Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!fortune!brower
From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Virgin Birth per duke!nlt
Message-ID: <5212@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 18:57:48 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.5212
Posted: Wed Apr 24 18:57:48 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 04:35:40 EST
References: <1005@vax135.UUCP>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 15
Summary: 

In article <1005@vax135.UUCP> gks@vax135.UUCP (Ken Swanson) writes:
>it is currently
>disputed (as it has been through the centuries) by SOME Christians(?)
>who obviously must not believe in the inspired and infallible
>written word of God, the Bible.
>
>Matt 1:18 (NAS) :
>	Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother
>	Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together
>	she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

I don't see the word "virgin" in that passage anywhere.
-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower