I quoted from the KJV. The KJV has the difinitive atricles 'the' in the text. Your translation does not, so again I'm not sure where we can go to get to the bottom of it. That is one of the disadvantages of having hundreds of translations of the bible.
I'm sure how: We can
look at the actual Hebrew:
כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּ֚ן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמֹ֑ו וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמֹ֜ו פֶּ֠לֶא יֹועֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבֹּ֔ור
אֲבִיעַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֹֽום
Now I am by no means any kind of Hebrew scholar (can't read it), though I do know something of how Semitic languages tend to work, and I can use concordances as well as anyone, and it looks like what we have in the above is this word ’ă·ḇî·‘aḏ (אֲבִיעַ֖ד), which I have highlighted in the above text. Going to the definition as given at the above link, it gives the root as 'ad, which checks out with what
other concordances also show. But knowing something of how Semitic languages tend to work, and being able to read the concordance that I literally just linked to at the end of the previous sentence, I know that if we are going to have "Father" anywhere in the sentence (which te first concordance linked to just above the Hebrew text does not even include), it should be a form of
'ab, as this is a common Semitic root (found also in Arabic, the Ethiopian Semitic languages, etc. ; for instance, when we talk about the Father in Arabic, we say el-
'ab). Going to the roots list found in the second concordance, that is exactly what we find there for "Father" (which is included in the English translation there, as they use the KJV): אָב 'ab. Yet we don't find that in isolation anywhere in the Hebrew text, only as a part of this word ’ă·ḇî·‘aḏ (אֲבִיעַ֖ד). Why is this relevant? Because
abiad is defined as "everlasting" (see the first concordance). This is another form that we would expect, as it has cognates in other Semitic languages like Arabic, where to say "everlasting", you say أبدي 'abdi. Both contain the initial 'ab sequence (indeed, in Arabic, 'father' is written أب, which is the same as the first three letters of the word 'abdi), the difference apparently being that in Hebrew this is able to be broken down into two composite terms ('ab and 'ad), whereas I don't know if this is possible in Arabic ('ab clearly means 'father', but I don't know that 'ad means anything; I'd have to look it up in an Arabic dictionary or Semitic root list, and I am away from my books).
This is all to explain how it is that you can get some translations of the Hebrew that read "everlasting Father", as the KJV does, and some that read just "everlasting", as the translation at the first concordance does. Neither is wrong, so far as I can tell from this very basic analysis but it depends on how you parse ’ă·ḇî·‘aḏ.
In either case, the Hebrew definite article הַ (ha-) is missing from this word or clause (which is present in other words in the passage, such as ham·miś·rāh 'the government', which we can see at the either concordance has a base/undefined from of מִשְׂרָה
misrah, so we can know that the initial h is not a part of the triconsonantal root), so its presence in translation is a matter of the translation, not the original source text. Hence the KJV features it, but the NKJV doesn't. Since it's absent in the original, I am inclined to say that the NKJV is the more faithful of the two, though interestingly other forms of the passage which present themselves are more literal such as
Young's Literal Translation translate it like this:
"For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace."
If Jesus was known by Isaiah as 'the' Everlasting Father, or his name is Everlasting Father, it still adds up to the same thing.
Except it doesn't, because the article is missing from the original, so it's not "the" everlasting Father, and it may not even be
any kind of father; it is entirely possible and reasonable to read the relevant passage as "everlasting", full stop (see above). But even then, if Christ is everlasting father in some sense that does not confuse the Persons of the Trinity, then okay. That's likewise possible to say (in fact, I have heard it from priests of my own Church, who likewise do not confuse the Persons), but it is not clear to me at all this is what Mormons or Mormon scripture do by claiming that Jesus is the Father, which yes, is the exact wording used in the BOM, supposedly by Jesus Himself.
That you will not find in the Holy Scriptures at all, regardless of what Isaiah says or does not say.
Besides Jesus can act in behalf of the Father whenever he likes. Since they both are in such perfect unity, They can communicate with humans as God the Father, or God the Son, or God the HS.
Okay.
Besides, what scripture did you read in the BOM that said Jesus said he was God the Father?
I already gave the citation, with link, in the other post. I believe it was somewhere in Ether.
