Your point is valid concerning married couples. It is not valid concerning Mary and Joseph, however.
In Scripture, it is often the seemingly insignificant word that has the most meaning. And at the end of Matthew there is a little greek word "eos" which is translated "until." In this particular case, it is eos ou, which according to the Greek Lexicon, when it is with the neutral relative pronoun ou or otou, it gets the force of a conjunction, until, till (the time when);...http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=25&strongs=2193&page=1&flag_full=1
Thus, when one looks at the actual greek, there is not a question that Joseph knew Mary. Rather, the Bible states that he witheld from marital relations with her UNTIL (or up to the time when) Jesus was born. Mat 1:25
Incidentally, it also refers to Jesus as Mary's firstborn (prototokon) son. The implication is that there was also a second born. Since Jesus's brother's and sisters are mentioned in Scripture as well, it is within reason to take this to mean that at least some of these were Mary's biological children (when one accompanies it with Jesus being her firstborn).
You've been warned.
And this is what the Greek Orthodox Church has to say about that:
Another objection to the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is that the Scriptures use the word “until” or “till” in Matthew 1:25: “. . . and [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.” Whereas in English the word “until” necessarily indicates change after the fact, in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. For instance, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42–46), Matthew 11:23 and 28:20, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word “until” indicate a necessary change. If it did, then apparently among other things we would be meant to understand that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unhappy date in the future He intends to abandon the Church!
Incidentally, it also refers to Jesus as Mary's firstborn (prototokon) son. The implication is that there was also a second born. Since Jesus's brother's and sisters are mentioned in Scripture as well, it is within reason to take this to mean that at least some of these were Mary's biological children
Okay, let's see what the Greek Church has to say about that:
Another objection might be based on the word “firstborn,” prototokos in Greek. The problem again is that the Greek word is not identical in semantic range to the English rendering. The English “firstborn” usually (though, it must be said, not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of prototokos in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a “second-born” Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly “first in all things.” To the contemporary ear, a better translation might indeed be “heir,” which is similarly silent on the subject of other children and carries the same legal and poetic force that is intended by “firstborn.”
You fail to notice that Christ said "Woman behold your son" at the Cross as He gave His Mother to the care of +John. He would have never done that if He had had any blood siblings. Anything else is just plain absurd.
Now you guys can go on an congratulate each other on "irrefutable evidence," a P-Marlow triumphantly observes, to your hearts' content.
Grammar books would tell you that American don't speak and write English correctly, but that's how they speak and write, Blogger. That's the living language that everyone understands, even if it makes "no sense!" People who speak the language define it; not cold grammar books no one follows.
I trust that the Greek Church knows the living liturgical New Testament Greek better than lifeless grammar books, because that's the official language of the Church used at vespers and Divine Liturgies, and has been in an unbroken fashion since Greeks became Christians, fully preserved in its entirety.
If you don't agree with it, as obviously you don't, then state so and move on. (I believe the former part has already been accomplished, so I wonder why the lingering as if that is going to change anything...you know, like eos).
That's not quite right. When used with the genitive of the neuter [not "neutral"] relative pronoun, as it is in Matt 1:25, it is technically an improper preposition of time, not a conjunction.
Thus, when one looks at the actual greek, there is not a question that Joseph knew Mary.
You've never taken any Greek, or you would never have called a neuter pronoun a "neutral" pronoun. The prepositional usage of the term [hews] is ambiguous between (1) up to but not excluding continuation of the action or (2) up to but not after, as I pointed out in #1233. Nothing in Thayer's (or any credible Greek lexicon) shows that it should be taken one way rather than the other in Matt 1:25. Consider how Matthew uses this term in 5:18, where he says, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and eart pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." Jesus is not saying that parts of the Law will be destroyed when everything has been accomplished. Likewise, the usage of this term with the sense that does not exclude continuation of the action can be seen in Matt 10:23; 11:12; 11:23, and many other places.
-A8
There is no indication what happened after Christ was born in Matthew 1:25 because "eos" can just as easily mean "evel till". Compare Mt. 27:8, "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, [eos] this day.".
"Firstborn" is legal status that has nothing to do with subsequent children or their gender.
The word "til" does NOT prove that something happened afterwards...
Marlowe, I hope you don't hit the abuse button here...
Gen 8:7 -- the raven "did not return TILL the waters were dried up..." Question: Did the raven return? NO!
Deut 34:6 -- Moses died "and no one knows his grave TILL this day." Question: Have we found Moses' grave? NO!
2 Sam 6:23 -- Michal "had no children TILL the day of her death." Question: Did she have children after she died? NO!
1 Macc 5:54 -- "...not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace." Was Judas M and his troops killed when they returned? NO!
Luke 1:80 -- John the B "was in the deserts TILL the day of his manifestation to Israel." Did John the B stay in the desert? YES! (cf. Matt 3:1; Mark 1:3-4; Luke 3:2-4)
Rom 8:22 -- "...the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now." Is it still groaning? YES!
1 Cor 15:25 -- "For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet." After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning? YES!
Eph 4:12-13 -- "...for the equipping...for the work of ministry.... for the edifying....TILL we all come to the unity of the faith...." Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be necessary? YES!
1 Tim 4:13 -- "TILL I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." When Paul arrives, no more reading, no more exhorting, no more doctrine? NO!
1 Tim 6:14 -- "....that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing..." When Jesus comes back, we should disobey these commandments? NO!
Rev 2:25-26 -- "But hold fast what you have TILL I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I will give power..." Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns? NO!
clipped from http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num27.htm
Matthew 1:25 does not conclusively prove anything about Mary's virginity.
Regards