Search results

Manna is a type of Jesus!!! I.e. the bread from heaven!!!

I've proven that the word "jesus" is not related to paganism and that it is a natural development of cross-language transliteration. People who want to see conspiracies will find them every time.

Anglicizing... simple enough. Many "y" and "i" sounds were turned into "J" sounds in English. Case and point... Indiana Jones: Last Crusade pointed out that the mispronunciation "Jehovah" begins with an "I" in Latin. But it got changed to a J sound in English via Anglicization. Same is true...

More monologue. You don't even try to reply to what I write. You are assuming so much w/ the whole Zeus thing. The fact that Iesous was translated for Joshua in the OT 200-400 years before Jesus was born makes this conspiracy theory asinine. And the fact that you think YHWH is...

So you just monologue... no dialogue or conversation? I explained the obvious. יהושע was translated ιησους in the Greek OT (Pre-Christian mind you). That is anglicized into Jesus. There is not pagan intent. The Greek name was used before Jesus was even born. Your argument is ridiculous!

We actually do not have certainty how to pronounce YHWH. Yehovah is probably not close. Yahweh is certainly closer for many reasons. And which version of Jesus should we use? The Greek version, Aramaic, or Hebrew... they are all different. His momma probably called him Yeshua. For...

Ok... hail Zeus... really? Jesus is the anglicization of ιησους. And that is just the Greek version of the Hebrew Yehoshua. Now a better question is, where did the term Yehoshua originate? I believe that since Joshua's original was simply Hoshea son of Nun, that Moses added the deity of the...

YES... it's called fundamentalism

Sorry I never responded to this. I feel I was fairly prepared, however I had to be extra studious as well. I was also 1/3 of the way through a PhD program (same school as BA & MA) as well, so that helped me. I felt like those who did the MDiv or doing were a bit more advanced than me. They...

I'm not engendering a debate with anyone. I am simply agreeing with you that there is no scholarly debate. Only fundies where the KJV is still used is this an issue. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself.

On this occasion, yes I will go w/ scholarly commentaries.

Read any scholarly commentary on Isaiah and then talk to me about amateurish and lacking merit. Otherwise, your view is sinking in sand.

Neither is Isa. 14 referring to Satan nor was the Babylonian king ever called "lucifer" until English translations botched it up.

I've been meaning to read it as well... I need to add it to my "plan to read" list on shelfari.

Not even remotely. I am saying that the word "lucifer" was not invented as a word (or proper name) in English until the first time it appears in English translation. These translations did not use the Hebrew for this word but transliterated from the Latin translation. If anyone (yes a...

I think "lucifer" was a word turned into a name when English Bibles started transliterating from Latin translations. But before Latin and long before English, it was never uttered on the lips of anyone. Therefore, it could not be a proper name of anyone, much less an evil angel often known as...

Then I'm confused. If this is referring to an evil angel in Is. 14 (not conceding that in any way, btw), then are you saying his name is not Lucifer but actually Heylel??? I would actually like to talk to you about this further. Why would you advocate the Masorete vowel pointings knowing that...

I qualified it as "scholarly" debate. Yes fundies talk about things like this, but it is not an issue anywhere else where the KJV is not used.

Yes but "lucifer" was never a word or even name in English til it was transliterated from the Latin into English. To say that it was the enemy's formal name before the fall or any time is to commit anachronism.

I don't think there is as much "scholarly" debate is you might think. Pretty much anyone who knows Hebrew and reads the context understands this to have NOTHING to do with Satan or a being called Lucifer (as pointed out above, a Latin transliteration).