01 Feb 14
Originally posted by CalJustWell i would suggest that the primary way of interpreting starts with accurate translation.
I am not arguing for argument's sake either.
I was responding to YOUR thread which states - in detail - how you arrive at your particular interpretation of scripture.
But if you have no response, then that is also OK. None of us are perfect.
01 Feb 14
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf Jesus is the son, based on your own words, then why would the very next line state "Everlasting Father". Notice, it is not a new sentence, but a continuing thought.
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6
The text is rather interesting and is another of those texts used by those who are determined to impose a bias on scripture where none exists i ...[text shortened]... nslated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?
So how can the Son be the Father?
This question is not for you Christians. I want Rob to answer it.
Originally posted by Pudgenikagain this is an irrelevancy, why don't you address my question before introducing other elements? I will be happy to answer your question when my business has been taken care of. Here it is again,
If Jesus is the son, based on your own words, then why would the very next line state "Everlasting Father". Notice, it is not a new sentence, but a continuing thought.
So how can the Son be the Father? This question is not for you Christians.
The phrase that is of interest is 'Mighty God', which is prophetically applied to Jesus. I would like to ask those who know anything about the Bible why the text is not translated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would have to check the bible, but the question is that of the author. Did Isiaha refer to the Father as Almighty?
again this is an irrelevancy, why don't you address my question before introducing other elements? I will be happy to answer your question when my business has been taken care of. Here it is again,
The phrase that is of interest is 'Mighty God', which is prophetically applied to Jesus. I would like to ask those who know anything about the Bible ...[text shortened]... nslated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn answer to your question, I don't know.
Another irrelevancy, the question is not about Jehovahs witnesses, the question is about the translation of the term 'Mighty God'. You can read? you can comprehend what you read? You did attend school at least for some of the time? I repeat it if you are having difficulties understanding it,
why the text (Isaiah 9:6) is not translated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?
In response to your rejection of my reference to anything JW; please explain the text without yourself referencing JW doctrine, literature or viewpoints.
Thanks.
Originally posted by divegeesteryou don't know why the verse is translated as Mighty God and not Almighty God? don't you think you had better find out?
In answer to your question, I don't know.
In response to your rejection of my reference to anything JW; please explain the text without yourself referencing JW doctrine, literature or viewpoints.
Thanks.
All irrelevancies will be ignored.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI keep telling you I don't know and asking you to explain (but without referring to JW beliefs, as per your behest), but for some reason you seem disinclined to do so.
you don't know why the verse is translated as Mighty God and not Almighty God? don't you think you had better find out?
All irrelevancies will be ignored.
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by galveston75yes and the amazing thing is is that its absolutely central to the belief that Jesus is God. I really wonder if this an instance of simply accepting a concept without actually trying to ascertain whether its Biblical substantiated, one wonder how prevalent this type of unquestioning acceptance is.
I don't think he can........In fact I'm sure about that.
01 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieApparently there are no Hebrew scholars here. I can only refer you to the Interlinear Bible at this link:
yes and the amazing thing is is that its absolutely central to the belief that Jesus is God. I really wonder if this an instance of simply accepting a concept without actually trying to ascertain whether its Biblical substantiated, one wonder how prevalent this type of unquestioning acceptance is.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9-6.htm
As you can see the Hebrew word with Strong's number 410 translated "the God" and is a noun. Next to it is the Hebrew word with Strong's number 1368 translated "Mighty" and is an adjective. Therefore, it looks like it should be translated "the mighty God" to me. That is the best I can do for you since I am not a Hebrew scholar. Any other problems?
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI will give you a clue, there are two Hebrew words, one for a mighty god and one for the Almighty God.
Apparently there are no Hebrew scholars here. I can only refer you to the Interlinear Bible at this link:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9-6.htm
As you can see the Hebrew word with Strong's number 410 translated "the God" and is a noun. Next to it is the Hebrew word with Strong's number 1368 translated "Mighty" and is an adjective. Therefor ...[text shortened]... to me. That is the best I can do for you since I am not a Hebrew scholar. Any other problems?