Bible Codes - The Truth Is Here

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:19 pm

Okay, I get ya (sort of). But, please, what is the secret? Like I asked - please give us a hint. should have been published by now. (I would have bought it and read it).

What are my beliefs? How in the world did I get the name believer? Frankly, I thought that the name "believer" would have been taken long ago. Never mind. It's neither here nor there..

I believe -definitely.

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:04 pm

believer wrote:Okay, I get ya (sort of). But, please, what is the secret? Like I asked - please give us a hint. should have been published by now. (I would have bought it and read it).

What are my beliefs? How in the world did I get the name believer? Frankly, I thought that the name "believer" would have been taken long ago. Never mind. It's neither here nor there..

I believe -definitely.

Well, as far as hints go, I think I have provided a VERY simplistic version of only maybe a few select pages. Bear in mind, I also got to have this guy speak one on one with me, very interesting. It was very hard logic to follow, but it only strengthens the faith. His book is being published online for now as my dad is funding him, so you will know when it is released. A physical book probably would be available according to this guy, but for now, it is an online book available for purchase soon.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:08 am

With respect, Bible prophecy beats down 'Bible codes' every time.

I would much prefer unbelivers to be confronted with hardcore Bible prophecy. There's no running from it, and they can't take refuge in arguments regarding flawed methodology.

Bible prophecy - can't beat it with a stick.

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:17 am

Fortigurn wrote:With respect, Bible prophecy beats down 'Bible codes' every time.

I would much prefer unbelivers to be confronted with hardcore Bible prophecy. There's no running from it, and they can't take refuge in arguments regarding flawed methodology.

Bible prophecy - can't beat it with a stick.

Sorry, again, I titled this thread wrong, it IS NOT Bible Codes, I PROMISE you that. When I started the thread it was just small stuff I learned for the very first time from my dad that his patient told him, so I didn't quite understand it. I misinterpreted what my dad said and thought it was Bible Codes, but it isn't. Sorry for the confusion

.

Remember:

NOT BIBLE CODES!!!

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:45 am

What is it then?

Kurieuo

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:10 am

I still prefer prophecy. Anyone up for some prophecies of the return of the Jews to their land?

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:55 pm

I like prophecy too. Like the one in Isaiah 9:6

:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

Kurieuo

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:10 pm

Kurieuo wrote:I like prophecy too. Like the one in Isaiah 9:6 :
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace
Kurieuo

I like what standard evangelical scholarship says about this passage. Firstly, the note from the New English Translation on 'mighty God':

19tn rwbg is probably an attributive adjective (“mighty God”), though one might translate “God is a warrior” or “God is mighty.” Scholars have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God's representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way.

Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle.

According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (See M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). According to proponents of this view, Isa 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.

The other option is to regard this title as a reference to God, confronting Isaiah's readers with the divinity of this promised “child.” The use of this same title that clearly refers to God in a later passage (Isa 10:21) supports this interpretation. Other passages depict Yahweh as the great God and great warrior (Deut 10:17; Jer. 32:18).

Although this connection of a child who is born with deity is unparalleled in any earlier biblical texts, Isaiah's use of this title to make this connection represents Isaiah's attempt (at God's behest) to grow Israel in their understanding of the ideal Davidic king for whom they long.

Emphasis mine.

On the note 'everlasting father', the NET usefully points out that this passage does not support the trinity, and cannot be used to support the trinity:

20tn This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”)

Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible.

In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 b.c.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: “To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.” In another inscription (ca. 800 b.c.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See J. Pritchard, ANET, 499-500.)

The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king's long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

You would have me believe that Jesus is the Father, but the trinitarian doctrine forbids this - it is called 'confusing the persons'.