- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,116
- Reaction score
- 2,183
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
KJV-onlyists like to claim that the modern versions "deny the virgin birth" because at Luke 2:33, they typically read "his father and mother" rather than "Joseph and his mother." This, we are informed, denies the virgin birth because it implies that Jesus' father was Joseph, and not God.
Of course, to reach this conclusion, we're supposed to have ignored:
and
The reason for this is not that the modern versions (in this case, the ESV) actually deny the virgin birth. Far from it, obviously, if Luke manages to mention Mary's virginity three times in the space of a paragraph. Rather, it's because the KJV-onlyists think Christians are stupid and have the memory of a goldfish.
Never mind that thing you read in chapter 1. When you turn the page to chapter 2, that doesn't count any more. Never mind that Joseph was assumed to be the father of Jesus (Luke 3:23) as the husband of Mary, that he raised Jesus, taught him the family trade, and had parental authority over him (Luke 2:51). Never mind all that. The ESV calls Joseph his "father" (Luke 2:33), but it can't possibly mean that Joseph was Jesus' stepfather or adoptive father or foster father or legal father or whatever you want to call it. It has to mean biological father, and therefore all that stuff you read about Mary's virginity in chapter 1 doesn't matter any more.
This is how "hermeneutics" is done in the KJV-only fantasy world.
Oh, but it gets better. Because there's Luke 2:41:
"His parents"? Not "his parent and Joseph"? Well, parents do typically come in pairs: mother and father, or at least someone standing in for one and/or the other. We know that Mary was his mother. So that makes Joseph his what? His father, of course.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
But the real icing on the KJV-only stupidity cake? Luke 2:48:
Well, there you have it. If anyone knew the details of Jesus' birth, it was Jesus' mother. She was, after all, the one person we know with 100% certainty was there.
But that's not good enough for the KJV clowns:
Yep. Jesus "corrected her." Presumably Mary wasn't there when Gabriel told her she would be the mother of the Christ despite her virginity. Mary didn't really know who the father was!
Even the KJV isn't good enough for KJV-onlyists. In order for KJV-onlyists to argue that the modern versions deny the virgin birth, they must also claim that the Virgin Mary denies the virgin birth.
Yes. They are really that stupid. Behold the weapons-grade mental retardation that is KJV-onlyism.
Of course, to reach this conclusion, we're supposed to have ignored:
and
The reason for this is not that the modern versions (in this case, the ESV) actually deny the virgin birth. Far from it, obviously, if Luke manages to mention Mary's virginity three times in the space of a paragraph. Rather, it's because the KJV-onlyists think Christians are stupid and have the memory of a goldfish.
Never mind that thing you read in chapter 1. When you turn the page to chapter 2, that doesn't count any more. Never mind that Joseph was assumed to be the father of Jesus (Luke 3:23) as the husband of Mary, that he raised Jesus, taught him the family trade, and had parental authority over him (Luke 2:51). Never mind all that. The ESV calls Joseph his "father" (Luke 2:33), but it can't possibly mean that Joseph was Jesus' stepfather or adoptive father or foster father or legal father or whatever you want to call it. It has to mean biological father, and therefore all that stuff you read about Mary's virginity in chapter 1 doesn't matter any more.
This is how "hermeneutics" is done in the KJV-only fantasy world.
Oh, but it gets better. Because there's Luke 2:41:
"His parents"? Not "his parent and Joseph"? Well, parents do typically come in pairs: mother and father, or at least someone standing in for one and/or the other. We know that Mary was his mother. So that makes Joseph his what? His father, of course.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
But the real icing on the KJV-only stupidity cake? Luke 2:48:
Well, there you have it. If anyone knew the details of Jesus' birth, it was Jesus' mother. She was, after all, the one person we know with 100% certainty was there.
But that's not good enough for the KJV clowns:
Biblebeliever said:
Yep. Jesus "corrected her." Presumably Mary wasn't there when Gabriel told her she would be the mother of the Christ despite her virginity. Mary didn't really know who the father was!
Even the KJV isn't good enough for KJV-onlyists. In order for KJV-onlyists to argue that the modern versions deny the virgin birth, they must also claim that the Virgin Mary denies the virgin birth.
Yes. They are really that stupid. Behold the weapons-grade mental retardation that is KJV-onlyism.