Its EASY to Understand ??

@thinkofone said
The fact remains that the footnote is NOT " trying to teach that 'HIS' does not refer to the child and the son" as you asserted.

Instead it provides an alternative translation of Isaiah 9:6. An alternative translation that completely eliminates the problem of "the Everlasting Father" describing the "son" with which you struggled. The reason you struggle with it is bec ...[text shortened]... se it doesn't make sense - and you've admitted that you can't offer a reasonable explanation for it.

Your alternative translation is false.

No one, not one accredited theologian teaches that nonsense. It's just you, and you're nobody.

Like all the other nobodys I've met throughout my life that have the most bizarre interpretations of scripture, just because it has to mean what they think it means. Strange little guys they are with no friends or followers. They just pop up on the scene and pontificate as though he knows what he's talking about, but everyone can see he doesn't, except him.

@secondson said
Your alternative translation is false.

No one, not one accredited theologian teaches that nonsense. It's just you, and you're nobody.

Like all the other nobodys I've met throughout my life that have the most bizarre interpretations of scripture, just because it has to mean what they think it means. Strange little guys they are with no friends or followers. They just p ...[text shortened]... pontificate as though he knows what he's talking about, but everyone can see he doesn't, except him.

It has to be said, this is an interesting hodgepodge of argumentum ad populum and ad hominem. Something about what's wrong with the translation would have been more interesting.

@secondson said
Your alternative translation is false.

No one, not one accredited theologian teaches that nonsense. It's just you, and you're nobody.

Like all the other nobodys I've met throughout my life that have the most bizarre interpretations of scripture, just because it has to mean what they think it means. Strange little guys they are with no friends or followers. They just p ...[text shortened]... pontificate as though he knows what he's talking about, but everyone can see he doesn't, except him.

As so often happens, secondson is unable to formulate a cogent argument actually addressing points I've made on this thread, so he resorts to an ad hominem attack. If secondson were able to formulate a cogent argument, I imagine he would.

Evidently the fact that I cited the JPS Tanakh 1917 translation went over secondson's head. Clearly it's not "just [me]" as secondson asserts.

Isaiah 9
JPS Tanakh 1917

5For a child is born unto us,
A son is given unto us;
And the government is upon his shoulder;
And his name is called
a Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

Footnotes:
{fn: a} That is, Wonderful in counsel is God, the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.

https://biblehub.com/jps/isaiah/9.htm

@fmf said
It has to be said, this is an interesting hodgepodge of argumentum ad populum and ad hominem. Something about what's wrong with the translation would have been more interesting.

Wonder if it's an example of the type of "objective rational discourse" secondson had in mind when he wrote the following:

You and FMF just can't handle clear, concise and to the point posts. You simply don't have the intellectual fortitude or honesty for objective rational discourse for it.

What you do have in abundance is a bigoted bias against persons, and a wholly shameful disdain for anyone that disagrees with the unsubstantiated nonsense you plaster this forum with.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/the-eternal-son-of-god.179669/page-38#post_3986296

Secondson exudes the "intellectual fortitude [and] honesty" required. Secondson has no "bigoted bias against persons, and a wholly shameful disdain for anyone that disagrees...". Secondson is a typical, nay exemplary Christian.

@thinkofone said
Wonder if it's an example of the type of "objective rational discourse" secondson had in mind when he wrote the following:

You and FMF just can't handle clear, concise and to the point posts. You simply don't have the intellectual fortitude or honesty for objective rational discourse for it.

What you do have in abundance is a bigoted bias against persons, and a ...[text shortened]... -38#post_3986296

Secondson exudes the "intellectual fortitude [and] honesty" required.

Who do you say Jesus was?

@ThinkOfOne

Evidently the fact that I cited the JPS Tanakh 1917 translation went over secondson's head. Clearly it's not "just [me]" as secondson asserts.

My guess would be that the 1917 JPS Tanakh is probably a decidedly "counter-missionary" apologetic toward the NT Gospel. Some Hebrew to English translations of the Tanakh would have de-messianic commentary to assure Jesus of Nazareth is NOT indicated in any of the messianic prophecies.

In other words if I was wanting to steer my congregation away from the Christian Gospel, that is the Hebrew Bible and commentary they should be equiped with.

Jewish scholars have many centuries of sifting through the Old Testament to Un-Christize them in reaction to Christian scholars. It is no surprise that that is what you would reach for to push your kind of belief.

it is impossible to understand god in a complete sense of the word, and because our minds are feeble, it is difficult for us to grasp Him in any meaningful way.

Yet, because we are created in His image, we have some degree of access.

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

Evidently the fact that I cited the JPS Tanakh 1917 translation went over secondson's head. Clearly it's not "just [me]" as secondson asserts.

My guess would be that the 1917 JPS Tanakh is probably a decidedly "counter-missionary" apologetic toward the NT Gospel. Some Hebrew to English translations of the Tanakh would have de-messianic ...[text shortened]... tian scholars. It is no surprise that that is what you would reach for to push your kind of belief.

Jewish scholars have many centuries of sifting through the Old Testament to Un-Christize them in reaction to Christian scholars.

What a ridiculous assertion. You seem to forget that the Jews had it BEFORE the Christians. If you gave it a moment's thought, you might realize that if anything it's the other way around: The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) has been "Christianized" by Christian scholars to fit THEIR dogma.

As an example the NASB handles long compound Hebrew names differently when they want to play up their dogma:

Isaiah 8
3So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, “Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;

Isaiah 9
6For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

In 8:3 the NASB depicts a long compound Hebrew name in hyphenated Hebrew.
However in 9:6 the NASB depicts a long compound Hebrew name as if were a string of four separate English names.

In contrast, the JPS Tanakh 1917 handles long compound Hebrew names consistently and without bias:

Isaiah 8
3And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bore a son. Then said the LORD unto me: ‘Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz.

Isaiah 9
5For a child is born unto us,
A son is given unto us;
And the government is upon his shoulder;
And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

In both verses, the JPS Tanakh 1917 depicts long compound Hebrew names in hyphenated Hebrew.

Of course you also still have the problem of the "son" also being the "Everlasting Father" with which you struggled.

Clearly your position doesn't make logical sense. You can continue to deceive yourself in to believing that it does, but the fact remains.

@ThinkOfOne

Me:

Jewish scholars have many centuries of sifting through the Old Testament to Un-Christize them in reaction to Christian scholars.

ToO:

What a ridiculous assertion. You seem to forget that the Jews had it BEFORE the Christians.

It is not a ridiculous assertion at all. And I did not "forget" that the Jews had the Tanakh before the New Testament era.

Wrong on both counts. Now SINCE the rise of the Christian church Judaism has been much structured around the AVOIDANCE of seeing Jesus of Nazareth in the Tanakh.

After the spread of the Gospel of Christ Judaism fortified itself AGAINST deriving any legitimacy in seeing a Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth. This has little to do with the Tanakh before the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

A lengthy book just on Isaiah 53 ALONE was written to prove that it had nothing to do with Jesus.

f you gave it a moment's thought, you might realize that if anything it's the other way around: The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) has been "Christianized" by Christian scholars to fit THEIR dogma.

That is your unbelief speaking.
That is your opposition to the ministry of Jesus while He walked the earth, speaking.

That is you throwing in your hat with those Pharisees, scribes, chief priests, and lawyers who rejected that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah of Israel.

As an example the NASB handles long compound Hebrew names differently when they want to play up their dogma:

I have no doubt at all that Isaiah 9:6 is a messianic prophecy. And the best candidate for it is Jesus. As some the Jews of who were eyewitnesses of His ministry :

"But many in the crowd believed in Him and said, When the Christ comes, will He do more signs than this man has done?

I expect no one to come along to be more of a person who fits the description of the names of Isaiah 9:6.

Why do you so oppose the ministry of Jesus while He was on the earth , and after His ascension ?

Do not be confused by ThinkOfOne.
He wants to teach that the name/s however you would like to connect them, do not refer to the child and the son. This is his footnote from the JPS Tanakh 1917 which he hopes will make that point for him:

Footnotes:
{fn: a} That is, Wonderful in counsel is God, the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.

Here was the scepticism which introduced the footnote:

Setting aside the fact that it's a reach to apply Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus ...

As usual his target for denial is the ministry of Jesus as He walked the earth.

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

Evidently the fact that I cited the JPS Tanakh 1917 translation went over secondson's head. Clearly it's not "just [me]" as secondson asserts.

My guess would be that the 1917 JPS Tanakh is probably a decidedly "counter-missionary" apologetic toward the NT Gospel. Some Hebrew to English translations of the Tanakh would have de-messianic commentary to assure Jesus of Nazareth is NOT indicated in any of the messianic prophecies.

Jesus of "Nazareth" ?? Historically, I believe that no town of "Nazareth" even existed 2000 years ago. The Israeli make much tourist dollars off this place today. And Nazarene has a different meaning.

@caissad4

Ancient Nazareth - its size

Nazareth was small. We know this because of the discovery of underground tombs. These were chiseled into the soft limestone bedrock, and their position shows the limits of the village's perimeter to the west, east, and south, since burial was always done outside inhabited areas. It would have been 2,000 feet at its greatest east-west length and around 650 feet at its greatest north-south width, though the actual area inhabited in the first century was much less, perhaps only around ten acres. Steep ravines and ancient terraces on the northern slope confined the oval-shaped settlement.

The people of Nazareth were essentially farmers, so they needed space between the houses for livestock and their enclosures, as well as land for plants and orchards.
Nazareth would have had a population of around two to four hundred in antiquity, that is to say, several extended families or clans.

http://jesus-story.net/nazareth_about.htm

Nazareth lay in the hills twelve miles southwest of the Sea of Galilee: fertile land.

Excavations show just how small it actually was - but every bit of space was used effectively. It was built on porous rock, so as well as the buildings above the surface there were underground cisterns for water, vats for oil, and silos for grain. There was a single, ancient spring for water.

It was a conservative town, clinging to traditional Jewish culture in a world that had been radically affected by Greek thought and culture.

It had a population of about 400, so everyone knew everyone else. The people were physically robust, strong-minded, practical, respectful of traditional and loyal to family.

They spoke Aramaic, a language with a strong poetic tradition. Being able to talk well was a valued skill.

Young Jewish men were expected to be literate. The Jewish queen Salome Alexandra had made reading and writing compulsory for all Jewish boys - for study of the Torah.

@sonship said
@caissad4

[quote] Ancient Nazareth - its size

Nazareth was small. We know this because of the discovery of underground tombs. These were chiseled into the soft limestone bedrock, and their position shows the limits of the village's perimeter to the west, east, and south, since burial was always done outside inhabited areas. It would have been 2,000 feet at its greatest ...[text shortened]... traditional Jewish culture in a world that had been radically affected by Greek thought and culture.

That town was not named Nazareth. Historically there was no town named Nazareth 2000 years ago. You are spouting Christian propaganda not truthful history.

@caissad4

Can you name me someone who within the first 1000 years of the writing of the gospels of Matthew or Luke who disputed that Nazareth existed ?

@secondson said
No one, not one accredited theologian teaches that nonsense. It's just you, and you're nobody.Like all the other nobodys I've met throughout my life that have the most bizarre interpretations of scripture, just because it has to mean what they think it means.

Would you say that KellyJay’s literal interpretation that the multiheaded beast of Revelation is a literal living beast being ridden by a literal whore wearing literal blood soaked clothes, is a “bizarre interpretation of scripture” which he stands by because “it has to mean what he thinks it means”?