Isiaha 9:6

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will give you a clue, there are two Hebrew words, one for a mighty god and one for the Almighty God.

Here's another clue; there are two Hebrew words one for powerful and another for all powerful.

One for everlasting and another for forever...

One for grace and another for mercy...

There is a big difference between drawing the meaning out of the text and reading a meaning into it robbie.

Originally posted by divegeester
Here's another clue; there are two Hebrew words one for powerful and another for all powerful.

One for everlasting and another for forever...

One for grace and another for mercy...

There is a big difference between drawing the meaning out of the text and reading a meaning into it robbie.

Perhaps you can attempt to find the answer, we are not talking of the Hebrew words for power or powerful, or mercy or anything else that is not even remotely relevant we are talking of the term for mighty god and almighty God. No one is attempting to read anything into the text, quite the opposite for we are trying to ascertain what it actually says. All irrelevancies will be ignored.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
....for we are trying to ascertain what it actually says.

So you are claiming that you don't already know what it means, is that it?

Originally posted by divegeester
So you are claiming that you don't already know what it means, is that it?

here is the original question,

why is the text not translated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?

Do you have any idea?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
here is the original question,

why is the text is not translated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?

Do you have any idea?

You are not getting much interest in this thread robbie. I suggest this is for a mix of two reasons:

Lack of interest in the subject matter
Lack of belief in the sincerity of your motivations.

For me I am interested but I think you are being disingenuous. Do you already have a preconceived answer to your question?

Yes or no.

Originally posted by divegeester
You are not getting much interest in this thread robbie. I suggest this is for a mix of two reasons:

Lack of interest in the subject matter
Lack of belief in the sincerity of your motivations.

For me I am interested but I think you are being disingenuous. Do you already have a preconceived answer to your question?

Yes or no.

all irrelevancy will be ignored, if i wanted to be popular id become a raconteur.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all irrelevancy will be ignored, if i wanted to be popular id become a raconteur.

What's popularity got to do with honesty.

Do you have a preconceived answer to the question you are posting?

Originally posted by divegeester
What's popularity got to do with honesty.

Do you have a preconceived answer to the question you are posting?

Why is the text not translated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?

This is what I am interested in trying to ascertain. If you are interested in truth as you claim, then perhaps you can answer this question truthfully.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why is the text not translated as Almighty God if it is to be assumed that it is made with reference to God the father?

This is what I am interested in trying to ascertain. If you are interested in truth as you claim, then perhaps you can answer this question truthfully.

Do you have an answer to your own question?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you have an answer to your own question?

The question is for those who state that Jesus is the Almighty.

Why the verse is not translated as the Almighty is because the Hebrew does not say Almighty, it says Mighty God. There are two distinct terms, El'Shaddai and El'Gibbor. This therefore begs the question, why if it does not explicitly state Almighty God are people telling me that its a reference to Almighty God.

As a student of scripture I find this rather interesting, Isaiah could have used the term for Almighty God, but he chose another term altogether, logically therefore we can deduce that he wants the reader to view the text as something else other than the Almighty, don't you think? Would that not make sense?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The question is for those who state that Jesus is the Almighty.

Why the verse is not translated as the Almighty is because the Hebrew does not say Almighty, it says Mighty God. There are two distinct terms, El'Shaddai and El'Gibbor. This therefore begs the question, why if it does not explicitly state Almighty God are people telling me that it ...[text shortened]... the text as something else other than the Almighty, don't you think? Would that not make sense?

So you do have an answer to your own question.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So you do have an answer to your own question.

yes and no, there are two parts to my question, one is why did Isaiah not use the term almighty which i have answered and secondly why people ascribe the value of the almighty to a text which does not say almighty, which I have not answered and cannot offer any answer except a speculative one.

Once again i notice a shift of emphasis, from the actual question to a personal one, once again i will remind you that all irrelevancies will be ignored.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The question is for those who state that Jesus is the Almighty.

Why the verse is not translated as the Almighty is because the Hebrew does not say Almighty, it says Mighty God. This therefore begs the question, why if it does not explicitly state Almighty God are people telling me that its a reference to Almighty God. Dont you find that rather interesting?

Well, God is almighty and mighty by definition. So it matters little which adjective is used. They are both correct and mean the same when referring to God. The only real difference is if you use the Almighty alone as a noun without God. Then we would know that it refers to God alone. Also if you say the almighty One, then we know it refers to God. Or if you say the mighty one, it could refer to God or to another that is mighty. However, Isaiah 9:6 uses "mighty" along with "the God" not "a god" as you like to make out. So it makes no difference in this case.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes and no, there are two parts to my question, one is why did Isaiah not use the term almighty which i have answered and secondly why people ascribe the value of the almighty to a text which does not say almighty, which I have not answered and cannot offer any answer except a speculative one.

Once again i notice a shift of emphasis, from the actu ...[text shortened]... question to a personal one, once again i will remind you that all irrelevancies will be ignored.

In answer to your first question, you'd surely have to ask whomever originally wrote Isaiah. In answer to your second, dunno. In answer to your 'personal point'...........😴

Originally posted by Proper Knob
In answer to your first question, you'd surely have to ask whomever originally wrote Isaiah. In answer to your second, dunno. In answer to your 'personal point'...........😴

we are unable to use our powers of deduction? ouch!