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 in the text.
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?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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?
Originally posted by CalJust That is not an argument.
RC made a reasonable request, which deserves a reasoned, not emotional, response.
(Although I am still waiting for a reasoned response from RC to my PROCESS vs CONTENT argument...)
It is reflective of the type of argument that one is used to, when presented with a reasonable question it must be noted that Christians like divesgeester usually resort to this kind of irrelevancy, being devoid of reason they need to make some kind of emotive remark. The question that I ask myself is why? and the reasons are usually a lack of knowledge concerning the Bible and their professed beliefs, they believe something but have no idea why they believe it or they are wary that a cherished belief will be subject to scrutiny and forced to admit that it has no scriptural basis and they become emotional.
I did not respond to your text because it contained no scriptural references which i tried to make a case for including. If you include scriptural references, i will be happy to comment upon them if I can.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I did not respond to your text because it contained no scriptural references which i tried to make a case for including. If you include scriptural references, i will be happy to comment upon them if I can.
Without scriptural references there is no basis for argument?
🙄
Do you mean to say you have no opinions outside of biblical exegesis?
Again, 🙄
Edit - Afterthought: Actually, my point was to show that the same PROCESS used by JWs and all others can lead to different interpretations. This Thesis is, I would suggest, relevant to your innumerable threads trying to prove that your very specific interpretation is always the correct one! Surely you should be able to refute that thesis?
Originally posted by CalJust That is not an argument.
RC made a reasonable request, which deserves a reasoned, not emotional, response.
(Although I am still waiting for a reasoned response from RC to my PROCESS vs CONTENT argument...)
I know it isn't an argument. Perhaps you've not read the thousands of posts across tens and tens of threads where the JWs perform scriptural warp drive to make this text fit their beliefs.
Just remember he actually believes that this scripture he has posted about "mighty god" is referring to an angel. Just start from there and work backwards.
Originally posted by divegeester I know it isn't an argument. Perhaps you've not read the thousands of posts across tens and tens of threads where the JWs perform scriptural warp drive to make this text fit their beliefs.
Just remember he actually believes that this scripture he has posted about "mighty god" is referring to an angel. Just start from there and work backwards.
Perhaps you can address the actual question instead on introducing more irrelevancy and emotional outbursts.
Originally posted by divegeester I am addressing the question, you just don't like how I'm doing it I.e. By pointing out the magnitude of JW doctrinal error.
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?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 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 is not translated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?
Ok I'll play along. I don't know.
Please explain in a way that in no way relates to Jehovah's witness's doctrine, or beliefs.
Originally posted by divegeester Ok I'll play along. I don't know.
Please explain in a way that in no way relates to Jehovah's witness's doctrine, or beliefs.
fine if anyone that knows anything about the Bible and accurate translation can proffer a thought, please do so. Divesgeester doesn't seem to know anything about the verse, which is no reflection on him, we cannot know everything.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie fine if anyone that knows anything about the Bible and accurate translation can proffer a thought, please do so. Divesgeester doesn't seem to know anything about the verse, which is no reflection on him, we cannot know everything.
At your challenge, Ive asked you to explain without any reference to JW doctrine?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I am uninterested in arguing for arguments sake, I am interested in the Bible and 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.
I suppose it is too much to expect you to acknowledge that you have no suitable reply, rather than the lame excuse: that would be arguing for argument's sake...
Isiaha 9:6
01 Feb '14 10:073 edits
Back to Top