This day was intended for all persons that believe in PRAY not religions to pray for our nation and those that lead and protect USA. It isnt a Christian thing or any other religious sects' theme.
Sorry, SoG, but you do not have your 'facts' correct. This so-called "National" Day is for the very purpose of promoting Judeo-Christian values, to the exclusion of ALL other religions, os yes, in the overall sense it very much IS A "Christian thing".
Regardless of whether or not the President chooses to engage in the National day of Prayer is his personal choice, but dont dismiss the American people for continuing the Prayer Day.
Trouble is, the President is mandated to proclaim this special day for people of your faith. THAT is the UN-Constitutional part of it.
I would plea that you make your voice heard if you disagree with the choice to cast aside National day of Prayer that has been held since 1952.
I will be making/have made my voice heard, but my voice does not agree with your voice. What to do - especially in a nation that 'promises' freedom of religion to ALL of its citizens?
You seem to be making a big deal that it was instituted only in 1952. What of the previous 176 years of 'tradition' that allowed ALL citizens to follow whatever faith tenets they so desired? Why the big need to have a "National" day (which it is not) for the J-C traditions only?
What most Christians do not know is that the prophesy stated in Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3-4 at least 700 years before the birth of Jesus.
Yeah, I know! If they claim it is a prophecy about the Messiah, you have one Biblical item, one right after the another, after another, to show it is not a prophecy about the Messiah. They even become fairly aware of how stupid they are looking when they keep getting shot down because they don't even know their own Bible.
Most automatically jump to the mistranslation. The apologist have several fairly polish routines they attempt to use for this, they can sound fairly good, but of course they are full of holes if you know what to look for. It can take some time before they have run through all of these various routines. Most feel they are prepared to handle the mistranslation (even though they are not), but few are prepared to deal with the problem of it not being a prophecy about the Messiah in the first place. I used to use the mistranslation when Isaiah 7:14 was given, but I changed over to it not being a prophecy about the Messiah. It is usually much quicker. Often, as I've said, saying something like; "What? Have you even read Isaiah 7? How can this possibly be a prophecy about the Messiah?" Sometimes this will end the discussion, or if not, it usually ends after you have explained what the prophecy is all about.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - -Isaac Asimov
However, there is even a much more major problem with using Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about the virgin-birth, than just the mistranslation. It is not in anyway a prophecy about the Messiah, and we even know who the woman was who was pregnant and the name of the child who was born. Everyone want to jump to the mistranslation, but the real problem is that it is not a prophecy about the Messiah to begin with. This is much harder for the apologist to handle, and they start talking about hidden prophecies, and how they can be hidden at a number of different levels. It all ends up sounding like bullshit (many realize this), and they are completely unable to support anything they say.
When Isaiah 7:14 is given as the prophecy by an apologist, I usually start with this problem by saying; "What? Have you even read Isaiah 7? How can this possibly be a prophecy about the Messiah?" They are usually totally unprepared for this line of attack. They expect the mistranslation problem, and they have several ways they try to handle it. The "What?" is used to shake them up so they don't think clearly, and to very quickly put them on the defense. Of course they haven't read it, are totally prepared to explain this, and they end up looking dumb right from the start.
What most Christians do not know is that the prophesy stated in Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3-4 at least 700 years before the birth of Jesus.
3And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
4For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
One of the things that got me very curious about Christianity way back, was how very different the beliefs were in Judaism and Christianity. I couldn't imagine how Christianity could possibly have originated with Jesus, and his Jewish followers in Palestine. Of course it didn't, except for some initial spark (probably provide by Paul) which ignited it's growth in other parts of the Roman Empire. All of the early Churches developed outside of Palestine, in places like Antioch, Rome, Alexandra, Corinth, Philippi, and Carthage.
It is a little surprising, we find no sign of any Christians living in Palestine until several hundred years after the time of Jesus, and no sign of a Christian Church until around 275 AD. The closest we can come to any Christians living in Palestine, is a small group of Ebonites (who were first of all Jews) who lived outside of Palestine, in the town of Pella east of the Jordan River, during the middle of the second century. We know little about this group, except from other Christians who didn't consider them Christians. If there was any group who originated from the follower of Jesus (if he did exist), this is the most likely group, but we have no information to confirm this.
I'm almost certain you are correct, but it is always nice to have Leah verify information. I checked this out many years ago with a Early Hebrew/English translation Dictionary against some very early Hebrew writings of Isaiah. I've also checked this out with a Jewish professor friend who taught Ancient History. He is very fluent in the Hebrew language.
However, there is even a much more major problem with using Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about the virgin-birth, than just the mistranslation. It is not in anyway a prophecy about the Messiah, and we even know who the woman was who was pregnant and the name of the child who was born. Everyone want to jump to the mistranslation, but the real problem is that it is not a prophecy about the Messiah to begin with. This is much harder for the apologist to handle, and they start talking about hidden prophecies, and how they can be hidden at a number of different levels. It all ends up sounding like bullshit (many realize this), and they are completely unable to support anything they say.
When Isaiah 7:14 is given as the prophecy by an apologist, I usually start with this problem by saying; "What? Have you even read Isaiah 7? How can this possibly be a prophecy about the Messiah?" They are usually totally unprepared for this line of attack. They expect the mistranslation problem, and they have several ways they try to handle it. The "What?" is used to shake them up so they don't think clearly, and to very quickly put them on the defense. Of course they haven't read it, are totally prepared to explain this, and they end up looking dumb right from the start.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - -Isaac Asimov
Ugg! I'll bet you really get sick and tired of all their nonsense. They've been telling you that you don't know your own beliefs, and can't understand you own Scripture, all the way back to at least the end of the second century.
Especially given the fact that the the New Testament authors got their knowledge of Jewish belief from the Septuagint (aka. LXX) which is a relatively poor Greek translation of the Tanakh which the Greek-speaking New Testament writers couldn't read. A perfect example is found in Matthew 1:23
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (KJV)
Matthew was obviously quoting from the LXX when he wrote this. The LXX incorrectly translated Isaiah 7:14 to say
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)
However, the Hebrew in the Tanakh actually says:
"hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben"
which correctly translates to
"behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)"
The LXX incorrectly thanslated "ha'almah" as "a virgin." The correct translation is "the young woman." The Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah" which does not appear in the Isaiah quote. ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/2637/Q1/#Q1....
Leah, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
And I agree with her about you two, Bill and TP - I've also learned a lot from you two gentlemen : ))
Thanks Leah. I always look forward to seeing your posts, particularly when Jewish beliefs are being discussed. I know something about Jewish beliefs, but I'm far, far, far from being an expert. I do the best I can, and I'm always glad to see your presents. I hope I have not made too many errors. One thing I do know for sure, is that I know way, way more than most of these darn Christians. They appear to know almost nothing about them, even though they claim they do. You would think they would, since their leader was supposedly a Jew.
Ugg! I'll bet you really get sick and tired of all their nonsense. They've been telling you that you don't know your own beliefs, and can't understand you own Scripture, all the way back to at least the end of the second century.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - -Isaac Asimov
Thanks for the tip on the Christian debate forum. I decided to post there on the NDoP topic although I usually avoid that forum like the plague. BTW, the NDoP Task Force is privately, not government funded, but W gave it the power to essentially run the event during his term. Obama, a constitutional attorney, seems to realize that the event is unconstitutional and has nothing to do with it.
I also avoid posting on the Discuss Christian Board. The only other time I posted there, was when there was a thread on proselytizing. I went to the Board this time, because I noticed on 1SonofGod's home page that he had also posted there. I felt is was important for someone to present some factual material, instead of just having the normal Christian blah, blah, blah.
I was aware that the Task Force was a private group and not funded by the government, and I probably used a poor chouse of words in several of my statements which were misleading. I'll change it. Thanks. It was one which was given the power by Pres. Bush (part of government) to run the NDoP. Essentially, it was acting as an unpaid government task force under Bush.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - -Isaac Asimov
Wow!! Thanks Bill. I've learned a lot from your posts and am usually far too negligent about telling you so.
Thanks Thomas! I've learned a great deal from your post as well, and I've learned to trust it after checking out content I'm not familiar with (you've certainly done your research), but have people like Nancy and Eagle learned anything from either of us?
That's highly doubtful. There are some people who refuse to accept proven facts when it colflicts with their fantasies.
Thanks for the tip on the Christian debate forum. I decided to post there on the NDoP topic although I usually avoid that forum like the plague. BTW, the NDoP Task Force is privately, not government funded, but W gave it the power to essentially run the event during his term. Obama, a constitutional attorney, seems to realize that the event is unconstitutional and has nothing to do with it.
Bill and TPaine I have learned amazing things from both of you. I am blessed to know both of you. Thank you.
Thanks Cap, you are my favorite cute little pussycats living up in Maine, eventhough you can have very sharp claws at times (not with me - with others). I like that. Are you getting ready to go sailing this spring?
I totally agree on out MC. She is a sweetheart, and her avatar show the most contented-looking kitty I've ever seen.
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University,(October 12, 1985)
Wow!! Thanks Bill. I've learned a lot from your posts and am usually far too negligent about telling you so.
Thanks Thomas! I've learned a great deal from your post as well, and I've learned to trust it after checking out content I'm not familiar with (you've certainly done your research), but have people like Nancy and Eagle learned anything from either of us?
Bill and TPaine I have learned amazing things from both of you. I am blessed to know both of you. Thank you.
Thanks Cap, you are my favorite cute little pussycats living up in Maine, eventhough you can have very sharp claws at times (not with me - with others). I like that. Are you getting ready to go sailing this spring?
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - -Isaac Asimov
living up in Maine, eventhough you can have very sharp claws at times (not with me - with others). I like that. Are you getting ready to go sailing this spring?