Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[rational experiences]

Father said the theist today was the alien Cloner. Human advice our scientist brother. Visionary prophetic human maths warning advice. He studied cells off bodies to form babies.

Part of his fake theory cells in atmosphere constant replacement.

Notice father owned sperm as his life continuance male not a cell.

Theist said I want that state studied as a machine resource. React cell energy use it up then replace it. Yet notice reaction is said first.

Clouds came from volcanic melt.
So did his machine design strings. Alchemy first is hot melt. That uses our bio water mass with living bio good microbiome. He burns it to carbon our bio food he uses water to get cold metal.

From carbon he says electricity.

I want it for my machines life. Electricity resource channel never ending.

Is currently having sex with robots. As the designer scientist. Now says his machine will interact bodily with atmosphere as spirit water microbiomes to channel energy and live.

So virtually said the machine is the newly born human baby life. As his comparison I want continuance. I will take your human spirit and give it to machine.

His first satanic baby his power plant already owns carbonisation of our water life food.

Information to believe always exists first before he thinks.

Any theory is first thought upon by or due to existing conditions existing.

Memory.

Rome was burnt historic like I was. Brain mind body. Brain burnt when Rome was hit in saviour asteroid busting burn. Learnt. When science warning about pyramid was not heeded.

Why they banned the satanist string theory right back to Alchemy. Where the string said my machine as Satan began in a hot burning metal. Equal to my beginning theory gas of God.

Two theories owning evil strings beginning.

So his bible thesis coerced you away from thinking as he had.

The earth.

He said God earths is hell volcanic.

Our brother sent us to God hell as the earth plate tectonics collapsed carpenter he said I built it. Civilization fell in. A long time ago. But in modern days he caused new earthquake plate collapse also.

So God is the carpenter spiritually. A science thesis. Tectonic plate. How he sent us to gods hell. Machine parts found inside stone fusion.

So he built the modern science machine under the ground claiming one place superior. Cold fused and sealed then began again. Life's attack.

Father said the human baby life remembered is by adults theme. In ancient times adults had babies. We grew into adults.

They all died. We know we ended being an eternal spirit. The dinosaur evil giant inheritance then lived instead of us.

Two new eternal.spirits same DNA re manifested out again after the ice age. Were the baby self. We returned as the adults who had lived the previous existence..

Why we said baby ice newly born cycle had saved God. Memories we were the human babies as human adults who remembered.

Our memory as adults in the past life we all were babies. The adult satanist brother did it to us.

We came back to New life as his victims.

As he remembered satanic science again and repracticed it.

Father said clouds evolved naturally.

Brother says today I want clouds. In resource thesis.

Human image in cloud. So is human baby image.

Clouds get caused to reactive burn. Already were naturally clouds. Ignored by the theist. Carbon effect.

Clouds then are forced to cool and re mass and form one greater cell replaced than what it previously owned. Just as clouds.

Atmospheric body one cell constant replaced using life ground water that he wants. Already caused by his Satan machine baby power plant.

He is told that advice.

To give to his machine he said our life spirit. Prophetic maths science advised. As it is known by the psyche.

Is how evil his thesis is.

He burns clouds already to be aware told that one cell as mass replaced. And the replacement one body of mass is greater than what got burnt.

Yet the cloud is not a reaction. It is a cause of evolution.

Brother in science said chaos cooling is evolution and moment by moment change was natural. Is not in science a reactive string.

Why he argues evolution only versus God cloud mass human image.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not believe that Adam and Eve were capable of procreating until after they partook of the fruit.

Also - I am not convinced that their bodies needed food before they partook of the fruit.

Even though I agree that Eden was a paradise where food grew spontaneously - the Genesis account does claim that God had put Adam in the Garden to both "dress it and to keep it" (Genesis 2:15)

So - this leads me to believe that Adam and Eve were doing something while they were in the Garden.



That would be an interesting story - but it would mean that God told a lie - about Eve not dying after partaking of the fruit - and I have come to believe that God does not lie - so I must reject this version.

I also interpret the story of Balaam and his donkey to be the Lord temporarily removing one of the restrictions placed on the donkey caused by the Fall - which allowed the donkey to communicate.

I am of the opinion that any and all animals in the Garden could speak before Adam and Eve partook of the fruit.

Interesting stuff.

I believe that the Knowledge of Good and Evil is what helps us receive enlightenment - to become like God.

God, their creator, banished them from the Garden of Eden when Eve decided to know for herself good and evil, and then Adam partook of it after that.. God then left them on their own to decide for themselves what they would do, more or less, although being a good God, He protected them to an extent, but generally let them on their own to decide. Their idea of good and evil was not God's idea of good and evil. The Bible says Eve was deceived, but Adam was not.
God gave the Law to Israel, which told them what they must do in order to be at peace with him. Thus again, telling them in a sense, good from evil. But not quite. Because no matter how hard they tried, the nation had to offer sacrifices for sin.
1 Timothy 2:14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor.

 

[rational experiences]

God, their creator, banished them from the Garden of Eden when Eve decided to know for herself good and evil, and then Adam partook of it after that.. God then left them on their own to decide for themselves what they would do, more or less, although being a good God, He protected them to an extent, but generally let them on their own to decide. Their idea of good and evil was not God's idea of good and evil. The Bible says Eve was deceived, but Adam was not.
God gave the Law to Israel, which told them what they must do in order to be at peace with him. Thus again, telling them in a sense, good from evil. But not quite. Because no matter how hard they tried, the nation had to offer sacrifices for sin.
1 Timothy 2:14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor.

The men brothers first with garden nature became a human theist talking about God the earth.

Earth existed in spatial evolution cooling.
So did it's heavens.

No theory at all.

Thought.

Your new partner not a real female sister human equal was maths Phi thesis how to force change natural by causing an irradiated space moment in gods body. By space evil womb theme. Radiating space moment.

Core heart UFOo effect.

And activated it yourself by machine.

Atlantis earth gods owned historic a higher fusion crystal was a higher mass that owned transmitted light. What body of power you used first.. with machine.

Atlantis became sAtanlit. Science.

You carbon burnt that mass out of gods body crystal fusion leaving only radiating mass.

Channel inside of deep earth fusion.

You partnered your life with the maths prophetic machine false So PHI A false reasoning. You wedded evil. All in your head.

In real.life radiation removed your first human living higher cell body. You talked about ist in DNA brother separation you activated. 1st. The ist.

The heavenly veil gas spirit maths calculus from womb space mother a fake female story always was. Even balances in heavenly space fell as status eve. Your science confession.

It was always a man science confession that stated why you never treated your sister equally after. You science man became elitist. Science before elite gain as brain irradiation made you nasty.

No human is science maths reactions.

You lied and said you false preached even confessed it in Bible recorded man's words as it was the HEARD words of God for satanic human science.

The maths Sophia fooled you and your man ego tried to blame natural God bodies for the advice. Said the female as maths intended to hurt you. As your innocent self never endured radiation until it changed

What a self teaching about lying was.

When you sought it.

What a man human egotist is a liar.

Instead of you stating science is wrong you blamed natural for changing.

 

[YoursTrue]

The men brothers first with garden nature became a human theist talking about God the earth.

Earth existed in spatial evolution cooling.
So did it's heavens.

No theory at all.

Thought.

Your new partner not a real female sister human equal was maths Phi thesis how to force change natural by causing an irradiated space moment in gods body. By space evil womb theme. Radiating space moment.

Core heart UFOo effect.

And activated it yourself by machine.

Atlantis earth gods owned historic a higher fusion crystal was a higher mass that owned transmitted light. What body of power you used first.. with machine.

Atlantis became sAtanlit. Science.

You carbon burnt that mass out of gods body crystal fusion leaving only radiating mass.

Channel inside of deep earth fusion.

You partnered your life with the maths prophetic machine false So PHI A false reasoning. You wedded evil. All in your head.

In real.life radiation removed your first human living higher cell body. You talked about ist in DNA brother separation you activated. 1st. The ist.

The heavenly veil gas spirit maths calculus from womb space mother a fake female story always was. Even balances in heavenly space fell as status eve. Your science confession.

It was always a man science confession that stated why you never treated your sister equally after. You science man became elitist. Science before elite gain as brain irradiation made you nasty.

No human is science maths reactions.

You lied and said you false preached even confessed it in Bible recorded man's words as it was the HEARD words of God for satanic human science.

The maths Sophia fooled you and your man ego tried to blame natural God bodies for the advice. Said the female as maths intended to hurt you. As your innocent self never endured radiation until it changed

What a self teaching about lying was.

When you sought it.

What a man human egotist is a liar.

Instead of you stating science is wrong you blamed natural for changing.

OK, I really don't understand a lot of what you are saying -- so -- have a good night.

 

[rational experiences]

Machine theist. Not owner of any mass or any reaction.

Just thoughts and words about his human explanation how to convert.

Says today first moment fusion released is the UFO channel.....deep inside earth mass God owned the first converting moment.

Thinks.

Earth owns sin holes saved. Are holes. Mass fused gone removed left water and small gas of our heavens moves into sin hole stops it burning.

Where his human thoughts for science began. Coercive no he says they are cosmic.

The nuclear reaction first is upon God seal as God by God conversion memories is the sin hole or sin X K constant hole.

History a sun blasting fallout UFO mass X multi bodies made the holes.

First owns out of space Hot radiation UFO attack position.

Not a scientific thesis is it?

No says any intelligent human men.

Fission owns first moment on the ground.

Science said I will copy.

Fission is still first on ground. Stone burns releases water microbes as carbon. First.

Earth heavens has lots of carbon. Stone is first reacting first position even though reaction as the rest of thesis is in power plant.

The warning to scientists.

Blamed humans burning fuel for carbon effect. Science is to blame.

Coal burnt in nature is historic he burns it first to get electricity. One step beyond natural burnt holding.

Carbon in air by nuclear power plant.

Humans cause smoke to be released as the carbon coal effect of wood burning is natural first. Is dry wood. Water gone already. Burns into coal. Coal gets burnt up.

Coal burning converting science says is electricity. One past held cooled natural burn.

Science theories never owned first position in fission earth. Earth owned one and two one positions itself.

One inside of God in its hell cold place crystal first. One as two ground point release.

Science forced cooling to a condition that nature never cooled. Nuclear fission. As if that reaction owned number one position it would change earth into a sink hole.

As God owned fission first. Can't change natural law. It is the law.

Why science versus satanism said earth owned first and one position only. God. Human science never owned it ever.

Human intelligence states the one same equal atmosphere with nature oxygenated water allows first form healthy spiritual human their form.

Basic status first human.

So no one should be less than a perfect human was the teaching.

We became imperfect as and by human chosen occult science who converted our bodies by extra radiation.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No. The signs as given in both 7:14-17 and 8:3-4 had nothing to do with child being messiah, or the immaculate conception.

The signs were WHEN the child in 7:15-17 and 8:4 reach a certain age -



- that when the Assyrians will intervene in the war, where the Assyrians will take the land of the two kings; a war that began with armies of Pekah and Rezin attacked Judah and besieged Jerusalem during Ahaz’s (Isaiah 7:1; 2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 16:5-9).

And the signs were to occur in the reigns of Pekah and Ahaz, so the king of Assyria at that time was Tiglah-pilesser III, not Sargon II. The Sargon you are talking about, was the Assyrian who caused the final destruction of Samaria (721) during the reign of Hoshea of Israel.

Did you even bother reading all of Isaiah 7 & 8 ( as well the relevant parts of 2 Kings 15 & 16)?

As to the rest of your reply, Jesus have nothing to do with with Isaiah 7 & 8.

What version of the Bible are you using?

It changes "virgin" to "young woman" - which changes the context of the verses completely.

And this child - Maher-shalal-hash-baz - was also not named Immanuel - was he?

And doesn't Isaiah 8 claim that his mother was "the prophetess"?

I doubt this prophetess was a "young woman" - according to your version - and I doesn't mention her being a virgin.

According to you - Immanuel could not possibly be a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ - because it was not His literal name - yet Maher-shalal-hash-baz was also not named Immanuel - so how can you argue that Immanuel was a reference to him?

And what did Maher-shalal-hash-baz do to be called such? Why do you believe he should be referred to as "God is with us"? Rather than someone claiming to actually being God with us - like the Lord Jesus Christ?

I believe that Isaiah was drawing parallels from his current day to the future time of the Lord Jesus Christ. Foreshadowing.

Because at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ - weren't the kingdoms of Syria and Israel "forsaken" with no kings?

Was Maher-shalal-hash-baz known for choosing good over evil - or is that a better descriptor for the Lord Jesus Christ? The supposed son of a virgin? A man who was believed to be God among us?

You are free to believe what you want - but I consider this to be ****-poor "evidence" against the claims of the New Testament.

I mean - that thing has a guy claiming to be God, He's coming back from the dead, flying through the sky - all kinds of crazy stuff you could use to try and discredit it.

But talking about how different Jews interpreted the words of their ancient prophets? Not so much.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans as humans in theoretical science are human talking to humans actually. About our information informing. What science caused.

Humans give humans names. Humans name everything including bodies in out of space.

Egotism. Who does the thinker think they are?

A self first question as a human.

Theoretic science is a human on earth about God mountains stone and UFO pyramid first.

First science.

First science now possessed science today as science says collider pyramid thesis. Just science.

Metal Alchemy string to molten matter melt. Gases first heavens volcanic gas. His machine first thesis. Reaction is not first thesis. Coercion being practiced.

Volcano fake mountain alchemist of God. Mountain static. In mass reactive status.

Builds machine from volcano history theory strings from Alchemy body to machine now static.

No reaction no volition. Human thinking whole time theorising controlling machine. Telling machine to act in his fake God terms what it's designer not God wants it to do.

Wants beginnings on earth. Machine is not earth nor is it God first.

Stone and empty space. He thinks reactive only.

Mountain of God is the thesis opening its mouth by O God themes God is the planet O earth becoming the false mountain opening hell. Man falls in.

Fall of man first was into hell. God the earth's hell a memory. Sciences owned first memory by machine reaction.

Clouds small cold mass first. Formed one mass greater as a body of new cloud mass that was given our image. Past life we are all dead own today the same radiated DNA life as we relive today.

Our past life image memory is in the great cloud new cell cloud images. Angel theme cloud great amassing that saved life on ground.

We are not clouds. Our water life used was taken to amass the new greater amassed cloud body.

Satanists in science lie. We are not clouds or image in clouds.

Dead memory.

We are the living on the ground walking.

Our teaching we walk with God the ground first one body planet earth.

We are not clouds.
We are not great mass of clouds owning image. That formed new amassing.

Science is Satan and Satan wants us all to go to God hell as he is possessed by science memory. History stated to be his story.

The snake hisses science his deception hot water....steam. We don't live in hot water evaporation or gods tears.

His snake satanic formed the snake that spoke human words back to humans. Recorded sciences humans voice recorded.

It was taught.
It was misread by egotism and not love for family.

 

[gnostic]

You are free to believe what you want - but I consider this to be ****-poor "evidence" against the claims of the New Testament.

First off, Fallen Prophet.

This isn't science, so it has nothing to do with evidence.

This is literary scholarship, and what matters here, is contextual meaning of those passages.

I am trying to get to the heart of the core's context of those passages, not interpreting with selective snippets of passages between TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BOOKS - Isaiah and Gospel of Matthew.

What the gospel author did was interpret only one verse, thereby ignoring the context of the ENTIRE CHAPTERS that related to the sign.

It is not poor evidence, but good scholarship to read not just a single verse, but to read the whole chapter(s), in this case, Isaiah 7 and 8, which had to the war taking place in Judah. And that mean the signs have nothing to do with gospel's interpretations that they related to Jesus, the messiah or the virgin birth.

What the gospel author was doing, was interpreting. What you are doing is interpreting. You are trying to mix NT with OT, which is often nothing more than propaganda, by taking a single verse out-of-context.

The whole sign should be read from start to finish, from verse 14 to verse 17, and that you would see - OR should see - that it related to current situation in Isaiah 7:1 -

In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem, but could not mount an attack against it.

That was the reason why Isaiah gave the sign to Ahaz, not because of any messiah.

The sign should be read as a whole 7:14-17, not a single verse that you can twist out of all proportions.

It was actually this gospel tampering the verse that may realize the gospels aren't honest with the Hebrew scriptures, to doubt the NT's integrity. And it is what made me agnostic back in 2000.

What version of the Bible are you using?

I know where you going with this, and I have seen Christians used this tactics before, thinking they can win argument because of the translations they have used.

I have read a lot of translations, FP.

I know that some use "virgin" instead of "young woman".

KJV, NASB, NIV and some others, use "virgin", because they are based on using the Greek translation, the Septuagint, which use the word parthenos, which mean virgin.

But I need to remind you that Isaiah is not a Christian text, and it is certainly not originally written in Greek.

Most modern translations used the Hebrew sources, not the Greek source for translating Isaiah, eg the Masoretic Text, which most English translations used, as well as the 1940s discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Here is the Masoretic Text plus the transliteration:

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אֹות הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמֹו עִמָּנוּ אֵֽל׃

hinneh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben; veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el

ha'almah mean "the young woman", and it does not say anything about being "virgin" or "not virgin".

The translation I used in the previous reply was from (New Revised Standard Version) because it is very convenient since I have a tab on my web browser, but I actually preferred the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS), which were translated by Jewish translators and scholars.

Tanakh, NJPS:

Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

This translation is from The Jerusalem Bible:

Behold, the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son,
and shall call his name ‘Immanu-el’.

I also have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich:

14 Look, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel.

But here is the interesting part, you may not be aware of: the Jewish word harah from the transliteration I have already quoted.

This harah means "pregnant", "conceived" or "is with child".

And same harah was already used in another case, where a woman was already pregnant:

hinach harah veyoladet ben vekarat shemo Yishma'el

Here are the following translation from above transliteration:

KJV:

Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael...

NRSV:

“Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael...

NJPS:

"Behold, you are with child
And shall bear a son;
You shall call him Ishmael...

Yes, it is Sarah who was harah with Ishmael.

So based on this, "revelation", Isaiah was pointing at young woman, who was already pregnant, harah "with child", when he gave his sign to Ahaz.

This is a lot better biblical scholarship then the rest of your post:

It changes "virgin" to "young woman" - which changes the context of the verses completely.

And this child - Maher-shalal-hash-baz - was also not named Immanuel - was he?

And doesn't Isaiah 8 claim that his mother was "the prophetess"?

I doubt this prophetess was a "young woman" - according to your version - and I doesn't mention her being a virgin.

According to you - Immanuel could not possibly be a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ - because it was not His literal name - yet Maher-shalal-hash-baz was also not named Immanuel - so how can you argue that Immanuel was a reference to him?

And what did Maher-shalal-hash-baz do to be called such? Why do you believe he should be referred to as "God is with us"? Rather than someone claiming to actually being God with us - like the Lord Jesus Christ?

I believe that Isaiah was drawing parallels from his current day to the future time of the Lord Jesus Christ. Foreshadowing.

Because at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ - weren't the kingdoms of Syria and Israel "forsaken" with no kings?

Was Maher-shalal-hash-baz known for choosing good over evil - or is that a better descriptor for the Lord Jesus Christ? The supposed son of a virgin? A man who was believed to be God among us?

You are free to believe what you want - but I consider this to be ****-poor "evidence" against the claims of the New Testament.

I mean - that thing has a guy claiming to be God, He's coming back from the dead, flying through the sky - all kinds of crazy stuff you could use to try and discredit it.

But talking about how different Jews interpreted the words of their ancient prophets? Not so much.

All I am seeing, that you are doing, is trying your hardest to twist Isaiah's original sign out of context, simply because you believe whatever gospel is interpreting, and not what the chapter have to say. And that's really poor scholarship.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Happy Father's Day!

It depends on the context. Here, it refers to conservative Christians who take a literal approach to the Bible and especially the Genesis creation account.

I suppose that would make me a - what? - psuedo-fundamentalist?

I believe that many - if not all - of the events recorded in Genesis actually happened - but I do not believe that that Bible is a perfect and complete record.

So - I believe that events recorded in Genesis may not have happened exactly as they were recorded in Genesis.

I agree. Self-reliance is vital.

It's true - you notice that the Apostles and Prophets never had anything handed to them.

It's hard to say. I can't imagine staying in the fundamentalist Baptist church of my family. Their way of thinking and viewing the world was the complete opposite of mine. But I suppose if I'd ended up in my wife's less conservative church things might not be all that different.

What's the difference between fundamentalist and conservative? Or are they the same?

I'm thinking one deals with historicity and the other teachings/morals?

It's a bit of a running joke with some of my friends from that church. I sometimes point out that we all pretty much live the same lifestyles, with the only difference being that they go to a building once a week and tell a god they're sorry....only to go out and do it all over again.

Heh. They do "confessions" at that fundamentalist Baptist church?

Well good luck! My youngest daughter just graduated high school and will be off to college in two months. I'm both very excited for her, and sad about how much I'll miss her.

I'd be a nervous wreck.

My wife and I disagree on college for our boys. She wants them to go and I don't.

That's how I've always looked at it, and is why I don't try and argue against people's religious experiences. If you experienced something and it's helped to make your life better, then I'm happy for ya'.

The only thing I ask is for the same consideration. When I describe my experiences, too many believers try and convince me that, since I didn't have the same experiences they did, I must have done something wrong, I must have misinterpreted it all, etc. I've read some articles about how some folks have a psychological need to have as many people agree with them as possible and how they cannot deal with differences and dissent, and it seems to make sense to me. So now when I see someone rather desperately try and force my stories into a framework that they can accept, I kinda feel sorry for them.

Huh - interesting.

My whole thing is that since I believe that I have had actual real-life experiences - I think anyone can.

 

[rational experiences]

Reality did science look back in time to get a theory reaction?

No. They gained imaged advice visionary.

Reaction begins ends finished.

Self present human. Self nAtural human.

Heavens string goes back to its creator O planet earth hell mass.

Evolution cooling is not a string theory.

Satanist is the ist of the.

Life used to philosophise reasoning.

Was not an occultist converter.

Back in time fake.

CH gases present holy presence. Science was told never change them by removing them in mass.

Mass one holy is held the warning.

Mass held is not back in any past it is right here now 0 zero cold space highest status. Holy.

Reason deep pit empty space holy Satan.

Holy Satan.
Holy God earth mass.

Theist right here right now.
Reaction not existing.

Reacts. In reaction he takes mass back in time to not existing.

Humans living don't exist living back in time

Get attacked.

Revealed advice

Think about why back in time hurt their present life is not exact science as mass began present.

Common sense rarely used anymore.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

First off, Fallen Prophet.

This isn't science, so it has nothing to do with evidence.

This is literary scholarship, and what matters here, is contextual meaning of those passages.

I am trying to get to the heart of the core's context of those passages, not interpreting with selective snippets of passages between TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BOOKS - Isaiah and Gospel of Matthew.

What the gospel author did was interpret only one verse, thereby ignoring the context of the ENTIRE CHAPTERS that related to the sign.

It is not poor evidence, but good scholarship to read not just a single verse, but to read the whole chapter(s), in this case, Isaiah 7 and 8, which had to the war taking place in Judah. And that mean the signs have nothing to do with gospel's interpretations that they related to Jesus, the messiah or the virgin birth.

What the gospel author was doing, was interpreting. What you are doing is interpreting. You are trying to mix NT with OT, which is often nothing more than propaganda, by taking a single verse out-of-context.

The whole sign should be read from start to finish, from verse 14 to verse 17, and that you would see - OR should see - that it related to current situation in Isaiah 7:1 -



That was the reason why Isaiah gave the sign to Ahaz, not because of any messiah.

The sign should be read as a whole 7:14-17, not a single verse that you can twist out of all proportions.

It was actually this gospel tampering the verse that may realize the gospels aren't honest with the Hebrew scriptures, to doubt the NT's integrity. And it is what made me agnostic back in 2000.



I know where you going with this, and I have seen Christians used this tactics before, thinking they can win argument because of the translations they have used.

I have read a lot of translations, FP.

I know that some use "virgin" instead of "young woman".

KJV, NASB, NIV and some others, use "virgin", because they are based on using the Greek translation, the Septuagint, which use the word parthenos, which mean virgin.

But I need to remind you that Isaiah is not a Christian text, and it is certainly not originally written in Greek.

Most modern translations used the Hebrew sources, not the Greek source for translating Isaiah, eg the Masoretic Text, which most English translations used, as well as the 1940s discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Here is the Masoretic Text plus the transliteration:




ha'almah mean "the young woman", and it does not say anything about being "virgin" or "not virgin".

The translation I used in the previous reply was from (New Revised Standard Version) because it is very convenient since I have a tab on my web browser, but I actually preferred the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS), which were translated by Jewish translators and scholars.

Tanakh, NJPS:


This translation is from The Jerusalem Bible:


I also have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich:


But here is the interesting part, you may not be aware of: the Jewish word harah from the transliteration I have already quoted.

This harah means "pregnant", "conceived" or "is with child".

And same harah was already used in another case, where a woman was already pregnant:



Here are the following translation from above transliteration:

KJV:


NRSV:


NJPS:


Yes, it is Sarah who was harah with Ishmael.

So based on this, "revelation", Isaiah was pointing at young woman, who was already pregnant, harah "with child", when he gave his sign to Ahaz.

This is a lot better biblical scholarship then the rest of your post:



All I am seeing, that you are doing, is trying your hardest to twist Isaiah's original sign out of context, simply because you believe whatever gospel is interpreting, and not what the chapter have to say. And that's really poor scholarship.

All you have "proven" is that you disagree with Matthew.

Isaiah does not make any claim to the identity of the "virgin", or "maiden" or "young woman" (the version of the Tanakh that I use claims "virgin" - proving that how we interpret the text is key) or when she will give birth.

Yeshayahu (Isaiah): Chapter 7 (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

My understanding of that term is that it could be any woman from puberty until she gives birth - but considering the cultural norms of ancient Israel - I would think any "young woman" would be considered a virgin.

If she was a married woman - I think Isaiah would have just said woman.

At no other time in the Old Testament was ha'almah used to describe a married or pregnant woman - only young unmarried maidens - not even your reference from Genesis 16 uses it.

Isaiah also does not claim that Maher-shalal-hash-baz or Hezekiah are the son who she should name Immanuel - and even if he did - neither of them were named such.

You don't find that odd?

Why would either of those men be considered the sign of Judah's deliverance anyway? What did they do? How are either of them "God with us"?

The sign ends at verse 16 because verse 17 is the start of a whole new paragraph. A new statement.

I definitely believe that Isaiah was speaking of current things - but they were a foreshadow of future things.

Basically - you can believe what you want - depending on how it is translated - the mother of this child could be considered a virgin as well as a maiden or a young woman.

No one was literally name Immanuel.

Isaiah never identified the mother or her child.

You disagree with Matthew - that's it.

And even if Matthew - the life-long Jew who lived in the ancient region of Jerusalem - was wrong in his interpretation of Isaiah - that doesn't mean his testimony concerning the Lord Jesus Christ is any less true.

You are quick to assume that he did not consider the entirety of Isaiah 7 and 8 when he made his claim though. Real quick. Based on nothing but your own opinion - which you kept presenting as fact.

We are not going to agree on this.

Oh - and it was Hagar who gave birth to Ishmael - not Sarah (as you claimed).

Kinda hurts your credibility if you don't know basic stuff like that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Happy Father's Day!

Right back at ya!

I suppose that would make me a - what? - psuedo-fundamentalist?

I believe that many - if not all - of the events recorded in Genesis actually happened - but I do not believe that that Bible is a perfect and complete record.

So - I believe that events recorded in Genesis may not have happened exactly as they were recorded in Genesis.

That wouldn't go over well in my parents' church. They were very adamant that everything Moses wrote in Genesis happened exactly as described, and to even question that is borderline heresy.

What's the difference between fundamentalist and conservative? Or are they the same?

I'm thinking one deals with historicity and the other teachings/morals?

My wife's church is less conservative. They never preach on politics or social issues, they don't demand everyone read the Bible literally, they tend to focus more on Jesus' teachings about being peaceful and caring for the poor, they don't adhere to strict gender roles in their leadership, and the overall atmosphere is more relaxed than at a fundamentalist church.

Heh. They do "confessions" at that fundamentalist Baptist church?

My friends go to the same church as my wife, so it's neither Baptist nor fundamentalist (it's Lutheran), and no they don't do confessions. That's why I said they "ask a god" for forgiveness.

I'd be a nervous wreck.

My wife and I disagree on college for our boys. She wants them to go and I don't.

I couldn't stop them if I wanted to. They both have very clear goals in life and are motivated to achieve them. Plus, both my wife and I are college graduates, which plays a role.

Also, I don't believe in shielding my kids from the world. My role as their dad is to prepare them for the world, not prevent them from going out into it. Everyone I grew up with whose parents shielded them from things didn't do so well when it came time to be an adult and carve out their own life. Some eventually got it, but others never did. I'm even seeing that now with my daughter's friends. The kids who were over-protected growing up are starting to get that first taste of freedom and independence, and they can't really handle it.

Huh - interesting.

My whole thing is that since I believe that I have had actual real-life experiences - I think anyone can.

That's better than thinking that everyone must.

 

[rational experiences]

What I learnt from brain burning irradiation a human prickling feeling is that humans brothers invented all terms science designed for the machine. Then caused the human life to be attacked.

Just because you designed and then controlled by your human conscious thinking the ordering of the machines actions the thinker human was attacked.

As natural changed by machine causes. The effects of.

As a female my memory says evil men brothers theoried a fake female inference about out of space and radiation in space. Why my life was harmed. We don't live in either state.

Not a theist for science.
Not sciences design nor control.

Females however taught became scientists.

I learnt the Moses Egyptian event life's mutation attack of it had brought chunks of asteroid wandering star earth saviour crashing to the ground.

I learnt men decided no more science and no speaking theorising science was allowed. Galileo jailed as a criminal proving that evidence historic.

I learnt why the Baha'i history experience suffered contempt as by law you were not allowed to discuss it. Science causes. Even though physical evidence proved it still was recurring.

Earths life attack change. When science was re evolving it's men theists again. By the Star wandering coming close to earth again. Putting back gas mass evolved man's science psyche again.

In Muslim communities memories of science by mind healing re emerged.

Why it was reiterated as a teaching about an agreement teaching about the wandering star as Jesus plus new AwAre human advice. Bahai evidence and shroud Turin evidence.

As warnings for humans revised and who we should be in communal shared life. Not to listen to science man's self idolisation in science causes.

False female thesis mother were just science inferences to space as a womb in their thesis.

Hence if a calculus equalled one God first God as the answer involving earths gods heavens then science said creation by God as beginnings ended in gods hell.

Inside body womb of planet earth God. As God. Wholly God and so no heavens rationally existed by term beginning of it's spirit or its end.

Rationally the end was presence natural light cold immaculate clear gas burning.

Beginning and end equated burning gases. Rationally.

As mass existed before as the first. Mass burst as the real human science status planet earth where the heavens came from as a cosmic thesis. O earth.

As human science thesis was empty womb cold plus God O one planet first body.

The agreed terms about occult science to convert by Alchemy beginnings to gain machine as man's chosen evil against his own life.

Stone owned the seal. Patterns radiation burnt into stone had been sealed historic by flooding reasoning.

The heavens burning gases on fire by mass fallout were ground evaporating huge masses of water that flooded the heavens where the ark above the mountains was destroying the face of the mountains.

Disintegrated mass dropped off the mountain face at its feet the evidence.

The flood rain was atmospheric above us. Seen as the mountain law being broken. Human witnessed.

So of course no evidence except ark blasted eye ballast stone converted on Ararat. The RAT. RA eye ark. A Ra Rat. Named. Mt. Sinai blackened top is its evidence.

Study of info about rats in science thesis. Maths is the man prophetic prediction. The Prophet.

Temples of science transmitting to ground technology were built in mountains. Prophet of man on mountain. Technology.

A theme studied about the RAT.
.Log into Facebook | Facebook

 

[Fallen Prophet]

That wouldn't go over well in my parents' church. They were very adamant that everything Moses wrote in Genesis happened exactly as described, and to even question that is borderline heresy.

That's crazy.

My wife's church is less conservative. They never preach on politics or social issues, they don't demand everyone read the Bible literally, they tend to focus more on Jesus' teachings about being peaceful and caring for the poor, they don't adhere to strict gender roles in their leadership, and the overall atmosphere is more relaxed than at a fundamentalist church.

So - what happens when one of the Lord Jesus Christ's teachings conflicts with current political or social issues - which has happened and will forever happen?

How does their church respond to those types of situations?

I couldn't stop them if I wanted to.

Aw - they are paying their own way. That's something.

They both have very clear goals in life and are motivated to achieve them. Plus, both my wife and I are college graduates, which plays a role.

My wife and I are both college graduates as well.

I've just found that none of my life goals - the ones I cared about - were affected by my graduating.

At least not directly.

Also, I don't believe in shielding my kids from the world. My role as their dad is to prepare them for the world, not prevent them from going out into it. Everyone I grew up with whose parents shielded them from things didn't do so well when it came time to be an adult and carve out their own life. Some eventually got it, but others never did. I'm even seeing that now with my daughter's friends. The kids who were over-protected growing up are starting to get that first taste of freedom and independence, and they can't really handle it.

I agree - which is why I don't want them attending.

We spoke about this briefly in your OP - but I don't believe that college or university are accurate portrayals of "real life" and I believe that they actually "force feed" students misconceptions about life today.

To me "real life" is learning a trade, working, raising a family - that kind of thing.

My wife and I went to school in Southern California and the attempts at indoctrination were staggering and not at all subtle and I am convinced that it is even worse today.

So until things change I am going to discourage my children from going and I will refuse to pay for them to go when the times comes.

It makes no sense to me for anyone to start out their adult life in debt with a huge likelihood that they won't even get a job in the field in which they studied.

Couple that with all the nonsense on campuses today with "safe spaces", violations of freedom of speech and the conscious efforts of leftist teachers to teach their agenda - rather than the curriculum - no thanks.

My older brother went to film school and came out a totally different person. We don't agree on anything - we are still amicable though.

Same thing to my cousin who went to New York - I can't even talk to her anymore because she once yelled at me for expressing my joy for being a parent.

Apparently having kids is hurting the planet or something - which is funny for her to believe since she is a teacher.

I guess they didn't teach her about "supply and demand"

As I said - my wife and I don't agree on this - she also went to school to be a teacher.

That's better than thinking that everyone must.

That would be a strange and indefensible position to take.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said brother with giant pyramids had burnt life to death satanic hell advice about human life.

Earth carpenter tectonic opening plates eaten by radiation collapsed that he confessed he built dropped all life into the bowels of earth hell.

Evidence artefacts found instantly frozen inside fusion and machines and trinkets. Deep inside earths body.

We died recorded screaming whilst cloud mass recorded the human angel images in satanic event emerged. Voice and image of.

Dinosaurs then lived as new giant life inherited by its science man creator.

Ice returned by science old causes burning saviour asteroid ignited. Came back in cyclic return hit earth.

Instant snap freeze all life deceased.

From the eternal new animal spirit life emerged two by two and so did our human parents.

The eternal warning don't listen to Satan snake cloud human past life science memory. Cover your bodies don't have sex.

One of caused human return. No sex no life would continue as human suffering causes. We would not be suffering life today in other words.

Could not spiritually tell animals not to procreate.

Did not listen parents had sex.

Came through from eternal body pre living spirit via the GOD sound tunnel. Father talking from human pre owned memory spoke to adults who in past were baby to adult selves.

Our parents did not listen to his psychic warning. That explained the ark caused cloud satanic human imagery. Life destroyed. Given death.

So they did not emerge out of a cloud ark tunnel a satanic theory in science. The ark attack UFO had ended all life on earth. Cloud memory humans as angels burnt to death as humans.

Why it is humans heard screaming as a hell attack. As it was real.

Real.

The Satan ark cloud angel event ark memory. Life destroyed. Flooding by rain cooled earths heavens saved life on earth. A teaching by Moses chosen new science attack.

New life came direct pre owned spiritually as new spirit bodies as the eternal who de materialised into bio bodies.

Only God was owned in one mass materialised stone flesh. As materialisation of form.

Bio life had de materialised from its eternal form inherited the lesser being life.

Real.

Science owns no explanation. Science never owned the eternal.

Their cosmic ark thesis is the deep space flat plane pit bow shock of space becoming a hole...direct into Satan's fall.

 

[Jose Fly]

So - what happens when one of the Lord Jesus Christ's teachings conflicts with current political or social issues - which has happened and will forever happen?

How does their church respond to those types of situations?

From what I can tell, the pastor doesn't discuss politics in his sermons.

Aw - they are paying their own way. That's something.

My wife and I are both college graduates as well.

I've just found that none of my life goals - the ones I cared about - were affected by my graduating.

At least not directly.

Well, we all carve our own paths, eh?

We spoke about this briefly in your OP - but I don't believe that college or university are accurate portrayals of "real life" and I believe that they actually "force feed" students misconceptions about life today.

To me "real life" is learning a trade, working, raising a family - that kind of thing.

My wife and I went to school in Southern California and the attempts at indoctrination were staggering and not at all subtle and I am convinced that it is even worse today.

So until things change I am going to discourage my children from going and I will refuse to pay for them to go when the times comes.

It makes no sense to me for anyone to start out their adult life in debt with a huge likelihood that they won't even get a job in the field in which they studied.

I don't want to pry too much, but I have to ask....by refusing to help them pay for college, aren't you guaranteeing they'll accumulate debt if they decide to go?

Couple that with all the nonsense on campuses today with "safe spaces", violations of freedom of speech and the conscious efforts of leftist teachers to teach their agenda - rather than the curriculum - no thanks.

My older brother went to film school and came out a totally different person. We don't agree on anything - we are still amicable though.

Same thing to my cousin who went to New York - I can't even talk to her anymore because she once yelled at me for expressing my joy for being a parent.

Apparently having kids is hurting the planet or something - which is funny for her to believe since she is a teacher.

I guess they didn't teach her about "supply and demand"

As I said - my wife and I don't agree on this - she also went to school to be a teacher.

My oldest is about to graduate with her BA (teaching) and start her master's program, and she hasn't encountered anything like that at all. I guess it largely depends on where you go (and how impressionable you are).

That would be a strange and indefensible position to take.

Indeed. That's why I bristle when someone insists that the reason I haven't had any spiritual experiences is because I wasn't sincere or lacked faith.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

From what I can tell, the pastor doesn't discuss politics in his sermons.

And you agree with that?

Don't get me wrong - I like that too - but considering how you seem to feel about college and university - I'd think you'd want politics to be discussed even at a church - like how it is at our schools.

I don't want to pry too much, but I have to ask....by refusing to help them pay for college, aren't you guaranteeing they'll accumulate debt if they decide to go?

If they really want to go they can work while attending community college and pay their own way.

That's what I did. Started work right out of High School. A Blockbuster. You remember those?

It makes it more rewarding and saves a lot of money in the long run.

It's funny. My dad grew up working and he refused to let us gets jobs while we were in High School. Even in the summer. He wanted us to just be kids.

But he really wanted us to go to college. I fought him on it - but I was living with him rent-free and my future bride was also adamant about it so - I was struck between a rock and a hard place.

Anyways - getting a degree should be just like anything else in life - if you can't afford it - you shouldn't get it.

And how would they even know that that is what they really want to do if I'm the one paying their way?

My oldest is about to graduate with her BA (teaching) and start her master's program, and she hasn't encountered anything like that at all. I guess it largely depends on where you go (and how impressionable you are).

That's just what my wife went to school for. She also got her Master's.

And perhaps your daughter didn't think of it as indoctrination because she already subscribed to the ideas they were peddling?

I remember that I had to write this essay comparing these two plays - what a waste of "required" time that was - but anyways I got 100% - yet the teacher felt compelled to write on my paper that even though I completed the assignment perfectly - that he wished I wasn't so closed-minded and bigoted in my views.

I had also had a history teacher call me a racist because I corrected him on some of the historical "facts" that he shared about the Church that I attended.

I guess that's the "Southern California experience" for ya.

Hope your kids are going to better places. More welcoming and tolerant.

Indeed. That's why I bristle when someone insists that the reason I haven't had any spiritual experiences is because I wasn't sincere or lacked faith.

Revelation is just one of the many gifts of the Spirit - not everyone has it - and it isn't even the most important one.

Charity is the pure love of Christ and if you don't have it then none of the other gifts of the Spirit are going to do you any good.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans with machines pushing buttons claiming I am experimenting dont own any state of what they use.

It is self presence. Self status.

So you review a theist who by all causes is a liar and a destroyer.

The flood argument God a man did not invent it.

No he says I am using sounds as transmitters like God did or had as God.

So then you are forced to do a thesis on his behaviour.

The conscious thesis. As he is just a thinker.

Thinking. Eternal first. No space no creation as what was first naturally self present.

Can't be argued about what was first.

Beings in the body eternal. One self in particular chose to study the spirit of language. As it was different to them.

Came out of the surrounding eternal. They owned fixed bodies as selves. Beings human looking.

How God O was sung out originally as held as sounds first. Yet was mass O a God eternal a body mass O.

The wisdom all human memory is taught.

O the gods then burst and burnt as the surround thinned. Seeing language was not held it constantly changed. They dropped into the bow shock falling. In the thinned eternal surround.

How spirit via parents first explained it.

The basic ideas of men with machines today.

Nothing like the beginning of anything.

Why we say they are coercers.

They never owned natural beginnings.

History being cosmic involving UFO to earth to out of space from sun all bodies present formed returned to stars like a tv channel recorded what occurred on earth. How humans gained earth body memory whilst not even alive.

The attack visions. Became encoded cosmic memory. Records.

Actually.

Star systems gases have visions image.

Earth was once flooded. Tips above water. UFO flat topping the mountain by UFO mass evaporation after. Reason small body of mass identified conversion thesis encoded recorded.

Theme advice. Research. Study. Thesis to build pyramid. Chosen by humans.

Used earths mass transmitters for science as crystal mass. Gods body.

Burnt out gone. You cannot put origin back to do origin pyramid science. Transmitters.

Gases cooled amassed. Lots of AI radiation. Gases gave back image of reasons pyramid but not actual mass.

Fooled tricked into believing it the same.

Moses tried pyramids blew up. Reason gases that cooled fooled you you were burnt out.

Jesus the same event. Tried to use it again.

Do we know science is wrong?
Yes.

Is science evil causing the flooding?

No. Yet can cause reasons for extra flooding by types of science practices.

The natural heavens as extra caused involves gas burning unnaturally as a mass cause cools by flooding rain itself.

A known science teaching reason why it floods. The topic. Why it floods.

So a scientist says to his brother the flood is not science.

Rationally.

Natural owns clouds and images in clouds and mountains and flooding rain itself.

Why he says in science as science you are a liar.

He however studies the event experimenting forcing radio wave radiation changes claiming he caused activated it myself flooding and wants to keep that achievement claiming it technology and science.

Yet natural is owner of it.

So then you see power mongers who get titillated by causing natural bodies to alter by effects.

What the destroyer science mentality is.

The argument why science said you don't own flooding.

 

[Jose Fly]

And you agree with that?

Don't get me wrong - I like that too - but considering how you seem to feel about college and university - I'd think you'd want politics to be discussed even at a church - like how it is at our schools.

Since I've only been there about three or four times, it's not really relevant to me. My wife likes it, because as she says, she doesn't go to church to be lectured about how to vote and such.

If they really want to go they can work while attending community college and pay their own way.

That's always a good option. Plus, there's a push by some Democrats to make community college free, which I agree with. I don't think higher education should be a luxury of the well-off.

That's what I did. Started work right out of High School. A Blockbuster. You remember those?

Oh yeah, the ol' video rental stores. Kinda like the phone rental stores of my parents' era.

It makes it more rewarding and saves a lot of money in the long run.

I agree. Both my kids worked very hard to earn scholarships, which has saved us all quite a bit of money.

It's funny. My dad grew up working and he refused to let us gets jobs while we were in High School. Even in the summer. He wanted us to just be kids.

But he really wanted us to go to college. I fought him on it - but I was living with him rent-free and my future bride was also adamant about it so - I was struck between a rock and a hard place.

Sounds like you had a really good dad who wanted the best for you.

Anyways - getting a degree should be just like anything else in life - if you can't afford it - you shouldn't get it.

I generally agree, except when something as important as education becomes artificially expensive. Back in my parents' day, you could pay for a full college education by working a minimum wage job. Heck, even when I went I was able to pay most of my expenses just by working summer jobs. Today it's nothing like that.

And how would they even know that that is what they really want to do if I'm the one paying their way?

By making the money available to them with no strings attached?

And perhaps your daughter didn't think of it as indoctrination because she already subscribed to the ideas they were peddling?

That's possible, but I've seen no evidence of that. She's very vocal about her experiences and she's certainly had odd professors and been criticized, but as I tell both my kids....if you can't take criticism or be around people who have different views than you, life is going to be difficult.

I remember that I had to write this essay comparing these two plays - what a waste of "required" time that was - but anyways I got 100% - yet the teacher felt compelled to write on my paper that even though I completed the assignment perfectly - that he wished I wasn't so closed-minded and bigoted in my views.

I had also had a history teacher call me a racist because I corrected him on some of the historical "facts" that he shared about the Church that I attended.

I guess that's the "Southern California experience" for ya.

Hope your kids are going to better places. More welcoming and tolerant.

Well, like I said above I don't see that sort of thing as too problematic. I think it's important to be exposed to different ideas and ways of seeing the world. I don't want my kids to exist in a bubble where if they encounter someone with different views, it's traumatic.

We live in a very conservative part of the country and they went to a very conservative rural school (as I did). I think in the long run it'll be good for them.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Since I've only been there about three or four times, it's not really relevant to me. My wife likes it, because as she says, she doesn't go to church to be lectured about how to vote and such.

Strange that she would want her children to go to college considering that's a lot of what they do there - lecture impressionable children on how they should vote.

That's always a good option. Plus, there's a push by some Democrats to make community college free, which I agree with. I don't think higher education should be a luxury of the well-off.

Nothing is truly free - so I cannot agree with anyone promising something for free - cause they are lying.

I believe that "higher education" would be more affordable if the government kept their fingers out of it.

It's the same thing with the housing market.

Oh yeah, the ol' video rental stores. Kinda like the phone rental stores of my parents' era.

Blockbuster was a treat every Friday when I was a kid. That and a pizza.

I agree. Both my kids worked very hard to earn scholarships, which has saved us all quite a bit of money.

Sounds like you had a really good dad who wanted the best for you.

Yes - I agree that he wanted what he thought was best for me.

I generally agree, except when something as important as education becomes artificially expensive.

Getting a degree is definitely artificially expensive - but an education is free - just get a library card.

Back in my parents' day, you could pay for a full college education by working a minimum wage job. Heck, even when I went I was able to pay most of my expenses just by working summer jobs. Today it's nothing like that.

Yeah - it's nothing like when I was a kid either. Things seemed to have changed very quickly.

By making the money available to them with no strings attached?

That sounds like that would have the opposite effect.

I don't think I'd ever do that even if it was something I wanted them to do.

That's possible, but I've seen no evidence of that. She's very vocal about her experiences and she's certainly had odd professors and been criticized, but as I tell both my kids....if you can't take criticism or be around people who have different views than you, life is going to be difficult.

There is a difference between criticism and flat-out name-calling.

Professors are there to teach the material - not offer up their one-sided assessments of their student's personalities.

Well, like I said above I don't see that sort of thing as too problematic.

Really?

You do not believe it is inappropriate for college professors to call their students closed-minded, bigoted and racist?

If I called any of my customers that at my job - I'd be fired.

I think it's important to be exposed to different ideas and ways of seeing the world.

Which I was - I simply did not agree with them - which led to their childish little outbursts.

I knew the material - which is all they should have been concerned about - but they wanted to "say their piece" - which led me to believe that their true goal wasn't to educate me - but convert me.

I don't want my kids to exist in a bubble where if they encounter someone with different views, it's traumatic.

You think my ability to learn the material is inconsequential compared to my willingness to blindly agree with everything my college professors believe?

You believe that my unwillingness to be indoctrinated means that I exist in a bubble?

We live in a very conservative part of the country and they went to a very conservative rural school (as I did). I think in the long run it'll be good for them.

One would hope - but until some changes are made in academia - I'll do everything in my power to discourage my children from attending.

I don't want their personalities assaulted.