Albeit the point of that article was not the virgin birth, let s continue on this discussion. The arguments I am assuming you will give and based on the link proceed on the misconception that the Bible was not reliably handed down to us, but was altered along the way.

Now, while this fallacy has been successfully debunked in our recent history it seems it still has an appeal to many. John Warwick Montgomery said regarding this, “To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books it to allow for all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”

- Virgin Birth is implied in Genesis 3:15
- Isaiah 7:14 (for help in translating the word ‘Almah’ from Hebrew see its use in Gen 24:43 and Psalm 68:25). Further difficulty will be had in explaining how it is a ’sign’ if it is not something significant.
- Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35)
- There are many other issues, like the New Testament use of ‘only Begotten’ etc, however these arguments are pointless if the text itself is not agreed upon and the Scripture is made to say whatever an individual wants.

What the Bible says is the father of Jesus was someone other than the man his mother married.

This was unacdceptable for the Church fathers. On the basis of a mistranslation and twisting Jewish idiom into a Greek mould they upgraded his birth to something acceptable to the Greek mind.

You may find these articles on virgin birth of interest and coming from an unusual angle

(X)

and, similarly the debate on TheologyWeb:

Forum — General Theistics 101
Thread — Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

(X)

Good question. What I mean by ‘blind faith’ is merely accepting something, but not being able to question it, or to put it differently; accepting something on the basis of some abstract authority that you must just assume it has. So for example, the things you set forward (i.e some tensions in the Bible) we accept, not by blind faith, since the things in Scripture which we are able to test (E.g. prophecy, some geography, some science, conformity of theme as in no contradictions) lead us to believe that what is written in areas which we can not test are also reliable and truth. Thus our basis for accepting Scripture, is not just ‘because’, but rather because it can be proven to be faithful in many areas, so that we have reason to have faith in other areas.

At the end you mention the possibility of someone making a fatal mistake in building the boat. The theme of this article is Doctrine and its importance, however a related theme which I will be writing about as we continue leads to verse found in 1 John, which say that one who is saved, essentially will not be taken by false doctrine (bad parts) for too long, but will be brought into a sound orthodox understanding by the Holy Spirit.

Hope that answers. Thanks for the read

Is blind faith always a bad thing? From personal experience, there are quite a few things in my life, that I would say I take on ‘blind faith’, which may need a little clarification – Blind Faith: I believe it because the Bible teaches it, yet I certainly don’t understand how it fits into the greater picture.

Predestination for example, I believe the Bible emphatically teaches predestination, yet I am at a loss to explain His choosing methods and how He can work all things for the good of those who love Him, but not for those who don’t. (Human nature wants control and a fairness).

I know it’s a different story than that of the virgin Mary, cause that guy explicitly believes something taught in scripture doesn’t matter. What I’m trying to ask in a really round about way is…

Theres a wealth of knowledge in the Bible, and you’ve gotta start out someplace, i.e. not knowing a great deal, will your boat still go if you plug in a black box labeled engine, but don’t know exactly how it works?