Dad on Youtube

[anyathesword]

Yes, I would.

You are lowering the value of all Old Testament prophesies.

The Tyre prophesy was meant to affect the people at the time it was given. It is still a terribly failed prophesy and even Ezekiel new it.

Pulling a verse that just happens to mention the obviously still existing Tyre has nothing to do with the original failed prophesy.

No it wasn't. It is a fulfilled prophecy. It never failed.

 

[anyathesword]

Seeing as even in the bible no one will ever see the Antichrist coming or predict it, shouldn't the fact that you think it will happen soon indicate it won't?

It was predicted that he will come and he will.

 

[anyathesword]

Because, by relying upon that as the ONLY translation of almah, she gets to keep her fantasy story intact.

Her problem is that, just as with the exodus myth, THE JEWS THEMSELVES disagree with her...! (After all, it's their bloody language that's in dispute...they should know better than anyone else...!). Rabbi Singer and others give examples of 'almah' wherein it could NOT possibly be translated as 'Virgin'....and it only takes one to upturn the apple cart.....

How many times do I need to tell you that the Bible and it's stories are not mine?

Why don't you let me know which Jews disagree with their Passovers and language meanings. IT IS AND CAN BE translated as a Virgin.

Please give me the Jews that disagree with the Exodus. You will need to give me evidence of ALMOST ALL OF THEM!

Bible stories are not fantasy. Stop labeling as such.

 

[anyathesword]

Now...I'd like Anya to explain how we get striped and coloured goats by having the parents stare at striped sticks while they copulate.....!

Good luck....!

What the heck I'm supposed to know what you are saying with your bizarre phrases?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it wasn't. It is a fulfilled prophecy. It never failed.

Wrong, the Tyre prophesy clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Tyre so that is will never be found again. He failed. Tyre is still exactly where it always was.

A simple map debunks the Tyre prophecy.

Seriously Christians are supposed to be honest. Are you trying to claim that Tyre cannot be found on a map?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many times do I need to tell you that the Bible and it's stories are not mine?

Why don't you let me know which Jews disagree with their Passovers and language meanings. IT IS AND CAN BE translated as a Virgin.

Please give me the Jews that disagree with the Exodus. You will need to give me evidence of ALMOST ALL OF THEM!

Bible stories are not fantasy. Stop labeling as such.

Many Bible stories are fantasy. That has been shown time and again.

Now lets get back to your translation problem.

In Isaiah the writer had two choices. Five times in the same book when he was speaking of virgins he used the Hebrew word for virgin, bethulah. When he was talking about the mother of the messaiah he did not use that word. He used a word that translates as maiden, "almah". A maiden may be a virgin, but does not have to be. Why did he use an ambiguous word for what would be the most astounding virgin birth ever?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you read what I posted or not? Sometimes you have to reread it several times to see what the link says. I changed no words, I have no idea what you are talking about. If what I posted above does not make sense to you, you can say that. Because I see that you don't understand what I posted.

I don't know much about the Roman census.

Yes, you used a bad link.

Did you read what I posted? I went to someone who understood Hebrew. Why didn't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about here?

Song of Solomon 1:3
Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins ('almah) love thee.

Song of Solomon 6:8
There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins('almah) without number.


Now compare:
Genesis 24:43
Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin ('almah) cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

With:
Genesis 24:16
And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin (Bethuwlah), neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

Do you see the difference here? Both passages in the same chapter of Genesis use ALMAH and BETHUWLAH to mean VIRGIN.

The word ALMA refers to a young unmarried woman one of whose characteristics is virginity. There is no instance where the word ALMA is used to refer to a non-virgin. In such passages as Gen. 24:43 (compare Gen. 24:43 with 24:16 where BETULAH appears) and Song 1:3; 6:8 ALMA clearly refers to virgins. In fact the Hebrew Publishing Company Translation of 1916 translates ALMA as "virgin" in Gen. 24:43 and in Song 1:3; 6:8. Moreover an ancient Ugaritic tablet was discovered which uses ALMA in synonymous poetic parallelism as the synonymous parallel to the cognate of BETULAH. For this reason one of the worlds leading Semitists, Dr. Cyrus Gordon who is Jewish and does NOT believe in the virgin birth of Yeshua maintains that Is. 7:14 may be translated as "virgin" (Almah in Isaiah 7:14; Gordon, Cyrus H.; JBR 21:106). So why would Isaiah have used ALMA rather than BETULAH? Because a BETULAH can be a young married woman who is not a virgin, but pure because she is married (as in Joel 1:8).
Isaiah 7:14: The Virgin Birth of the Messiah

Do you understand now? Savvy? It means Virgin my friend. The prophecy was fulfilled without problems.

And I am using a Hebraic Roots Ministry Website. That means its a Jewish website.

No, "Hebraic Roots Minisry" means it is a site by Christians that are not Jews and do not understand Hebrew. I used a source by someone who understood Hebrew and gave a specific case where almah did not mean virgin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? The fulfillment of the prophecy for Tyre has happened already.

There is a Mainland Tyre and an Island Tyre.

Around 13 nations plus Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great all conquered this city. Alexander used the rubble from the Mainland city to build a causeway to defeat the Island city. Tyre is a place for fishing.

3) Critics then move on to their most serious charge: Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy the island city of Tyre. Clearly the prediction failed, and this failure is even admitted by Ezekiel himself (29:17-21) when he predicts that God will give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar's troops as payment for their hard work in besieging Tyre.

Before responding to this, we must note two features in the prediction. The first is the opening statement that God will bring "many nations" against Tyre, "like the waves of the sea" (verse 3). This is a clear indication that we should not expect one nation or one attack to produce the severe destruction and final state of desolation that Ezekiel predicts. Second, we note that the attacker changes from singular (he) to plural (they) between verses 11 and 12. Up through verse 11, Ezekiel describes Nebuchadnezzar entering the gates of the city, trampling its streets, and slaying people. Verses 12 and following describe later waves of attackers (they) who take booty, destroy the city, and throw its debris into the water.

A closer look at Ezekiel 29:17-21 reveals that God's (and Ezekiel's) stated concern is not that Tyre was not taken, but that the troops did not receive adequate pay for their efforts. The historical record is clear that Nebuchadnezzar finally subjugated Tyre even though he did not raze the island. Babylonian records refer to a new king ruling Tyre after the siege, to the royal family of Tyre living in Babylon (in exile), and to a Babylonian official who governs Tyre.[22]

Nebuchadnezzar, like Esarhaddon a century before him, waged a conventional land-based attack against the mainland portion of greater Tyre. He successfully captured the mainland, but not before most of the occupants had a chance to flee to the island fortress, taking the best of their goods with them. After a 13-year siege, the island was starved into submission, and became a vassal of Babylon. There was a change of leadership and undoubtedly some tribute paid, but the island was not pillaged. Given the minimal return for their effort, God rewarded Nebuchadnezzar's troops by granting them success against Egypt. Ezekiel 29:17-21 is not 'making lemonade out of a lemon' or trying to cover for a failed prophecy; it is simply rewarding the first of the many waves of nations that will follow.
Is Fulfilled Prophecy of Value for Scholarly Apologetics? - bethinking.org

Wrong, you are truly ignorant if you ever say "there was a mainland Tyre".

Tyre always was the island. The very etymology of its name tells you that it is an island. The prophesy tells you that it is an island. The Bible always refers to Tyre as the island. In fact if you read the prophecy you would see that the cities on shore were referred to as "her settlements".

I really have a hard time that deniers can't read their own Bible and instead go to paid liars to ease their disquiet about this terribly failed prophesy.

Even Zeke knew he was wrong. dad even admitted that.

 

[anyathesword]

No, "Hebraic Roots Minisry" means it is a site by Christians that are not Jews and do not understand Hebrew. I used a source by someone who understood Hebrew and gave a specific case where almah did not mean virgin.

Ok and !i gave you many examples and explainations for the word almah and why it was used.

Now for the Roman census in Luke 2:

[Critics] challenged the Bible’s claim that Quirinius [the Latin spelling of Cyrenius] was governor of Syria at the time. He was governor at the time of the census fourteen years later, in AD 6, but, it turns out that he was also a high official in central Asia Minor in 8 BC, actually being in charge of the Army in Syria. It appears that he was able to repulse a local uprising that proba[bless and do not curse]bly delayed the implementation of the poll tax in Syria for some time” (Wilson, C. 1980. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 116).

Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:


Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).

The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:


I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taas[bless and do not curse]ies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list” (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).
A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok and !i gave you many examples and explainations for the word almah and why it was used.

Yes, and my source trumped your source. Your claims was that alma meant virgin and virgin only and my source gave a clear instance where it did not. Worse yet for you there is a specific word that does mean virgin and the writer of Isaiah used that word 5 times. Yet he did not use that word for his messianic prophesy. He used an ambiguous word instead. The strongly shows that she was not a virgin.

Now for the Roman census in Luke 2:

[Critics] challenged the Bible’s claim that Quirinius [the Latin spelling of Cyrenius] was governor of Syria at the time. He was governor at the time of the census fourteen years later, in AD 6, but, it turns out that he was also a high official in central Asia Minor in 8 BC, actually being in charge of the Army in Syria. It appears that he was able to repulse a local uprising that proba[bless and do not curse]bly delayed the implementation of the poll tax in Syria for some time” (Wilson, C. 1980. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 116).

Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:


Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).

The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:


I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taas[bless and do not curse]ies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list” (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).
A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2

I will have to look into this. Your source looks questionable at best. Do you have a better one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't thin your source on the census is too reliable. It seems they are grasping at straws and I see no outside links to unbiased sources. Show me this papyrus discovered in the 20th century that supports their claims. I think others would have heard of it.

 

[anyathesword]

I don't thin your source on the census is too reliable. It seems they are grasping at straws and I see no outside links to unbiased sources. Show me this papyrus discovered in the 20th century that supports their claims. I think others would have heard of it.

Here we may gather up the evidence to present a composite picture: (1) Luke’s census is not a historical impossibility.49 Rather at all points, historical analogies can be drawn.50 (2) Quirinius was not the official governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth. The Syrian records and the current accepted chronology of Jesus’ life simply prevent this conclusion. However, Quirinius’s personal chronology is not fully known, particularly around the years of Jesus’ birth. Thus, it is not impossible that he held another office at the time which Luke appropriately describes with (h[gemoneuontoj thj Suriaj) hegmoneuontos tēs Surias, a description as we saw which could also appropriately describe the office from which he took his well-known census. In short, it is most likely under this otherwise unattested office that Quirinius officiated over what Luke describes. To say more would go beyond the present evidence; to say otherwise, would, as we saw, strain the syntax. As such, I. Howard Marshall is probably right when he suggests that Luke’s full vindication lies buried somewhere, waiting to be unearthed.51 Until then, Luke’s historiographical track record (well-documented in other places52) and the implausibility of such a monumental miscalculation, especially considering his method of and purpose for writing (cf. Luke 1:1–4),53 should forestall the rather premature conclusions noted initially. Moreover, for those of us with a high view of Scripture, the fact that Luke’s record is indeed part of Scripture suggests that these conclusions are not only premature but are, in the end, simply wrong. Further evidence will only demonstrate this more conclusively.
Once More: Quirinius's Census

I think the real evidence just hasn't been found yet..archeology discovers new things everyday..

 

[anyathesword]

Yes, and my source trumped your source. Your claims was that alma meant virgin and virgin only and my source gave a clear instance where it did not. Worse yet for you there is a specific word that does mean virgin and the writer of Isaiah used that word 5 times. Yet he did not use that word for his messianic prophesy. He used an ambiguous word instead. The strongly shows that she was not a virgin.



I will have to look into this. Your source looks questionable at best. Do you have a better one?

No it isn't. My source gave more examples and explainations. But we can argue all year, nothing will change. You just need to consider that it is a fulfilled prophecy and skeptics have been attacking the Bible never ending. And my source gave a Jew who does NOT believe in the Virgin birth and he said in this passage of Isaiah, it does mean Virgin.

You will only find Bible Archeology websites for this subject. Unless you can find other, you tell me. Luke is in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have nothing but a biased site that cannot even link to the stories that supports its own claims.


Once again, the Romans were well known for their record keeping. Polls requiring someone to go to their birthplace is not known now nor was it known then. That would put a ridiculous burden upon people and would end up with very bad censuses. We could not enforce such a law today. Do you think they could have enforce one then?

And if they did have such a ridiculous demand it would surely show up in history.

You can try again when you have more than straws to grasp at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it isn't. My source gave more examples and explainations. But we can argue all year, nothing will change. You just need to consider that it is a fulfilled prophecy and skeptics have been attacking the Bible never ending. And my source gave a Jew who does NOT believe in the Virgin birth and he said in this passage of Isaiah, it does mean Virgin.

You will only find Bible Archeology websites for this subject. Unless you can find other, you tell me. Luke is in the Bible.

You said words to the effect that alma is always a virgin. All it takes is one exception to show that you are wrong. Your "Jew" was beaten by "mine".

Also you keep dodging the obvious question. Why did the writer of Isaiah not use "virgin" in the one case where being a virgin really mean something. Instead he used the word for maiden. He used bethulah 5 other times, and that one time it really counts he uses the word alma.

 

[anyathesword]

You said words to the effect that alma is always a virgin. All it takes is one exception to show that you are wrong. Your "Jew" was beaten by "mine".

Also you keep dodging the obvious question. Why did the writer of Isaiah not use "virgin" in the one case where being a virgin really mean something. Instead he used the word for maiden. He used bethulah 5 other times, and that one time it really counts he uses the word alma.

I already answered this question!!! You don't read my posts much do you? I bolded it and put it in red, too!

These two words are interchangeable, kind of like synonyms. Some words have similar meaning but can be slightly different in other meanings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already answered this question!!! You don't read my posts much do you? I bolded it and put it in red, too!

These two words are interchangeable, kind of like synonyms. Some words have similar meaning but can be slightly different in other meanings.

You don't pay too much attention to your own posts, why should I?

Once again, you said that alma always meant virgin. I showed you that that was not so. But there is a word that always means virgin and the writer of Isaiah did not use it.

Yes, an alma may be a virgin, but then she may not be. Why didn't the writer of Isaiah use the word that he used five other times in the same book?

 

[anyathesword]

So you have nothing but a biased site that cannot even link to the stories that supports its own claims.


Once again, the Romans were well known for their record keeping. Polls requiring someone to go to their birthplace is not known now nor was it known then. That would put a ridiculous burden upon people and would end up with very bad censuses. We could not enforce such a law today. Do you think they could have enforce one then?

And if they did have such a ridiculous demand it would surely show up in history.

You can try again when you have more than straws to grasp at.

Here is the papyrus mentioned in the article:
Papyrus Census Order, 104 CE - CojsWiki

Here is the one to show that family registration was a fact of life in Roman times:
p.tebt.2.299 = HGV P.Tebt. 2 299 = Trismegistos <a href="http://www.trismegistos.org/text/13459">13459</a> = berkeley.apis.266

For example, F.F. Bruce (1910–1990), Ryland professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, suggested that the passage should be translated, “This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Harold Hoehner (1935–2009), Distinguished Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, suggested that the passage should read, “This census was before that [census] when Quirinius was governor of Syria”10 Therefore the census around the time of Christ’s birth was one which took place before Quirinius was governing Syria, of which Luke was well aware, as shown above.
Quirinius census luke - creation.com

That's all I have! And if you are willing to read some of the text in the links, it will provide more détails. They are short and easy articles to follow. But anyway...I don't know more!

 

[anyathesword]

So you have nothing but a biased site that cannot even link to the stories that supports its own claims.


Once again, the Romans were well known for their record keeping. Polls requiring someone to go to their birthplace is not known now nor was it known then. That would put a ridiculous burden upon people and would end up with very bad censuses. We could not enforce such a law today. Do you think they could have enforce one then?

And if they did have such a ridiculous demand it would surely show up in history.

You can try again when you have more than straws to grasp at.

Hmm, you don't think SAB is a biased website???!!!