Religion and Ethics Forum

The King James is the one the Jewish people and our scholars believe to be nearest to the truth.

The King James version of Isaiah 7:16 is different to most of the other versions.

ESV: "For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted."

KJV: "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

The more modern translations emphasize that the land will be forsaken. If you look at the Hebrew interlinear, the second half of the verse reads literally, "will be forsaken the land that you dread by the two of her kings". This seems to be why the KJV renders it as it does.

But the word translated "by" (mip-pen-ne) actually means "face" and so should be translated something like, "in the presence of", giving the sense that Ahaz is cowering before them. So literally, "the land whose kings you dread" as in the ESV.

This is relevant. The reason why the boy will eat curds and honey is because this will teach him to reject evil and choose good (v15). The context of v.17 onward shows that he will be born and grow up after the judgment on Ephraim and Judah. Isaiah 8:8 shows that Immanuel owns the land of Judah. He is therefore the heir to the throne of the house of David. If this prince grows up in poverty, it means that the time period is after Jerusalem has fallen, since if he grew up in Jerusalem he would be eating royal food. This means he will be born after the Exile.

Note that the KJV does get verse 15 right, where the modern translations don't. The Hebrew clearly says "that he will know how to reject evil etc", not "when he knows etc".

The way to translate Hebrew is to look at the wider context. Here's my latest find:
https://youtu.be/glXyt6A3c0M?si=gjysvqtkOmUpxSOK

Connections
Puzzle #735
🟪🟨🟨🟨
🟩🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟩🟩🟩
🟦🟩🟪🟩

I am sorry about the trouble you are having with the site. is there anywhere I could made a donation to help you financially after that double payments?
Let me know and I can see what I can do.
Doesn't seem fair you should handle all the cost's.

 

Thank you Sassy, but no: it is easier and more practical to have all this done by just one person. The extra costs and technical issues of the last couple of months were a one-off: the old service is now defunct, so we're back to a single service.

Fortunately, as dictators go, I'm a benign one 

The trouble there though is the question why it is that way when another configuration is conceivable.

It's rather funny that you can see the very same problem with what I've said that I've trying to get over to you. Nothing you've said about a 'necessary entity' answers this question.

Think about it.

Does what you're saying stop space time being necessary because it could be no other way. I would say no .So yes you are arguing for necessity and against it IMHO, because you are saying space time accounts for contingency.

Why, oh why do you continually look at everything I say as an argument for or against something? I specifically said "I'm not arguing that this is the case, it's just logically possible."

The universe (space-time) might 'just be'. That's just a logical possibility, given what we know at the moment. I care not one jot about 'necessity' because I can't see how it can possibly make logical sense and you seem totally unable to explain how it could. To be fair, I've never found anybody else who can either.

I'm open to being persuaded, but I cannot see how it makes sense and nobody I've discussed it with yet seems able to explain it logically.

Coming to something rather than nothing, Does nothing exist? or better still does non existence exist? And if it was a choice between nothing and something, something had to actualize that choice, since nothing is incapable of either choosing or actualisation or effecting that decision.
Therefore we have an unactualized actualized, and that which has been actualized.

Is this load of theobabble supposed to mean something?

In terms of no entities being contingent, I'm not sure who believes that and operates on it and would certainly say the burden of proof is on someone who suggests it.

I think it's ambiguous, because if the whole universe is a 'block' that just is, then nothing in it could not exist.

Again, I regard the argument from contingency to be total bollocks.

You do not have authority or knowledge to sustain what you are writing. You cannot decide what passes as a prophecy and what doesn't. We have terrorist in the world who carry out their threats
so what is that? Prophecy telling something before they do it? Truth is that God has warnings in the bible.

While there have been claims of finding evidence like solidified footprints and chariot remains on the Red Sea floor, suggesting the biblical Red Sea crossing by the Israelites, these claims are not universally accepted and are often disputed by archaeologists and scientists. The "footprints" are not definitively identified as human or of any specific origin, and the "fossilized" nature of the remains is debated.

So did the waters part and then close on the chariots and Egyptians as told in the bible.  Do you know the Egyptians never wrote about battles they lost they wiped failures out of history.
I have studied many things over the years and read up on the accounts of how others lived,

The Possible Palace, Tomb and Statue of Joseph
One last stunning piece of evidence for Joseph exists, and that brings us back to his burial in Goshen, and his bones that were removed by Moses at the time of the Exodus. In this same area in Goshen, where a large contingent of Semites lived, a great palace has been discovered, with a garden and a tomb, curious in its combination of Egyptian and Semitic styles. Rohl and his colleagues believe the palace is that of Joseph, perhaps his retirement villa after many years of service to Pharaoh. It has two apartments in front, suggesting the living quarters of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. In the rear are the more spacious living quarters of the prime occupants, perhaps Joseph and his Egyptian wife.

Adjacent to the ruins of the palace, there is an elegant garden area, and in the garden was an unusual tomb. The tomb was in the shape of a small pyramid, but it is clear that the vault was broken into and the remains removed. However, the damage to the tomb was not like that done by the all too common grave robbers of Egypt. It appears to be a careful and methodical removal of bricks from the tomb, as one would expect where the bones of Joseph were carefully removed from his long-used grave by Moses. Could it be that we have here the very tomb of the great patriarch Joseph? The evidence certainly takes it out of the realm of mythology, even for the hardened scientist, and into the realm of accurate history.
One thing is for sure.... If, Jesus and Joseph never existed or if he didn't do all he did, why is it spread all over the world now over 2,000 years later?
Who in history is more talked about than Christ and characters who lived the bible?

I do not accept what you say for you have no evidence at all. At least the evidence for the bible is being supported by finds which lets be truthful, men could not walk on the bottom of any sea so deep in the time of the biblical heroes and the Prophets. Can you disprove God? Can you disprove his word the most sold publication ever?

Offer me than opinion...show me you looked and what you present ever is nothing more than trying to prove only what you believe.

None of that addresses the points about so called prophecy.

Jesus may have existed - I think he probably did - but jut because stories about him spread and are still told doesn't mean the stories actually happened.