From the Hebrew the terms refer to Jesus in His deity. He is the mighty God. It could not be clearer. Everlasting Father in Hebrew reads, "avi ad" or "Father of eternity." It is not using the term "father" in a paternal sense. It is using the term in a way that points to the origin of something else. We say that Alexander Graham Bell is the "father" of modern telecommunications. That is the way "father" is being used. Jesus is the "father" of the eternity. He is the architect of ages. Jesus is the Creator according to John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-18 and Hebrews 1:1-3. Jesus is the point of origin for the universe and He is the sovereign architect and Lord of the ages. The child born is Jesus in his humanity; the son given is Jesus in his deity. The terms that follow are terms that speak of Jesus deity and glorify the one to whom they apply. God doesn't share His glory. So if the child/son is glorified by being called a Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, Father of eternity and Prince of Peace, and God doesn't share glory, the child in that verse must be God.
That's also true in cases where a man is raising the children of his deceased brother. Sometimes, nephews are called sons in genealogies in the Bible. Atheists have, in the past, tried to jump on this as a discrepancy, that a man's nephew is called his son and so the Bible can't be inerrant. But in the ancient near east, that is not a problem because to have one's nephews considered as one's sons was a common concept, especially if one's brother died and you were obligated as his brother to raise his sons as your own.
Atheists can't come up with REAL contradictions. Atheists are intellectual lightweights when it comes to find actual, genuine contradictions, because there are none. Bible is not a blow-by-blow, minute-by-minute account of history. Much of it is telescoped and so a lot of details are left out, or as in the case of the four Gospels, details in one account are left out in another account of the same event. None of the silly "contradictions" that atheists try to drum up never occur in major passages. They are always found in obscure historical accounts and most of the time, they a revelation of the ignorance of atheists and their inability to study the Bible. They demonstrate that atheists don't under the ancient near eastern mindset, and it also demonstrates their historical and biblical illiteracy. Don't let atheists intimidate you with their ridiculous attempts at trying to pull up mythical contradictions. What you will never find in the Bible is some on the level of one place saying that Judas committed suicide in one passage and another passage claiming that Judas was killed by a Roman soldier. You will never find them bringing up a TRUE contradiction, because they simply don't exist.
"Did Michal Have Children?
II Samuel 6:23: Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
sons = zero
II Samuel 21:8: The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
sons = five"
this search revealed several resources/answers in line with Scripture: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=did+michal+have+children%3F
Here's the shortest one, in agreement with Scripture: copied from a believers resource: Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
8. the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel—Merab, Michal's sister, was the wife of Adriel; but Michal adopted and brought up the boys under her care.
It's really not a problem. They simply moved the body to Shechem. He was originally buried in the cave and later the body was moved so that Jacob and his sons would be buried in the same place. Stephen was aware of that later fact even though it was not spelled out in the OT.
Always remember God's Word is sure, true, faithful, alive, permanent, unchanging, and forever. No matter what you think or anyone else thinks, if there is any difficulty, it is with men, not with God.
Some difficulties may not be resolved in this lifetime. God's Word won't suffer any.
Some difficulties may not be resolved for decades. God's Word remains True and Unchanged.
for Jacob's burial, again, it is men who made it difficult, not God.
it may be easily resolved by bullinger and other men of God if this is
the case >
The difficulty in Acts 7:15, 16 arises from confusing
two distinct purchases; one by Abraham in Genesis 23:19, and another by Jacob in Genesis
33:18, 19; and Joshua 24:32.
Abraham's purchase was of Ephron the Hittite in Hebron; a field, with a cave (Machpelah) at the
end of it, for 400 shekels of silver.
Jacob's purchase was "a parcel of a field" in Shechem, of the sons of Hamor the father of
Shechem for 100 lambs.
As to the historical record, the burials in Abraham's sepulchre were Sarah (Gen 23:19),
Abraham (Gen 25:9), Isaac (Gen 35:29), Rebekah and Leah (Gen 49:31), and Jacob (Gen
The burials in Jacob's field were Joseph (Josh 24:32), and, according to Acts 7:16, the other sons
of Jacob who were carried over into Sychem.
Acts 7:15, 16 agrees with this history if we note two simple Various Readings of the Greek
supported by most of the Textual Editors (see Canon XII); and if we remember that the
circumstances were so well known to Stephen's hearers that they perfectly understood what he
said. Though they were waiting to catch something out of his lips, yet they saw nothing to
The two readings are ω (ho), in that which, instead of ο (ho), that (before Abraham); and εν
(en), in, instead of του (tou), of [the], in the phrase "[the father] of Sychem." In which case we
read "in Sychem," and do not read the italics "the father" or the word "of" before Sychem.
With these changes the verses will read as follows:
"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and they [our
fathers] were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre: he [Jacob] in
that which Abraham bought for a sum of money, [and they in that which was
bought] from the sons of Hamor, in Sychem."
Thus, Jacob was buried in the sepulchre which Abraham bought; and his sons were afterwards
buried in that which Jacob bought. The historic record is perfectly simple and clear; and no
difficulty whatever exists, except in the minds of those who create it.
Yes I've looked at this from the Jewish point of view and I disagree with your translation of this verse. I honestly believe you are doing what I have seen you accuse others of doing, translating this verse through the lens of your beliefs instead of letting the bible translate itself. If Jesus is not God then he was just another man, like me or you, unfit to be a spotless sacrifice and it would be impossible for him to be sinless. Only God is without sin, Only God can forgive sin. If Jesus is not God then what is he, what exactly is Jesus if he is not God? I don't see what is so complicated about this. You are a body, a spirit, and a soul. You are all 3 but 1. All 3 can separated one from the other but all 3 are still 100% you. We were made after the image of God. Just as we are 3 but 1 so is God. God the Father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit. All 3 separate and distinct but yet all 3 are 1 and all 3 still the same person, God . If we are 3 but 1 why is it so hard to grasp that God is as well? P.S. Do me a favor, go look at how every other translation renders this verse. None of them say what you do, None!
A bishop of the Church of the Brethren in Nigeria said that Boko Haram has killed thousands of his denomination's members, destroyed most of his churches and left many of his pastors without a congregation, according to the Christian Post. View the full article
Grace and Faith , free unmerited gifts from Yahweh in Yeshua Messiah. They cannot be bought with money.
Yahweh does not accept bribes or money for saving someone, nor to forgive anyone. That is blasphemy and heresy.
"Are Catholics Saved By Grace?
Catholics like to say they are saved by grace, and then point to their catechism , where one might read:
However, they usually fail to mention that the Catholic version of God not only takes back His gift of grace, but even un-adopts His adopted children when they sin. Betcha you never thought of God as an Indian giver. The Catholic clone of God is.
GRACE, HABITUAL The created supernatural gift of God which places a person in a state of permanent friendship with God. It is not something merely extrinsic or imputed to the person "as if" he were pleasing to God but rather it is a real and intrinsic change by which the person is now an adopted child of God. Through habitual grace the person is united to God Himself, Uncreated Grace or Gift.
Habitual grace is lost by any mortal sin,
and may be regained through sacramental confession or, if this is impossible, through an act of perfect contrition.--Albert J. Nevins, Ed., The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, Grosset&Dunlap (1965), p. 255 - w/Nihil obstat & Imprimitur [My emphasis]
So there you have it. God gives habitual grace to a Catholic and by this puts the recipient in permanent friendship with God. In fact, the recipient of habitual grace becomes an adopted child of God."
Clearly, the above is talking about the Catholic God, who is not the God of Scripture. The Catholic deity seems to be an Indian giver. He gives habitual grace and makes a guy his adopted child and permanent friend. Then, when the guy makes a major booboo, the Catholic deity takes back his permanent friendship and cancels the adoption. Later, if the guy makes a good confession or perfect act of contrition, he gets to be the Catholic deity's permanent friend again and the adoption is re-instated
-- until the next mortal sin.
Talk about your roller coaster rides."
from > http://www.lazyboysreststop.org/apol68.htm
Galations.2;20>I am crucified with Christ,neverthe less,I live,yet not I,But CHRIST LIVITH IN ME,and the life which I now live in the flesh.I live by faith,of the son of God,who loveth me,and gave himself for me.....Amen..