I was interested because we have no empirical reason to suppose there has ever existed such a state as "nothing". We can have no experience of it, we cannot imagine it, language does not even permit us to describe it. So when you say "once there was nothing" that is an unsupportable assertion.
That is not how that particular investigation goes. We do have not only evidence but also philosophical principles that all indicate nothing natural can be eternal. The maximum life span normally assigned to all known matter, space, and time is less than 20 billion years. That is a long time but not even a patch compared to infinity. Now if we have (and we certainly do) to claim that everything that composes the natural universe we have evidence of existing is finite. A prior nothing is a simplistic extrapolation form it. Nothing has no properties to detect, no physical size to measure, no time to exist within. Nothing commences when measuring everything ends. You can't have a picture of nothing, you cannot have a weight for it, a test of any kind. What you can have is the limits of something.
Can you cite these other uses for me?
It won't help but why not. Asshur and Assyria are used interchangeably. They are both used to symbolize many things including spiritual Babylon, reasoning, natural knowledge, etc.. Here is one example but there are many at that link.
Asshur, Assyria
That Asshur is reasoning, is evident from the signification of Asshur or Assyria in the Word, where it is constantly taken for the things which pertain to reason, in both senses; namely, for what is of reason, and for reasonings. By reason and rational things are properly meant things that are true; and by reasoning and reasonings, those which are false. Because Asshur signifies reason and reasoning, it is very frequently connected with Egypt, which signifies memory-knowledges; for reason and reasoning are from such knowledges. That Asshur signifies reasoning is evident in Isaiah:--
Woe unto Asshur, the rod of Mine anger, he thinketh not right, neither doth his heart meditate right, he hath said, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, because I am intelligent (Isaiah 10:6, 7, 13),
where Asshur denotes reasoning, of whom it is therefore predicated that he neither thinketh nor doth meditate right; and it is said, by his own wisdom, because he is intelligent.
[2] In Ezekiel:--
Two women, the daughters of one mother, committed whoredom In Egypt; they committed whoredom in their youth. The one committed whoredom, and doted on her lovers, on Asshur (the Assyrians) her neighbors, who were clothed in blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses. The sons of Babel came to her, and they defiled her with their whoredom (Ezekiel 23:2, 3, 5, 6, 17).
Here Egypt denotes memory-knowledges; Asshur, reasoning; and the sons of Babel, falsities from cupidities.
Spiritual Meaning of Asshur, Assyria
May very well? But why should it, unless you have a pre-conceived agenda in mind?
Oh I don't know. Maybe because it fits in with the over all narrative and the other meaning mangles it. Because it makes a coherent whole where the other meaning fails. Because in similar situations this reading always makes sense and the other does not. If There exists two possible readings for a verse then it is simply a choice of which one has the most justification. There are rigors rules for doing this that have existed for over a thousand years. Other tests are reading the conclusion of commentators. If they all choose a certain reading and all dismiss another for good cause then any contentions about the alternate reading are suspicious. If they fall unevenly in both camps then some caution is required. If they fall evenly between the two then serious study and prayer is required. I saw not one that adopted you reading.
The verses aren't hard to find - Micah ch.5 verses 2-6. Who, by the way, is to decide what is a "responsible conclusion"?
Reason, logic, consistency, etc..... I can find all the verse I want on about any subject but if your contending with specific verses I require them alone.
You're still not getting it. I'm not suggesting the Micah author is foreseeing an armed and belligerent Jesus - I'm suggesting the passage isn't about Jesus at all, except in the minds of those who come to it with that pre-conceived idea. Take away the pre-conceived idea and there is nothing in Micah that matches the Jesus described in the NT.
I have reviewed and did not find the specific verse you refer to. I will need it before I can comment further. I remember you contending with the symbology of the sword and my comments dealt with Jesus as yours had. I did not know that was now your contention. Reasons to believe this passage is about Jesus are:
1. It was a commentary that concerned David's house or descendants. That rules out 99.999999999% of humanity and leaves Jesus as the best candidate.
2. The office of mediator and his eternal existence are alluded to in these passages. That rules out everyone except Jesus.
3. It says he will stand in the strength of the Lord and the majesty of God. That rules out virtually all mortal men.
4. It also mentions the time frame. Israel is made low and at that time has a son. Now Israel was occupied by Rome and it's most famous son is Jesus.
I can go on for quite a while explaining why most interpretations if not all agree with mine but the above should at least show you what it is I am referring to. We are not left blindly guessing at what God meant most of the time.
So you should appreciate all the more my invitation to concentrate in future on the other kind - preferably
here.
I do appreciate it, I just do not trust it. I have already mentioned Tyre. I picked it because I am familiar with it as it is one of the ones many atheists like to pick on and also because it has been discussed in detail in the forum. We can start there. You can either add to the thread about Tyre or you can tell me here what part of it you disagree with.
This is like a drunk looking for his money fifty yards from where he dropped it because the light's better there. Yes, it may be easier (and more convenient for you) to compare texts; but the verse in question was about what Ishmael (and supposedly his descendants) would do, not write.
A funny analogy but not very accurate. I am looking exactly where answers are to be found and where they are most efficiently concluded. Since my point and reality would suggest that Islam's problems come from Islam's texts, and since your point would require Christianity's problems to come from Christianity's texts what better place to look. I am not interested in a cultural debate but only in a theological debate. The prophecy we are discussing is theological, the motivations are theological, and my point is based in theology. That is where in this case where the drunk dropped his money. BTW what was the necessity for your analogy to be drunk?
No, I was thinking of pogroms, massacres and expulsions over many centuries. (And even if you insist that events in the last century somehow matter more - temporal chauvinism again - are you really waving away 6 million deaths as though they were insignificant compared to what the Arabs have done since 1948?)
That is a god point and illustrate why I want to discuss theology. The holocaust was the result of one man and a few cohorts. It was Hitler and his minions not the Christian German people, nor even the army that killed 6 million people. So your using the number of deaths when they only indicate the madness of a very few people. Muhammad killed far fewer yet his violence was A: Committed by far more people complicity. B: Was the direct result of theological zeal not the bi product of a man's madness. C: Took place over a far longer period. D: Islam has for most of it's history not been technologically capable of institutionalized genocide, and did it's killing the old and inefficient way. Etc.... If we are discussing the impact of theological ideals then your point is absurdly over weighted. If we are discussing cultural events then it may not be, but this is a theological issue. The bible claimed Ishmael's sons would cause a greater than average amount of trouble to the sons of Isaac over time. The death toll of one madman is incomparable to a thousand years of relentless violence even if the numbers are less. We are not discussing which side is the most capable. We are discussing which side reflects that prophecy. BTW you would have to show Hitler was a son of Isaac to even bring him into a discussion.
I have now done what I said I would not do, and continued to post on a topic quite alien to this thread and utterly irrelevant to the Evolution/Creationism forum. Can I request once again that we continue this discussion in the
thread I started in Biblical Debates?
You told me what you were going to do. It is not my responsibility if you violate that. I will try and see that other thread but it is not a high priority. You may not reply again here without any fault concerning me, but I cannot guaranty what I will do as my time is not always my own.
you mean "thoughts" ???
