Its EASY to Understand ??

@secondson said
Wow! You do have a sense of humor. I was just thinking about how boring it's getting debating you.

And that line - "Go play another game of chess against yourself", is classic.

There may just still be some hope for you BillyBob. 🌞

Really, I mean it, you are boring.

@divegeester said
Really, I mean it, you are boring.

Of course I am, but that doesn't diminish from how funny you are.

I guess every forum has at least one 🤡.

@thinkofone said
Setting aside the fact that it's a reach to apply Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus and the fact that names in general and Hebrew names in particular often have meanings that aren't necessarily to be taken literally, hopefully the following will clear things up for you:

Isaiah 9
JPS Tanakh 1917

5For a child is born unto us,
A son is given unto us;
And the government is upon hi ...[text shortened]... a[/i]} That is, Wonderful in counsel is God, the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.

In the likely case that no one understood the point, I'll spell it out:

Setting aside the fact that it's a reach to apply Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus and the fact that names in general and Hebrew names in particular often have meanings that aren't necessarily to be taken literally, hopefully the following will clear things up for you:

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.

The point is that "the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" are all describing God - not the "son".

This eliminates the problem of the "son" also being the "Everlasting Father" that jaywill struggled to explain.

@sonship said
Some people like to boast that they understand the nature of God. If we speak about the three-oneness of God, they think you just MISSED IT.

For two thousand YEARS smart minds have admitted that the nature of God is hard to explain. But certain types like Rajk999 and Divegeester come chiming along -

Ie. [i] "What's all the fuss? Why you just missed it. It is no myst ...[text shortened]... te some mysteries about God's nature. Anyone who wants to BRAG that they get it all, let them brag.

I'm not braging but if anyone listens to my word they would be just fine with God and the universe

@karoly-aczel said
I'm not braging but if anyone listens to my word they would be just fine with God and the universe

Dude, you're like the Anti-Moses, leading any followers into perdition.

@ThinkOfOne

The point is that "the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" are all describing God - not the "son".

This eliminates the problem of the "son" also being the "Everlasting Father" that jaywill struggled to explain.

If the child ... born is called Mighty God then Mighty God is describing the child born.

If the "son given" is called eternal Father then eternal Father is describing the "son... given".

According to your logic "Prince of Peace" would not be describing the son either.

The titles describe the child and the son. And upon His shoulder is the govenment.

The prophecy is about the incarnation of God as a man.
And it is not about vain speaking for a non-existing God that your crypto atheism secretly believes does not exist.

" For a child is born to us,
A Son is given to us;
And the government is upon His shoulder;

And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor,Mighty God,
Eternal Father,
Prince of Peace. " (Isaiah 9:6)

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

The point is that "the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" are all describing God - not the "son".

This eliminates the problem of the "son" also being the "Everlasting Father" that jaywill struggled to explain.

If the child ... born is called Mighty God then Mighty God is describing the child ...[text shortened]... led
Wonderful Counselor,Mighty God,
Eternal Father,
Prince of Peace. " (Isaiah 9:6) [/quote]

Since you are unable to comprehend what the JPS translation is saying, I'll spell it out for you.

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

First of all, the JPS translation says "Ruler of Peace" - not "Prince of Peace":

Strong's #8269: sar (pronounced sar)

from 8323; a head person (of any rank or class):--captain (that had rule), chief (captain), general, governor, keeper, lord, ((-task- ))master, prince(-ipal), ruler, steward.

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H8269/sar.htm

Secondly, look at the last line:
<<And his name is called
Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; >>

His name is "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom". It's all one long compound name.
According to the footnote, "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom" is translated as "Wonderful in counsel is God, the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace."
Therefore the last line should be read as follows:
<<And his name is called "Wonderful in counsel is God, the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace".>>

As such, "the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" describes God - not the son.

This completely eliminates the problem of " "the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" describing the "son" with which you struggled.

Understand now?

@ThinkOfOne

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

That note is wrong in trying to teach that "HIS" does not refer to the child and the son.

"The word "His" is used thrice and supplied twice in this translation:

And the government shall be upon HIS shoulder.

And HIS name will be called ...

Upon the throne of David and over HIS kingdom ...

The referrent HIS in verses 6 and 7, who is in possession of the names is the child born and the son given.

This aspect of who HIS refers to is brought out in this rendering

Brenton Septuagint Translation
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called ...

The fact that the One who will reign will do so "upon the throne of David" strongly suggests a HUMAN descendent of King David of whom of course Jesus of Nazareth was through Mary.

Therefore the prophecy is speaking of a Human descendent of David to sit upon His forefather's throne who is in fact God incarnated as a man.

Furthermore verse 7 implies that what will take place in this human / divine King being established will be by the zeal of Jehvoah God.

"To the increase of His government and to His peace there is no end. Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,

To establish it and to uphold it
In justice and righteousness
From now to eternity;

The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will accomplish this."

Though He is human divine zeal of God will establish Him as the Messiah King.

Pulpit Commentary:

Unto us a child is born (comp. Isaiah 7:14-16, where the promise of "a child," "a son," is first made—a child who was, like this Child, to be "God with us" ). The government shall be upon his shoulder. The word translated "government" (misrah) occurs only hero and in Isaiah 9:7. It is probably to be connected with sat, "prince," and Israel. Government was regarded as a burden, to be born on the back or shoulders, and was sometimes symbolized by a key laid upon the shoulder (Isaiah 22:22)

His name shall be called. It is perhaps not very important whether we view what follows as one name or several. Isaiah does not really mean that the "Child" should bear as a name, or names, any of the expressions, but only that they should be truly applicable to him. Wonderful, Counselor. It has been proposed to unite these two expressions and translate, "Wondrous Counselor" (compare "wonderful in counsel," Isaiah 28:29). But Dr. Kay is probably right in saying that, if this had been the meaning, it would have been expressed differently. Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch, and Vance Smith agree with Dr. Kay in taking the words separately. Wonderful. The Messiah would be "wonderful" in his nature as God-Man; in his teaching, which "astonished" those who heard it (Matthew 7:28); in his doings (Isaiah 25:1); in the circumstances of his birth and death; in his resurrection, and in his ascension. "Wonder" would be the first sentiment which his manifestation would provoke, and hence this descriptive epithet is placed first.

The mighty God; rather, perhaps, Mighty God; but the difference is not great, since El, God, contains within itself the notion of singularity, which is given to ordinary nouns by the article. The term El, God, had been previously applied to the Messiah only in Psalms 45:6. It denotes in Isaiah always (as Mr. Cheyne observes) "divinity in an absolute sense; it is never used hyperbolically or metaphorically." The Everlasting Father; rather, Everlasting or Eternal Father. But here, again, there is a singularity in the idea, which makes the omission of the article unimportant; for how could there be more than one Everlasting Father, one Creator, Preserver, Protector of mankind who was absolutely eternal? If the term "Father," applied to our Lord, grates on our ears, we must remember that the distinction of Persons in the Godhead had not yet been revealed. The Prince of Peace; literally, Prince of Peace. A "Prince of Peace" had been long shadowed forth, as in Melchizedek, "King of Salem," i.e. "of Peace;" and again in Solomon, "the peaceful one;" and Isaiah himself had already prophesied the peacefulness of the Messiah's kingdom (Isaiah 2:4). Compare the song of the angels at our Lord's birth (Luke 2:14). If the peacefulness has not vet very clearly shown itself, the reason would seem to be that our Lord's kingdom has yet to come into the hearts of most men.

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne
[quote] 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.ht ...[text shortened]... uman descendent of David to sit upon His forefather's throne who is in fact God incarnated as a man.

That note is wrong in trying to teach that "HIS" does not refer to the child and the son.

That's not what the footnote is "trying to teach" jaywill. How do you so consistently get the wrong end of the stick?

Read the translation and footnote again. While you're at it, reread my posts.

@ThinkOfOne

Spare me the condenscending reading comprehension lesson.

I read the comment carefully TO understand what it conveys.

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

The child born is called Wonderful.
The Son given is Wonderful.

Your commentator wants to convery that the titles refer to God.

My bolding.

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

The prophecy is that -
The child is Wonderful.
The child is Mighty God.
The son is Eternal Father.
The child and the son will be on the throne of David.

And YOUR intent is also obvious to draw its attention AWAY from Jesus.

Setting aside the fact that it's a reach to apply Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus and the fact that names in general and Hebrew names in particular often have meanings that aren't necessarily to be taken literally, hopefully the following will clear things up for you:

@thinkofone said
Since you are unable to comprehend what the JPS translation is saying, I'll spell it out for you.

[quote]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 ...[text shortened]... asting Father, the Ruler of peace" describing the "son" with which you struggled.

Understand now?

@thonkofone

Who do you say Jesus was?

@ThinkOfOne

sonship:

That note is wrong in trying to teach that "HIS" does not refer to the child and the son.

ToO:

That's not what the footnote is "trying to teach" jaywill. How do you so consistently get the wrong end of the stick?

Read the translation and footnote again. While you're at it, reread my posts.

So I read it again and saw this:

ToO: [My bolding]

As such, "the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" describes God - not the son.

This completely eliminates the problem of " "the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" describing the "son" with which you struggled.

Understand now?

I understand that you are trying to buffalo me with a pretense of intellectual sounding bluster.

Your obvious analysis of the footenote is exactly what I said !

As such, "the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" describes God - not the son.

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

Spare me the condenscending reading comprehension lesson.

I read the comment carefully TO understand what it conveys.

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

The child born is called Wonderful.
The Son given is Wonderful.

Your commentator wants to co ...[text shortened]... necessarily to be taken literally, hopefully the following will clear things up for you:
[/quote]

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 because it doesn't make sense - and you've admitted that you can't offer a reasonable explanation for it.