- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2012,04:21) Ed, I have no times for games. Please address the points A through 3 from my other post.
Hi Mike,I have addressed points number 1 and 2 already and point number 3 is irrelevant.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 10 2012,05:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 10 2012,04:21) Ed, I have no times for games. Please address the points A through 3 from my other post.
Hi Mike,I have addressed points number 1 and 2 already and point number 3 is irrelevant.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Oh, and point number “A”, good Job!Hi Mike,
The logic of point number “A” is faulty logic;
I will explain why your point is moot with this analogy…
I(Mike) will prove your story is false by telling you a false story.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 10 2012,05:16) Hi Mike, The logic of point number “A” is faulty logic;
I will explain why your point is moot with this analogy…
I(Mike) will prove your story is false by telling you a false story.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Funny, this is the same “Logic” that atheists use in regard to “Theomatics“.Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,12:09) No Mike, “interchangeable” is not the same as “definition”.
Okay Ed,This is the point you lettered “A”, right? You said that I have used faulty logic.
But what you've actually done is to admit I'm right about it. If “interchangeable with” is NOT the same as “definition of” (as you've just admitted), then it is YOUR faulty logic on display here.
In other words, you cannot accurately say, I can INTERCHANGE these words for “el”, therefore these words are the DEFINITION OF “el”, right? < Please Answer This
Also, have you found a DIFFERENT dictionary that says “almighty” is the DEFINITION OF “el”? YES or NO?
Have you found any scripture that TRANSLATES “el” as “almighty”? YES or NO?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 12 2012,04:23) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,12:09) No Mike, “interchangeable” is not the same as “definition”.
Okay Ed,This is the point you lettered “A”, right? You said that I have used faulty logic.
But what you've actually done is to admit I'm right about it. If “interchangeable with” is NOT the same as “definition of” (as you've just admitted), then it is YOUR faulty logic on display here.
In other words, you cannot accurately say, I can INTERCHANGE these words for “el”, therefore these words are the DEFINITION OF “el”, right? < Please Answer This
Hi Mike,“EL” defines as “The Almighty” for YHVH and
'mighty one' for all others. …nothing has changed here.I will explain more in this post. (Link)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 12 2012,04:27) Also, have you found a DIFFERENT dictionary that says “almighty” is the DEFINITION OF “el”? YES or NO? Have you found any scripture that TRANSLATES “el” as “almighty”? YES or NO?
Hi Mike,1) Almighty: A name or title for God. (Link)
2) Irrelevant
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgImported from (Here):
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 12 2012,01:38) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 10 2012,23:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 11 2012,11:54) Since we know that Jesus is also called our Savior, and we know that Jesus is not Jehovah, then it proves the claim in Isaiah 43:11 to be an emphatic statement, and not a literal one.
Hi Mike,I thought it instead “proved” that Jesus was God.
Trinitarians make that claim, Ed. But if they were to be consistent across the board, they would then also have to say the saviors God sent in Nehemiah 9:27 were God Himself.
Hi Mike,So you agree with me then that it doesn't prove “Jesus is God”,
well, for the same reason it DOESN'T prove your point either.
I will explain why (see Isa 1:18) it does, though, point to what I have been telling you “IS TRUE”.
(The least of which is: Moses was sent in God's stead, and Jesus was sent in God's stead.)You have said that this verse (in essence) is untrue…
“Is there 'a God' beside me? yea,
there is 'no God'; I know not any.” (Isa 44:8)Mike's interpretive adjustment…
“Is there 'a mighty one' beside me? yea,
there is 'no mighty one'; I know not any.” (Isa 44:8) …this interpretation presents a number of problems.Ed's explanation (using Dr.Strong's definition of “EL”)…
“Is there “an Almighty” beside me? yea,
there is “no other Almighty”; I know not any.” (Isa 44:8)
“YHVH is GOD”(117), he alone is “The Savior”(117),
because he has sent others to do his saving; PERIOD! ….He did NOT send others to be a god; NOT even Jesus, nor Moses.Moses was not sent as a god, …so this is NOT the same as God sending saviors – as your faulty tie-in would try to suggest.
but as a representative of GOD!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 12 2012,01:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 12 2012,04:27) Also, have you found a DIFFERENT dictionary that says “almighty” is the DEFINITION OF “el”? YES or NO? Have you found any scripture that TRANSLATES “el” as “almighty”? YES or NO?
Hi Mike,1) Almighty: A name or title for God. (Link)
2) Irrelevant
God bless
Ed J
1) Yes Ed. “Shaddai” IS a name or title of Jehovah. That is not the support I asked you to show. If you can't find support for your claim that “el” means “almighty”, then just be a man about it and admit it, okay?2) It's relevant to me, Ed. Why? Because I CAN show you scriptures where the word “el” IS translated as “mighty”. If you CANNOT show any where it is translated as “almighty”, it lessens the credibility of your claims.
So, once again, if you cannot support your claim, then just say so, okay?
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 12 2012,01:19) Hi Mike, “EL” defines as “The Almighty” for YHVH and
'mighty one' for all others. …nothing has changed here.
So now we've switched our wording?
Instead of saying “interchangeable”, you'll now say “defines as”? Show me a reputable source that clearly teaches that “el” means “almighty” when used of Jehovah, and “mighty one” when used of all others.
It's easy to just claim things, Ed. It's quite another matter to be able to PROVE those things you've claimed. I've heard the claim – now I'm asking for the PROOF.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 12 2012,01:24) Imported from (Here):
It was addressed in the thread from where you imported it. I don't need to address the same exact posts in two different threads, Ed.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 12 2012,04:23) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 09 2012,12:09) No Mike, “interchangeable” is not the same as “definition”.
Okay Ed,This is the point you lettered “A”, right? You said that I have used faulty logic.
But what you've actually done is to admit I'm right about it. If “interchangeable with” is NOT the same as “definition of” (as you've just admitted), then it is YOUR faulty logic on display here.
In other words, you cannot accurately say, I can INTERCHANGE these words for “el”, therefore these words are the DEFINITION OF “el”, right? < Please Answer This
Hi Mike,“EL” does not define 'ONLY' as 'a mighty one' as is YOUR contention.
“EL” defines as “The Almighty” for YHVH, and 'mighty ones' for all others.Interchanging the words “The Father” for God does not make God define as the father – so it would indeed be incorrect to think that it would.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 13 2012,11:06) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 12 2012,01:20) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 12 2012,04:27) Also, have you found a DIFFERENT dictionary that says “almighty” is the DEFINITION OF “el”? YES or NO? Have you found any scripture that TRANSLATES “el” as “almighty”? YES or NO?
Hi Mike,1) Almighty: A name or title for God. (Link)
2) Irrelevant
God bless
Ed J
1) Yes Ed. “Shaddai” IS a name or title of Jehovah. That is not the support I asked you to show. If you can't find support for your claim that “el” means “almighty”, then just be a man about it and admit it, okay?2) It's relevant to me, Ed. Why? Because I CAN show you scriptures where the word “el” IS translated as “mighty”. If you CANNOT show any where it is translated as “almighty”, it lessens the credibility of your claims.
3) So, once again, if you cannot support your claim, then just say so, okay?
Hi Mike,1) I have shown you, but you reject it.
2) One of the definitions of “EL” is 'a mighty one', that is not in dispute.
3) I have given many examples of support, but you reject them all as well.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 13 2012,11:11) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 12 2012,01:19) Hi Mike, “EL” defines as “The Almighty” for YHVH and
'mighty one' for all others. …nothing has changed here.
(1)So now we've switched our wording? Instead of saying “interchangeable”, you'll now say “defines as”? (2)Show me a reputable source that clearly teaches that “el” means “almighty” when used of Jehovah, and “mighty one” when used of all others.
(3)It's easy to just claim things, Ed. It's quite another matter to be able to PROVE those things you've claimed. I've heard the claim – now I'm asking for the PROOF.
Hi Mike,1) I have said that from the get-go.
2) What does that even mean?
3) I gave you the evidence.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 13 2012,11:13) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 12 2012,01:24) Imported from (Here):
It was addressed in the thread from where you imported it. I don't need to address the same exact posts in two different threads, Ed.
Hi Mike,Great! It was more on topic in this thread,
that is why I imported it here.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2012,04:58) Interchanging the words “The Father” for God does not make God define as the father – so it would indeed be incorrect to think that it would.
Agreed.So, when the “el” in question is Jehovah, we can know (from other scriptures and Hebrew words) that it is REFERRING TO “the Father”………….. but that does not make “el” actually MEAN “the Father”.
Likewise, when the “el” in question is Jehovah, we can know (from other scriptures and Hebrew words) that it is REFERRING TO “the Almighty”……………. but that does not make “el” actually MEAN “almighty”.
How is it that you completely understand and accept the first paragraph, but dispute the second one?
I believe your bias is showing. Better cover it up before somebody sees it.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2012,05:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 13 2012,11:06) If you can't find support for your claim that “el” means “almighty”, then just be a man about it and admit it, okay?
Hi Mike,1) I have shown you, but you reject it.
I've only seen the one definition, Ed. And that definition doesn't say the word “el” actually MEANS “almighty” – like you seem to think.Please show me A DIFFERENT definition that supports YOUR understanding of the first one.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 14 2012,03:38) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 13 2012,04:58) Interchanging the words “The Father” for God does not make God define as the father – so it would indeed be incorrect to think that it would.
Agreed.So, when the “el” in question is Jehovah, we can know (from other scriptures and Hebrew words) that it is REFERRING TO “the Father”………….. but that does not make “el” actually MEAN “the Father”.
Likewise, when the “el” in question is Jehovah, we can know (from other scriptures and Hebrew words) that it is REFERRING TO “the Almighty”……………. but that does not make “el” actually MEAN “almighty”.
How is it that you completely understand and accept the first paragraph, but dispute the second one?
I believe your bias is showing. Better cover it up before somebody sees it.
Hi Mike,Simple, that is because “Almighty” is one of the definitions of “EL”.
Do you believe words only have one definition? Why this way of EL then?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
