Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Correct. If however we are simply looking at what is "written in the text" as Arch suggests then we will see that it contains inspiration and intervention, actually one will easily see that God is in charge of it all, if it is taken in its contextIm not saying inspiration can be proved, Im saying if we go by his simple rules then it is very possible God not only inspired Isa, as he intimates, but Matthew as well and that the passages can have a fuller meaning across time, since God is actually in charge of itGods statement to Abraham, "Through thy seed shall ALL the natiions of the earth be blessed"I am also saying that there is no need to conclude matthew misrepresents Isa, because God has inspired thier words, ATLEAST ACCORDING TO THE TEXT and in simple reading of the text.No need for deconversion, because like Arch, they miss the purpose and meaning of scripture, even though it is staring them right in the face.They are his rules not mine. I was simply trying to adhere to his rulesSince the scriptures and specifically Isa are more than repleat with inspiration and claims from God, why not include them if all we are doing is looking at the text????????????Dawn Bertot

Well that is the silliest thing Ive ever heard. How can you misrepresent an unreliable source? How would you know you were misrepresenting it in the first place, if you dont know what the authors meanings or intentions were to begin withHow would you be misrepresenting it if you dont know what the facts are to be in the first place?By picking one of your several interpretations of who or what the child represents, would I be misrepresenting Isa if I accidently chose the wrong explanation for who or what the child represents. How would I know i was choosing the wrong explanation, if there are three to choose from and we dont know what the correct one is exacally?it doesnt matter how reliable the source is??????????Heres an idea, maybe inspiration that is mentioned in the text could help me since you clearly cant Not according to a simple reading of the text. Isa or WHOEVER says Isa saw a vision and God revealed it to them.Arch is the book of Isa from God or man?If some parts are from God and some are not, tell me which is and which is notDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It is so interesting and cool that you asked this question, almost if you were prompted to do soNow you are starting to SEE the forest for because of the trees.Every prophecy Old or New has a dual prophecy, without regard to time or language.It has its physical application, then it has its truest meaning in God himself, as, God the Lord, God the deliever, etc, etc, etcthis is why when we get to the New Testament in Jesus christ, the theme and the dual meaning has not changed, its still about God, this time in the form of Jesus ChristBut still just GodIf the Son in Isa represented a present physical son, then so be it. but the overall intent of the prophecy had a dual meaning in its fulfillment in God as the punisher and deliverer, even at that timeThis is why it has the same application in Jesus Christ and is how inspiration wanted it to be used.It was and is still about GodHere are two physical examples.remember when Joshua was getting ready to do battle and he saw a man standing on the hill with his sword outstrechedhe says are you for us or agin usThe man says, the Captain of the army of the Lord goes before youJoshua knew immediately who it was and fell prostrateThe Lords intent was to let him know that God was in charge, this is not about you Joshua or Israelremember when God had Joshua reduce his troops to 300 men against thousandsit was to let him know God was in charge. This about meJoshua, not youProphecy, illustration and life in the Old testment were all the sameIt was always about God in its truest meaning, prophecy or otherwiseacross time, written page, language, it has never changed. GodDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

How do I know you said that in the first place. thats the nature of unreliable, correct?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

As i told you before , association with Christianity is not the same as being rooted and grounded in its tenetsMost of those people dont have firm foundation to support what little they believeOnes like Jaywill, Icant, Buzz and myself clearly have firm foundationI might remind you again that it is you the skeptic and Atheist that is in the low percentage as far as beliefs go.What happened Dewise after thounsands of years, you are still in the single digit representationOh well such is lifeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Ok, I'll bite. What is this "firm foundation?" learning and knowing the evidence behind the scriptures, knowing what the scriptures actually teach and the ability to defend those truths is of primary importance in establishing a firm foundationAs you have seen from myself and the otherts here there is much more to Christianity and its defense, than those that have abandoned the faith, so quicklyI dont know who it was that told you not to question anything but they were mistaken.Anywho that itDawn

this of course would work in any other situation, excluding claims of inspiration and the miraculous. When someone claims this then attaches it to thier claims and prophecies, it immediately calls into question most of anything else they have to say i know you honestly belief that and in some instances it may be true, not when it comes to claims of the miraculous and put my reputation on the line, if I were to make claims in that connectionOn the other hand looking straight at the text. When the author claims inspiration from God, and the prophecy is said to have COME from God. it immediatley bolsters the fact that since God is involved in the prophecy it can and does have an expanded meaningWithout it the prophecy is really worthless. Because we kn0ow mewn and men alone cannot predict the future I am relatively sure you made these comments, but you have made no prophecies or claims to inspiration from God about your arguments.So there is different form of check and balance that is necessaryThe Bible and Isa makes these claims and they are either true or falseDawn Bertot

Present any point or argument he has put up and I will demonstrate I have asnwered and responded to itHis posts are uncessesarily lengthy and they repeat material already coveredPlease present what you think i have not responded to, ill demonstrate otherwiseDawn Bertot

Your position also assumes it has accurately taken care of anything we believe or accept as valid, to make the abover determination, it has not.To demonstrate that point, ill use the present discussion at hand.You have assumed incorrectly that Matthew has misrepresented Isa's words. You make this assumption on the basis of the plain and simple reading of the text.You then disregard the entire text which makes it clear these are not Isa's words to begin withYou further disregard inspiration as irrelevant, which is clearly a part of the textit would follow then that matthew was not misrepresenting Isa's words and because inspiration is involved only inspiration could make known what Gods exact meaning in the words were.You have falsely limited God to a then and now interpretationAt bare minimum your claim that matt misrepresents Isa is false, because they are not his words to begin with and that MY SIMPLE FRIEND IS WHAT THE TEXT INDICATES AND SAYS DIRECTLYArch, Isa, is it from man or God?here is but a small example of how your MISUNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE demonstrates that there is no "confirmation bias" on my part.you simply cant go by the rules you set upDawn BertotP.S. Arch Isa, from God or man?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This my friend is exacally what you are doing by not including the entire contextBy leaving out the part about whos words these are in the first placeIntellectual dishonesty indeedespecially when you are the one that set up the rulesDawn BertotPS Step up to the information desk there and see exacally whos waiting room you are in

ill do this for you even though you are nothing but a filthy immoral little person, intent on confusion rather than understandingmatthew Do you see any claims to inspiration here PandaEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wrong alluding to inspiration and then ignoring it as part of the context, as you dont do with all the other "facts" in the text is not context and clairificationits evasion and not going by your own rulesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I like what Kyle Butt said in the Barker/Butt debate about you fellas, Its always, just show me one more piece of evidence, then Ill believe.Like that sign that says "free beer tommorrow"God wrote it as matthew indicates, not matthewdawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I never said your words werent there, I said you dont go by your own rulesAre the words there that God actually inspired Isa's words? well of course they arenow should and can see what is actually written about that? Of course I canDawn bertot

Wrong, Ive read the verse a thousand times and it is a claim to inspiration if even indirectly. Does Matthew say at some point God promised them inspiration, Why yes he does. Does John in 16:13, says the Spirit of promise would be sent, why yes he does?The truth of the matter is that no matter what is presented in this context you would not believe it (or accept it even as a plain reading} anyway. Isa claims inspiration all through the book and even in the context of the prophecy and you still wont tell me if you will accept it as plain reading of the text At its core, all your "rule" consists of is a simple and plain examination of the text. Even in the context of the prophecy Isa claims it to be from God? Your rule is simply an examination of what is says. Now all I need to do is examine what Isa says, even if I dont believe it. yet a simple examination as you suggest allows this premisethere is absolutely no misrepresentation on my part "It says so" is the exact type of rule you are employing in your own examination, of the text. Your determination of what Isa's conclusions are, are based upon the context and a plain and simple of, because Isa said soThats your approach without even considering MatthewThe first valid reason I have provided to make the jump as you call it, is because the prophecy, if from God, is primarily about God, not Isa, not israel, not Cyrus, nothing but God and Judge and JuryProphecies are much like parables, an earthly story with a heavenly meaningProphets represent God Arch, not themselvesThe people understood it to be coming from God , not the prophetThe second is that the theme never changes from one testament to another, from one week or century to another. Its about God and Gods plans across time as revealed the scripturesThirdly, there are no other extensive claims that lay claim as jesus does to these OT propheciesthere is no reason to believe God did not inspire them the same way he did IsaFourthly, Christ meets all of the claims to prophecyFifthly and more importantly, in this context, you have provided no valid reason to indicate Matthew has misrepresented Isa to begin with, that is if it is inspired by GodOnly inspiration could let you know who or what God had in mind through Isainspiration is the deal breaker for your and Jars simplistic approach to scripture and the propheciesremove inspiration and Thus saith the Lord and your approach might make sense. Include it as it is clearly included and your approach falls to the groundRemember even in the context of the prophecy the prophet claims inspiration about such things that were to follow. Why only examine what the prophecy has to say and NOT, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE SAID IT, if it is in the very same passage?No inspiration by a simple examination of the text, then none of it matters to a hill of beans, muchless whether JesuS was a Messiah or Matthew misrepresents himIf it is actually inspired, it makes all the difference in the world and to claims by Jesus and his Apostles as to whether they were accurateThe problem is that your and jars approach is neither realistic or rational (logical). Your approach cant be harmonized with reason or revelation. it makes no logical sense from any angleDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.