The Bible God, the Law Breaker

[POI]

God is claimed to break "natural law" all the time, by walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the rotting dead, turning humans into salt, etc...

For Debate: Does God break all "law", or just some "law"? And if only some, why only some, and not all? Further, what is the point of breaking some "law", and not others? Or maybe, God breaks all "laws", which is why the Bible is illogical, immoral, and defies later human discovery?

Before you answer, a running theme is expressed among many theists... When a skeptic asks a theist, 'can God do anything?", the theist might respond with, "God can only do what is logically possible and/or what is in his moral nature". In essence, God strictly abides by some "law", but not others? By "law", I'm referencing natural law, the laws of logic, moral law, mathematics, and any others I may have missed. I trust you get the gist...?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #140]

Being tried by natural events, and intrusive influences, is not being tempted with lust to do evil...

The expression "tempted with lust" is meaningless. Temptation is a challenge to the exercise of one's free will to choose good.


If Jesus wasn't capable of being tempted to use his free will to choose wrong over right, why would Satan waste his time trying to tempt Jesus to fall down and worship him?

So, now you argue for a smart Satan, as well as a bored Christ.

Are you arguing for a dumb Satan? If Satan is dumb, then he can't be the crafty serpent of Genesis 3:1....

H6175 - ʿārûm - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) https://share.google/ItzPBHgts98kG7vE0

And on the subject of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were supposedly created good [being made in the image and likeness of Jehovah]. If the serpent was Satan, how could he tempt them with their evil lust when they weren't made with any evil lust to be tempted with? The only thing he could have tempted was their free will.


To tempt someone, you have to offer them something. And for the temptation to be real, you can't offer them what they don't want. You have to offer them what they do want.

So, the evil only offer evil to them that want evil. Therefore, everyone offered evil, must want evil.

People instinctively want comfort, safety, happiness etc. Tempters don't offer evil. They offer comfort, safety, happiness etc. in exchange for an evil compromise.

[RBD]

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Virgin prophesied.

KJV mistranslation quoted.

Since it's not a wrong translation, then it's an acceptable translation. Calling it 'mistranslated' is only by personal bias.

What's being prophesied is the downfall of Pekah and Rezin, because they are who Ahaz is concerned about.

True. Which was the original prophecy, that was already given before the second prophecy of the virgin giving birth.

Isa 7:8
For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

Verse 8 prophesies the fall of Ephraim,

Which is the fall of Remaliah's son.

Is 7:9
And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

but verse 16 prophesies the fall of the two kings themselves.

The kings of the land abhorred by Judea in that day, as well as those of Assyria and Egypt.

Isa 7:16
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.

Isa 7:17
The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.

The Jews in the days of Jesus' birth abhorred Syria-Damascus and the Samaritans.

The LORD then offered Ahaz a sign of his own choosing, and he declined.

Isa 7:12
But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

The LORD rebuked Ahaz, and so gave His own prophesied sign to all the children of Judah and Israel, of a babe born of a virgin.

In verse 12 Isaiah is addressing Ahaz himself as "house of David", as is indicated in verse 2. Thus, Isaiah is still referring to Ahaz's own situation.

False. The LORD addressed Ahaz first, who rejected any sign. The LORD's own sign is given instead to the house of David.
Isa 7:10
Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

Isa 7:13
And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


You taking Scripture out of context to preach your own prophecy, has become too obvious.

The early life of the child merely provides a time frame for the prophecy's fulfillment.

True, when both lands would be bereft of her kings, as well as that of Assyria and Egypt.

The fall of Pekah and Rezin is specifically prophesied to take place during the early life of the child Immanuel.

The fall of the kings of Syria, Samaria, Assyria, and Egypt is specifically prophesied to take place during the early life of the child Immanuel.

And, no Scripture confirms the fulfillment of the child Immanuel, until Matthew 1.

Which is why it's not wrong to translate the word as virgin, as it is elsewhere in the OT. Especially where context requires a virgin:

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

Abraham's servant is merely asking that a young woman come along and respond to him in a certain way. If she gives him a drink and offers to water his camels as well, she is to be the one to take back for Abraham's son to marry.

The prophecy demands a virgin for marriage suitable to Isaac. The same as the prophecy demands a virgin for birth noteworthy of Immanuel.

And even a 65-year span rules out Jesus and everyone else born 700 years later.

A 65-year span rules out the fall of the kings of Syria, Samaria, Assyria, and Egypt, as they were in time of Jesus, and everyone else born 700 years later.

Now, this is indeed a child named for the prophesied fall of Damascus and Samaria itself. Which is not Immanuel, God with us, but according to Assyria's quick plundering of Damascus, Samaria, and Judah.

The Lord spoke to me again:

“Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks
and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
O, Immanuel!”
(Isaiah 8:5-8)

"Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" is what his father calls him. "Immanuel" is what his mother calls him.

Isa 8:3
And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

It's the name the Lord calls him, in the land called Immanuel. Not calling him Immanuel.

Isa 8:5
The LORD spake also unto me again, saying,

Nor is the mother prophesying to Isaiah.

Your sleight of hand with Scripture is only getting worse.

False translation for personal interpretation. Both her kings are without name, and can be at any time in the future. And that time will also be with the end of the Assyrian and Egyptians kingship. And finally, the only nation not mentioned at that time being bereft of a king, was Judea, who was king in name only.

This is grasping at straws.

This is called quoting Scripture exactly, and in context.

The original prophecy made to Ahaz was fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's child.

The mother of Isaiah's child called him Immanuel.

This is called rewriting Scripture.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #142]

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Virgin prophesied.

KJV mistranslation quoted.

Since it's not a wrong translation, then it's an acceptable translation. Calling it 'mistranslated' is only by personal bias.

That was my mistake. It's not the KJV's mistranslation.

It's Matthew's mistranslation.


but verse 16 prophesies the fall of the two kings themselves.

The kings of the land abhorred by Judea in that day, as well as those of Assyria and Egypt.

......

The Jews in the days of Jesus' birth abhorred Syria-Damascus and the Samaritans.

But they weren't under threat from them.


In verse 12 Isaiah is addressing Ahaz himself as "house of David", as is indicated in verse 2. Thus, Isaiah is still referring to Ahaz's own situation.

False. The LORD addressed Ahaz first, who rejected any sign. The LORD's own sign is given instead to the house of David.

Isa 7:10
Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

Isa 7:13
And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Ahaz is the one refusing to ask for a sign, so he is the one "wearying God". Thus, it's obvious that he's still the one being addressed.


The fall of Pekah and Rezin is specifically prophesied to take place during the early life of the child Immanuel.

The fall of the kings of Syria, Samaria, Assyria, and Egypt is specifically prophesied to take place during the early life of the child Immanuel.

And, no Scripture confirms the fulfillment of the child Immanuel, until Matthew 1.

See Isaiah 8:1-4. Damascus fell to the Assyrians in 732 BCE and Samaria fell to them ten years later. Verse 6 specifically cites their confidence in the Israel-Syria alliance, which was happening in Ahaz's day, as the reason for their downfall. That was long before Jesus came on the scene to have anything to do with any prophecy of those events.


Abraham's servant is merely asking that a young woman come along and respond to him in a certain way. If she gives him a drink and offers to water his camels as well, she is to be the one to take back for Abraham's son to marry.

The prophecy demands a virgin for marriage suitable to Isaac. The same as the prophecy demands a virgin for birth noteworthy of Immanuel.

The marriage presumes a virgin, but she's referred to as a young woman [alma]----not as a "virgin" [betulah].

Immanuel's mother is also a "young woman" [almah].


And even a 65-year span rules out Jesus and everyone else born 700 years later.

A 65-year span rules out the fall of the kings of Syria, Samaria, Assyria, and Egypt, as they were in time of Jesus, and everyone else born 700 years later.

That's why Isaiah refers only to Pekah and Rezin as the kings threatening Ahaz.


"Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" is what his father calls him. "Immanuel" is what his mother calls him.

Isa 8:3
And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

It's the name the Lord calls him, in the land called Immanuel. Not calling him Immanuel.

Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
O, Immanuel!”
(Isaiah 8:8)

Whose land? Immanuel's land.

False translation for personal interpretation. Both her kings are without name, and can be at any time in the future. And that time will also be with the end of the Assyrian and Egyptians kingship. And finally, the only nation not mentioned at that time being bereft of a king, was Judea, who was king in name only.

This is grasping at straws.

This is called quoting Scripture exactly, and in context.

If you were quoting scripture in context, you would acknowledge that "both her kings" are named: Pekah and Rezin.

The original prophecy made to Ahaz was fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's child.

The mother of Isaiah's child called him Immanuel.

This is called rewriting Scripture.

Calling a young, presumably married woman [almah] who gives birth a "virgin" [betulah] is rewriting scripture.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #140]

Being tried by natural events, and intrusive influences, is not being tempted with lust to do evil...

The expression "tempted with lust" is meaningless.

Spoken like any natural man without God.

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Being tempted with lust has everything to do with the difference between Jesus, who sinned not, and all other people on earth, that have sinned.

Lusting against God from the heart is the first sin of the heart, that separates the soul from God by spiritual death.

All sinners separated from God have that lust of the devil and of the world. They are daily tempted with lust to continue sinning against God.

Jas 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Mat 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus was never tempted with lust, because unlike all other people, He never recieved the lust of the world into His heart, but rather chose to continue loving and doing the will of God from His youth:

Luk 2:40
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Jesus is the only man, that chose to continue in the grace of God, rather than receive for Himself lust for evil. The natural person without God deceive themselves that sin is only an outward act, and death is only of the natural body.

All those who lust against God are spiritually dead to God, by conceiving their own lust for themselves. Jesus was never dead to God by lust, because He never recieved it for Himself.

And on the subject of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were supposedly created good [being made in the image and likeness of Jehovah]. If the serpent was Satan, how could he tempt them with their evil lust when they weren't made with any evil lust to be tempted with?

The Bible answer to original sin:

Isa 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:

Jas 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Both angels and men created in God's image, have power to choose good or evil. Conceiving lust against God and His will, is the original sin that chooses to do evil.

The first to conceive evil lust against God in His own heart was Lucifer, and the angels that sinned with Him, and then was Adam and Eve in the garden, when they also conceived their own lust to transgress the commandment of God:

Gen 3:6
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The serpent tempted them with lust, which they then recieved for themselves, and they then transgressed and died to God. Jesus was also tempted to receive lust Himself, but unlike all other people, He chose not to.

Mat 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Lust is the master of sin, that must be served by disobeying the true holiness of God and life. Jesus refused to receive another master of His soul, than God Himself:

Mat 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and lust.

Jesus kept His heart pure from a youth, so that He never committed the evil of lusting in His heart against God: Jesus was never tempted to lust for evil:

Mat 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This is the final time I'll instruct you on the nature of lust and sin, which any objective person can understand. You don't receive it, because you refuse to believe it:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[RBD]

but verse 16 prophesies the fall of the two kings themselves.

The kings of the land abhorred by Judea in that day, as well as those of Assyria and Egypt.

The Jews in the days of Jesus' birth abhorred Syria-Damascus and the Samaritans.

But they weren't under threat from them.

The first statement, that only those two kings fall, is proven false. The second is a deflection, and rewrites the prophecy.

Verse 6 specifically cites their confidence in the Israel-Syria alliance, which was happening in Ahaz's day, as the reason for their downfall. That was long before Jesus came on the scene to have anything to do with any prophecy of those events.

Of course, because that prophecy of vs 7 is not the prophecy of v 16-. Last time to correct this.

"Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" is what his father calls him. "Immanuel" is what his mother calls him.

Isa 8:3
And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

It's the name the Lord calls him, in the land called Immanuel. Not calling him Immanuel.

Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
O, Immanuel!”
(Isaiah 8:8)

Whose land? Immanuel's land.

The first statement is proven false. The next is a an effort to keep the lie going. Immanuel's land is the LORD's Messiah.

The LORD and Christ are one.

Everything else is tired old hat. If you have anything new, I'll be glad to see it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #144]

The expression "tempted with lust" is meaningless.

Spoken like any natural man without God.

I explained why it's meaningless, even though you don't include my explanation here.

Jesus is the only man, that chose to continue in the grace of God, rather than receive for Himself lust for evil.

Then anyone, born at any time, can choose the same and be sinless? Then Genesis 4:7 and Deuteronomy 30:14 are right and anyone can overcome sin on their own.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Isaiah's nickname for Nebuchadnezzar has nothing to do with the Bible's teaching on sin.

This is the final time I'll instruct you on the nature of lust and sin, which any objective person can understand. You don't receive it, because you refuse to believe it:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Ad Hominem argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #145]

The first statement, that only those two kings fall, is proven false. The second is a deflection, and rewrites the prophecy.

Isaiah prophesies the fall of two kings to Ahaz. Those kings are earlier established as Pekah and Rezin, and Ahaz's fright is identified as coming from them.


Verse 6 specifically cites their confidence in the Israel-Syria alliance, which was happening in Ahaz's day, as the reason for their downfall. That was long before Jesus came on the scene to have anything to do with any prophecy of those events.

Of course, because that prophecy of vs 7 is not the prophecy of v 16-.

8:7 tells what is to happen. 7:16 tells when it is to happen.


Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
O, Immanuel!”
(Isaiah 8:8)

Whose land? Immanuel's land.

The first statement is proven false.

Not by your saying so.

Immanuel's land is the LORD's Messiah.

Then why does the text identify the land as a possession of Immanuel?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #144]

The expression "tempted with lust" is meaningless.

Spoken like any natural man without God.

I explained why it's meaningless, even though you don't include my explanation here.

Explained like any natural man without God.

Jesus is the only man, that chose to continue in the grace of God, rather than receive for Himself lust for evil.

Then anyone, born at any time, can choose the same and be sinless?

Yes, from birth without lust for sin in the heart.

Then Genesis 4:7 and Deuteronomy 30:14 are right and anyone can overcome sin on their own.

Why do natural unbelievers in God even try to interpret God's Book on the things of the spirit? By trying to explain away the spiritual things, the natural man shows his doubts that only the natural things exist. In any case,

Gen 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Gen 4 says if we continue doing well, then all is well with the heart and soul. But if we commit sin against God, then lust has dominion over our soul and life. Nothing is yet said about being delivered from lust for sin.

Deu 30:10
If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

Deu 30:14
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Deut 30 is promising deliverance from lust and sin by the heart turning to God through faith in Him.

Rom 10:8
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Isaiah's nickname for Nebuchadnezzar has nothing to do with the Bible's teaching on sin.

There are so-called believers that also try to write their own symbolized version of the Bible. I call it the Symbol-Man's Bible.

In any case, the teaching is judgment for sin unto death and hell:

Isa 14:9
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Isa 14:14
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Since reading out of context is a literary comprehension skill, not a matter of faith, then it only proves that fault-finders care nothing for truth, nor basic comprehension skills.

I don't mind, because correction is also a good exercise in basic comprehension skills.

[RBD]

Of course, because that prophecy of vs 7 is not the prophecy of v 16-.

8:7 tells what is to happen. 7:16 tells when it is to happen.

7:8 tells what is to happen to those two kings within 65 years. 7:16 tells what is to happen to those two kings with other two kings of Syria and Egypt. Which did not happen for all of 4 of them, until the first century B.C. by the Roman Republic.

Immanuel's land is the LORD's Messiah.

Then why does the text identify the land as a possession of Immanuel?

Because Immanuel is the LORD's Messiah born of a virgin, who was the LORD God of the children of Israel.

The LORD's Messiah was the LORD come in the flesh, Jesus Christ called Emmanuel, God with us.

Col 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[OneJack]

[Replying to RBD in post #149]

Because Immanuel is the LORD's Messiah born of a virgin, who was the LORD God of the children of Israel.

In terms of names, we can say Immanuel is Eternal Father, or Mighty God, or Jesus, and vice versa (Isa 7:14; 9:6; Matt 1:21).

The LORD's Messiah was the LORD come in the flesh, Jesus Christ called Emmanuel, God with us.

The Lord is only one, and He is the Almighty God, whose name is Immanuel, or Mighty God, or Eternal Father, or Jesus. He manifested Himself in the flesh of the Son of God, per se, as the Messiah.

Col 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

The ‘him’ in the verse was the Son of God, per se, the physical vessel of the Almighty in His incarnation, hence, the name Jesus.