₦airaland Forum

ishmael:
Where does the Bible record Ishmael's worship of another god other than the God of his father Abraham??

So, you have no verse in the Bible for your assertions?

No wahala: when you provide verses for ishmael worshipping Jehovah, then you'll be graciously served an exegesis of the true devotion of the Ishmaelites. Dress warm.

@Backslider,

Backslider:
TD Jake is very far Away and I don't know what Anyone will gain from a Campaign "Smear". However He made him self clear that The Manifestations he talked about is that One being playing three Roles.
- - -
HE CALLES CREFLO DOLLAR ONE OF "GODS FINEST"

I'm sorry to burst your bubble. You, me and several others may not agree with T. D. Jakes on many issues; but, at least, let's be honest enough to acknowledge what he states without reading statements into his postulations.

Jake's statement from his website which you quoted did NOT say that God is "ONE being." Rather, the statement was that God is "TRIUNE", and then mentions being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

We know some of these televangelists are grifters; but just because someone's theology about the Trinity does not square with ours does not necessarily disqualify them as Christians.

Backslider:
The reason why we can not just play dumb to a pastor's stand on Trinity is that this is the basis of the Christian Faith. It will mean that God was Play Acting.

That's not at all the argument. You don't use a smear campaign to clobber anyone and denounce them as not being "Christian".

Backslider:
The Very Essence Of God is trinity. The God that the Jews worship is a triune God no mincing word with this issue.

I haven't argued against that, no?

Backslider:
Proverbs 22:20, "Have I not written to thee excellent(Hebrew, threefold) things in counsels and knowledge." On this Rabbi Joshua bar Nehemiah said that this is the Torah whose letters are threefold, alf, bet, g(i)ml, and everything is a Trinity

Prov. 22:20 does not establish the doctrine of the Trinity; neither did Rabbi Joshua bar Nehemiah see God as a Trinity. What is even more appalling is the statement that the mediator consisted of a "trinity" - for that is not what is taught about Miraim, Moses, and Aaron:

Backslider:
The mediator consisted of a trinity of Miriam, Moses, & Aaron.

This is the kind of blind argument that ruins my appetite for a good discourse. The mediator was NOT a trinity; for it was only Moses who stood as mediator on behalf of Israel -

Deut. 5:5 - "(I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount saying. . ."

Psa. 106:23 - "Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them."

Gal. 3:19 - "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator" (a singular mediator - Moses).

Backslider:
Prayers are a[b] trinity of morning, afternoon, and evening prayers[/b].

There are more than three distinct types of prayer - "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men" - 1 Tim. 2:1.

Backslider:
Israel is a trinity [/b]consisting of [b]priests, Levites and Israelites.

As if the priests and Levites are different from "Israelites". What happened to the prophets?

Backslider:
All things are composed of millions and billions of atoms; but the atom itself is a trinity of a proton. electron and nucleus.
- - -
It Just saying that you are a Scientist you Dont Believe in matter!!!!

Matter exists in [url=http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry6.html]four different states or phases[/url] - solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.

ishmael:
Thats the problem i have with fanatical christians like stimulus, always saying that muslims don't worship God. Now it has reached a level of denying that ishmael and Hargar did not worship God; then you must have read your Bible upside down. If ishmael and Hargar had worshipped a god other than the living God then the Bible would have told us, else they worshipped the same God with father Abraham.

It really doesn't matter that you are quick to libel others, especially as your overheated first response to my simple question demonstrates. For all your fanaticism, where does the Bible record Ishmael's worship of Jehovah God?

@babs787,

babs787:
It seems you are tired of sitting down and looking and decided to contribute .

You're erudite in your observation, bro. I don tire for all the roundabout debate, so I just felt like clearing up that line earlier.

babs787:
Thanks for the contribution anyway.

You, too. All the same, I don't suppose that my interest would be kindled in long-winding arguments.

babs787:
#While it is true that Jesus is greater than a prophet,#

What is he is he is more than a prophet?

Yep - He is the Prophet, the divine Priest, the Redeemer, the Saviour, the Mighty God, and the Son of God, besides a few others.

babs787:
#the Bible affirms that He is the Prophet prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15 & 18. The folowing bear this out#:

Brother, you are still claiming that the prophesy rested on him despite my explanation on the similarities and differences among them.

Yep again - and my claim stands as stated, because your explanation simply missed out the gist of Deut. 18:15 & 18.

babs787:
#John 6:14 - 'Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.'

John 7:40 - 'Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.'#

Are the above verses referring to Deuteronomy 18 v 18? What is the proof?

The verses actually are referring to the Prophet long expected according to Deuteronomy 18. Proof - exactly as stated in those verses.

babs787:
#What we should understand in the prophecy of Deut. 18 is that the Jesus was not limited as merely a Prophet - He was truly that, and much more.#

Brother, based on your statement above, it can be seen that the prophesy was not for Jesus because you claimed that Jesus was more than a prophet while Moses was not more than a prophet.

The fact that Moses proclaimed Him as 'Prophet' should not mean that the other roles be negated. I wonder why the Qur'an recognizes that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ) even though Moses did not call Him the Messiah. So, how did Muhammad get the idea that Jesus must be the Messiah, and then again Muslims have no idea what that appellation 'CHRIST' means.

babs787:
Dont worry, we will get to the root of the prophesy when we get to the phrase "from among your brethren", "I will put my words in his mouth" etc.

Stay glued

I'll be patient until then, although again I'm not at all interested in superfluous debates.

@babs787,

babs787:
Maybe if you don't know, early Jews in Palestines had the word :"In the Name of Allah, ," written at the top of their shops.

Tell me that "Allah" is Hebrew, then you would have made a point in your linguistic misconceptions.

Exodus 6:3 - "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

Did Muhammad know God by His name JEHOVAH? Please ask ishmael why he often has quoted the same name in his rejoinders:

ishmael:
even the mother of Ishmael (Hargar) who he lived with in the wilderness worshipped Jehovah God, so how comes his descendants did not worship the same God they worshipped?? Did the descendants of Isaac (the Jews) not worshipped Jehovah God?? if they did then the descendants of Ishmael (Ishmaelites) also worshipped Jehovah God.

If his argument was that "Ishmael worshipped Allah" (instead of Jehovah), then perhaps no one would be interested in furthering the discussion. To try and make the Allah of Muhammad into the Jehovah of the Jews is even more laughable.

@ishmael,

ishmael:
Can God be with people who do not worship him?? was God with Cain?? Was God with Pharoah?? Was God with Goliath?? The Bible did not tell us that Ishmael did not worship God.

Would God have been with Ishmael without Abraham's prayer for him? Where is it written that Ishmael worshipped God before and even after Abraham's death? Just simply give me the verse instead of ferreting far-fetched arguments.

Indeed, God has been with people who do not acknowledge Him simply because of the intercession of others on their behalf - and that is what the Bible records in Ishmael's case.

As in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, they would not have suffered the judgement that fell if there were a few righteous men in those cities: 'And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.' (Gen. 18:32).

Again, Laban who was an idolater (Gen. 31:30), realized that God had blessed him simply for Jacob's sake: 'And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I have learned by experience that the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake' (Gen. 30:27; see also vs. 30). I have hinted earlier that just because God blesses evil and unjust people does not mean that such people worship or acknowledge Him (Matt. 5:45).

ishmael:
Did Isaac worship God?? Can u quote from the Bible to show that Isaac worshipped God.

I've done that before - if you missed it, scroll up and read again. In addition, here:

Gen. 48:15 - 'And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day'

Gen 25:21 - 'And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.'

Gen 26:24-25 - 'And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake. And he (i.e., Isaac) builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac's servants digged a well.'

ishmael:
Yes, God blessed Ishmael because he was Abraham's son and He was going to make a great nation for Abraham through him too. God also blessed Isaac because he too was Abrahams son, so what are you talking about??

The difference is that Isaac worshipped God by his own personal commitment, and not based on what his father had done for him.

Your argument that Ishmael did the same is unsubstantiated; and that is why you've only been running round in circles. You can rest your case when you provide texts for your argument for Ishmael worshipping the LORD, Jehovah God.

ishmael:
is it because the Bible records very little about Ishmael??

Nope. Even one verse about Ishmael worshipping the LORD would suffice.

ishmael:
Even at that the Bible tells us that Jehovah God blessed Ishmael and was with him because he worshipped him and not because he was just Abraham's son.

Again, provide your texts for the assumption that Ishmael worshipped Jehovah God. Just because God blessed Laban did not equate to Laban's worshipping Jehovah, for Gen. 31:30 reveals his true devotion to his idolatory. If God blessed Ishmael (even as He did), it does not establish your assumption that he worshipped Jehovah, but rather because of Abraham's intercession for him (Gen. 17:18-21).

ishmael:
Ishmael and his mother Hagar worshipped the true God that Abraham worshipped, simple!! Q.E.D.

Your "simple!! Q.E.D." assumption is hanging in the air. Why is it so difficult for you to provide texts for your arguments?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=46335.msg1000859#msg1000859 date=1175124540]Smoking marijuana is bad for you. All stupid, juvenille, nasty and disgusting jokes aside. Stop that nonsense right now. Fullstop.[/quote]@babaearly,

That's one more confirmation that society has NO problem with weed. Smoke the wet ones - there's 'speed' in that brand; and then write some more songs when your sanity takes a hike.

Backslider:
So, given his background and his lack of clarification on this matter when asked by Christian leaders, there is justification to label him as a non-Trinitarian until he explains otherwise.

The doctrine of the Trinity is essential to our faith, without it there is no faith. If a person denies the Trinity they are in fact non-Christian by this very belief.

This is one thing that amazes me. I'm not an apologist for T. D. Jakes ministries; but then I wonder how it is that he is quickly labelled as one who DENIES the Trinity simply because of his lack of clarification. The ministry website does not deny a belief in the Trinity -

Backslider:
We believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority.

If he refused/refuses to clarify his use of the term 'manifestation', does that equate to his denying the Trinity? Even among those who hold the Athanasian creed, there are many discordant voices who are unable to clarify some of the terms they use in expounding on the doctrine of the Trinity - by the same rule, are they not heretics who deny the Trinity for their lack of clarity?

People who are on a smear campaign will have plenty of issues against others where they themselves have issues to settle in their domain.

It was for Abraham's sake that God was with Ishmael, and not because Ishmael worshipped Jehovah -

'And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.' - Gen. 17:18-21.

Ishmael was blessed because of Abraham's prayer for him, and not because it was recorded that Ishmael worshipped Jehovah. Just because God was with him does not bear any substance to prove that Ishmael worshipped Him. Jesus stated that God "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matt. 5:45), not because evil and unjust people worship Him.

The fruit of Ishmael's non-existent worship that you suppose in Gen. 21:20 is only a fulfillment of Gen. 16:12 -- 'And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.' We are not told that his mother Hagar worshipped Jehovah, other than that the LORD heard her affliction (Gen. 16:11).

The case of Ishmael's disdain against the covenant lineage of Isaac is revealed in Gal. 4:24-25 - 'Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.' This antagonism from Ishmael is still evident today: 'But as then he (i.e., Ishmael) that was born after the flesh persecuted him (i.e., Isaac) that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.' (Gal. 4:29).

It is not stated that Ishmael worshipped Jehovah; and the argument that he did is only an imaginative inference that is forced into the Bible for a verse that does not exist.

ishmael:
You must be out of your mind;

Thank you - my question was simple enough.

ishmael:
Did ishmael not worship the same God as his father Abraham, even before isaac was born??

That is why I asked you to please provide texts in the Bible for that.

ishmael:
Please you too provide for me where in the Bible Abraham or isaac worshipped God??

Dem plenty:

Gen. 13:4 - Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the LORD.

Gen. 13:18 - Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.

Gen 17:3 - And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying. . .

Gen. 20:17 - So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.

Gen. 26:5 - Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen. 22:5 - And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad [i.e., Isaac] will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

ishmael:
Sorry Ishmael worshipped the idol his father Abraham worshipped. Nonesense!!!

Alright - that is why Ishmael is still worshipping idols today, according to his mockery:

Gen. 21:9 - And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

@mimi4eva,

mimi4eva:
Jesus is simply a manifestation of Gods promise in human form who came to die for our sins(john 3:16). There is no need to argue about whether he is a prophet becuase he is NOT a prophet, he is greater that that because he is a Divine Being.

While it is true that Jesus is greater than a prophet, the Bible affirms that He is the Prophet prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15 & 18. The folowing bear this out:

John 6:14 - 'Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.'

John 7:40 - 'Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.'

What we should understand in the prophecy of Deut. 18 is that the Jesus was not limited as merely a Prophet - He was truly that, and much more.

ishmael:
Is Allah not the same thing as Jehovah God?? Remember Abraham had 2 sons; Ishmael and Isaac. The descendants of Ishmael are the Arabs and they still worship the God Ishmael the son of Abraham worshipped then.

Please can you provide where in the Bible that Ishmael the son of Abraham worshipped God?

You know, we really don't need some weblink for "proof" of the medicinal value of weed - especially of the green, raw and wet ones!

There are lots of people who roam our streets (from 42nd Street, Manhattan, NY to Idumota, Lagos) who are living "proof" of this medicinal value - they have been cured of their sanity! And society has no problem with that!!

Infact, here's a recommendation: smoke the wet weed - there's "speed" in that brand; and the next we know is that another Reverend King will be on the loose!!

babs787:
#1. Moses was a Jew while Muhammad was not.

Moses was not a Jew but a Levi

Me, I just dey sidon look and learn from all the debates. I can only apply the same rule to say that Muhammad was not an Arab but a Quraish.

Seun:
I find your lack of faith disturbing. You've committed the unforgivable sin: "touch not those drenched in coco-milk"!

Disturbing? Are you serious? Okay, you megalo-heretic, thou shalt be exiled to the Caribbeans! _{May all the priests say Amin!}

Seun:
Do you seriously mean you don't believe in the Holy Coconut? That is so strange. Are you an atheist?

Wonders shall never end!! Who is this megalo-atheist accusing others?? Abeg, somebody call ambulance kia-kia for this guy!! 

Seriously, make una call ambulance!

@BRMJANE,

BRMJANE:
STIMULUS I THINK THE AUTHOR IS INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, I'VE ALWAYS HAD THAT THOUGHTS TOO. REMEMBER GOD MADE ALL FRUITS FOR FOOD, HE CAN'T CONDEMN THE FOOD WHICH HE BLESSED US WITH.

Many thanks for your observation. However, is it not disturbing enough to refer to someone as 'inspired by the Holy Spirit' when you find that he was disingenuously cheating his readers with his non-existent references from Strong's Concordance? The point is simple: he tried to make the Bible say what it does not say; and that is NOT the working of the Spirit of God.

BRMJANE:
HOW CAN AN APPLE BE A SIN. THE AUTHOR WAS MAKING A GREAT POINT. I'VE GONE THROUGH THE BIBLE AND IF YOU WANNA KNOW THE TRUTH GO THROUGH THE GENERATION OF ADAM IN GENESIS CHAPTER 5.

Please, I beg una well-well: stimulus did not mention "apple" in his rejoinders! And I've gone through the Bible well enough to know that the author was offering his own brand of deceit.

BRMJANE:
WHEN I HEARD THAT YEARS BACK I WAS SO ANGRY, BUT I WENT THROUGH THE BIBLE DEEPLY AND I FOUIND THERE WAS A TRUTH IN THERE. WHEN A CHILD STARTS KNOWING GOOD AND BAD THAT CHILD TENDS TO COVER THEIR unclothedness MORE, THAT CHILD WON'T LIKE TO UnCloth IN THE PUBLIC BUT A KID THATS KNOWS NOTHING OF THAT KIND WILL RUN NAKED ARROUND THE HOUSE WITHOUT GIVING A HOOT. SO THINK AND PRAY TO GOD TO GIVE YOU AN INSPIRATION OF HIS WORD.

No child hiding his unclothedness slept with the devil. Period.

What happened in Genesis 3 is simply an act of disobedience to God's command to not eat from that tree. There was no sexual intonation there, except by the deceit woven into it by those who quote the Hebrew out of context. Please read the Bible and prayerfully open the Concordances and see the difference.

Shalom.

@KAG,

KAG:
I guess we've moved on from the presentation of and debate on Old Testament writers that equated the son of God with God. So, is it possible that Isaiah was prophesying a messiah? Yes, I'd say it's a strong possibility; however, and this is just me returning briefly to the early point, the author wasn't equating the messiah with YHVH.

Well, reading the article led me to believe the author saw the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6.

KAG:
By the way, I wasn't pretending the argument presented in the article wasn't there, I was simply disregarding it because the article itself was tangential to the discussion on whether the Jewish interpretation of the verse supported the deification of the "prophesied" person.

Okay, I take that back on insinuating the pretence.

KAG:
Like I pointed out I know what the words mean - hence the similarity with a vague understanding of echoes - but I can't interprete the text as a whole. I'll try to give a better analogy using a text, when I can.

Well appreciated. Regards.

babaearly:
You guys should understand my english : i meant "advancement" of christianity. not who "founded" it!

The humility of a fruitful servant of Christ:

For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that
commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing
themselves among themselves, are not wise. 2 Cor. 10:12.

babaearly:
Doesn't it sound stupid to you that an apple on a tree caused all this mess in the world today? men it goes deeper than you think ah you own the bible but you don't know it has deep meanings. for the sake of reasoning figure it out! its not plain as you read it.

It indeed sounds rather stupid that anyone should take the article for what it suggests without checking its claim, especially where the author cheats on the Strong Concordance references he offered.

Besides, I didn't even mention an apple in my post; so I wonder where you're getting your own "deep meanings" from. Read your Bible.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
The simple truth is you are not able to define what the heart is, at least from a biblical point of view, so why should I take your word as gospel? Heart is simply another word for mind. Thoughts, affections, emotions come form nowhere else but the mind, regardless of what you believe or were taught. Besides, this isn't the topic at hand.

I've clearly enunciated the difference between the heart and mind; and it is rather queer that you have not been able to maintain a clear perspective from Scripture of your persuasion. You're only making assertions and hoping that all would be well as long as not many people would have the discipline to check you out.

I wonder why you'd have to mention the subject at all in your post if you already knew 'this isn't the topic at hand'. Regards.

@KAG,

KAG:
And no matter how much you introduce the non-sequitur, the Jewish interpretation makes it clear Isaiah wasn't equating anybody with YHVH.

I'll simply offer you one thing so we don't argue like kids. The Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 points to the Messiah - as affirmed by the weblink you offered. Anyone reading the article there would not miss it. However you try to read it, the Incarnation is undeniably there in that verse - 'Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given' - and that makes all the difference as to whom that verse was pointing to: none other than the Messiah. I introduced nothing of my own in calling your attention once and again to the article on your weblink; and it is inconsequential that you're pretending it isn't there.

KAG:
The analogy works, because like the text in question, I know what the words say in as much as I know, vaguely what echoes are. However, I can't explain how echoes are made or what they mean just like I can't explain the text; I can spot a flawed or ad hoc interpretation though.

There is no way one could intelligently flaw an interpretation without an alternative understanding of the subject in question. That you argue with the analogy of echoes confirms that you, at least, would know 'vaguely what echoes are.' One cannot claim to have 'no idea' about a subject and at the same time try to flaw the views of others.

When deception is being spun, its weavers often go to great lengths to give words a completely different meaning than what was intended. Although hinting that Satan tried 'to twist and corrupt the Word into something that he can use to gain his ends', the author of the article does the exact same thing in his quoting Strong's reference for 'tree':

Now let us look at the word tree here:

tree = Hebrew word # 6086: `ets (ates); a tree (from its firmness) from # 6095:`atsah (aw-tsaw'); a primitive root; properly, to fasten (or make firm),ie: to close the eyes. figuratively:The spine giving firmness to the body (The body is the trunk, and the arms and legs are the limbs).

Notice how he cleverly introduced his own deception into that reference as highlighted in his construct above. In contrast, this is what Strong's Concordance offers for # 6086 and # 6095:

---

H6086 עץ ‛êts ates - From H6095; a tree (from its firmness); hence wood (plural sticks): - + carpenter, gallows, helve, + pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood.

H6095 עצה ‛âtsâh aw-tsaw' - A primitive root; properly to fasten (or make firm), that is, to close (the eyes): - shut.

---

What is happening here is that the author cleverly weaves his own thoughts into references for his own ends, so that he could easily make it appear that the text would be saying what he tried to make it say, rather than what it actually says. The same thing again in another Strong's Concordance reference he cited:

We have some more important Hebrew words to understand. These are vital in understanding the figurative terms used.

fruit of the tree = Hebrew word # 6529 periy- fruit, in a wide sense: a) fruit, produce (of the ground), or b) fruit,offspring, children, progeny ( used of the womb), or figuratively c) fruit (of actions). eat of it = Hebrew word #398; 'akal (aw-kal'); This word has many uses, among which, one use means to lay with a woman (which is a sexual act). touch = Hebrew word # 5060; naga` (naw-gah'); Properly, to touch, ie: to lay the hand upon (for any purpose); euphemism for: to lie with a woman
The sexual tone of Genesis 3:6 is unmistakable. We have multiple clues here that something more than looking at a fruit and eating it is going on.

So, we are here again challenged to look up Strong's Concordance on #6529, #398, and #5060. This is what Strong's offers us:

---

H6529 פּרי p^erîy per-ee' - From H6509; fruit (literally or figuratively): - bough, ([first-]) fruit ([-ful]), reward.

H398 אכל 'âkal aw-ka[/i]l' - A primitive root; to [i]eat (literally or figuratively): - X at all, burn up, consume, devour (-er, up), dine, eat (-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in . . . wise (-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite.

H5060 נגע nâga‛ naw-gah' - A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): - beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

---

Let's observe a few things here:

First, Strong's Concordance of #398 [אכל 'âkal aw-ka[/i]l' ] does not include the meaning of a sexual act. The word simply means to 'eat'; and has been used in other verses as well without any sexual connotations, such as Gen. 3:18. Who would be inclined to say that Adam was having sex with the herb of the field in this statement: 'Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat [אכל 'âkal [i]aw-ka[/i]l' ] the herb of the field'?? If it does not apply in this verse, why make the eating of the fruit in verse 6 a sexual act?

Second, the word 'touch' [H5060 נגע nâga‛ [i]naw-gah'] in verse 3 includes the meaning of 'to lie with a woman' (as in Gen. 20:6 - 'therefore suffered I thee not to touch her'). However, there are other meanings of the word nâga‛, and in Gen. 3:3 it simply means to "touch" rather than to have sex. In vs. 6 when Eve "did eat" of the fruit of the tree, it is clear she was not having sex with the tree or its fruit.

Third, Gen. 3:6 said that Eve 'gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat', which would not suggest at all that Adam slept with Satan.

The whole article was cleverly spun by the author to present a sex act in Genesis 3 where there was none.

@KAG,

KAG:
How can I be crying against "my own slant" by responding to your slant? By the way, what's my slant?

The very same thing you assumed about my post.

KAG:
Again, a midrashic reading of the verse isn't the debate.

Whichever is the reading, the whole premise was that Isaiah 9:6 was about the Messiah.

KAG:
Again, the right interpretation: "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—"

Second, some midrashic reading of the verse can interprete the verse as a messianic verse, but of course, that isn't and hasn't been the point. The point - and I've had to keep going over it for you, again and again - is and has always been that the portion of the verse you higlighted and thought meant the messiah would be the same as YHVH actually reads (according to the Jewish interpretation of the verse): The Mighty God is planning grace.

And I've always had to call your attention back to the very same point - that the verse, even in Jewish understanding, is actually about the Messiah.

KAG:
It makes no difference.

It actually makes all the difference.

KAG:
Let's see:

I asked: Which prophets in the OT indicated the son of God is God?

Stimulus: who was the prophet Isaiah referring to by the name "The mighty God"?

KAG: YHVH

Stimulus: What exactly is the "Jewish" translation of Isaiah 9:6?

KAG: For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

Stimulus: In reference to the 'Jewish translation', who is being referred to as the Mighty God in that verse other than the Messiah?

KAG: I already told you: YHVH

As you can see, I was neither debating the implications of a midrashic reading nor was I debating any reference to a messiah. That you've decided to turn the line of discussion to whether Isaiah was predicting the messiah is a detraction.

Again, my response was a direct answer to your initial query - that Isaiah 9:6 was referring to the Messiah which in that verse is called 'the Mighty God'. I did not refer you to a Midrash; rather, the weblink you provided actually confirmed the very same thing offered in my rejoinder without any detractions.

KAG:
In my opinion, it could be anything from a slight to an insult.

Which is which? That it could be 'anything' isn't saying anything at all.

KAG:
You haven't been that consistent and I gave the website solely for the Jewish interpretation of the verse; stay focused.

No matter how many times you dribble round it, the Jewish interpretation points to the Messiah - please go back and read your own weblink!

KAG:
Look, the debate is already long enough, but if you want to discuss the midrashic interpretation of Isaiah, how it pertains to a messiah and how the Christian messiah failed to fulfill any possible interpretation of the verse as a prophecy, then start a new thread. I'll participate and give my views. For now though, stay on topic.

I appreciate your recognition of the unnecessary stretch of this debate. However, as far as Isaiah 9:6 is concerned, even in Jewish understanding, it points to the Messiah.

KAG:
Yeah, sure, pity when I posted the link I didn't say "hey, look at what the author of this article has to say on the issue of messiahship", I'm pretty sure I wrote, "see, Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 9:6", but whatever. So, are you going to answer my question, or should I just put this to another of those misses?

See, it's really a simple case, isn't it? How many times do I have to call your attention to what the website says about the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 as pointing to the Messiah? That's what the article says, and that's what I've maintained.

KAG:
If the spirit isn't a seperate entity then how can there be a trinity i.e. a collection of three beings?

The Bible does not present the Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) as separate; for throughout there's only been one LORD God known by the covenant name 'Jehovah' (or YHVH). That it is a divine mystery has not been well received by many who study the subject - in just the same way that the Incarnation of the Son is a mystery.

KAG:
However, the verses don't say "the son" brings creation into existence et al., it says God (as in YHVH) did the making, so simply "offering the role" is your addition.

I honestly have to admit that was my interpretation of those verses concerning the Son (not the same as 'adding' to the verse) - for that is what other texts (such as John 1:3) point out.

KAG:
Actually, that's not quite true: one doesn't necessarily need an alternative to recognise a flawed interpretation of a text or issue. For example, I may not have an explanation for how echoes are produced, but I can easily point out that the explanation proffered by the ancient Greeks is flawed and wrong.

While I would not really want to stretch this into a discourse on echoes, your analogy actually works out my premise. You would not be able to 'point out' the flaws of ancient Greek explanation on that unless you knew what echoes were in the first place! In the same way, it really doesn't help one's argument to state that he/she has 'no idea' about a subject in order to see the flaws in other views.

1 Corinthians 3:5-8

'Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.'

babaearly:
Please can someone tell me why Jesus told his disciples to sell what they have and buy swords? I think its in Matthew i read that!

Luke 22:36 - 'Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.'

Can you tell us why Jesus told them to buy swords?

sage:
John 1:1 original rendering cannot contradict the rest of the bible. That would make the bible a false document. But the good news is that it does not. Il be back.

No problem waiting for your 'original rendering'.

osegwu:
And did Adam sleep with him too?

Bros, you too correct.

@sage,

sage:
The doctrine of trinity is the biggest lie of all times.

While we are waiting for your own biggest lie of the century, don't forget to include John 1:1 in your 'tackle'.

@kmcutez,

kmcutez:
Disclaimer: Please note, I did not write this article. I found it on the internet and thought it would be a good topic for discussion. Credit is given to the original author.

That being so, what do you believe happened in the Garden of Eden - did Eve actually sleep with Satan?

@KAG,

KAG:
In that you've given it your own slant and moved the focus from what was proposed.

Are you not rather crying out against your own slant?

KAG:
I offered a weblink that provided the Jewsih interpretation of Isaiah 9:6, the site was intentionally chosen because it is a site that, despite holding a different view, still showed the Jewish interpretation of the verse.

'Still showed the Jewish interpretation of the verse' - as pointing to who else than to the Messiah?

KAG:
Furthermore, your position could remain stationary on the Messiah issue, but that of course has little to do with what can be seen as the full and right interpretation of the verse.

What then is the 'full and right interpretation of the verse'? Incase you missed it, here again are a few lines from the same link:

The Targum Jonathan also references these verses in Isaiah as referring to the Messiah.
- - -
The name used to describe the Messiah is El Gabor ( E(rwbbg la) mighty God. This phrase is only used 3 times in the Tanakh, Isaiah 10:21 and Ezekiel 32;21. Only in Isaiah, is it used as a as a name.

KAG:
For the third time, the Mighty God is YHVH, and the part of the text you've, in a manner of speaking, quote mined is the “The Mighty God is planning grace". In context, not only does that make sense, but it also aligns itself with the Jewish understanding of what the Messiah will be like.

That's all that needed to be said from the onset in regards to my offering Isaiah 9:6 in answer to your initial question. The Jewish understanding of that verse simply points to the Messiah.

KAG:
The context once again: For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

And this again is different from the Messiah?

KAG:
Well, it was either that or follow your detraction.

I don't see any detraction other than your roundabout allusion to 'Jewish interpretation' in the attempt to see someone else in that verse. Throughout I've maintained the same thing; which you now have had to admit.

KAG:
While you may have offered Zachariah 12:10 as an allsuion to the messaiah, the verse itself still doesn't support that premise. Also, you may not have been debating the book as a whole, but the chapter as a whole does serve as context for the verse and helps put it in perspective.

Right then, could you please offer what in your context Zachariah 12:10 would be alluding to by the word 'pierced'?

KAG:
YHVH; hence metaphor.

Same question as above.

KAG:
I wan't trying to "lead the discussion to such theories"; I was simply trying provide as much information for you while supporting my allusion to the polytheistic roots of Judaism (allsuions you termed "allegations". That you're non-plussed about that aspect of Judaism isn't of much concern, but that you should re-introduce your earlier point on Isaiah 9 is.

I'm not so sure what you meant by 're-introduce' my earlier point on Isaiah 9. However, I've tried to be consistent with my position on that text; and have severally called your attention to the article on the website you offered.

KAG:
Let's be clear once again, the Jewish interpretaion of Isaiah 9:6 is "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—" Some have applied a midrashic reading to it and have decided it's a messianic prophecy; however, that contention shouldn't change the common interpretation of the verse.

Leaving out the midrashic reading, if it suits your argument, would the common interpretation otherwise be different from the very same thing argued all along - that it points to the Messiah?

KAG:
It's hardly accusative to call a reference to a "Us" by a singular deity, schizophrenic. So, if you're done playing "injured party", you can actually respond to my question. Furthermore, I've tried to maintain an honest debate, even going as far as to support my "allegations". If anything, it's you that hasn't been able to keep it honest.

Your honesty is quite a queer one as you've been circling round the very affirmation of the article on the website you offered. I wasn't playing 'injured party', try as much as you may have hoped so; and better luck on that if you've been snivelling on your 'irritation' and 'getting ridiculous' earlier.

KAG:
Er, this verse 2:" And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."; vs 16&17 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"?

First, verse two doesn't indicate that the Spirit of God is a separate entity from God. It is, in essence, talking about the same GOd from verse 1 who created the heavens and the Earth, then moved across the face of the waters, not a separate spirit from or of that God.

I'm aware the Trinity means different things to many people; but I'm not one who assumes that God consists of separate entities. In that instance I would agree with you in that last line, that the Spirit of God is not a separate spirit from or of God. He is the very same One who created the world; the distinction being one that I'm persuaded is as borne out in my earlier rejoinder: He is the agency by which creation subsists - as would be the same thing pointed out in Psa. 104:30 - 'Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.'

KAG:
Secondly, what does the "God made"s in verses 16 and 17 have to do with the trinity?

By that I meant to offer the role of the Son who, being the Word (or, 'Logos') brings creation into existence. It is through Him that all things were made (John 1:3).

KAG:
This is getting ridiculous. What has been my difficulty in offering an interpretation? For the thrid time of asking, "I have no idea what the chapter is about "; however, being unable to offer an interpretation doesn't stop me from recognising a flawed one.

Indeed, it is true that in some instances one may readily recognize flawed interpretations that are completely off-keyed on issues discussed. However, you can only argue the case of 'flawed' interpretations where you have an alternative one to offer for consideration; rather than stating that you have no idea! That was the simple reason why I refrained and instead offered pointers such as the word 'prophecy' in Prov. 30:4.