mary and Jesus is somehow inappropriate. At the very least, the claim that Mary had to be a virgin when Jesus was conceived as a fulfillment of that verse is, it is suggested, twisting Scripture.
My answer to this idea is that Scripture is filled with prophecies with multiple fulfillments: immediate and ultimate, applying to someone else and applying to Jesus. The passage in Isiah was came true in Isaiah’s day. It became more true, supernaturally true, in about 4 BC. The former does not discount the latter. And, as the friend who has mention this points out, “young maiden” or “young woman” does not mean that virgin is inaccurate. Young maidens/women were supposed to be virgins. The questions around the passage in Isaiah, while interesting, do not invalidate the gospel passages.
“Born of a virgin?” Biologically ridiculous, especially in 4 BC. But entirely possible for a God who earlier cause everything else to come into existence by commanding it to do so.
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18)
But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”
“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God.”
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her. (Like 1:30-18)
For a long time, scientists and those who worship them said that these passages are proof that the Bible is a lie. Everyone knows that it requires a male and a female to produce a child. Somewhere along the line, however, they noticed something about certain animals. They discovered that some plants, nematodes, water fleas, scorpions, aphids, mites, bees, parasitic wasps, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and (rarely) birds are able to produce offspring using only the female’s eggs.[1] It is a process known as parthenogenesis.
Several years ago, an agnostic/atheist friend challenged me with this concept. He notes that sharks are capable of parthenogenesis, so the so-called virgin birth is no longer miraculous. It’s just an extremely rare normal biological event in most of the animal kingdom. The noted exception is the mammal, because mammal genetic development involves an imprinting of genetic information that is not present in all the other classes of animals.
Even so, scientists are even claiming now to induce parthenogenesis as a means of producing a blastocyst, which can be mined for stem cells.[2] According to the scientists involved, this does not involve killing a human because when this sort of thing happens naturally in humans, the embryo either dies on its own, or becomes a tumor. It is incapable of developing into a human being. “If sharks… then humans” doesn’t happen to be true, and if it did happen, according to scientists, the resulting child would be a girl. Rather than discounting the possibility of the miracle of Jesus being born of a virgin, science is proving that it would have taken a miracle. Funny how scientists are verifying what Scripture says even as they claim that what Scripture says is wrong.
The next objection is more reasonable. The word in Isaiah that is translated virgin can also be, and often is translated as “young woman,” or “young maiden.” It does not specifically have to refer to a virgin. The young woman to whom the verse in Isaiah immediately referred was very likely a virgin at the time the prophecy was given, but did not remain so through the birth of the child described. It’s been suggested to me that hijacking the verse and applying it to Mary and Jesus is somehow inappropriate. At the very least, the claim that Mary had to be a virgin when Jesus was conceived as a fulfillment of that verse is, it is suggested, twisting Scripture.
My answer to this idea is that Scripture is filled with prophecies with multiple fulfillments: immediate and ultimate, applying to someone else and applying to Jesus. The passage in Isiah was came true in Isaiah’s day. It became more true, supernaturally true, in about 4 BC. The former does not discount the latter. And, as the friend who has mention this points out, “young maiden” or “young woman” does not mean that virgin is inaccurate. Young maidens/women were supposed to be virgins. The questions around the passage in Isaiah, while interesting, do not invalidate the gospel passages.
“Born of a virgin?” Biologically ridiculous, especially in 4 BC. But entirely possible for a God who earlier cause everything else to come into existence by commanding it to do so.
Comments
Post a Comment