Evolutionist Professor Goes Ballistic

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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.

[Guest]

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

[LouF95]

 

 

 

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 kuf, resh, alef—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?

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[MorningGlory]

 

 

 

 

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.

[jerryR34]

 

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....

[Fez]

 

 

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.

[LouF95]

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

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

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....

 

I don't have anything to learn about the Bible from people who don't believe the Bible in the first place.