You are so illogical, it is incredible;

Let's say I made an argument that there is a monster encased in mount Kilimajaro, but could not sustained that with defendible reasoning. Does that constitute plagiarism?

@huxley,

huxley:

It is hard for me to comment on this, firstly as it does not relate to the topic being discussed (Virgin birth).

Certainly it has a heavy bearing on the Virgin Birth - for the Virgin Birth is meaningless without the prophecies that speak of His "coming" to dwell among His people. Of what use would be your argument by excusing the prophecies in other texts?

huxley:

If this was a prophecy of Jesus, then it is strange that when he arrived, he was rounded rejected by the people he was sent to (the Jews) but found company amongst Gentile.

Again, your problem could be simply "eisegesis" - reading one's personal biases and pre[/b]texts into the texts and rejecting the [b]con[/b]text! Please, don't let that irritate you - that's why I said "could be" so you may understand I'm not being accusative.

You definitely have not carefully examined the texts about the Incarnation of Jesus - OT and NT. It is not "strange" that the Jews rejected Him while the Gentiles received Him. You quoted Isaiah's prophecy on the Virgin Birth - but the same Isaiah has answers to your queries here! You must have missed it: so here -

Isaiah 53:3
He is [b]despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised,
and we esteemed him not.

Would it not have been "strange" indeed if only one part of the prophecy was fulfilled while the other part took another occurence? It seems you had missed this very answer to your question.

huxley:

Am afraid, you have started to do the same thing that I found irritating (pardon me) with the earlier discussants. We should really be talking here about the prophecy of virgin birth. Shall I go start a thread about other prophecies of Jesus Christ?

You are free to open a million threads on the same subject - would that have any difference from the fact that when answers are given, you are rather refusing to sustain your own assumptions? I was hoping you would discuss issues, not complain about being irritated and rushing off to open another thread on the same topic!

huxley:

By right I think you should really be addressing the following issues raised in the main post;

I did, and rightly so. Remember I offered you the principles of Biblical hermenuetics? Good - because I applied them. Just so you may gain a better understanding, I elaborated on them; checked out my assumptions on other verses corroborating the inference I reached, tried to make sure that I did not ignore issues out of hand, and even challenged myself a secodn time to be sure I don't risk conducting my own eisegesis while worrying that others were often doing that!

In fair exchange, rather than complain, dear huxley. . . could you do precisely the same? Delve into the Bible, throw your disclaimer aside and take a serious look at your own assumptions and proffer something more tangible instead of hooting to open another thread on the SAME topic. What happened to this one?

huxley:

1) The issue of mistranslation of the word virgin/young woman in the Septuagint.

The mistranslation does not affect the context borne out in the narratives pointing to the Incarnation. If you believe it does, I'd be glad to consider your concerns.

huxley:

2) The context of the narrative in Is 7;

I believe I have dealt precisely with that in detail - particular what you missed out: the SIGN!

huxley:

Am afraid, you have not dealt with any of these in your post.

Please take the time to read through - I don't believe this claim as it has said absolutely nothing about everything I said in that detailed response.

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:

Would be interesting to see where I admitted this? Can you shown the forum, as nice and honest christian as you are.

I did - please read carefully.

huxley:

You are so illogical, it is incredible;

Thank you, don't let it worry you so much. I often get that as a response when discussing with people who have nothing to say after my detailed response.

huxley:

Let's say I made an argument that there is a monster encased in mount Kilimajaro, but could not sustained that with defendible reasoning. Does that constitute plagiarism?

I'd like to see it so, and if I found where you plagiarized it, I would say so.



Now, huxley. . . I have offered responses to what I thought you had as your own arguments on this topic. I also offered simple principles for understanding Biblical naratives (don't bother about the terminologies of "hermeneutics, eisegesis, exegesis, teleology, etc" - we catch up on them as we progress). I was honestly seeking to discuss - and I did as is clear from my detailed response on the subject. Could it be that you could also offer something as detailed and principled as well - following the same theological and teleological principles? If you'd rather not, no problem. If you may, I'd be glad to read from you.

For now, please relax and calm down. . . I did not mean to irritate you, and I'd rather be friendly than fiendish! My apologies where I may have caused you any inconvenience.

Cheers.

huxley:

Would be interesting to see where I admitted this? Can you shown the forum, as nice and honest christian as you are.

Have you found out yet where I admitted to plagiarism? I would not have my integrity impugned by you and you getting off lightly.

As far as I am concerned, you should;

1) Prove that I admitted to plagiarism
2) Prove that I plagiarised
3) Or apologise if you cannot prove 1) and/or 2)

No point in discussing with someone whose honesty remains in question.

@huxley,

huxley:

Have you found out yet where I admitted to plagiarism? I would not have my integrity impugned by you and you getting off lightly.

As far as I am concerned, you should;

1) Prove that I admitted to plagiarism
2) Prove that I plagiarised
3) Or apologise if you cannot prove 1) and/or 2)

No point in discussing with someone whose honesty remains in question.

My honesty is not in question as you may wish. The reponse I made which seems to have eluded your notice is this:

---

huxley:

I challenge you to show where on the internet (or other media) you think I have copied my questions that have not been referenced!

You admitted them earlier, so what's the shouting about? Just a reminder:

huxley:

Some of these questions may already exist out there.

. . . and an example is the one on the Virgin Birth which stimulus rigorously answered. Funny thing is that Babs787 had used those same questions repeatedly in several threads - and I don't see what your "challenge" here is warranting a red scream for.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.0.html#msg2303331

---

If it were not so, then no worries. I hope you're not sulking or pouting just so you want "apologies". I don't see you response to the issues at hand - and if this present plagiarism stuff is the excuse to detract from the discussion, I can well bear with it.

I offered an amicable response above so we could move on. However, you seem to want an apology by all means! Here: APOLOGIES.

Now can I see your own intelligent and principled response to my detailed reposte on your topic?

Dear huxley,

Rather than keep up this banter about the allegation of plagiarisms or not, can I ask that we see something in your response directly upon what I offered on the topic? I don't see how this asking to be clear on plagiarism would be adding value on your arguments; afterall, I remarked as well that it is worrying to observe that you often make other claims that are untennable - such as claiming that "NO ANSWERS" were given in another thread where obviously that is not true.

So, when do we see your response to the topic I addressed in detail?

Cheers.

syrup:

@huxley,


My honesty is not in question as you may wish. The reponse I made which seems to have eluded your notice is this:

---

You admitted them earlier, so what's the shouting about? Just a reminder:. . . and an example is the one on the Virgin Birth which stimulus rigorously answered. Funny thing is that Babs787 had used those same questions repeatedly in several threads - and I don't see what your "challenge" here is warranting a red scream for.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.0.html#msg2303331

---

If it were not so, then no worries. I hope you're not sulking or pouting just so you want "apologies". I don't see you response to the issues at hand - and if this present plagiarism stuff is the excuse to detract from the discussion, I can well bear with it.

I offered an amicable response above so we could move on. However, you seem to want an apology by all means! Here: APOLOGIES.

Now can I see your own intelligent and principled response to my detailed reposte on your topic?

Well my personal standards are such that I find it hard to hold a discussion with people who are being disrespectful and dishonest. I see you have apologised, which I am minded to accept, but you have not withdrawn the charge.

Should I read from that that you also withdraw the charge?

@huxley,

huxley:

Well my personal standards are such that I find it hard to hold a discussion with people who are being disrespectful and dishonest.

*Disrespectful - if that was the case, I both apologised and reasoned with you. To posit that you cannot hold a discussion with people who are such and then pass that off to me is leading me to the view that any excuse is enough to say you simply don't want to discuss.

*Dishonest - I have been very articulate in my proposals and had hoped that you would refer me, at least, to the line you can point your finger and say: "it is not so". You made a "NO ANSWERS have been forthcoming" as well - and I simply highlighted that the claim was not true. If that was being dishonest (and disrespectful), you have not convinced me beyond just the present protests about plagiarism. Rather than lose my cool on that the accusation of being dishonest, I even went so far as to extend some friendliness and disregarded the sly invective: would that benefit you rather?

huxley:

I see you have apologised, which I am minded to accept, but you have not withdrawn the charge

I have not seen you articulate convincingly that the several things I pointed out are "not so".

huxley:

Should I read from that that you also withdraw the charge?

If I begin to be dishonest with the facts before me, then you'll read me doing so. However, it is not a "charge" I threw at you; and that is why I apologise if you forcefully read it as such. If my apologies are not enough - perhaps it makes me safely infer that you never were interested in discussing in the first place.

Which is it?

Well, I said I took umbrage at two things which have no basis in actuality:

1) The charge of plagiarism
2) Your claiming I had admitted to plagiarism

I am saying you are wrong on both counts. I have asked you to show me where I have plagiarised, but you have not been able to show evidence for that.

I also asked for evidence of me admitting to plagiarism, but you have not. You may have been mistaken in making this latter charge. But if you willfully made this charge while knowing that you have not seen any evidence of my admitting to plagiarism; THAT WOULD BE DISHONESTY.

To absolve yourself of my charge of dishonesty, you will have to show the evidence that I admitted to plagiarism. In which case I would be the dishonest one, and would fullheartedly accept liability and apologise.

@Apostle huxley
We are recruiting evengelists in my church, i think you should put in an application

@huxley,

Let me give you one example. I think this plagiarism worry is the most immature concern I've read so far in all your threads; so I'd just oblige you with just this example.

I was actually searching for the threads where I was sure I'd visited similar concerns (offline) over the same matter on the prophecies on the Birth of Jesus - in this case, although I remembered vaguely, yet it so happened that those I mentioned were spot on: stimulus and babs787.

The topic of the thread you raised: "Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages" (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1939992). I'd like you to notice several things here:

(a) at post #6, stimulus observed:

In any case, the same inference and queries have been made on the same issue once-too-many times on this Forum (see, for example: Are These Really Jesus' Sayings And Were They Fulfilled?).

(b) the highlighted part ("Are These Really Jesus' Sayings And Were They Fulfilled" that stimulus was referring to was linking to another thread where babs787 had posited the same: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-101571.0.html#msg1784840)

(c) on that same entry, he said this:

Although not so many answers have been proffered on the Forum thereto, understandably so because it seems that those who are in the habit of making such inferences have been too busy plagiarizing the thoughts of other arguers and not being able to stand on their own to discuss the postulations they make.

(post #6)

(d) At post[b]#16[/b], justcool says:

I have given my thoughts on this issue before:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-101571.0.html#msg1812102

(e) At post #23, when stimulus began to answer the question, he noted that the verses used in both yours and babs787's thread are essentially the same: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940437) . . and he went on to say: "and this would help the poster in the other thread realize that plagiarizing the fancies of other arguers does not make an intelligent person out of him. "


Back to base. You objected to my insinuation that most of your articles and threads appear to have been plagiarized, mostly because even before seeing them on this Forum, I had seen and read them elsewhere. Mid-way through your concerns about this, you complained through the history of your threads, the questions have been framed by you - which does not essentially depart from the fact that they were not originally yours.

You have kept so busy about this infinitesimal complain about plagiarism - such a big issue to you, understandably; but I have offered several apologies to help us get on. To go on harping yet again about the same thing is simply beggarly and actually confirms that you actually are not interested in discussing your presumptions at all.

You have insinuated brash things at others as well - no less myself; inferring that I was disrespectful and dishonest at the same time, and yet it was not such a big deal for me to now abandon the main thrust of my concerns (which is rather to discuss the topic rigorously). If this was a way of saying you cannot discuss, it's nothing new - I've seen the very same excuses several times in other fora where those who made so much about these subject actually had no fish to fry.

Dear huxley, give or take, we both my be wrong on the plagiarism - we both might be right on our own terms. . . or yet again, ONLY you are always right: no problem. You crave an apology - I offered in abundance. You want more? Here again: APOLOGIES.

If at this point you cannot grow past this, oh bother. . . I just will be kept amused at the empty exercise.

So long.

Now, plagiarism over - get to be man enough to betake yourself to serious scholarship. Thank you in anticipation.

syrup:

Now, plagiarism over - get to be man enough to betake yourself to serious scholarship. Thank you in anticipation.

The fact is, I am more than willing to accept you apologies and get into discussion with you. I never shy away from discussions where I think I have some valid points to make.

To get into serious scholarship, you will have to bear in mind the following;

1) A great deal of the criticism about the bible are not new and given that I have read more than 50 books about this subject, it is not unexpected that I would mention critics that have been voiced be other people. Where that is the case, I have said so. Looks at my post "When was Jesus crucified".

2) Plagiarism is when one deliberated and maliciously tries to pass off some piece of material as one's own. I take it you have been educated through the public or private school system. Does it constitute plagiarism when you were writing a report about basic history, geography, maths, biology. At some points all the tenets of these subjects were not available in the public domain

3) It would be difficult to enter into a scholarly discussion with you if you do not understand the basic principle of scholarly discussions. Scholars tend to use each other's work if it supports their case. Can you imagine trying to re-discover everything each time embark of some progressive enterprise?


The fact that babs787 made have made similar arguments to the arguments I made does not constitute plagiarism. Like I said most of these are in the public domain.

Furthermore, the force of an argument does not diminish if one is not the originator of the argument. For instance, you would argue that Christ was the son of God. Does that mean take you have plagiarised this argument?

I would get into a scholarly conversation with you once we both understand the ground rules of scholarly academic discussion. Otherwise, it would just be a dogfight, and I would loathe to stoop so low.

huxley:

I would get into a scholarly conversation with you once we both understand the ground rules of scholarly academic discussion. Otherwise, it would just be a dogfight, and I would loathe to stoop so low.

The rules of scholarly academic discussions are largely vacant in your responses. Go back and see where I offered you a few principles on theological and teleological enquiries. If you cannot take them, like I said: you've got no fish to fry.

Cheers.

syrup:

The rules of scholarly academic discussions are largely vacant in your responses. Go back and see where I offered you a few principles on theological and teleological enquiries. If you cannot take them, like I said: you've got no fish to fry.

Cheers.

When I said the rules, I meant not just the content [/b]but also the [b]manner, style and decorum of conducting such discussions.

Dear huxley,

huxley:

When I said the rules, I meant not just the content [/b]but also the [b]manner, style and decorum of conducting such discussions.

I won't argue - let me humbly agree.

Cheers.

_{Edited:
sincere apologies for the inconvenient manner in my previous posts where you perceive them.}

@Syrup; I could not but said Chineke, as a show of my being very astonished at your argument. Your husband must have used the word "Chineke," before. Yes? When he says that please know now that he is surprised for the good or for not so good. Here in my usage I am surprised at you in not so good format. Below is why.

Quote from: huxley on Today at 08:39:11 AM
Why was Jesus never called Immanuel as prophesied in the OT. Was it a failed prophecy?


It was not a failed prophecy. If you take time to understand the hermeneutics of Scripture, you will indeed find that the prophecy was pointing to the substance of what He was in Himself rather than a mere calling of names.

The Name 'Emmanuel' means 'God with us' (Matt. 1:23), and Matthew points out that this was a prophecy alluding to Jesus when He was born: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" (Matt. 1:22, see Isaiah 7:14). This sheds some very profound light on the nature of the prophecies relating to "Names" of the Messiah. Simply put, the fulfillment of that prophecy was in its substance, rather than bearing the name 'Emmanuel' (or 'Immanuel'). The substance of that prophecy is that God had indeed come to be with His people ("with us" in the Incarnation in fulfillment of the many prophecies alluding to this event.

What other prophecies alluded to the Christ as "God with us"?

There are several of them. Let me give you a few examples more.

Several OT verses speak of God being with His people: (a) Psa. 46:7,11 - "The LORD of hosts is with us . ."; and (b) Isa. 8:10 - ". . speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us". Such proclamations of the confidence that the Divine Presence was with His people abound in the OT.

However, when you carefully examine the prophecy relating particularly to the promised Messiah (Christ), you find that it was specifically called a "sign" -

  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive,
  and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Those who know the significance of prophetic language have no problem understanding that "a sign" goes far beyond the mere calling of the name - it stood rather for the substance of what He really IS in Himself when that prophecy would be fulfilled: the substance was that God would actually come in the flesh to be with His people - to identify Himself with them for the prupose of redemption.


Since this is a prophecy, is it corroborated by other prophets?

Certainly, for that would be the substance of Biblical hermeneutics ("Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20). One should be willing to exercise the discipline to look at other verses of Scripture that point to the same event. Did Kenneth E. Nahigian ever try to do this? If he was failing in doing this, you can be sure that he was deliberately doing eisegesis rather than exegesis.* The first is "pretext", the second is "context".


*eisegesis - reading one's biases into Scripture by refusing to consider the context in other verses
*exegesis - exposition of the Bible by careful attention to contextually reading

Syrup, I just don't know where to begin with your above statement, except to begin anyway. It is interesting to know that the Biblical verses about Emmanuel specified that the Child will be "called" that name and also that the child is a "sign" from God. These two, the sign shows that the child is different from God and does serve a purpose from God. Also that the child must be called Emmanuel to actually be correct.

These are the verses from your Bible dealing with these two issues, which the christians world over are trying so desperately to read differently: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 (written: 712 BC (Before Christ)

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder: and his name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 (written: 712 BC -Before Christ)

I have two opinions as I read the verses above:

1. If the Christians were able to change the meaning of Emmanuel from God with us to God, they would have done it to justify their calling Jesus God.

2. The Christians however read their own meaning to what Emmanuel truly means in relationship to God and his Sender God Almighty who created him in the way He chose to. As I read the qualifications above, we can see that every prophet was Wonderful in his time. We see that every prophet was a councellor of his people. We know from the Bible itself that Jesus spoke about a God who lords over him. And all of the Christians say that father is not jesus. From all that i have seen, Jesus advocated violence in the pages of the Bible, therefore, he can not pass for being called the prince of peace.

In all I have to suggest that you are the one who had read your own meaning to what is corrupted based the statement in the pages of the Q.ur'an. We therefore have corruption over corruption as we look at the issue of the prophesy of Jesus being called Emmanuel.

A few of the other prophets who spoke of God coming to dwell in the midst of His people include the following:

  Zechariah 2:10
  "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion:
  for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.

  Malachi 3:1
  Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:
  and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
  even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold,
  he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Here, God prophetically declared that He would come to dwell in the midst of His people (Zech. 2:10), and though the Jews were looking forward to this event, it nonetheless says that He would "suddenly come" to His Temple - and for all that they would not recognize Him! WHY? Because it was a "sign" - the sign of God Himself in the Incarnation of the Child born by the virgin in a supernatural way.

A sign is not a sign unless it is made easy to be recognized. My dear Syrup, Zacharaiah was still alive when Jesus was born. He Zachariah did not say that God is here now.  And yet Zachariah begot a son< John who was also a prophet.  And no one can actually point to a single sin committed by this gentle soul.

It seems conveniently for you to forget that the Children of israel have had a many prophets before jesus and they were very familiar with the signs of prophethood. They would know a prophet if they saw one, yet they may refuse to accept him. In their refusal it will not eliminate his prophetic office, though. I therefore wonder if Prophethood is not what is meant here since prophets are God representatives among mankind? Moses was so powerful that he was given the laws or order to kill or spare the lives of people he shephard.

These both speak of the "sign" of His coming to dwell with His people that is alluded to in Isaiah 7:14. Often, prophets speak in symbolic language - and there is a reason for that: (Isa. 28:9 - "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts". The immature who deliberately reads his own pretexts into Scripture without considering the contexts disqualifies himself from understanding the significance of prophetic signs!

Are you saying that Jesus was not a prophet? I am also flabbergasted that you will claim that you seem to understand what the Bible is saying considering that the Bible in Isaiah 28 presented above is admonishing the Prophets themselves! Could you ever have a better understanding of God speech and sign than a prophet, an elect of god?


28:6  And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.

28:7  But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

28:8  For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

28:9  Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

28:10  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

28:11  For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

28:12  To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

So, a "Name" in this context speaks of the 'Subtance' of that prophecy?

In this instance, the verse is very clear and we see that the Christians did not even come close in their understanding of the verse. There is no ambiquity in it, whatsoever.

Precisely; and we can be confident of this, because Jesus was also called many other names by other prophets, but they were all symbolic of WHO and WHAT He was rather than appellations upon His Person. Another example is found in Jeremiah -

  Jeremiah 23:5-6
  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David
  a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall
  execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved,
  and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called,
  THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

From the onset we see that Israel was not dwelling in safety in the time of Jesus. Were the Jewish people not under the yoke of slavery of the Roman overlords?  Please stop reading meaning to the Bible verses other than what is obvious.

Our righteousness fall far short of God's Holiness. This was recognized by the prophets, and that is why even Isaiah declares that "In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory" (45:25) - it IN the Lord Himself that we find our justification unto righteousness.


What is a "NAME"?

A name is the identity of the individual person. In the african context, it has a greater meanings. Am very sure that you already know that by the way your children are named. This should have been the case with Jesus, a sematic man. If he was not called Emmanuel, meaning God with us, it simply means that the prophesy was not fulfilled. That is just the bottomline. I will not have to go further that a person could be called Ola in Yoruba, meaning  wealth. But the family may never have really come from wealth, except that they comfort in their hearts and or hope for future wealth.

Even in modern usage, a name is more significant than mere appellations for calling someone - it points to meaning and substance rather than to what we "call" someone. It often points to a person's reputation and to his/her authority. Here in the UK, civil and legal matters often take place "in the Name of the Queen" - it does not mean that allusion is made to the Queen's personal name (Victoria), but rather to the authority of the Crown.

Please use the same argument to understand that just because Emmanuel means God is with us, does not mean that the person bearing that name is God literally with us.

In the same way, the "sign" that Isaiah alludes to in 'Immanuel' was not perculiarly alluding to an appellation as we might address a person (Jones, John, James, etc); rather, that sign points to the substance of that "Name".

Emmanuel - God has fulfilled His promise by the prophets: He IS with us.

Many blessings.

However you slice it, Jesus is not possibly translated to be God in the mist of the Children of Israel. The same Jesus that you alluded to have died a sudden and terrible death? A death that he refused to willingly accept?

Syrup, I went into the Book of exodus and i read through it, specifically chapter 14. In this chapter, the Egyptians perished in the Sea. But in all that God used to defeat the Egyptians, not a single time Jesus or Emmanuel was seen playing any part. Yet you see that Angels were described going through the camps (angels that are invisible, how they know they were angels is a good question), cloud moving between them and the Egyptians to keep them separate and apart from each other. One side have a light and the other has a blackout. And we see that only Moses heard the voice of his Lord throughout, which was the reason the Children of Israel were constantly afraid and unsure of their survival.

But surprisingly, I read in Exodus 32 verse 14 that this God also changed His mind. In King James Bible and American King James Versions, He actually was said, (this God) to have "repented!" Is repentance not only for sins and sinners?

@Olabowale,

Your attempt is appreciate; but the reason why it is still hugely flawed is because of the following:

(1) You failed to apply the basic principle of Biblical study - I have talked much about this and mentioned with explanations such terms as 'eisegesis, exegesis, teleology, theology, hermeneutics', etc. Which of these did you apply in your assumptions? To ignore this fundamental principle is to force unwarranted prejudices and miss the most important point in it all.

(2) I had hoped to see you discuss the significance of the word "SIGN" [אות   - 'ôth] in Isaiah 7:14. Since you completely left that vacant, your excessive theorizing does not quite score a mark.

(3) In following a particular subject in the Bible, there is something that serves as a cross-check on whatever inference you draw: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20). You must always check again and again with other verses to corroborate if your thoughts hold substance - did you do this with the "SIGN" [אות   - 'ôth] in Isaiah 7:14?

(4) When you miss the basic point, arguments of no use will be multiplied. I'm sorry that is not my style, because it with engender useless denials and throw the one making the denials in a serious dilemma - I've seen this again and again with many discussants, no less yourself.

There are far more serious problesms with your thesis, but those should help you understand that since you missed it there, nothing else matters.





By the way,

olabowale:

@Syrup; I could not but said Chineke, as a show of my being very astonished at your argument. Your husband must have used the word "Chineke," before. Yes? When he says that please know now that he is surprised for the good or for not so good.

I'm learning everyday - and yes, I sometimes hear my husband use that word "chineke" when on the phone long distance to Nigeria. Funny that I initially thought he was 'yabbing' me with it. . . until much later when I confirmed from someone else that he was not. Duh! But, I've grown the wiser for it now - so there!

syrup:

Dear huxley,

I won't argue - let me humbly agree.

Cheers.

_{Edited:
sincere apologies for the inconvenient manner in my previous posts where you perceive them.}

Hey, Syrup. Apologies fully accepted. And I shall left the issue rest.

You seem to be applying some techniques with which I have little experience (Hermeneutics and Exegesis). So before commenting on your earlier post, I shall want to study what these are. I have started a thread to that effect. If you could bring me up to speed on that, it would be much obliged.

@huxley,

Thank you for being an admirable gentleman. I have learnt much from our exchanges. But hey, don't be overloaded with the big words. . . they rub off on us gradually.

Best wishes.

syrup:

@huxley,

Thank you for being an admirable gentleman. I have learnt much from our exchanges. But hey, don't be overloaded with the big words. . . they rub off on us gradually.

Best wishes.

Syrup, i belive you are "1Pe 2:11 reborn. Please confirm. Welcome back! I guess some of us can read in between the lines,

cgift:

Syrup, i believe you are "1Pe 2:11 reborn. Please confirm. Welcome back! I guess some of us can read in between the lines,

Hi cgift, how are you today? Reborn? No. Check my profile - I've been on the Forum since 2006, but was off for a long while to attend to a few things. I hope you're doing well. . . and thanks for the welcome back.

@Syrup:

@Olabowale,

Your attempt is appreciate; but the reason why it is still hugely flawed is because of the following:

(1) You failed to apply the basic principle of Biblical study - I have talked much about this and mentioned with explanations such terms as 'eisegesis, exegesis, teleology, theology, hermeneutics', etc. Which of these did you apply in your assumptions? To ignore this fundamental principle is to force unwarranted prejudices and miss the most important point in it all.

But the verses were straight forward enough that there are no need to read meanings to anything in them, except what they truly meant! If I follow your proposed methods of analysis, then everything in the pages can mean something else. Infact Jesus can mean more than a proper name, title, etc. You see the possibility of what could become of the bible verses? How difficult can understanding the word, "sign" and the phrase, "he shall be called Emmanuel", that we have to go through eisegesis, exegesis, teleology, theology, etc?

(2) I had hoped to see you discuss the significance of the word "SIGN" [אות - 'ôth] in Isaiah 7:14. Since you completely left that vacant, your excessive theorizing does not quite score a mark.

Could sign mean more that it actually means? If it does not literally mean sign, an indicator, a symbol, etc then we truly have a mysterious book, that anybody can read whatever meaning that pleases him/her to. Then creation as a word in the Bible may actually mean something else, then?

(3) In following a particular subject in the Bible, there is something that serves as a cross-check on whatever inference you draw: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20). You must always check again and again with other verses to corroborate if your thoughts hold substance - did you do this with the "SIGN" [אות - 'ôth] in Isaiah 7:14?

The best person who knew the meaning of what Jesus actually said, among the people who claim to follow Jesus and Jesus himself, was Jesus. If Jesus did not explain what he said meant, then you can not say to me that you truly know any hidden meaning of it, except the obvious, as the verses appears on the pages of the Bible. Further Isaac would be the best person who knew the meaning of what he said, during his time. When Jesus was on this earth, he would also be the best person to know what all the past prophets before him said. It will be so surprising that Emmanuel meant what you claim that it means, for Jesus to stand among his people not to demand that they call him that and provide them the meaning of it. That way there would not have been any doubt, considering that Jesus was bent on knowing what and who did the people thought he was. Later, he did not fail to ask his loyal disciple about who they themselves thought that he was. Was there a time that he demanded that they call him Emmanuel? No! Neither did Jesus declared to his disciples, throughout, even as he was being raised up that he was a sign of any kind to his people.

(4) When you miss the basic point, arguments of no use will be multiplied. I'm sorry that is not my style, because it with engender useless denials and throw the one making the denials in a serious dilemma - I've seen this again and again with many discussants, no less yourself.

I do not deny anything. There is no reason for me to deny whatever is obvious. Unfortunately, it would be you who should be concerned that a word so simple as sign needs a scholarship presentation to understand it. Neither is any need for us to have a thesis written up about "he would be called Emmanuel." But when one deviates from the clear meaning of these words, then we can be declare that there is a hidden agenda. In this case to go into excess in the matter of praising a simple man, which resulted in deitifying him.

There are far more serious problesms with your thesis, but those should help you understand that since you missed it there, nothing else matters.

I thought I am very direct. And my intention on this board, God willing is to strengthen my own belief and in the process to affect the belief ofindividual M.usl.ims and help the nonMu.sli.ms to at least take a possible look at I.sl.am.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup:
But the verses were straight forward enough that there are no need to read meanings to anything in them, except what they truly meant! If I follow your proposed methods of analysis, then everything in the pages can mean something else. Infact Jesus can mean more than a proper name, title, etc. You see the possibility of what could become of the bible verses? How difficult can understanding the word, "sign" and the phrase, "he shall be called Emmanuel", that we have to go through eisegesis, exegesis, teleology, theology, etc?

The context is straight forward - your problem is to strain at the phrase "he shall be called", while refusing to consider the meaning of the Hebrew word "SIGN" in Isaiah 7:14. Remove or ignore that word and everything you try to analyze is a waste of time, an this is not an exercise of your usual denials or selective reading.

olabowale:

Could sign mean more that it actually means? If it does not literally mean sign, an indicator, a symbol, etc then we truly have a mysterious book, that anybody can read whatever meaning that pleases him/her to. Then creation as a word in the Bible may actually mean something else, then?

I explained in detail what the word "SIGN" points to - and even went on to use the example of the English phrase "In the name of the Queen" in the UK: it does not mean her personal name, but rather the authority vested in that insignia. And we all know that the Queen's personal name is not the Crown - and to continue to force this point ignorantly is not surprising, Olabowale.

As regards the charge that the Bible is a mysterious book, indeed it is not open to whimsical off-handed conclusions that readers like you often draw. You cannot apply your personal and ignorant pre[/b]texts when reading such books as Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel or the Revelation - these Biblical books are prophetic in nature, and there is a huge difference between eisegesis and exgesis. So far, you are trying to force your own eisegesis into the texts and yet hugely failing to make any meaningful inference other than you usual Islamic denials. That is why you continue to have the dilemma of believing in [b]all the prophets in all simplicity.

olabowale:

The best person who knew the meaning of what Jesus actually said, among the people who claim to follow Jesus and Jesus himself, was Jesus.

And a Quraish prophet coming centuries later denying Jesus' words while asking Muslims to believe in the Gospels is simply wasting your time. That is the most incoherent adventure you will ever embark upon - and that is what you have been displaying all along.

olabowale:

If Jesus did not explain what he said meant, then you can not say to me that you truly know any hidden meaning of it, except the obvious, as the verses appears on the pages of the Bible.

If Jesus actually said that He was the Son of God, for instance, you cannot come up drooling about your dilemma to believe that simple statement. And obviously, you can only see "sex" in that meaning when you assume an eisegesis instead of exegesis - do you see the difference now?

olabowale:

Further Isaac would be the best person who knew the meaning of what he said, during his time.

Good - and an Arab in the 6th century would have no clue and cannot come on board brashly postulating empty talk.

olabowale:

When Jesus was on this earth, he would also be the best person to know what all the past prophets before him said.

Good again - and He did not contradict them. We've been through this before and your endless repetitions are boring enough!

olabowale:

It will be so surprising that Emmanuel meant what you claim that it means, for Jesus to stand among his people not to demand that they call him that and provide them the meaning of it.

Isaiah said it was a "sign" - he mentioned that the "sign" was the mystery of the birth of a son. Would that have been strange to his audience? Not at all - afterall, it is normal that women give birth to sons. It was the connection that the prophet made about that "sign" that startled his audience, for he pointed out that the son in question is not an ordinary son! Rather, He would be known as God with us - which is what 'Immanuel' meant. 

Now, if we just remain with only that verse, it is easy to draw the wrong conclusions and assume that this son would go about with the "name" of 'Immanuel'. However, following the simple principle of 'exegesis' (i.e., checking with other verses), we see that Isaiah repeated this "sign" again and used the same pointers later on in ch. 9:6 -

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall
be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Notice Isaiah did not point here that the Messiah would be 'christened' with all those qualifiers highlighted - he did not mean that the "son" will go about with "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" in the same way another person is "called" John, James, Jones, etc.

It is remarkable here to understand that it is the same prophet who mentioned this "son" TWICE and said that His "name" should be "called" all those appellations listed in both 7:14 and 9:6. Striking indeed that when you interprete the name "Immanu[b]el[/b]", it means "God with us" - and Isaiah also identified that the one to be born was to be known as "The Mighty God".

What then could Isaiah mean by the phrase "His name shall be called"? Because he meant it prophetically as a "sign" (check the Hebrew), he was rather urging his audience to understand that when the "son" arrives, His very Person and work would demonstrate that He is GOD. That is not rocket science - and Isaiah in 9:6 was clear enough to show this point.

olabowale:

That way there would not have been any doubt, considering that Jesus was bent on knowing what and who did the people thought he was.

The answer given by the crowd showed they did NOT know Him; and He was not trying to discover Himself as if He did not know! When Peter confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, immediately Jesus responded that Peter would only have known that by revelation from the FATHER (see it for yourself in Matthew 16:16-17). Besides Peter, there were a few others who had the faith to know that Jesus was the son of God - "Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." (John 1:49).

olabowale:

Later, he did not fail to ask his loyal disciple about who they themselves thought that he was.

As above.

olabowale:

Was there a time that he demanded that they call him Emmanuel? No!

He did not "demand" it - they could confess Him as such because the FATHER gave them that revelation to known Him as the Son of God (Matt. 16:17 and John 1:49). Jesus did not go about "demanding" things of people - that is what a cult leader does. Rather, He demonstrated through His life and power that He was who the prophets said He would be called.

olabowale:

Neither did Jesus declared to his disciples, throughout, even as he was being raised up that he was a sign of any kind to his people.

You're wrong. This is shameful, Olabowale - making statements from ignorance and assuming you know something when you don't! This pride is your huge problem.

On the contrary, Jesus declared several "signs" to those He preached to. Let me leave you an example - Matthew 12:39 and 24:30. Humility is a virtue, not a vice.

olabowale:

I do not deny anything. There is no reason for me to deny whatever is obvious.

You have constantly denied many things, so please refrain.

olabowale:

Unfortunately, it would be you who should be concerned that a word so simple as sign needs a scholarship presentation to understand it. Neither is any need for us to have a thesis written up about "he would be called Emmanuel." But when one deviates from the clear meaning of these words, then we can be declare that there is a hidden agenda. In this case to go into excess in the matter of praising a simple man, which resulted in deitifying him.

You obviously have not read the Bible - judging from the several huge gaps you make which I have exemplified above.

Interestingly, the same Isaiah also used the clauses "shall call", "shall be called", or "named" in other instances. For example -

Isaiah 62:12
And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD:
and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.

Isaiah 61:6
But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD:
men shall call you the Ministers of our God:
ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory
shall ye boast yourselves.

Of course, these are NOT personal names - and it is clear that they are rather descriptors, the same as the prophet meant the "sign" to be understood for the "son" in 7:14 and 9"6. When Jesus came, men received revelation to know Him as "the Son of GOD" (Matthew 16:17 and John 1:49). Your problem is that you are ignoring the "sign" with a muslim pride and seeking to translate it into a personal name! Who is it that goes about with personal names as "THE Priests of the LORD"? And did Isaiah mean that "THE Mighty God" was supposed to be the "personal name" of the prophesied son? You make me laugh with your eisegesis!

Olabowale, go and study Hebrew - your cultish loyalty to a denying culture is a waste on this subject. I do not mean this as an insult; but this ad hominem repetitions of saying nothing in your post for the sake of an argument has become so boring and out of date!

olabowale:

I thought I am very direct. And my intention on this board, God willing is to strengthen my own belief and in the process to affect the belief ofindividual M.usl.ims and help the nonMu.sli.ms to at least take a possible look at I.sl.am.

Your were "very directly" saying nothing - as long as you seek to "strengthen" your belief with eisegesis and personal biases read into the prophecies of a prophet that you do not believe in. That is a weakness, not a strength - and as long as you keep trying to pretend you believe in Isaiah as one of the prophets but have a problem with his prophecies, you believe nothing. Zero.

Regards.

we all know what it meant at that time if a woman is not found to be a virgin by her husband on the first night, so whether young woman or virgin the fact still stands (JESUS IS LORD)