Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

this did, the bit i was responding to:

quote:

---

can you check to see and understand what Gods overall intentions and purposes were by giving inspiration to the writer?

---

the fact that you seem to think it's some outrageous claim we are making that we can somehow divine what the authors meant simply by reading what they wrote. jar presented one in this thread. you never responded.similarly, there are about a dozen more in the prophecy thread, which you are also ignoring.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

jar, the torah and the nevi'im were both likely canonized at the time of christ. he refers to "the law and the prophets" a number of times.

---

אָרַח

sure. and it has. but again, this thread is not about my beliefs, but about finding a valid, supportable reason for "deconversion". the invalidity or christ as a fulfillment of jewish messianic prophecy is a pretty good reason, if you ask me. and, on a personal note, is perhaps one of the largest issues that makes me question my faith. considering that, from the outset, your mind has been made up that no such reason could ever be suggested, yes. this thread is largely pointless. again, there are at least a dozen in the prophecy thread. no, you make no logical sense. the question is whether or not those books are inspired. if one book predicts something, and another fails understand it correctly, and plants its flag saying "fulfilled", then it brings that inspiration into suspicion. it's not an issue of assuming the conclusion from the outset, as you do, but of examining the textual evidence, and reaching the conclusion it leads to. it was also not in god's original plan for adam to eat from the tree of knowledge. plans change. and yet david -- and most of the kings of judah -- were very highly regarded. israel, not so much. but all except 1 or 2 kings of judah were highly praised men of god. this is perhaps what i mean when i say you haven't understood much of the old testament. that's a very simplistic reading, and misses half of the picture. sure, jacob wrestled with god -- but god wrestled with jacob too. the old testament is as much about god trying to find a way to do right by his creation as it is about man failing to do right by god.in the christian perspective, christ is the ultimate fulfillment of that idea. and surely, this is the point you've been driving at the whole time, right? okay. i'm upset with my pastor, and i want to contact his boss. can you give me the mailing address for jesus christ? i take back what i said about the old testament. you haven't read the new testament, either.

quote:

---

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

​

Matthew 16:18-19

---

jesus pretty clearly establishes someone to lead his church in an earthly capacity. peter, the first pope, was established by christ himself.

---

אָרַח

that we can understand what the authors wrote with inspiration? the fact that you think the bible makes no logical or rational sense without inspiration is rather telling. er, no. the question is whether or not christ fulfills what they said, not whether or not what they said was reliable. it's a simple matter of comparing literature.i need not believe in star wars to note that in one of the original movies, obi-won calls yoda his former master, and in the prequel, his master is someone else. the question of whether or not any of this happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away is never an issue. it either matches, or it doesn't.

---

אָרַח

from the assyrians.the problem with this verse, like many others we could cite, is that they were already fulfilled well before christ was ever born. in this case, micah 5, it's talking about the assyrian invasion of israel. it would do you well to read the book of kings -- especially the parts towards the end -- for a bit of historical context. this prophecy, like much of the messianic prophecy in the OT, is rather firmly rooted in that historical context.

---

אָרַח

great jar, you broke him.

and then compare the two. but chances are you haven't gotten past step 1, "read the prophet[s] of the Old [Testament]", nevermind step 2, "and understand [their] words".

---

אָרַח

trap.jpg nothing, in principle. the real question is why should anyone assume that they are? well, when they falsely claim fulfillment of prophecies that have nothing to do with what they're talking about, and that were already fulfilled some 500-600 years earlier... that's a pretty good indication that they're less than honest.in fact, matthew in particular is so bad about this, there's a thought that he did it on purpose, so that the readers who were actually educated in messianic prophecy would have a laugh at jesus's expense, and come away with the impression that he was not the messiah.

---

אָרַח

no, absolutely incorrect. otherwise, we'd have to assume that everyone who claims divine inspiration is. that includes muhammad, joseph smith, and at least one person contributing to this thread. the fact that you realize that study can show that the authors of the new testament were not divinely inspired sort of explains why you haven't tried to study the bible. frankly, both. but the very least the new testament could do is not misrepresent the old. we haven't really even gotten to the basic question of whether or not something is actually true -- we're just at the level of "is it intellectually honest?" sure, but you're not going to like it. let's start here. i'll go bit by by and break it down for you, even.

quote:

---

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it. (Isaiah 7:1)

---

so, you need to know the historical context, here. it helps if you've read (and understood) the book of kings. but i'll assume that you haven't done either, and i'll go over it again.after king solomon (remember solomon? david's son?) dies, there's a dispute over the throne, and this throws israel into civil war. the country literally splits in two, a northern half ("israel") and a souther half ("judah"). most of the old testament was written in judah, and the kingdom of israel is looked upon very unfavorably, due in large part to idolatry and alliances with foreign nations. in this instance, pekah, of israel (the bad guys) and rezin of aram are literally at war with judah (the good guys). this passage tells us that the war was not going well.

quote:

---

And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.' And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest are moved with the wind. (7:2)

---

so, there's some coded language here, that you need to know. "house of david" nearly always means the son (descendant) of david that rightfully sits on the throne in jerusalem. sometimes it can be messianic, when it's referring to the messiah as the descendant of david that will rightfully sit on the throne in jerusalem. here, it's just referring to king ahaz of the southern kingdom of judah. "ephraim" here is one of isaiah's ways of referring to israel, the northern kingdom.

quote:

---

Then said the LORD unto Isaiah: 'Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fullers' field; nd say unto him: Keep calm, and be quiet; fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Aram hath counselled evil against thee, Ephraim also, and the son of Remaliah, saying: Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set up a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeel; (7:3-6)

---

so israel (the northern kingdom) and aram are trying to get into jerusalem and depose ahaz, to setup a king they might have better relations with. ready for the prophecy?

quote:

---

thus saith the Lord GOD: It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. For the head of Aram 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; And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not have faith, surely ye shall not be established. (7:7-9)

---

god is not going to let them take over, because they have not been faithful. further, god is going to destroy israel, and send their people into diaspora. and it's going to be done within 65 years. right, get that? that's the prophecy. god goes on to say,

quote:

---

And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: 'Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.' (7:10-11)

---

god really doesn't want ahaz to worry, after all, the war is literally at his doorstep. so he asks ahaz to determine a sign, so that ahaz might know this isaiah guy is for real. god is literally asking ahaz to test his prophet, and prove that his prophet is not false, and that he really speaks for god. remember when i said the old testament was serious on this stuff? i'm not lying. it really does not request that you just take prophecy at its word. but ahaz has faith, and wants to show it:

quote:

---

But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD.' (7:12)

---

perhaps he read deuteronomy 6:16, and knows better than to question god, even at god's own request. what a smart-ass reply, right?

quote:

---

And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: (7:13-14a)

---

"he" in this case being isaiah, talking to ahaz, is basically saying that god just facepalmed. perhaps the appropriate response to such a smartass remark, quoting scripture back at god. so god will provide the sign, through isaiah. now, remember, this is not the prophecy -- the prophecy is that israel will fail in their attack, and then be utterly destroyed, within 65 years. this is the sign from god that the prophecy will come true, and the isaiah genuinely speaks for yahweh. ready for the sign?

quote:

---

behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken. (7:14b-16)

---

i know, i know. that's not what you think it says. but i assure you, that's what it says. look, here's the original.

quote:

---

הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל

---

"behold, the young woman will conceive, and bear a son, and will call his name imanu-el." now, i understand this is going to be a sticking point here, so i'm going to spell this one out very carefully for you.

1. that's what hebrew looks like. isaiah was written in hebrew.
2. some of us here can read a bit of hebrew.
3. the word used doesn't have anything to do with any sexual status, it just means "young woman". had isaiah wanted to say "virgin" he would have used בְּתוּלַת
4. further, it has a definite article in front of it, the young woman. which young woman? since she was not previously introduced, ahaz must have known the specific person isaiah was referring to. she was likely in the same room.
5. the name literally means "god is with us". not "a god that is with us" or "god with us" as if the person himself was god. this is a standard naming convention in the bible -- look at, well, israel. many, many names contain "-el" or even portions of the proper name of god. isaiah himself is actually named yeshayahu in hebrew, the "yahu" portion coming form "yahweh", the name of god.
6. the name itself, "god is with us", is meant to remind ahaz that the god is on their side. not with in a physical, personal, corporeal sense, but protecting judah from israel and aram. remember the prophecy?

further, as you go on reading the verse, it sets another clock. before the child can tell good from evil (ie: before he becomes a man), the prophecy will be fulfilled. this bumps the date up to about 13 years from the prophecy. okay, ready for the really fun part? here's how it's going to happen.

quote:

---

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.'(7:15)

---

the king of assyria's going to do it. now, i'll let you read the rest of the chapter yourself; it's got some nice poetic imagery. but let's instead review the important points.the child is:

• not the prophecy
• not the messiah (there is no need for one here, with a king on the throne)
• not divine
• not born of a virgin
• perhaps not even particularly special
• specified and known to ahaz personally, to reassure him of god's prophecy

the prophecy is that:

• israel and aram will not succeed in their efforts to overthrow ahaz (king of judah)
• israel will be completely dissolved, and its people dispersed, within 65 years
• assyria will invade, and destroy and carry off israel, within about 15 years

ready for the the fun part? now we turn to history.

quote:

---

Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath to Aram, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Edomites came to Elath, and dwelt there, unto this day. So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying: 'I am thy servant and thy son; come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who rise up against me.' And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him; and the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin. (2 Kings 16:6-9)

---

so, that takes care of aram. what about israel?

quote:

---

In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maacah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria. (2 Kings 15:29)

---

okay, so far so good, the first bit of the prophecy is working just fine. sure ahaz bribed his way into it, but he always was a smart ass. what about the diaspora business? well, here's how wikipedia states it:

quote:

---

In c. 732 BCE, Pekah of Israel allied with Rezin, king of Aram, threatened Jerusalem, and Ahaz, king of Judah, appealed to Tiglath-Pileser III, the king of Assyria, for help. After Ahaz paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser Tiglath-Pileser sacked Damascus and Israel, annexing Aram and territory of the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh in Gilead including the desert outposts of Jetur, Naphish and Nodab. People from these tribes including the Reubenite leader, were taken captive and resettled in the region of the Habor river system. Tiglath-Pilesar also captured the territory of Naphtali and the city of Janoah in Ephraim and an Assyrian governor was placed over the region of Naphtali. According to 2 Kings 16:9 and 15:29, the population of Aram and the annexed part of Israel was deported to Assyria.

​

Israel continued to exist within the reduced territory as an independent kingdom until around 720 BCE, when it was again invaded by Assyria and the rest of the population deported. The Bible relates that the population of Israel was exiled, becoming known as The Ten Lost Tribes, leaving only the Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Simeon (that was "absorbed" into Judah), the Tribe of Benjamin and the people of the Tribe of Levi who lived among them of the original Israelites nation in the southern Kingdom of Judah.

​

Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) - Wikipedia

---

basically, israel goes away, and is never heard from again. note that i've bolded the dates for you -- the time span from the first invasion, which defeats israel and aram, to the second invasion, is roughly 12 years, exactly as the prophet stated. prophecy fulfilled.now, what does any of this have to do with jesus, exactly? the child is the clock for the prophecy, which was fulfilled 720 years before christ was born. the child would have had to have been known to ahaz, for the sign to even make sense. there's nothing about virgin birth, nothing about the child being the messiah (indeed, the king of assyria saves the day, here), and no way it could apply to anything after the assyrian empire ceased to exist. so what exactly is matthew talking about when he says,

quote:

---

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, 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. (Matthew 1:22-23)

---

this actually manages to cover almost all of ramoss's categories of misrepresented prophecy. it's out of context (quotemined), not the actual prophecy, after the fact, and a mistranslation (through greek). there's no way it can even remotely apply to christ, and yet here is matthew supporting jesus as the messiah with it. this is just dishonest. why should i believe what he wrote?this is not dogma, nor is it religious, nor is it based on any particular belief in inspiration or non-inspiration. it's reading comprehension. i'll let you figure that one out. perhaps the author of isaiah (or isaiah himself) was divinely inspired. perhaps the author simply wrote after those events occurred. perhaps both. but at least it's (mostly) internally consistent with the rest of the old testament, and is talking about things that actually happened, that we know about from archaeology and histories. we can discuss prophecy that has something to do with the messiah later. but let's start with the above, which has nothing to do with any messiah.Edited by arachnophilia, : *crickets chirp*

---

אָרַח

again, this is not a question of faith or belief. the inspiration of the OT prophets is not relevant to the debate: only the accuracy of the NT authors in representing their claims. certainly, if those OT claims are actually founded in real history, and are about things that actually came to pass (and those claims were made before the events they describe) it does lend some credibility to the idea that prophets were divinely inspired.please note that this is only one prong of the test for prophets. the other is that they speak in the name of the lord, yahweh. if the prophet speaks truly, but not in the name of yahweh, the prophet is still false. doesn't follow. and it should be easy for you see why, when we take it one step further. as i mentioned above, the quran is also just revealing god's overall intentions, as is the book of mormom. these are both simply texts that, while acknowledging the truth of the old testament, expand and provide commentary on the message. just like the new testament. why should we hold this idea about the new testament, but not the book of mormon? or the quran? oh, sure. but perhaps that meaning was about muhammad, or or moroni, or perhaps even joseph smith. i mean, who's to say? you haven't particularly given any real reason we should distinguish the new testament from either of these two other works. if we're going to stretch that "greater meaning" beyond the bounds of context, application, and logical symbolism, certainly neither the quran nor the book of mormon can be disqualified. surely, they were inspired too. the criteria for examining the veracity of prophecy is not any different. that's the whole point. but, as i mentioned above, we're not yet even at the point of examining the veracity of those NT claims. right now, we're just at the point of examining whether or not they faithfully represent their sources -- the barest bones of intellectual honesty is using your sources truthfully. i fail to see how inaccurate representation of OT claims can be compatible with accuracy, or inspiration (unless, god is a liar). if you read my post and came to conclusion that it hinged on the definition of a word, i must forcefully question your ability to read and comprehend things. this is not the first time i have done so, even in this singular post. considering that your above comments were all addressed previously in this thread, mostly in the post you are responding to, i am forced to wonder whether or not you actually read what i wrote.no, the point of the post above is that this prophecy has a very specific timeframe and topic. even if it had said "virgin" -- which it doesn't -- that virgin still would have lived 720 years before the birth of christ. the prophecy applies to the assyrian conquest of israel, and the child was the timer. the sign could have been anything. it could have been a pillar of fire in the middle of jerusalem. it could have the sun going backwards in the sky. it doesn't matter how miraculous or non-miraculous the particulars of the sign are. what matters is the timeframe, and topic.even still, words have meaning, and you can't just interchange them at will. the differences between "young woman" and "virgin", and between "the" and "a" are substantial and can drastically change the meaning. but even if it did mean that (and it doesn't) it still could not actually apply to christ, since it was already fulfilled 720 years before he was born. that's fine. the question is whether or not any of this applies to jesus christ. you might be surprised to know that moses was the first messiah. moshe (that's how "moses" is pronounced in hebrew) and moshiach (that's "messiah" or "christ" in hebrew) come from the same word. yes, absolutely, the exodus is about god deliviering his people.the question is, what does jesus have do with it? probably a bad example. the serpent on the staff was the very image of the affliction israel suffered. and when it came to be worshiped in its own right...

quote:

---

He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah; and he broke in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did offer to it; and it was called Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)

---

so if that's a symbol for christ, it shows that christ worship is idolatry. you probably don't want to say that. no, this is nonsense. if the reader has to be divinely inspired -- especially if that inspiration runs contrary to the obvious and logical reading -- that negates the need for a text in the first place. why can't god just relate that overall purpose, and skip the stuff that says everything else? oh, these meanings aren't simple. the rest of isaiah 7 is filled with symbolic imagery. but note that you're not interpreting that symbolism. you're just misreading the stuff that's straightforward. the question is, why should we include the NT, since it so obviously misreads the simple parts? since the the obvious facts don't seem to phase you, perhaps, dawn, you simply have to inspired in order to see it. i think perhaps your task should be to demonstrate what makes the NT different from the book of mormon, or the quran -- why should we think they were any less inspired than the NT?

---

אָרַח

there must be, since that's reading and not "interpretation". an interpretation would be if i had discussed the symbolic imagery in the poetic prophecy that follows -- the bit i rather specifically left out. and there must a disagreement, because that reading precludes your "interpretation". it categorically rules it out. sure, he absolutely could have. there's no particular reason inspiration or scripture authorship has to have stopped at any point in history. inspired books could still be being written as week.the question is not "could". it is "did". did god inspire and the NT authors to explain a deeper meaning? but when the NT authors simply quotemine, distort, and misrepresent OT prophecy that was genuinely fulfilled over 500 years beforehand... well, it becomes sort of hard to think that they were. thus, a valid and supportable reason for "deconverting". and if those authors are inspired by god, it should relatively easy to do that in a clear and direct manner. again, we haven't gotten there yet. right now, we're merely talking about how the NT represents the OT. if it's not an honest representation, that's a pretty good argument against the NT.

---

אָרַח

god is with us in the war against israel?the child is a representation of god's destruction of the nation of israel, by handing them off to be oppressed and ultimately exterminated in the hands of the assyrian empire. this is not really a good image of christ. you don't know what "context" means, do you? sure, the same way it's about muhammad, because there is no god but allah, and muhammad is his prophet. matthew is not a prophet. he might have been recording the words of a prophet: jesus. if you look at the roles prophets play in the OT, the things that jesus says and does is very like one of the prophets.. matthew is simply one of his students. yes, it's a parable. prophecy is not parable. the things that isaiah describes are very real, and really happened. it is not a fictional story told to illustrate a point. you probably do not want to argue that it is. er, no. otherwise, a two word bible would have sufficed: "It's God." (i like "don't panic" better, personally) but clearly there are more subtle and intricate meanings. your "interpretation" is a white wash of the text, and deprives it of all its meaning and significance. logos means "word".

---

אָרַח

only stupidity would argue that quotemining is a valid theological framework. for instance, you might be interested in this post in the prophecy thread. since i know you won't go look, i'll re-post it here.

quote:

---

context is everything

---

ICDESIGN writes:

​

A prophecy doesn't have to be in context with the entire paragraph it is encased in. That is one reason why so many like jar get it wrong.

​

...uh, sorry, but yes it does. you can't just bend an author's words to mean whatever you like. christians love to claim their adoration of the bible, but strangely have little issue with misrepresenting it. if you really have no problem understanding why context is important, i leave you with the following bible verses:

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Deuteronomy 32:39

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

First Kings 8:23

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Second Kings 1:16

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Second Kings 5:15

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Second Chronicles 6:14

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Psalms 14:1

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Psalms 53:1

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 44:6

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 44:8

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 45:5

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 45:14

---

​

quote:

---

There is no God

​

Isaiah 45:21

---

​

i think the surrounding words are important. don't you?

---

that's funny, dawn. you are, on the one hand, arguing that we can rip things entirely out of context whenever it suits us, but on the other, arguing that we should go look at the whole book? oh, that's too funny.have you read isaiah, dawn? have you understood isaiah? since i know you haven't read the book i appealed to for historical context, the book of kings, i'm relatively certain you haven't read the rest of isaiah for the literary context either. isaiah's pretty firmly situated in pre-exile times, prophesying largely about the coming exile -- for both israel in assyria, and judah in babylon. jeremiah and ezekiel (the other "major" prophets) more so, as isaiah's a bit earlier. none of this really has anything to do with christ -- it's all about that exile as god's punishment, and then the redemption and return to the homeland that will follow it. some of (especially ezekiel) uses very poetic symbolism. but it's all about the exile. er, no. you're the one claiming symbolism where it doesn't fit. my statement was that inspiration of the OT prophets is not relevant to this discussion. it's simply about whether the NT authors represent the OT faithfully. this is a very simple question, and only relates to very basic literary analysis: the ability to read and comprehend. it has nothing to do with faith -- though the conclusions reached could cause that faith some problems. i, for one, refuse to believe that intellectual dishonesty, misrepresentation, and outright lies could be divinely inspired.

---

אָרַח

oh ho ho, you'd better ask a mormon about that one. they'll tell you all kinds of stuff about archaeology -- all of about the same calibre as your claims of biblical verification. i'm not sure what that's actually supposed to mean. what more do you need, besides the text? and if you're worried about originals (those pesky golden plates), don't worry. we don't have any for the bible, either. perhaps it's a matter of faith. you'd have to believe it's divinely inspired in order to see the inspiration, right? same as the NT. i'm still not convinced that you've read the quran. or, for that matter, the bible. i mean, the bible is just as much of a mish-mash of religious claims. have you seen proverbs? half the stuff isn't even religious. so you claim. but you have yet to show me why. i'd suggest posting passages from the book of mormon, or the quran, and comparing them to passages from the bible. you could start a new thread. i'll be happy to participate, and show you some of the absurdities. it is my belief that you have neither logic nor facts, though both have been given to you. for you, faith suffices -- which is perhaps valid. but you asked for a valid and supportable reason to deconvert. logic and facts certainly are.

---

אָרַח

so, here's a fun example.

quote:

---

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; (Isaiah 28:13 KJV)

---

a nice quote, okay. but just for example, let's look at it in context. now, this is a poetic section of isaiah, and my nJPS version happens to render it very poetically. so i'm going to copy it out of there. with context.

quote:

---

28

¹Ah, the proud crowns of the drunkards of Ephraim
Whose glorious beauty is but the wilted flowers
On the heads of the men bloated with rich food,
Who are overcome by wine!

​

²Lo, my Lord has something strong and mighty,
Like a storm of hail,
A shower of pestilence.
SOmething like a storm of massive, torrential rain
SHall be hurled with force to the ground.
³Trampled underfoot shall be
The proud crowns of the drunkards of Ephraim,
⁴The wilted flowers----
On the heads of men bloated with rich food----
That are his glorious beauty.
They shall be like an early fig
Before the fruit harvest;
Whoever sees it devours it
While it is still in his hand.

​

⁵In that day, the LORD of Hosts shall become a crown of beauty and a diadem of glory for the remnant of His people, ⁶and a spirit of judgment for him who sits in judgment and of valor for those repel attacks at the gate.

​

⁷But these are also muddled by wine
And dazed by liquor:
Priest and prophet
Are muddled by liquour;
They are confused by wine,
And dazed by liquour,
They are muddled in their visions,
They stumble in judgment.
⁸Yea, all tables are covered
With vomit and filth
So that no space is left.

​

[This is the drunkards' reaction to Isaiah's reproof.]

​

⁹"To whom would he instruction?
To whome expound a message?
To those newly weaned from milk,
Just taken away from the breast?
¹⁰That same mutter upon mutter,
Murmur upon murmur,
Now here, now there!"

​

¹¹Truly, as one who speaks to that people in a stammering jargon and an alien tongue ¹²is he who declarse to them, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest; this is the place of repose." They refuse to listen. ¹³To them, the word of the LORD is:

​

"Mutter upon mutter,
Murmur upon murmur,
Now here, now there."
And so they march,
But they shall fall backward,
And be injured and snared and captured.

​

¹⁴Hear now the word of the LORD,
You men of mockery,
Who govern that people
In Jerusalem!
¹⁵For you have said,
"We have made a covenant wit Death,
Concluded a pact with Sheol [Hell].
When the sweeping flood passes through,
It shall not reach us;
For we have made falsehood our refuge,
Taken shelter in treachery."

---

so what's it about? false prophets thinking their lies will protect them from the coming exile. in assyria. the "precept upon precept" business is the mockery that these false prophets are making of the word of god. this is essentially the derision the priests were making at the bible, not isaiah's approved idea of divine inspiration. isaiah is condemning this view.interestingly, this line is quoted in the book of mormon:

quote:

---

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have. (2 Nephi 28:30)

---

i think it does about as good at representing isaiah as matthew does, franky. clearly, well, the message is still "It's God^TM", joseph smith just gets everything else wrong, including which side god's on.

---

אָרַח