'son'

[James the Persian]

Maybe the original Hebrew had more than one word which have all been translated into 'son'. Everyone has a different relationship with their son; maybe we are all God's sons (and daughters) but Adam, being the first and of no mother, was special, and so was Jesus, who was both fully human and fully divine (and born of the immaculate conception).

The Immaculate Conception is not a generaly accepted Christian doctrine, but one peculiar to Roman Catholicism and doesn't refer to the conception of Christ, but of his mother Mary. You seem to be confused about the difference between that and the Virgin Birth.

James

 

[jewscout]

Firstly, I cannot be held responsible for every author or contributor to the bible, or to what they write or how they write it.

nor do i hold you responsible

People make mistakes. I am sure accidentally leaving out the verse in a typo error is not
related to somone making a blind statement. If it is, Iapologize and bid you good day, enjoy the thread.

nor have i said you were making a "blind statement" only that i didn't know which verse to look for because, as i found, the translation was different and i didn't want to misquote if i was wrong so i prefaced it by saying i didn't know which verse i was looking for but this is the one closest to the context...

Sons of nobles are still sone of God, regardless how defined.

very true

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... all verses taken from The Judaica Press Complete Tanach from Chabad.org. I'm not sure exactly what my artscroll Tanach says but i'm sure it's similar. I'll have to check [edited for clarity]

Want to bet? I'm afraid that you're reading some revisionist bullbuckie.

Like you, my Tanach is at home, but you might wish to cross reference with The Jewish Publication Society of America , whose translation differes in no substantive way from the copy of Etz Hayim that I have in front of me. Further evidence comes from the LXX and the Targumic Texts.

You might wish to ask yourself why the text was prettified by someone intent on presenting, not what was written, but what the redactor believed was intended (i.e., doctrinally correct), and what 2.7 millennia of similar efforts might have done to the integrity of the underlying story.

 

[Malus 12:9]

We are all sons of God, indeed. Some may refer to us as his children, like in
Deuteronomony 1;14 [font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]"You are children of the Lord your God." [/font]

Thought I'd trim my post down a little to avoid more minsunderstandings.



[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]
[/font]

 

[jewscout]

Want to bet? I'm afraid that you're reading some revisionist bullbuckie.

Like you, my Tanach is at home, but you might wish to cross reference with The Jewish Publication Society of America , whose translation differes in no substantive way from the copy of Etz Hayim that I have in front of me. Further evidence comes from the LXX and the Targumic Texts.

You might wish to ask yourself why the text was prettified by someone intent on presenting, not what was written, but what the redactor believed was intended (i.e., doctrinally correct), and what 2.7 millennia of similar efforts might have done to the integrity of the underlying story.

wow thanx Deut. for the links!

 

[Quoth The Raven]

personally i think some christians give The satan (Samael) too much credit
he's just HaShem's dirty man who does most of His wetwork for him

I think it's morea case of people who don't realise that 'adversary' and 'mortal enemy' aren't necessarily directly interchangeable terms.