Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 10:03 pm
Are you sure you aren't reading the Bible, finding that it's not inerrant and then looking for some outside source to use as an excuse to assume that the Bible is authoritative anyway?
Not sure what you're asking. My methodology in showing the Bible is authoritative and reliable would be the same as for any other book, document, or text. Do you disagree with this? If you disagree, how should any text be assessed to be authoritative?
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2)
We've been covering this passage. So what do you mean I haven't been addressing it by stating, "You were the one doing the handwaving by not addressing the passage I brought up"? You might not agree with my arguments, but charging I have not been addressing the passage is erroneous.
I asked you what the intent of that law was. You said:
I believe fundamentally the Torah was given for us to experience shalom.
.....which did not address the command in the law I was asking about. If you can pester me for the meanings of Hebrew words, I can pester you for on-topic comments about the text of the Torah.
We've addressed all of this as well. Further, nothing you've brought up is on topic. The current topic for debate is the TS and the resurrection.
But it either identifies Jesus as the Messiah or it doesn't, and those who get it right aren't just "interpreting" it.
Who's the one interpreting it correctly? And on what basis are they correct?
You seem to assume that all the Jewish scholars who have read the biblical Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh over the centuries have been wrong about it and that you're the one who's right. On what basis do you draw that
We have many scholars who have studied the New Testament and come to a different conclusion. So, who's right?
Again, the debate on why Jews should accept Jesus as the Messiah is a large area of debate that can be covered later.
Since your bluff has been called and you haven't responded, here it is:
I was not bluffing. All I did was ask you to provide the Hebrew definition.
.....while never getting around to providing a definition yourself.
I agree with the definition you provided from blueletterbible, so there's no need to provide additional definitions. But, I did provide my message notes already on discussing more about the Torah and shamar if anybody does want to see my analysis of it.
That's why context is important. The word clearly refers to following a set of legal commands in the context of Deut. 4:2.
Sure, it is in the context of legal commands. But the question is how literally should it be interpreted?
If any false statement is made in Christian scripture, all of it is cast into doubt.
There is no document that can hold to your standard.
It's not "my standard"; it's a basic principle. Where one mistake is made, other mistakes are possible. And while some documents may not hold up to it, documents claiming divine inspiration should be expected to.
Are there any
authoritative documents that are inerrant? Is the US Constitution inerrant? Are encyclopedias inerrant? Is Wikipedia inerrant? Are all papers in peer-reviewed journals inerrant?
Think of it this way: According to Christian theology, how many sins does it take to send a person to hell? Just one? Then how many mistakes does it take for a text claiming divine inspiration to show itself as unreliable?
Because Yahweh, not the Bible, is God and the object of worship. We are not to idolize the Bible and make it some object that somehow itself is also divine.
Christian text was written to create Christian theology.
Not sure I'd entirely agree with that. There were fundamental Christian beliefs prior to any of the New Testament books being written. So, basic Christian theology existed prior to the existence of any Christian text.
Then let's say that Christian text was written to officially establish
Christian theology. Only the accepted books made it into the canon.
You're conflating two things - text being written and text being selected. They need to be considered separately.
As for text being written, the vast majority of it was written to document the events and capture the early beliefs. Sure, Paul wrote down theology in his epistles, but most of it was to correct errors that had crept in. 1 Cor 15 is a good example. The Corinthians started to believe resurrection does not happen. But, resurrection from the dead was an early belief, even before Paul had written anything. Resurrection from the dead was already an established Christian belief before any NT text was written.
As for canonization, it was a de facto process as people started to read the text that was being generated during the first two centuries. I'm of the position if someone wants to "add to the Bible", go for it. But, there needs to be good justification to consider a work authoritative. Personally, I believe we should take the Didache as authoritative as well. All Christians should be reading it and studying it.
You were quoting a Christian claim already written to try to bolster the Christian claim that Jewish scripture points to Jesus. That's circular.
By your logic, then aren't you doing the same with the Jewish interpretations?
You mean I'm assuming that the Jewish Bible doesn't
point to Jesus? I base my conclusion on my research into Christian mishandling of Hebrew text.
I mean you are using the Torah to argue for Jewish interpretations. Isn't that circular according to your logic? My argument is the circular charge is not applicable. People use the text of their own beliefs to support their own beliefs. There's nothing fallacious about that. It would only be fallacious if one claims their beliefs are universally true simply because their text says it. That would be circular.
I believe Jesus's teachings has no contradiction with the Torah based on the original language meanings, the intent of the teachings, how most Christians (and even Jews) view the Torah, and what is the commonly accepted views of Bible teachers and scholars.
You're obviously mistaken on that. Otherwise, all Torah-observant Jews would believe in Jesus.
There is no universal agreement on practically anything, even among scholars in any field. So it's a false requirement for universal acceptance of something in order to argue something can be true.
It doesn't matter who has added to or taken from the Torah over the centuries.
Then you concede this has been a practice by the Jews and others?
It doesn't matter whether it has been or not. What matters is what Jesus said about
Then I take it you agree people have added and taken away from the Torah over the centuries.
What matters is the incompatible difference between what Jesus says about the law of Moses and what the law of Moses says about itself.
You keep asserting this, but simply repeating it does not give your argument more weight. Really all of the evidence goes against your interpretation.
I do keep asserting it, but I also keep providing textual examples of it. All you have to do is go back through this thread and note the verses I've cited. Ignoring those examples doesn't make them go away.
Yes, you keep repeating the verses as well. And repeatedly saying I've been ignoring them, in light of the fact I've been continually addressing them, is also not helping you.
As I said, it requires looking at the original languages to have the proper interpretation.
Have you shown that the original languages refute my "interpretation"?
You've already provided the refutation of it:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/
שָׁמַר shâmar, shaw-mar'; a primitive root; properly, to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.:—beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man).
KJV Translation Count — Total: 468x
The KJV translates Strong's H8104 in the following manner: keep (283x), observe (46x), heed (35x), keeper (28x), preserve (21x), beware (9x), mark (8x), watchman (8x), wait (7x), watch (7x), regard (5x), save (2x), miscellaneous (9x).
Shamar does not
only mean to literally follow a set of commands. But it means, "to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.:—beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man)."
It is translated in many ways, including, "keep (283x), observe (46x), heed (35x), keeper (28x), preserve (21x), beware (9x), mark (8x), watchman (8x), wait (7x), watch (7x), regard (5x), save (2x), miscellaneous (9x)."
Let's take one example how it's not used as literally following a set of legal commands.
[Gen 2:15 KJV] 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep (shamar) it.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen ... _conc_2015
Jews place great emphasis on how a word is used for the first time in the Torah and it sets a pattern for how a word should be understood. Shamar is used first in the Torah in Gen 2:15. In this context, it is to keep a garden. What does it mean to keep a garden? It means to take care of it, tend it, cultivate it, harvest from it, etc. Shamar in Gen 2:15 does not
mean to literally follow a set of legal commands.
You realize that there's no way to follow the new preacher's teaching without violating the law of Moses, but at the same time he says that the law of Moses isn't to be violated.
I would agree with that as well.
Then how would you account for his double-mindedness?
It's not double-mindedness. Obviously nobody is able to achieve the high standards that Jesus placed on us. Which man doesn't lust or get angry or want to give up on marriage when we are no longer "in love"? What Jesus is addressing is not our pious outward actions that might convince others we are holy, but our hearts and minds inside of us all of us are bent towards sin. We can literally follow the Torah and yet still be considered sinners, because within us, we cannot remove our sinful hearts and attitudes.
Both the OT and the NT fit with each other. They are both given by God to reveal himself to us.
Let's test that claim.
And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, "This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
My response would be the same to all your examples. I do not hold to a hyperliteral interpretation of the Bible.
If, for the sake of argument, the relic actually were produced by some supernatural means, what would its message most likely be? Might the message be that we should take the shortcomings in the text into account when evaluating the relic? However impressive the relic may seem, it can't pass muster if the religious text doesn't hold up.
You haven't even brought up any references to the crucifixion, death, and resurrection. Your argument is simply the text must all be inerrant and everything hyperliterally interpreted.