[Replying to otseng in post #2988
My methodology in showing the Bible is authoritative and reliable would be the same as for any other book, document, or text.
Do you consider the Quran or the Book of Mormon authoritative? If not, why
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.
The topic of this whole thread is trusting the Bible if it's not inerrant.
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.
And your notes seem to be general points which don't address the specific issue of the meaning of "keep" in Deut. 4:2.
Sure, it is in the context of legal commands. But the question is how literally should it be interpreted?
According to Jesus in Matthew 5:18, every-jot-and-tittle
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?
Does the US Constitution claim divine inspiration? Do encyclopedias claim divine inspiration? Does Wikipedia claim divine inspiration? Do all papers in peer-reviewed journals claim divine inspiration?
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.
You don't have to worship a book to expect it to be inerrant if it's supposed to be from a divine source.
Resurrection from the dead was already an established Christian belief before any NT text was written.
Swearing oaths was already established as right in Jehovah's eyes (Num. 30:2, Dt. 13:18) before Jesus came along and called it evil (Mt. 5:37).
People use the text of their own beliefs to support their own beliefs. There's nothing fallacious about that.
There is when they use the claims
of their own beliefs as arguments
for their own beliefs, as in:
Another purpose of the law was to serve as a tutor to lead us to Christ. He both fulfilled the law and superseded it.
Galatians 3:24 (KJV)
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
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.
This isn't about "any field". It's about text which is supposed to be divinely inspired. No deity can establish or enforce divine truth with writing which is so ambiguous that it can be interpreted in myriad ways.
It doesn't matter whether it has been or not. What matters is what Jesus said about the practice.
Then I take it you agree people have added and taken away from the Torah over the centuries.
I employ this as a hypothetical, and you seem to cling to that hypothetical as if you have nothing else.
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.
You haven't been addressing them; all you've been doing is accusing me of being "hyper literal".
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.
What does it mean to keep a garden? It means to prune it, douse it with water and keep the bugs out of it.
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may prune, douse with water and keep the bugs off of the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
The very fact that there are various definitions, depending on context, shows that there isn't
a single "pattern" for every use of a word. Words have different definitions in different contexts
, but that doesn't give you licence to switch their definitions willy-nilly to suit your preference.
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.
Then how would you account for his double-mindedness?
I would agree with that as well.
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.
This is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Poetic Language. You're simply burying Jesus's inconsistent doctrine under a heap of sentiment. His "high standard" is unattainable because his directives are mutually exclusive
. Following them isn't just humanly impossible; it's logically
impossible. That's what makes it double-minded.
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." (Numbers 30:1-2)
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. (Matthew 5:33-37)
My response would be the same to all your examples. I do not hold to a hyperliteral interpretation of the Bible.
So you can't answer any of the questions I posed?
Any of the excuses you're making for Jesus's inconsistent teaching could be made just as easily for inconsistency in the teaching of any other religion's founder.
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.
What I've brought up bears on the veracity
of the resurrection claim. And yes, my argument is that the text must all be inerrant, because if it isn't then it's no better than any other errant book, and no more authoritative
than any other errant book. I'm not being "hyper
literal" just because I won't make up excuses for its inconsistency.