Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums


Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Evolutionist Professor Goes Ballistic


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#1
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

Why do you assume I am parroting?  Maybe, I did my homework and felt they had a stronger argument.

 

Okay, then.  Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically.

 

That is a fair challenge but you are implying that Genesis, as 100% historical, is the default position and the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise.  I think we each have to prove our position.

 

You implied that the ancient Jews and prophets took Genesis as historical.  That doesn't prove historicity.  The ancient greeks believed there was a Mt. Olympus.  Does that make Mt. Olympus historical?  Would a trained historian accept your claim as proof.

 

You said Jesus mentioned Adam & Eve so Adam & Eve must have existed.  You need to prove 1) That Jesus took A&E as historical when He mentioned it.  I can mention Dick Tracy to make a point about detective work but I know Dick Tracy doesn't exist.  2)  That Jesus actually mentioned A&E.  To do that, you need to prove the bible as a 100% historical reliable text.  The gospel writer may have included Jesus in his parable.  He may have put the words in Jesus's mouth to give his writing more authority.  He may have misquoted Jesus.

 

For clarification, let me ask you.  Is Genesis 100% factual?  Is any segment allegorical, i.e. the talking snake, the tree A&E were supposed to say away from?

 

 


  • 1

#2
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

I do believe Jesus's mission was salvation but not to be a substitutionary sacrifice(He took the punishment we deserve).

 

Salvation from what, then?   If there is no sin then what precisely did we need salvation from?

 

Evidently, it is safe to say that when you read the Bible, you don't believe what you read in it, right?  Here is what the Bible says:

 

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(Heb 10:10-14)

 

According to you, this passage is wrong.  Why is it wrong?

 

As I said in previous posts, the cross represents the path to personal transformation and freedom from the bondage of sin.

 

How exactly does that work if Jesus didn't for sin as you have previously stated?   Can you work out just how you arrived at that conclusion?  What do you mean by personal transformation?   What is the bondage to sin mean in your estimation?

 

Lets put the book of Hebrews aside.  My point is that there is no indication of sustitutionary sacrifice in the OT, there is no indication from God's actions or words in the OT that He expects substitutionary atonement and that His solution for the sins of the world would be the killing of His Son in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and it had no effect on more serious sins such as stealing someone's camel.


  • 1

#3
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 

 

Are you a Messianic Jew? 

 

Yes.

 

Why do you assume I am parroting?  Maybe, I did my homework and felt they had a stronger argument.

 

Okay, then.  Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically.

 

 

What evidence do you have that Genesis is 100% factual besides so and so believed it?  Even someone as conservative as NT Wright realizes Genesis is not a factual account.

 

OH please... Don't get me started on NT  Wright.  He is hardly a conservative and one of the most dangerous, antisemitic theologians out there.  If you can't provide the internal textual indicators that show the text of Gen. 1-3 need to be taken allegorically, the text must be literal by default.  I don't have to prove anything.  If you can't show the evidence for your claims, the text stands as written.

 

I highly doubt it.  Archaeology can only go so far as to what it can say.  It's can say very little to textual criticism.  I'm beginning to doubt you're as lettered as you appear.  You're arrogance and strong bias is very evident.

 

Sorry, but they are finding all kinds extra-biblical documents dated to the wrong period if the DH were correct.

 

 

Maybe we should turn to something that is less a matter of opinion.  Prophesy.  How about Isaiah 9:6?  Is the subject Jesus?

 

I assume you claim that it is not talking about Jesus, right?   I suppose you will want to explain why it it is some other king or something.

 

Isaiah 9:6 King James Translation: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a child is given:  and the government shall be upon his shoulder:  and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

 

Correct translation from Hebrew:  "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and He, the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace."

 

Isaiah was speaking about someone already born and G-d shall name him Ruler of Peace.

 

Interesting take on that.   Now how about a dose of truth???

 

The problem with your exegesis is that you only quoted part of the prophecy.   The entire prophecy says:

 

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
(Isa 9:6-7)

 

Specific parts of this prophetic word preclude your attempt to make this about someone other than Jesus.    It is a well known fact that during the Middle Ages, RASHI was one of the many Rabbis who were revising Jewish thought and were removing from Messianic prophecies any references to the Messiah they contained and reinterpreted Messianic prophecies to mean something else in an attempt to blunt the ability of Christians to use Messianic prophecies to show Jesus in the Old Testament.

 

So using Jewish commentaries that purposely try to hide the Messianic nature  of Messianic prophecy is a waste of time and bandwidth.  You might as well have just posted, "blah, blah, blah" for what its worth to post a bunch of stuff by Jewish Rabbis.

 

There is NO way that "El Gibbour" can reference anyone other than God in this particular passage.  The context will not allow for it.  Context is far more important than word meaning.  How a phrase or word is used is vital to understanding the text.   You cannot get "strong man" out of El Gibbour.  No one honest about the text would ever translate it that way.

 

Avi-Ad (Everlasting Father) refers to Jesus as "father of eternity."  It is not claiming that Jesus is the Father.  It uses the word "father" in a nonpaternal way, much the same way we use it to refer to Alexander Graham Bell as the "father of modern telecommunications."

 

Even more, in verse 7 of this prophecy, the person who is being called "Mighty God, and the father of eternity is also a descendent of David who will be king and His kingdom will never end.  In fact, it is emphasized as being "from this time and forevermore."  

 

It parallels what the angel told Mary in Luke 1:31-33:

 

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
(Luk 1:31-33)

 

The angel says of Jesus:

 

1.  He will be called the Son of God (Is. 9:6)

2.  He will be a direct descendent of King David (Is. 9:7)

3.  God the Father will give Jesus the throne of David (Is. 9:7)

4.  He will reign over the House of Jacob forever (Is. 9:7)

5.  Of His Kingdom there will be no end (Is. 9:7)

 

 

Jesus is the Son of God and He is the descendent of David.  The Angel speaks to Mary and almost recites the Isaiah prophecy word for word.  So your position really has no biblical basis in truth or reality.


  • 1

#4
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 

 

I do believe Jesus's mission was salvation but not to be a substitutionary sacrifice(He took the punishment we deserve).

 

Salvation from what, then?   If there is no sin then what precisely did we need salvation from?

 

Evidently, it is safe to say that when you read the Bible, you don't believe what you read in it, right?  Here is what the Bible says:

 

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(Heb 10:10-14)

 

According to you, this passage is wrong.  Why is it wrong?

 

As I said in previous posts, the cross represents the path to personal transformation and freedom from the bondage of sin.

 

How exactly does that work if Jesus didn't for sin as you have previously stated?   Can you work out just how you arrived at that conclusion?  What do you mean by personal transformation?   What is the bondage to sin mean in your estimation?

 

Lets put the book of Hebrews aside. 

 

No, let's not put it aside.  The passage from Hebrews clearly shows that Jesus is an offering for sin.   Explain why that passage is wrong.

 

My point is that there is no indication of sustitutionary sacrifice in the OT, there is no indication from God's actions or words in the OT that He expects substitutionary atonement and that His solution for the sins of the world would be the killing of His Son in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and it had no effect on more serious sins such as stealing someone's camel.

 

That is absolutely incorrect on all counts. In the book of Hebrews which lays out the New Testament's case for the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for the sins of man, it recounts the death of Jesus in the light of Yom Kippur in which two goats were used and one was sacrificed for the sins of the people and there is no indication that it was for unintentional sins.

 

Furthermore, even if certain sin offerings were for unintentional sins it still speaks of a substitutionary sacrifice. If the animal didn't die then the person had to die.  The animal died in his place.

 

I would also add that you don't understand the sin problem at all.  Man's sin problem is not about what he does as much as it is about what He is.  Man is a sinner by default.  The Bible teaches that Jesus' death on the cross performed a two fold work.  His blood was shed for the forgiveness of all of our sins AND His death paid the price for our sin condition that separates us from God.  Jesus' death on the cross was to satisfy God's justice, His just claim that we deserve death.  

 

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
(Rom 5:6-9)
 

That passage clearly lays out the biblical truth that Jesus died for us and that He died to save us from God's wrath against us which was a just wrath that we deserved.  Jesus bore God's wrath.

 

Isaiah 53, speaking of Jesus says this:

 

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
(Isa 53:4-6)

 

He carried OUR grief and OUR sorrows.  He was pierced for OUR transgressions, crushed for OUR iniquities and he was punished for OUR peace.  The Lord has laid upon Him the Iniquity of US ALL.

 

It is clearly a substitutionary act taking place on the cross of Jesus.   He died for our sins. 

 

Sorry, but your views are simply not credible or biblical.


  • 1

#5
Cobalt1959

Cobalt1959

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Joseph, MO.
  • Interests:Christ, Family, Church, and computers, in that order.

 

 

these people

 

generalizations are bad

 

 

 

 

As for motive, I will be sure to hyper analyze your motivation for every thread you start from now on.  We'll see how that works for you.

 

As Hippie advised, let's keep this about the topic and not about each other.

 

 

It isn't about "each other," and that would be an ad hominem.  If you can question the motive of a person for starting a thread, I can do the exact same thing to you.

 

I will ask again, if this person was so sure they were "right," why would they need to behave in this way?


  • 1

#6
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 


 

Why do you assume I am parroting?  Maybe, I did my homework and felt they had a stronger argument.

 

Okay, then.  Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically.

 

That is a fair challenge but you are implying that Genesis, as 100% historical, is the default position and the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise.  I think we each have to prove our position.

You are the one claiming that the text of Genesis 1 is allegorical and not meant to be understood literally.  That is a textual argument requiring textual evidence from within the given text itself.  I want you to show me the evidence IN the text that demands an allegorical approach.  If you cannot provide those indicators from the text of Gen. 1-3, then the  text is literal by default.  I don't have to prove anything.  I simply have to show that your claims warrant merit or serious consideration.

 

You implied that the ancient Jews and prophets took Genesis as historical.  That doesn't prove historicity.  The ancient greeks believed there was a Mt. Olympus.  Does that make Mt. Olympus historical?  Would a trained historian accept your claim as proof.

 

That's not what i said or implied.  I said that the biblical writers and even Jesus treat them as historical.  I didn't say anything about the Jews believed about the text.  Don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

You said Jesus mentioned Adam & Eve so Adam & Eve must have existed.  You need to prove 1) That Jesus took A&E as historical when He mentioned it.

 

Jesus was making an historical claim about marriage.  Jesus was referencing Adam and Eve in his discussion of marriage with the religious leaders.  There is no reason to suggest that Jesus took them as anything but historical.   The problem here is that you are presuming Adam and Eve are not historical and then projecting your unfounded assumption on to Jesus and then asking me to disprove your presumption.  That is a sloppy line of argumentation.

 

You need to prove the non-historicity of Adam and Eve, absent that, Jesus' can easily be understood as referencing historical people

 


 

For clarification, let me ask you.  Is Genesis 100% factual?  Is any segment allegorical, i.e. the talking snake, the tree A&E were supposed to say away from?

 

 

 

It is 100% factual.


  • 1

#7
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

 

 

I do believe Jesus's mission was salvation but not to be a substitutionary sacrifice(He took the punishment we deserve).

 

Salvation from what, then?   If there is no sin then what precisely did we need salvation from?

 

Evidently, it is safe to say that when you read the Bible, you don't believe what you read in it, right?  Here is what the Bible says:

 

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
(Heb 10:10-14)

 

According to you, this passage is wrong.  Why is it wrong?

 

As I said in previous posts, the cross represents the path to personal transformation and freedom from the bondage of sin.

 

How exactly does that work if Jesus didn't for sin as you have previously stated?   Can you work out just how you arrived at that conclusion?  What do you mean by personal transformation?   What is the bondage to sin mean in your estimation?

 

Lets put the book of Hebrews aside. 

 

No, let's not put it aside.  The passage from Hebrews clearly shows that Jesus is an offering for sin.   Explain why that passage is wrong.

 

My point is that there is no indication of sustitutionary sacrifice in the OT, there is no indication from God's actions or words in the OT that He expects substitutionary atonement and that His solution for the sins of the world would be the killing of His Son in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was primarily for unintentional sins and it had no effect on more serious sins such as stealing someone's camel.

 

That is absolutely incorrect on all counts. In the book of Hebrews which lays out the New Testament's case for the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for the sins of man, it recounts the death of Jesus in the light of Yom Kippur in which two goats were used and one was sacrificed for the sins of the people and there is no indication that it was for unintentional sins.

 

Furthermore, even if certain sin offerings were for unintentional sins it still speaks of a substitutionary sacrifice. If the animal didn't die then the person had to die.  The animal died in his place.

 

I would also add that you don't understand the sin problem at all.  Man's sin problem is not about what he does as much as it is about what He is.  Man is a sinner by default.  The Bible teaches that Jesus' death on the cross performed a two fold work.  His blood was shed for the forgiveness of all of our sins AND His death paid the price for our sin condition that separates us from God.  Jesus' death on the cross was to satisfy God's justice, His just claim that we deserve death.  

 

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
(Rom 5:6-9)
 

That passage clearly lays out the biblical truth that Jesus died for us and that He died to save us from God's wrath against us which was a just wrath that we deserved.  Jesus bore God's wrath.

 

Isaiah 53, speaking of Jesus says this:

 

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
(Isa 53:4-6)

 

He carried OUR grief and OUR sorrows.  He was pierced for OUR transgressions, crushed for OUR iniquities and he was punished for OUR peace.  The Lord has laid upon Him the Iniquity of US ALL.

 

It is clearly a substitutionary act taking place on the cross of Jesus.   He died for our sins. 

 

Sorry, but your views are simply not credible or biblical.

 

You don't understand the Yom Kippur sacrifice.  The Suffering Servant in Isaiah is Israel but there is no way I'm going to change your mind.

 

I sure hope I don't become like you.


  • 1

#8
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

 

 

these people

 

generalizations are bad

 

 

 

 

As for motive, I will be sure to hyper analyze your motivation for every thread you start from now on.  We'll see how that works for you.

 

As Hippie advised, let's keep this about the topic and not about each other.

 

 

It isn't about "each other," and that would be an ad hominem.  If you can question the motive of a person for starting a thread, I can do the exact same thing to you.

 

I will ask again, if this person was so sure they were "right," why would they need to behave in this way?

 

Would you say that there is some possibility that the professor is generally a gracious man but he came to a boiling point after years of having to explain over and over that there is ample evidence for evolution.  If you aren't willing to accept this as a possibility then how could you call yourself objective?


  • 1

#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

You don't understand the Yom Kippur sacrifice. 

 

I sure hope I don't become like you.

 

I understand the Yom Kippur Sacrifice and it was a substitutionary sacrifice for sin whether you have the honesty to admit or not.   I know the truth and yes, you will never change my mind.  I know the Bible as well and it is clear that you can't mount much of a biblical defense of liberal ungodly perspectives.  

 

The Suffering Servant in Isaiah is Israel but there is no way I'm going to change your mind.

 

That is wrong for several reasons.  The Servant is distinct from Israel in this prophecies and the use of pronouns indicates that.  Furthermore, Israel is observing the suffering of the servant in vv. 3-6. 

 

In verse 10 the offering is an "asham" or guilt offering.  Israel cannot possibly be the guilt offering for their own sins.  The guilt or "asham' offering had to be offered in place of the guilty party.  There is no way a guilty person can give himself as an asham offering for his own sins.

 

The servant is dying for someone else's sins if the text is read plainly and honestly.  This is someone dying for someone else.

 

The suffering servant possesses attributes that are not true of Israel.  For one thing the servant is innocent.  He is not dying as sinner.  He is represented by a lamb an innocent animal dying for the guilty in v. 6.   Israel was a  nation always in rebellion.  God used the harshest terms comparing Israel to a harlot.  Israel cannot be an offering for sin because they are not sinless, without spot or blemish.

 

Furthermore, in the Bible Israel always suffers for their own sins and not for anyone else's sins.  God never placed anyone else's sins on Israel.

 

And look at verse 8... "By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?" 

 

If the suffering servant is Israel who are "my people" in verse eight????

 

 

There is just no way that the suffering servant is Israel.  The passage simply won't allow it.

 


 


  • 0

#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 

 

 

 

these people

 

generalizations are bad

 

 

 

 

As for motive, I will be sure to hyper analyze your motivation for every thread you start from now on.  We'll see how that works for you.

 

As Hippie advised, let's keep this about the topic and not about each other.

 

 

It isn't about "each other," and that would be an ad hominem.  If you can question the motive of a person for starting a thread, I can do the exact same thing to you.

 

I will ask again, if this person was so sure they were "right," why would they need to behave in this way?

 

Would you say that there is some possibility that the professor is generally a gracious man but he came to a boiling point after years of having to explain over and over that there is ample evidence for evolution.  If you aren't willing to accept this as a possibility then how could you call yourself objective?

 

If a Christian did that...  If a Christian just reached his "boiling point"  He would be mocked and ridiculed and he would be held up as a "typically intolerant" Christian.  His behavior is inexcusable.  If he couldn't control himself, he should have just walked away.  He wasn't being provoked or pulled into something.  No one was picking a fight with him.


  • 0

#11
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 

 

 

 

Are you a Messianic Jew? 

 

Yes.

 

Why do you assume I am parroting?  Maybe, I did my homework and felt they had a stronger argument.

 

Okay, then.  Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically.

 

 

What evidence do you have that Genesis is 100% factual besides so and so believed it?  Even someone as conservative as NT Wright realizes Genesis is not a factual account.

 

OH please... Don't get me started on NT  Wright.  He is hardly a conservative and one of the most dangerous, antisemitic theologians out there.  If you can't provide the internal textual indicators that show the text of Gen. 1-3 need to be taken allegorically, the text must be literal by default.  I don't have to prove anything.  If you can't show the evidence for your claims, the text stands as written.

 

I highly doubt it.  Archaeology can only go so far as to what it can say.  It's can say very little to textual criticism.  I'm beginning to doubt you're as lettered as you appear.  You're arrogance and strong bias is very evident.

 

Sorry, but they are finding all kinds extra-biblical documents dated to the wrong period if the DH were correct.

 

 

Maybe we should turn to something that is less a matter of opinion.  Prophesy.  How about Isaiah 9:6?  Is the subject Jesus?

 

I assume you claim that it is not talking about Jesus, right?   I suppose you will want to explain why it it is some other king or something.

 

Isaiah 9:6 King James Translation: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a child is given:  and the government shall be upon his shoulder:  and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

 

Correct translation from Hebrew:  "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and He, the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace."

 

Isaiah was speaking about someone already born and G-d shall name him Ruler of Peace.

 

Interesting take on that.   Now how about a dose of truth???

 

The problem with your exegesis is that you only quoted part of the prophecy.   The entire prophecy says:

 

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
(Isa 9:6-7)

 

Specific parts of this prophetic word preclude your attempt to make this about someone other than Jesus.    It is a well known fact that during the Middle Ages, RASHI was one of the many Rabbis who were revising Jewish thought and were removing from Messianic prophecies any references to the Messiah they contained and reinterpreted Messianic prophecies to mean something else in an attempt to blunt the ability of Christians to use Messianic prophecies to show Jesus in the Old Testament.

 

So using Jewish commentaries that purposely try to hide the Messianic nature  of Messianic prophecy is a waste of time and bandwidth.  You might as well have just posted, "blah, blah, blah" for what its worth to post a bunch of stuff by Jewish Rabbis.

 

There is NO way that "El Gibbour" can reference anyone other than God in this particular passage.  The context will not allow for it.  Context is far more important than word meaning.  How a phrase or word is used is vital to understanding the text.   You cannot get "strong man" out of El Gibbour.  No one honest about the text would ever translate it that way.

 

Avi-Ad (Everlasting Father) refers to Jesus as "father of eternity."  It is not claiming that Jesus is the Father.  It uses the word "father" in a nonpaternal way, much the same way we use it to refer to Alexander Graham Bell as the "father of modern telecommunications."

 

Even more, in verse 7 of this prophecy, the person who is being called "Mighty God, and the father of eternity is also a descendent of David who will be king and His kingdom will never end.  In fact, it is emphasized as being "from this time and forevermore."  

 

It parallels what the angel told Mary in Luke 1:31-33:

 

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
(Luk 1:31-33)

 

The angel says of Jesus:

 

1.  He will be called the Son of God (Is. 9:6)

2.  He will be a direct descendent of King David (Is. 9:7)

3.  God the Father will give Jesus the throne of David (Is. 9:7)

4.  He will reign over the House of Jacob forever (Is. 9:7)

5.  Of His Kingdom there will be no end (Is. 9:7)

 

 

Jesus is the Son of God and He is the descendent of David.  The Angel speaks to Mary and almost recites the Isaiah prophecy word for word.  So your position really has no biblical basis in truth or reality.

 

Personal attack removed

 

No checkmate here.   You cited Jewish references and we know that the Jewish religious leaders have historically chosen to re=interpret Messianic prophecy to preclude Jesus as the Messiah.   History is on my side.    That you have to resort to profanity shows what spirit you are really of.  It's pretty sad that you feel the need to curse at me because you can't mount a substantive response. 


  • 0

#12
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

 

 


You don't understand the Yom Kippur sacrifice. 

 

I sure hope I don't become like you.

 

Link and comments removed

 

The Book of Hebrews explains the substitutionary sacrifices just fine.

 

I will take the word of an infallible, inerrant all knowing God over the sinful, fallible Rabbis.   God's word is true and that is all a Christian needs.


  • 1

#13

  • Guests
Do you believe his inappropriate behavior speaks to the validity of the theory of evolution?

 

~

 

Beloved,

 

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. Luke 21:17

 

Good Question

 

But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. John 15:21

 

I Believe The Gentleman In Question

 

A wicked messenger falls into trouble, but a trustworthy courier brings healing. Proverbs 13:17 (HCSB)

 

Expressed His True Heart

 

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. Luke 6:45

 

Toward Any Who

 

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. Psalms 2:1-3

 

Question

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

 

His God

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

 

And Nevertheless

 

So if the Good News that we tell others is covered with a veil, it is hidden from those who are dying. The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. As a result, they don't see the light of the Good News about Christ's glory. It is Christ who is God's image. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (GWT)

 

My Heart Goes Out To This Man

 

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:44-45

 

As It Does Toward You, Our Dear Jerry

 

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20

 

Love, Joe


  • 0

#14
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

 

 

Are you a Messianic Jew? 

 

Yes.

 

Why do you assume I am parroting?  Maybe, I did my homework and felt they had a stronger argument.

 

Okay, then.  Show the internal textual indicators where the author indicates that he intends to be taken allegorically.

 

 

What evidence do you have that Genesis is 100% factual besides so and so believed it?  Even someone as conservative as NT Wright realizes Genesis is not a factual account.

 

OH please... Don't get me started on NT  Wright.  He is hardly a conservative and one of the most dangerous, antisemitic theologians out there.  If you can't provide the internal textual indicators that show the text of Gen. 1-3 need to be taken allegorically, the text must be literal by default.  I don't have to prove anything.  If you can't show the evidence for your claims, the text stands as written.

 

I highly doubt it.  Archaeology can only go so far as to what it can say.  It's can say very little to textual criticism.  I'm beginning to doubt you're as lettered as you appear.  You're arrogance and strong bias is very evident.

 

Sorry, but they are finding all kinds extra-biblical documents dated to the wrong period if the DH were correct.

 

 

Maybe we should turn to something that is less a matter of opinion.  Prophesy.  How about Isaiah 9:6?  Is the subject Jesus?

 

I assume you claim that it is not talking about Jesus, right?   I suppose you will want to explain why it it is some other king or something.

 

Isaiah 9:6 King James Translation: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a child is given:  and the government shall be upon his shoulder:  and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

 

Correct translation from Hebrew:  "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and He, the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name: Ruler of Peace."

 

Isaiah was speaking about someone already born and G-d shall name him Ruler of Peace.

 

Interesting take on that.   Now how about a dose of truth???

 

The problem with your exegesis is that you only quoted part of the prophecy.   The entire prophecy says:

 

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
(Isa 9:6-7)

 

Specific parts of this prophetic word preclude your attempt to make this about someone other than Jesus.    It is a well known fact that during the Middle Ages, RASHI was one of the many Rabbis who were revising Jewish thought and were removing from Messianic prophecies any references to the Messiah they contained and reinterpreted Messianic prophecies to mean something else in an attempt to blunt the ability of Christians to use Messianic prophecies to show Jesus in the Old Testament.

 

So using Jewish commentaries that purposely try to hide the Messianic nature  of Messianic prophecy is a waste of time and bandwidth.  You might as well have just posted, "blah, blah, blah" for what its worth to post a bunch of stuff by Jewish Rabbis.

 

There is NO way that "El Gibbour" can reference anyone other than God in this particular passage.  The context will not allow for it.  Context is far more important than word meaning.  How a phrase or word is used is vital to understanding the text.   You cannot get "strong man" out of El Gibbour.  No one honest about the text would ever translate it that way.

 

Avi-Ad (Everlasting Father) refers to Jesus as "father of eternity."  It is not claiming that Jesus is the Father.  It uses the word "father" in a nonpaternal way, much the same way we use it to refer to Alexander Graham Bell as the "father of modern telecommunications."

 

Even more, in verse 7 of this prophecy, the person who is being called "Mighty God, and the father of eternity is also a descendent of David who will be king and His kingdom will never end.  In fact, it is emphasized as being "from this time and forevermore."  

 

It parallels what the angel told Mary in Luke 1:31-33:

 

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."
(Luk 1:31-33)

 

The angel says of Jesus:

 

1.  He will be called the Son of God (Is. 9:6)

2.  He will be a direct descendent of King David (Is. 9:7)

3.  God the Father will give Jesus the throne of David (Is. 9:7)

4.  He will reign over the House of Jacob forever (Is. 9:7)

5.  Of His Kingdom there will be no end (Is. 9:7)

 

 

Jesus is the Son of God and He is the descendent of David.  The Angel speaks to Mary and almost recites the Isaiah prophecy word for word.  So your position really has no biblical basis in truth or reality.

 

Your Isaiah translation is incorrect.  Reread the correct translation I gave you.  He(El Gibbour) called his name him Ruler of Peace.

 

From someone learned:

 

Isaiah was simply saying that Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) had been born (past tense) which he had been! 

Re:  él-gibbor it is part of a sentence which says  'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty G-d, Father of Eternity' (so G-d) has named the child Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) 'Peace-Prince'.
 

כִּי־יֶֽלֶד יֻלַּד־לָֽנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן־לָֽנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל־שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּֽלֶא־יוֹעֵץ־אֵל־גִּבּוֹר־אֲבִי־עַד "שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם"׃
...ki yeled yullad lanu, bein nittan lanu, vat'hi hamisrah al shich'mo;
vayikra sh'mo pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad "sar shalom"
...a boy has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and one day the responsibility of kingship will rest on his shoulder... [God] has named him "Peace-Prince".

Actually, I cheated slightly in my translation of that verse. The Hebrew text doesn't say "God" (a single word) in the second half of the verse: it uses a unique string of Divine titles "Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity" that occur together in no other place in the Scriptures. That's why I have set the name God in brackets—taking this small liberty in translation does not affect the meaning in any way, but it does make the verse very much easier to read and understand.

The first thing that is obvious from this verse is that the prophet is talking about a boy who had already been born. Hmm... so we need to know when Y'shayahu made this statement/prediction... and it would also be helpful to know whom he was talking to. Can we find this out from the text? Yes: we can—the opening of chapter 9 "those who walked in darkness have seen bright light, over those who were living in a land of deathly shadow light has blazed out!" refers back to the abortive attack on Y'rushalayim by R'tzin and Pekaḥ, the kings of Syria ("Aram") and the northern Hebrew kingdom, recorded at the very beginning of chapter 7, and to the subsequent deaths of Pekaḥ inAḥaz's 4th year (M'lachim Beit 15:30) and R'tzin shortly afterwards (M'lachim Beit 16:9) and the consequent removal of the threat that had been hanging over Y'hudah since their attack, which had been foretold by Y'shayahu in 7:14-16. Chapter 9 was therefore written in (or very soon after) the 4th year of Aḥaz's reign over Y'hudah, and most likely it was Aḥaz himself that Y'shayahu was speaking to.

If you look in "King James's Per-Version", or any other christian "per-version", you may notice that their translation is rather different from mine. Okay, it will have the string of Divine titles "Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity" written out in full, but you will find that the difference is much greater than just this—the verb וַיִּקְרָא vayikra, "has called" (past tense, active voice) will have been cunningly changed into "will be called" (future tense, passive voice), with the result that the string of Divine titles are now subsumed into the child's name.

I have carefully examined the entry in "Strong's Concordance" for the verb וַיִּקְרָא vayikra in this verse, and also the entries relating to the same word in many other verses (it occurs throughout the Scriptures more than 200 times). Every single instance other than this one is translated as "called" or "he called", giving the phonetic "pronunciation" (written as qara') of the verb's root letters kufreshalef—but not the pronunciation of the form of the word that occurs in the specific verse. And in every case other than this one, the tense is given as "perfect" (past tense)—Dr Strong does not give the "voice" of a verb (active or passive) at all (unless you understand what "Stem—Qal" etc mean).

Thus, according to "Strong's Concordance", וַיִּקְרָא vayikra is always the "perfect tense" of the "Qal stem" (that is, the active conjugation) of the verb "to call" and means "[he] called"—except in this one single case. In Y'shayahu 9:5 (9:6 in christian "holy bibles"), according to "Strong's Concordance", וַיִּקְרָא vayikra suddenly becomes the "imperfect" (future) tense of the verb "to call" (although still the "Qal stem"), and means "shall be called". No explanation is offered as to why it should be translated using the future passive in this one, apparently unique, case.

So, how should this verse be translated correctly? The first half is relatively straightforward: "...for a boy has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and one day he is going to be king" (literally "and the kingship will rest on his shoulder"). The Old English usages "is born" and "is given" that are found in KJPV are especially unhelpful because they sound very much like the present tense to an uneducated speaker of modern English, but they are actually ordinary perfects in 17th century English, equivalent to "has been born" and "has been given" in the modern idiom (similar constructions are common, for example, in Shakespeare's writing).

It's when we come to the second half of the verse that complications arise. Yet the verse is actually very simple, apart from the use of the compound Divine Name pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad ("Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity"). Now, if a statement such as Y'shayahu is making here was written in the context of ordinary prose narrative, the normal word order would be something likevayikra A et sh'mo B (i.e. "he called, A, his name, B", meaning "A named him B"). But the prophets used poetic language, and in poetry the poet often does not follow the normal word order. In this verse Y'shayahu places שְׁמוֹ sh'mo ("his name") directly after the verb וַיִּקְרָאvayikra ("he [has] called"), and before the subject of the verb—the one doing the "calling"—so that the structure of the statement becomes "he has called, his name, A, B"—"A" being the one giving the name, and "B" being the actual name given. We therefore have—

וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ
vayikra sh'mo and He has called his name   .....um, who has?— פֶּֽלֶא־יוֹעֵץ־אֵל־גִּבּוֹר־אֲבִי־עַד
pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad "God" (lit., 'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity')   .....and what has He named him?— שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם
sar-shalom "Peace-Prince"

...that is to say, "and 'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity' has named the child 'Peace-Prince'." The way this verse is translated in KJPV and other christian "per-versions" is ludicrous and completely ignores cultural context—no Hebrew would ever eventhink of referring to another person by any of God's "Names" (much less of actually naming a child "God"). This would present no problem to a christian, who has been conditioned all his life to think of Yéshu as "being" God, but Hebrews are not conditioned in this way and are raised knowing that Scripture says "God is NOT a man".

In any case, who was this "boy who had been born for them"—this "son who had been given to them"? The answer is obvious to anyone who has studied Hebrew history of that period, but christians do not in general concern themselves with Hebrew history because it "isn't important", so they have no clue what or whom Y'shayahu is talking about in this verse. Any reader who is interested in this subject is invited to download the book Biblical Chronology (12.3Mb), co-written by myself and my cousin Dr B'tzalel Barzillai, which provides an introduction to the study of the historical narratives in the Scriptures and provides a year-by-year timeline covering the entire period from the "creation" of Adam in about 3924BCE to the completion of the Second Temple in 516BCE, the 6th year of Darius I (Ezra 6:15), which just happens to be exactly seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar II in 586BCE.

We concluded earlier that Y'shayahu made the prediction we have been examining in or very soon after the 4th year of King Aḥaz ofY'hudah's reign (742-727BCE), and was probably speaking to Aḥaz himself when he made it. Aḥaz reigned for 16 years (M'lachim Beit16:2) and, when he died, he was succeded by his son Ḥizkiyyahu (M'lachim Beit 16:20), who reigned from 726 until 698BCE. Furthermore, Ḥizkiyyahu was 25 years old when he came to the throne (M'lachim Beit 18:2), so he was already 9 years old at the beginning of his father Aḥaz's reign and about 13 years old at the time Y'shayahu announced that God had named someone the "Peace-Prince".

In the 14th year of Ḥizkiyyahu's reign (713BCE), he was attacked by the armies of the Assyrian king Sargon II (reigned 721-705BCE), commanded by the king's son Sanḥériv or "Sennacherib" (M'lachim Beit 18:13ff). The account in M'lachim doesn't mention Sargon, but 18:17 does refer to a military commander named Tartan, who Y'shayahu tells us was Sargon's general (Y'shayahu 20:1); in fact, Sanḥérivdidn't become king of Assyria until after his father's death in 705BCE, nearly ten years after this campaign.

Rejecting the Assyrian commander's crude threat to maintain the siege of Y'rushalayim until the people were reduced to "eating their own @$*! and drinking their own piss" (M'lachim Beit 18:27, Y'shayahu 36:12—literal translation) if the city did not capitulate, the piousḤizkiyyahu appealed to the prophet Y'shayahu for help (M'lachim Beit 19:1-2) and, as a result of this, God intervened and 185,000 Assyrian soldiers miraculously died in their sleep that very night (M'lachim Beit 19:35). After that, Sanḥériv slunk back to Nin'veh in humiliation, never to venture forth against Y'hudah again. He was assassinated by two of his own sons (but see Prof. Parpola's paper The Murderer of Sennacherib) more than 30 years later in 681BCE, and was succeeded by another son called Ésar-Ḥaddon (M'lachim Beit19:37, and corroborated by surviving Assyrian records).

After the disastrous attack on Y'rushalayim in 713BCE (i.e. disastrous for the Assyrians), there was peace in Y'hudah for more than 100 years, which lasted until Pharaoh Wehem-ib-ra Nekau II (610-595BCE)—the Biblical "Pharaoh Necho"—attacked Josiah at M'giddo in 610BCE (M'lachim Beit 23:29). Thus, by his piety, Ḥizkiyyahu (who was about 13 years old when Y'shayahu prophesied that "a boy has been born for us who one day will be king and God has named him Peace-Prince") initiated more than a century of peace and tranquillity in Y'hudah—the longest period of continuous peace that the kingdom of Y'hudah ever enjoyed. Can there really be any doubt whomY'shayahu was talking about?


  • 0

#15
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

Your Isaiah translation is incorrect.  Reread the correct translation I gave you.  He(El Gibbour) called his name him Ruler of Peace.

 

rom someone learned:

 

Isaiah was simply saying that Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) had been born (past tense) which he had been! 

Re:  él-gibbor it is part of a sentence which says  'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty G-d, Father of Eternity' (so G-d) has named the child Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) 'Peace-Prince'.

Utter nonsense. 

 

The translation I used is just fine.   Liberals who don't believe the Bible are not in a position to tell me anything about translations.  I follow sound Christian scholars who know Jesus and know the Bible and whose love for Jesus guides their work.  I don't listen to liberal, unbelieving scholarship.


  • 0

#16
MorningGlory

MorningGlory

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,916 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, Texas

 

 

 

 

This post is pointless. This professor's response has no more commentary on the validity of evolution than does the actions of Dena Schlosser on Christianity.

 
It is not pointless at all.  If this professor was secure in what he believed, he would not have to behave in this manner.  I don't feel the need to go yell at an evolutionist because I feel he is wrong in what he believes.  He is no threat to me since he cannot alter the truth at all with his beliefs.  What he believes is wrong, but he has every right to believe it.  And if he was actually secure in what he believed, he would not have to behave that way because he would not see Christianity as a viable threat.  His behavior is based in anger and insecurity.

Ok, what do you think of preachers who get emotional about their subject...is it because of lack of veracity? Can't have it both ways...

 

Can you post some instances of preachers acting in a similar fashion?  I have never seen, heard or read about one who behaved in this way.

 

Google "Pastor loses temper".  Multiple examples.  There is also a DVD called "The God Who Wasn't There" that shows a man of God losing it - probably something on YouTube about the Chistian School administrator in the DVD. 

 

You hold men of science to higher standards than men of God when, they are all in the end men (and women).

 

 

No, I'm not going to Google anything....you made the statement; please provide the sources to back up that statement.  Btw, you don't KNOW to what standards I hold anyone.


  • 0

#17
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 


Your Isaiah translation is incorrect.  Reread the correct translation I gave you.  He(El Gibbour) called his name him Ruler of Peace.

 

rom someone learned:

 

Isaiah was simply saying that Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) had been born (past tense) which he had been! 

Re:  él-gibbor it is part of a sentence which says  'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty G-d, Father of Eternity' (so G-d) has named the child Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) 'Peace-Prince'.

   Liberals who don't believe the Bible are not in a position to tell me anything about translations. 

 

We should learn from everyone.  This reminds me of Darwin's quote "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge:"  Keep your mind open...

 

I'm done with this thread....


  • 0

#18
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,352 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Many and varied. Any technology with blinking and flashing lights, no matter what it does...

 

 


Your Isaiah translation is incorrect.  Reread the correct translation I gave you.  He(El Gibbour) called his name him Ruler of Peace.

 

rom someone learned:

 

Isaiah was simply saying that Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) had been born (past tense) which he had been! 

Re:  él-gibbor it is part of a sentence which says  'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty G-d, Father of Eternity' (so G-d) has named the child Ḥizkiyyah (Hezekiah) 'Peace-Prince'.

   Liberals who don't believe the Bible are not in a position to tell me anything about translations. 

 

We should learn from everyone.  This reminds me of Darwin's quote "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge:"  Keep your mind open...

 

I'm done with this thread....

 

Yes.


  • 0

#19
LouF95

LouF95
  • Seeker
  • 47 posts
  • Gender:Male

Is it possible that there is a God and evolution was His method of creation?


  • 0

#20
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology. Other interests include Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

Is it possible that there is a God and evolution was His method of creation?

No.  Evolution is designed to be an alternative to Genesis 1.  But Evolution defies the character and attributes of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who creates perfectly. 

 

You can have either Evolution or God, but you can't have both.   Genesis precludes the possibility of Evolution being God's method of creation.


  • 0




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2015 part of the Worthy Network