Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   corroboration of virgin birth, history of medical science
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 34 (111170)
05-28-2004 2:49 PM


The Bible gives three accounts of very unusual births. The birth of Isaac by Sarah. The birth of John the Baptist through Elizabeth (John was picked to be the forerunner of Jesus's ministry that was going to take place. John was also filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb and he lept in his womb when he was near Mary/Jesus). Now the last very unusual birth in the Bible was Jesus of course.
Now one would not be surprised if a very unusual birth took place without much trouble. In fact, one would not be surprised if it were a medical textbook example of a healthy pregnancy. After all if evil men like Mussolini and Hitler can "make the trains run on time" (see: He made the trains run on time you know — Crooked Timber and http://www.ishipress.com/hitler.htm and http://www.rnw.nl/en/html/insite020112.html ) it would not be surprising if the Almighty created a medical textbook example of healthy birth.
Consider this information from a website:
"I was in the Luther Library at the Lutheran Seminary in North Adelaide and browsing through some books on the Recent Acquisitions shelf.
In a book about WOMEN IN ROMAN BRITAIN I was surprised to learn that ancient Roman doctors were uncertain how long human pregnancy lasts. Some said 11 months, some said 8 months. "Here’s a test for the theory of Biblical Inerrancy," I thought to myself.
Biblical Inerrancy is:
"The doctrine that the Bible, in all it teaches, is free from error."
(COMPACT DICTIONARY OF DOCTRINAL WORDS 1988 T. L. Miethe)
The Bible makes many references to pregnancy. If any such references include a statement on how long pregnancy in humans lasts there is potential for error. If the Romans were wrong why shouldn’t the Bible be wrong too?
The Bible in Luke chapter one discusses the pregnancy of the mother of John the Baptist. Verse 36 mentions Elizabeth’s "sixth month". Next elapsed enough time for Mary (Jesus’ mother) to travel from Nazareth to Judea where Elizabeth livedabout 150 kilometres. (Luke 1:39) That may have taken about a week. Then followed 3 months. (Luke 1:56) And: "Now the time came for Elizabeth to be delivered." (1:57)
Obviously, Elizabeth’s pregnancy was about 9 months.
The book THE HUMAN SPECIES (1961) by Anthony Barnett presents a study of 537 pregnancies of white American women. The percentages giving birth in certain numbers of days were:
Before 266th day 12.7%
266-272 days 12.3%
273-279 days 22.0%
On 280th day 3.7%
281-287 days 24.2%
288-294 days 15.6%
After 294th day 9.4%
Elizabeth’s term of pregnancy was clearly well within what modern research reveals to be average."
taken from: ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
Now is a statistically average pregnancy length a more "perfect birth" in terms of health. I do not know. Is there a doctor in the house?
By the way, here is the citation for a book mentioned above:
Allason-Jones, L. (1989), Women in Roman Britain (London: B.M.P.)
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 05-28-2004 3:20 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2004 3:26 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 10 by custard, posted 05-28-2004 5:24 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2004 6:50 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 34 by Rekkr, posted 11-23-2004 1:46 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 34 (111171)
05-28-2004 3:02 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 34 (111173)
05-28-2004 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
05-28-2004 2:49 PM


I guess what is at issue here isn't the length of the pregnancies, but the divine nature of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 05-28-2004 2:49 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 34 (111175)
05-28-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
05-28-2004 2:49 PM


I suggest the title be changed - this doesn't in any way corroborate a virgin birth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 05-28-2004 2:49 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 34 (111177)
05-28-2004 3:34 PM


to: ALL
TO: ALL
I try to find Christian apologetic works which are less widely known like my Mosaic Dietary Code string rather than rehash things that are widely known and have been discussed at length in the public square (Another example would be my Jonah string which discussed whale gullet size among other things).
I did ask in my first post to this string "Is there a doctor in the house?" in regards to a question I raised. June, July, and August are my busy work season. I will return to this string in September to see if anyone found anything to the question I raised. If I run across any apologetic works that are less known, I think I will probably introduce these at EVCFORUM in the future. Perhaps, I will connect with Percy in the future again to put these in via columns which he suggested I offer.
To Custard:
Custard if you are reading this I suggest you relook at Mosaic Dietary string since you made an error (puffer fish) plus I offered additional commentary on that string. See my string regarding lionfish. I cannot post in your string. Talk to Asgara and Percy about this restriction.
Sincerely,
Ken

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 34 (111178)
05-28-2004 3:41 PM


TO: Crashfrog
TO: Crashfrog
If one very unusual birth, namely John the baptist, is medical textbook in length as far a healthy birth then it lends some credence to the virgin birth which is closely associated with. Let us not forget that it appears the 9 month duration may have not been widely known if we are to use the Roman doctor citation.
By the way, have you looked up the Dr. Macht study published by John Hopkins? I noticed you are not very active in this string and since you are prolific I found the absence unusual. Please see: http://EvC Forum: The Mosaic Law food laws show evidence of divine knowledge? Law advanced other ways? -->EvC Forum: The Mosaic Law food laws show evidence of divine knowledge? Law advanced other ways? regarding the Mosaic food laws and the Macht study. If you do look up the Macht study do not forget to be fairminded.
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2004 4:10 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 34 (111183)
05-28-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kendemyer
05-28-2004 3:41 PM


If one very unusual birth, namely John the baptist, is medical textbook in length as far a healthy birth then it lends some credence to the virgin birth which is closely associated with.
No more than the fact that coal fits in stockings lends credence to the existence of Santa Claus.
Seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kendemyer, posted 05-28-2004 3:41 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 34 (111196)
05-28-2004 5:11 PM


to: all, my assumption
TO: ALL
I am assuming the "6 month" refers to the time from when she knew she was pregnant.
Sincerely,
Ken

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 34 (111199)
05-28-2004 5:14 PM


clarifcation
more specific clarification:
The initial post reads:
"The Bible in Luke chapter one discusses the pregnancy of the mother of John the Baptist. Verse 36 mentions Elizabeth’s "sixth month"."
I am assuming this six month refers to the time she first was aware she became pregnant.
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Trixie, posted 05-28-2004 5:42 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 34 (111201)
05-28-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kendemyer
05-28-2004 2:49 PM


Surely you must be joking!
(I'm not joking... and don't call me Shirley).
Sorry but after reading this particular gem I couldn't help but think of Airplane.
After all if evil men like Mussolini and Hitler can "make the trains run on time" it would not be surprising if the Almighty created a medical textbook example of healthy birth.
K, you commit a half a dozen logical errors here. False Analogy is only one of them as one part of your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Nothing.
From this statement, and using your logic, I can infer the Almighty is like Hitler and Mussolini: a fascist. Better yet, I can infer that Hitler and Mussolini are deities because their acts of making trains run on time is comparable to god's ability to create a textbook birth.
See how this goes? It's nonsense. I think I see the point you endeavor to make, but this type of faulty logic so undermines your argument that it is difficult to take you seriously.
I'm not at all trying to be rude here, but I strongly suggest, nay, urge you to visit this site (Forbidden)and at least read through it. It will help learn what types of fallacies to avoid, and, hopefully, help you to formulate stronger arguments that are more logically sound.
This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 04:27 PM
This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 04:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kendemyer, posted 05-28-2004 2:49 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 34 (111206)
05-28-2004 5:38 PM


me thinks custard protest too much!
TO: Custard
It is perfectly exceptable to say A can do B and we would at the very least expect C to do D given that C is All powerful.
I think in addition to your logic course you need to consider common sense.
By the way, I receive in A in logic at the college I took it at.
TO: ALL
Preventative measure
I did say Hitler was evil. You can use the word God and Hitler in the same sentence in polite company. I also made no reference to Hitler being some how on par with God in his abilities. In short, no foul committed here. The Bible says all have sinned. There are more people than Hitler and a few other evil despots in hell.
Sincerely,
Ken
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-28-2004 5:43 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 05-28-2004 5:44 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 22 by sidelined, posted 05-28-2004 7:41 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 12 of 34 (111208)
05-28-2004 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by kendemyer
05-28-2004 5:14 PM


Re: clarifcation
Since most women discover that they're pregnant at about 6 weeks, and some not until three months then, taking the minimum of a month and a half, Elizabeth would be 7.5 months pregnant when Mary arrived. Three months later is 10.5 months. Taking the maximum Elizabeth would be 12 months pregnant.
Bear in mind the definition of a month in pregnancy terms. A human pregnancy is said to be 40 weeks long. If you divide that by four, you get 10 months. However, if you actually work it out based on calendar months, you find that it's nine months. So a human pregnancy is nine CALENDAR months.
Since bleeding in the early stages of pregnancy is common (25-30%) and often occurs when the woman's period is due, it isn't until the following month that a true missed period is noticed and a pregnancy test done. We know that the pregnancy is older than the bleeding suggests because we have ultrasound now, but back in Biblical times they didn't have this luxury, which goes some way to explaining the lengths of pregnancy given by the Romans you cited.
I don't think that Elizabeth having a nine month pregnancy supports in any way the Virgin Birth. Your logic is faulty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kendemyer, posted 05-28-2004 5:14 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 34 (111209)
05-28-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by kendemyer
05-28-2004 5:38 PM


Re: me thinks custard protest too much!
By the way, I receive in A in logic at the college I took it at.
Well, it's not a double negative.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kendemyer, posted 05-28-2004 5:38 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 34 (111210)
05-28-2004 5:43 PM


edit
tO: all
re: previous post
exceptable = acceptable

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 34 (111211)
05-28-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by kendemyer
05-28-2004 5:38 PM


Re: me thinks custard protest too much!
If it's already given that C is all-powerful, then what A can or cannot do is irrelevant, and the analogy adds nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kendemyer, posted 05-28-2004 5:38 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024