How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

If Jehovah doesn't author confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), then everything in the Bible should be clear and unambiguous with nothing to "assess". If the Bible can be variously "interpreted" like any other work, then it's no more authoritative or reliable than any other work.

Anyone can make up any interpretation. So just because someone can make up any interpretation doesn't mean the Bible is not authoritative. Hermeneutics is a huge field and it would take forever to dive into that on how to interpret text.

Actually, the fact that it is not "clear and unambiguous" is evidence God inspired it. If it was written by man, then it would be much easier to interpret. Since it's inspired by an infinite God, we'll be studying the Bible for a very long time and not be able to fully understand it all.

Isa 53:8 He (singular) was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his (singular) generation? for he (singular) was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he (number unspecified) stricken.

Interestingly, you admit that at the end of the verse the number is unspecified.

Yes, it is interesting because the claim by the Jewish apologists is it is plural, which I see no evidence for.

"For the transgress of my [the nation’s] people they [למו–lamow, i.e., the Jewish people] were stricken” (Isaiah 53:8). The word [למו] is biblical Hebrew and is a plural word as in, “a statute that He gave [למו] to them” (Psalms 99:7).

What needs to be considered is Isa 53:8 and there's no evidence there are any plural subject.

Even though Psa 99:7 has no relevance to Isaiah passage, here's what it says:

Psa 99:7
He spake (singular) unto them in the cloudy pillar: they kept his testimonies (plural), and the ordinance that he gave (singular) them.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/psa ... onc_577007

Here's another Hebrew interlinear:
https://simple.uniquebibleapp.com/bible ... s/99#v99_7

There's no evidence "he gave" is in the plural.

Jesus's clearly errant teaching, which I have pointed out at length, is a valid argument that a genuine messianic sign would not relate to him.
I'm letting the text speak for itself. Unless you're the Catholic Church, why are you asserting that I need someone to interpret the Bible for me?

You can have any interpretation you want. But since your position is an extreme minority position, you need to have very persuasive arguments to back up your claim. If you feel it's such a persuasive argument, post a single post that argues your point with all your evidence. I won't even counter it and let readers assess it for themselves.

Instead of using the Bible to interpret the Turin cloth, you're using the Turin cloth to interpret the Bible.

I'm using the Bible and the TS as two independent lines of evidence to back up the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

A good way to look at what the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be like is to look at what the messianic age is supposed to be like, and a good description of that is in the later chapters of Ezekiel, when a "prince" leads Israel in observance of Mosaic Law and offers traditional sacrifices for sin, including his own.

Yes, that is one view. Please present the passages and we can look at them.

According to this rabbi, Jews don't reject Judaism but they reject "a very sad caricature of Judaism".

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... se-judaism

That is interesting, but not relevant. The fact is most Jews do not read their own scriptures very much, let alone Isaiah or specifically Isaiah 53.

Chapters are designed to be read as units. When pertinent information is excluded, misunderstanding can result.

Anything can be charged with the misunderstanding of the text, including even the names of the books in the Bible. But what we are debating is the actual text itself.

Actually, if one wants to read it in context, you have to start at chapter 40. This entire section of Isa 40 - 55 is talking about another deliverance from bondage that parallels the exodus from Egypt.

Starting at chapter 40, you read through the passages which identify Israel as the servant.

It doesn't make any sense. If it's a parallel with the Exodus account, Moses was the deliverer of Israel out of Egypt, not Israel itself being the deliverer of Israel.

And that would mean even fewer people to be shocked and surprised if Jesus were exalted----"exalted" meaning revealed to the entire world as the Messiah, not just believed in.

The TS is revealed to the world as a testimony of Jesus's resurrection and messiahship.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3111

Anyone can make up any interpretation. So just because someone can make up any interpretation doesn't mean the Bible is not authoritative. Hermeneutics is a huge field and it would take forever to dive into that on how to interpret text.

Hermaneutics shouldn't be necessary.

Actually, the fact that it is not "clear and unambiguous" is evidence God inspired it. If it was written by man, then it would be much easier to interpret. Since it's inspired by an infinite God, we'll be studying the Bible for a very long time and not be able to fully understand it all.

Text being confusing is evidence that a deity who doesn't author confusion authored it? That makes zero sense.

If text written by men is so much easier to understand, why are there so many disagreements over the legal, literary and historical writings which you yourself have mentioned?

You tout the Bible as special and unique, vastly different from other writings, but when its inconsistencies are pointed out you respond with, "Well, there are inconsistencies in other writings......" .......the writings from which the Bible is supposed to be so vastly different.

Psa 99:7 has no relevance to Isaiah passage

The relevance is that the same word is used and is consistently plural.

You can have any interpretation you want. But since your position is an extreme minority position, you need to have very persuasive arguments to back up your claim. If you feel it's such a persuasive argument, post a single post that argues your point with all your evidence. I won't even counter it and let readers assess it for themselves.

I don't need a single post with all my evidence. Readers can look back over this thread and find all of my posts and all of my evidence.

But if you're still offering to give me a freebie which readers can assess for themselves, then I offer Jeremiah 31:31-34:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Here the "new covenant" is described. The description is repeated in Hebrews 8:6-12 [with a glaring mistranslation in v. 9] and attributed to Jesus, his death supposedly establishing the new covenant.

The problem is in trying to apply Jer. 31:34 to Jesus's supposed establishment of the covenant. Since the Christian church was started, Christians have never ceased teaching their neighbors and their brothers to "know the Lord" (if you're a preacher, you do so yourself every time you deliver a sermon). This clearly shows that the new covenant, which is to end such teaching because "they shall all know me", was not established by Jesus's death and/or resurrection, meaning that the passage in Hebrews is wrong.


A good way to look at what the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be like is to look at what the messianic age is supposed to be like, and a good description of that is in the later chapters of Ezekiel, when a "prince" leads Israel in observance of Mosaic Law and offers traditional sacrifices for sin, including his own.

Yes, that is one view. Please present the passages and we can look at them.

I'm sure you know the passages as well as I do, and readers may as well. It's your turn. Show anything in those passages of Ezekiel which give any hint of the Messiah dying as a final sacrifice for sin, let alone him being Jesus.


Starting at chapter 40, you read through the passages which identify Israel as the servant.

It doesn't make any sense. If it's a parallel with the Exodus account, Moses was the deliverer of Israel out of Egypt, not Israel itself being the deliverer of Israel.

Trying to make Isaiah out to be a parallel of Exodus doesn't change the fact that Isaiah has Jehovah referring to Israel as "my servant" (41:8, 49:3).

The TS is revealed to the world as a testimony of Jesus's resurrection and messiahship.

Resurrection and messiahship of a clearly errant teacher? A teacher who appealed to Moses for validation while undermining the teaching of Moses? No one is under any obligation, either intellectual or moral, to believe any such thing.

[otseng]

Hermeneutics is a huge field and it would take forever to dive into that on how to interpret text.

Hermaneutics shouldn't be necessary.

If you're going to claim you know how to properly interpret the Bible, then a proper understanding of hermeneutics is absolutely necessary.

Text being confusing is evidence that a deity who doesn't author confusion authored it? That makes zero sense.

Confusion can result from the reader, not the writer.

If text written by men is so much easier to understand, why are there so many disagreements over the legal, literary and historical writings which you yourself have mentioned?

Exactly my point. The fact that there are disagreements in interpretation of any text does not show they are not authoritative.

You tout the Bible as special and unique, vastly different from other writings, but when its inconsistencies are pointed out you respond with, "Well, there are inconsistencies in other writings......" .......the writings from which the Bible is supposed to be so vastly different.

Inconsistencies in the Bible are granted in this thread. Again, inerrancy is not assumed to be true.

In this thread, I'm not placing the Bible a priori as having a special status. The starting point is the Bible can be treated as any other book. From there, I'm arguing the Bible is special and unique.

Psa 99:7 has no relevance to Isaiah passage

The relevance is that the same word is used and is consistently plural.

I already presented the evidence Psa 99:7 is singular. Please present evidence in the Hebrew it is plural.

I don't need a single post with all my evidence. Readers can look back over this thread and find all of my posts and all of my evidence.

I don't see why you refuse to do this if you're so certain of your position. Throughout this thread, I've repeatedly presented a summary post for all my major arguments. All I'm doing is asking you to do the same.

The description is repeated in Hebrews 8:6-12 [with a glaring mistranslation in v. 9] and attributed to Jesus, his death supposedly establishing the new covenant.

Let's look at those verses:

[Heb 8:9 KJV] 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

[Jer 31:32 KJV] 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Yes, there are minor variations between the two.

But, speaking of Jeremiah, there is a larger issue. There exist two versions of Jeremiah.

The book of Jeremiah has come to us in two versions—a Hebrew version, the Masoretic Text, and a Greek version, the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament). Our modern English Bibles follow the arrangement and content of the Masoretic Text (MT). The Septuagint version (or lxx) was translated from a Hebrew text of the book that differed in many ways from the MT. Because of this, the Greek version is roughly one-eighth shorter than the MT, and after Jeremiah 25:13, the order of the chapters differs dramatically.

https://www.logos.com/grow/two-versions-of-jeremiah/

Jeremiah probably wrote 2 different inspired versions of Jeremiah. There are 2700 more words in the Masoretic Jeremiah than there are in the Septuagint Jeremiah. The two texts have all the earmarks of being “synoptic” versions of the same material.

https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Book-o ... -error.htm

The problem is in trying to apply Jer. 31:34 to Jesus's supposed establishment of the covenant. Since the Christian church was started, Christians have never ceased teaching their neighbors and their brothers to "know the Lord" (if you're a preacher, you do so yourself every time you deliver a sermon). This clearly shows that the new covenant, which is to end such teaching because "they shall all know me", was not established by Jesus's death and/or resurrection, meaning that the passage in Hebrews is wrong.

I don't think that prophecy has been totally fulfilled yet. Obviously people are still teaching each other, so that has not been fulfilled yet.

A good way to look at what the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be like is to look at what the messianic age is supposed to be like, and a good description of that is in the later chapters of Ezekiel, when a "prince" leads Israel in observance of Mosaic Law and offers traditional sacrifices for sin, including his own.

Yes, Jews typically view the Messiah as coming once to fulfill all the prophecies at a single moment in time. Christians interpret the prophecies as the Messiah being fulfilled in two separate points in time.

Yes, that is one view. Please present the passages and we can look at them.

I'm sure you know the passages as well as I do, and readers may as well. It's your turn. Show anything in those passages of Ezekiel which give any hint of the Messiah dying as a final sacrifice for sin, let alone him being Jesus.

You're the one making the claim, not me. So you need to back up your claim.

Starting at chapter 40, you read through the passages which identify Israel as the servant.

It doesn't make any sense. If it's a parallel with the Exodus account, Moses was the deliverer of Israel out of Egypt, not Israel itself being the deliverer of Israel.

Trying to make Isaiah out to be a parallel of Exodus doesn't change the fact that Isaiah has Jehovah referring to Israel as "my servant" (41:8, 49:3).

Why are claiming it's a "fact" when there's nothing to support it besides merely asserting it? Please provide the textual evidence.

It is clear when the passages are read in the context of Isa 40-55 that it is alluding to the Exodus account. Moses was the servant in the Exodus account. He was an individual, not an entire nation.

[Exo 4:10 KJV] 10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I [am] not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I [am] slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.

[Exo 14:31 KJV] 31 And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses.

Resurrection and messiahship of a clearly errant teacher?

If it's so clear, present your case in a single post for readers to assess for themselves.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3113

If text written by men is so much easier to understand, why are there so many disagreements over the legal, literary and historical writings which you yourself have mentioned?

Exactly my point. The fact that there are disagreements in interpretation of any text does not show they are not authoritative.

Well, it does show that they're not divinely inspired.

Psa 99:7 has no relevance to Isaiah passage

The relevance is that the same word is used and is consistently plural.

I already presented the evidence Psa 99:7 is singular. Please present evidence in the Hebrew it is plural.

I did.

The word [למו] is biblical Hebrew and is a plural word as in, “a statute that He gave [למו] to them” (Psalms 99:7).

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... conspiracy

Here it is again:

"In a pillar of cloud He would speak to them; they kept His testimonies and the statutes He gave them."

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-99.htm


I don't need a single post with all my evidence. Readers can look back over this thread and find all of my posts and all of my evidence.

I don't see why you refuse to do this if you're so certain of your position. Throughout this thread, I've repeatedly presented a summary post for all my major arguments. All I'm doing is asking you to do the same.

Again, anyone can go through and find my arguments. I prefer to move ahead and not rehash previous points as if I were saying something fresh.

"The book of Jeremiah has come to us in two versions—a Hebrew version, the Masoretic Text, and a Greek version, the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament). Our modern English Bibles follow the arrangement and content of the Masoretic Text (MT). The Septuagint version (or lxx) was translated from a Hebrew text of the book that differed in many ways from the MT. Because of this, the Greek version is roughly one-eighth shorter than the MT, and after Jeremiah 25:13, the order of the chapters differs dramatically."

The Septuagint is not a "version"; it's a translation----and a poor translation at that. One thing known about it is that we don't know who the translator(s) was/were.

"Christian apologists frequently face blatant discrepancies between the New Testament text and the Jewish scriptures. Their most common means of addressing this problem is to claim that the writers of the Christian scriptures were basing themselves upon the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible."

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... e-document

The Jews have never relied on the Septuagint (see 6:05-6:50 of the video).


The problem is in trying to apply Jer. 31:34 to Jesus's supposed establishment of the covenant. Since the Christian church was started, Christians have never ceased teaching their neighbors and their brothers to "know the Lord" (if you're a preacher, you do so yourself every time you deliver a sermon). This clearly shows that the new covenant, which is to end such teaching because "they shall all know me", was not established by Jesus's death and/or resurrection, meaning that the passage in Hebrews is wrong.

I don't think that prophecy has been totally fulfilled yet. Obviously people are still teaching each other, so that has not been fulfilled yet.

Not only hasn't the prophecy been fulfilled "totally" or "yet", it hasn't been fulfilled at all. There's nothing in the text indicating some piecemeal fulfillment taking centuries from it's beginning. There is simply no evidence that the prophecy has been fulfilled. At all. And there is evidence that it hasn't been fulfilled. At all.

There is no difference between people continuing to teach each other to "know the Lord" and the covenant in Jeremiah 31 not being established at all. No difference. Those scenarios are exactly, precisely the same. Just as there's no evidence of the old Watchtower claim that Jesus returned "secretly" in 1914, or however it went, there is no evidence that the covenant in Jeremiah 31 has been established. At all.

The condition of the covenant is that "they shall all know me", which means that the establishment of the covenant is all----or nothing. There is no middle ground. The only way to know that the covenant has been established is for it to be established exactly as it's laid out----and it hasn't been.

By the way, you're also reneging on your promise to let me post an argument without trying to counter it. And your promise not to try to counter my previous arguments repeated in a single post really doesn't mean anything, since you've tried to counter them already.


I'm sure you know the passages as well as I do, and readers may as well. It's your turn. Show anything in those passages of Ezekiel which give any hint of the Messiah dying as a final sacrifice for sin, let alone him being Jesus.

You're the one making the claim, not me. So you need to back up your claim.

I'm taking the text of Ezekiel as it is. If your position is that Jesus is in there somewhere, then you're the one with the claim to back up.


Trying to make Isaiah out to be a parallel of Exodus doesn't change the fact that Isaiah has Jehovah referring to Israel as "my servant" (41:8, 49:3).

Why are claiming it's a "fact" when there's nothing to support it besides merely asserting it? Please provide the textual evidence.

But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me,
(Isaiah 41:8)

And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
(Isaiah 49:3)

https://www.chabad.org/

It is clear when the passages are read in the context of Isa 40-55 that it is alluding to the Exodus account. Moses was the servant in the Exodus account. He was an individual, not an entire nation.

Is that your argument? Moses was referred to as a servant, so the servant in Isaiah 53 must be a parallel?

When was Moses despised and held of no account (Isa. 53:3)? Was he mute like a ewe before her shearers, not opening his mouth (53:7), when he kept going before Pharoah and saying, "Let my people go"?

Hardly a match.


Resurrection and messiahship of a clearly errant teacher?

If it's so clear, present your case in a single post for readers to assess for themselves.

Again, I don't need to rehash arguments I've already made. As I believe I've mentioned before, previously presented evidence doesn't go away just because you keep asking for it.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3113

If text written by men is so much easier to understand, why are there so many disagreements over the legal, literary and historical writings which you yourself have mentioned?

Exactly my point. The fact that there are disagreements in interpretation of any text does not show they are not authoritative.

Well, it does show that they're not divinely inspired.

Depends on what is meant by "divinely inspired". If divinely inspired means inerrancy, I've never made that claim.

I already presented the evidence Psa 99:7 is singular. Please present evidence in the Hebrew it is plural.

I did.

I said to provide the evidence in the Hebrew, not simply reiterating someone else's claim. It could be their Hebrew Bible is different than the ones I'm using. But if it's the same, then it's singular.

I prefer to move ahead and not rehash previous points as if I were saying something fresh.

I've tried to move ahead a long time ago.

The Septuagint is not a "version"; it's a translation----and a poor translation at that. One thing known about it is that we don't know who the translator(s) was/were.

That's just semantics again. Version, translation, their usage is equivalent when referring to the Bible.

Don't want to go into debating the Septuagint again, but it's not a "poor translation". It was a source material used by the first century Jews, even more than the Hebrew Bible.

The Jews have never relied on the Septuagint (see 6:05-6:50 of the video).

Many dispute this claim:

"Greek scriptures were in wide use during the Second Temple period, because few people could read Hebrew at that time. The text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted more often than the original Hebrew Bible text in the Greek New Testament[10][11] (particularly the Pauline epistles)[12] by the Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek Church Fathers. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

"300 years before Christ was born, the Hebrew bible, which Christians consider the Old Testament, was translated into Koine Greek. The title of this translation was called the Septuagint. It is this translation that was used by the Paul, the Apostles, and the early church. "
http://theorthodoxfaith.com/article/the ... ly-church/

"Since Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, the Septuagint was popular among Jews living under Roman rule. Many of the early Christians didn’t know Hebrew, so they naturally embraced this popular Greek translation as well."
https://overviewbible.com/septuagint/

There is simply no evidence that the prophecy has been fulfilled. At all. And there is evidence that it hasn't been fulfilled. At all.

I would disagree. People around the world have started to know God and their iniquities have been forgiven.

[Jer 31:34 KJV] 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The condition of the covenant is that "they shall all know me", which means that the establishment of the covenant is all----or nothing. There is no middle ground. The only way to know that the covenant has been established is for it to be established exactly as it's laid out----and it hasn't been.

Who is "all"? The entire world population?

By the way, you're also reneging on your promise to let me post an argument without trying to counter it. And your promise not to try to counter my previous arguments repeated in a single post really doesn't mean anything, since you've tried to counter them already.

What I said is I won't respond to a summary post of your claim Jesus had errant teaching. You haven't even posted the single post summarizing your argument, so how can I renege on the promise?

Jesus's clearly errant teaching, which I have pointed out at length, is a valid argument that a genuine messianic sign would not relate to him.
I'm letting the text speak for itself. Unless you're the Catholic Church, why are you asserting that I need someone to interpret the Bible for me?

You can have any interpretation you want. But since your position is an extreme minority position, you need to have very persuasive arguments to back up your claim. If you feel it's such a persuasive argument, post a single post that argues your point with all your evidence. I won't even counter it and let readers assess it for themselves.

I'm taking the text of Ezekiel as it is. If your position is that Jesus is in there somewhere, then you're the one with the claim to back up.

The only text I've brought up so far is Isaiah 53. If you want to argue against other passages, then the burden is on you to bring up those passages and argue against them. Myself, I'm trying to be organized and just stick to one topic at a time, which is Isaiah 53.

But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me,
(Isaiah 41:8)

And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
(Isaiah 49:3)

Yes, Israel can also be a servant. But in the context of a suffering servant to redeem people, how can Israel redeem? In Isa 53, there is only one mention of a servant.

[Isa 53:11 KJV] 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Who is the many? How can Israel bear the sins of those many?

When was Moses despised and held of no account (Isa. 53:3)? Was he mute like a ewe before her shearers, not opening his mouth (53:7), when he kept going before Pharoah and saying, "Let my people go"?

I'm not claiming there's an exact match. All I'm claiming is there is a parallel between the Exodus account and Isa 40-55.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3115

I said to provide the evidence in the Hebrew, not simply reiterating someone else's claim. It could be their Hebrew Bible is different than the ones I'm using.

I'm using a Jewish source, so if your Hebrew Bible is different from theirs, it would seem that the problem is on your end.


The Jews have never relied on the Septuagint (see 6:05-6:50 of the video).

Many dispute this claim

The translation became known as the Septuagint, which means “the 70” in Greek – in reference to the general amount of scholars who translated it. This is the basic translation of the Bible that much of the non-Jewish world has today.

.......

Despite advantages to teaching the non-Jewish world the Written Torah, the Torah Sages did not welcome the opportunity. “The day when the Torah was written in Greek was as unfortunate for Israel as the day of the Golden Calf” (Soferim 1:7). They even decreed that the day the Septuagint was completed, the eighth day of the month of Teves (in the winter), was to be marked on the Jewish calendar as “a day of darkness” (Megillas Taanis).

https://www.jewishhistory.org/the-10th-of-tevet/

And dispute as they may, we can still put the Septuagint up alongside the Hebrew Bible and see where the mistranslations in the former are to be found. If the Christian authors couldn't read Hebrew, they had no business presuming to quote the Hebrew Bible from inaccurate Greek text. If they could read Hebrew, they should have gone to the Hebrew Bible to begin with to avoid the inaccuracies.


There is simply no evidence that the prophecy has been fulfilled. At all. And there is evidence that it hasn't been fulfilled. At all.

I would disagree. People around the world have started to know God and their iniquities have been forgiven.

You could just as easily claim that the introduction of Buddhism to the US established a covenant to the effect that one day everyone in the US will convert to Buddhism. And if anyone doubted the establishment of that covenant, you could point to the fact that Buddhism has grown in the US.

How convincing would it be?


The condition of the covenant is that "they shall all know me", which means that the establishment of the covenant is all----or nothing. There is no middle ground. The only way to know that the covenant has been established is for it to be established exactly as it's laid out----and it hasn't been.

Who is "all"? The entire world population?

Why are you asking that when you should know that it's not the answer?

According to the text, the new covenant is to be made with the houses of Israel and Judah. That would be Jews, so if the covenant being established means that from the least to the greatest they will all "know the Lord", from a Christian perspective it means that the Jews should all convert to belief in Jesus.

Has that ever happened?

What I said is I won't respond to a summary post of your claim Jesus had errant teaching. You haven't even posted the single post summarizing your argument, so how can I renege on the promise?

You had already tried to refute my every argument that Jesus taught errantly, so what was the point of even making such a promise?

Yes, Israel can also be a servant. But in the context of a suffering servant to redeem people, how can Israel redeem?

The Hebrew text points to Israel redeeming the nations through their realization that they've made Israel suffer.


When was Moses despised and held of no account (Isa. 53:3)? Was he mute like a ewe before her shearers, not opening his mouth (53:7), when he kept going before Pharoah and saying, "Let my people go"?

I'm not claiming there's an exact match. All I'm claiming is there is a parallel between the Exodus account and Isa 40-55.

Without a parallel between the servants, whatever similarities there may be don't carry much weight.

[otseng]

I'm using a Jewish source, so if your Hebrew Bible is different from theirs, it would seem that the problem is on your end.

It's the other way around. Primary sources trumps secondary sources. The Hebrew Bible would be the primary source. What people say what the Hebrew Bible says would be a secondary source.

Despite advantages to teaching the non-Jewish world the Written Torah, the Torah Sages did not welcome the opportunity. “The day when the Torah was written in Greek was as unfortunate for Israel as the day of the Golden Calf” (Soferim 1:7). They even decreed that the day the Septuagint was completed, the eighth day of the month of Teves (in the winter), was to be marked on the Jewish calendar as “a day of darkness” (Megillas Taanis).[/i]

https://www.jewishhistory.org/the-10th-of-tevet/

Not only did the Gentiles use the Septuagint, Jews did as well.

Few people could speak and even fewer could read in the Hebrew language during the Second Temple period; Koine Greek and Aramaic were the most widely spoken languages at that time among the Jewish community. The Septuagint therefore satisfied a need in the Jewish community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

And dispute as they may, we can still put the Septuagint up alongside the Hebrew Bible and see where the mistranslations in the former are to be found. If the Christian authors couldn't read Hebrew, they had no business presuming to quote the Hebrew Bible from inaccurate Greek text. If they could read Hebrew, they should have gone to the Hebrew Bible to begin with to avoid the inaccuracies.

Neither the Hebrew Bible nor the Septuagint are inerrant. Also, it's not just Christians that used the Septuagint, but Jews as well, even before the time of Christ.

You could just as easily claim that the introduction of Buddhism to the US established a covenant to the effect that one day everyone in the US will convert to Buddhism. And if anyone doubted the establishment of that covenant, you could point to the fact that Buddhism has grown in the US.
How convincing would it be?

If they have empirical evidence Buddha resurrected from the dead, then it would be more convincing.

The condition of the covenant is that "they shall all know me", which means that the establishment of the covenant is all----or nothing. There is no middle ground. The only way to know that the covenant has been established is for it to be established exactly as it's laid out----and it hasn't been.

Who is "all"? The entire world population?

Why are you asking that when you should know that it's not the answer?

Yes, I know the answer. Of course it's not the entire world population. But you're the one claiming there is no middle ground and it's either all or nothing.

According to the text, the new covenant is to be made with the houses of Israel and Judah. That would be Jews, so if the covenant being established means that from the least to the greatest they will all "know the Lord", from a Christian perspective it means that the Jews should all convert to belief in Jesus.
Has that ever happened?

Yes, we have Messianic Jews. Do "all" Jews believe in Jesus? Obviously not. But it goes back to what is meant by "all".

You had already tried to refute my every argument that Jesus taught errantly, so what was the point of even making such a promise?

To give you the opportunity of having the last word on your argument.

The Hebrew text points to Israel redeeming the nations through their realization that they've made Israel suffer.

I don't think it makes any sense Isa 53 is referring to the Jewish people as a whole as the suffering servant. The most natural reading of Isa 53 refers to a single person.

[Isa 53:2 KJV] 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.

If "he" is the nation of Israel, then who is the "we" in the above passage? Since "we" is inclusive and not referring to "they", it must be the Jews.

Also, in verse 10, God was pleased to bruise and put the servant to grief.

Isa 53:10
(KJV) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief:
(OJB) Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering;

Why would God be pleased to inflict pain on Israel? However, if it referred to Jesus, it would be an act of self-sacrifice.
Also, how many Jews are grateful that God has afflicted them? Not many.

[otseng]

I pointed out most Jews don't read or study the Hebrew Bible:

I'm talking about the average Jew. Most do not read Isa 53, let alone study it. I would even say most Jews don't even read the Torah very much or take it to be the word of God.

65% of Jews say they seldom or never read scripture.
37% of Jews believe the Torah to be the word of God.

https://reformjudaism.org/blog/3-facts- ... view-torah

Even in the public readings of the scriptures, they don't read Isa 53.

Here's the list of their weekly scripture reading:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/we ... h-readings

And as noted by Jewish scholar Claude Montefiore, Isaiah 53 is rarely found in any Rabbinic literature.

Quotations from the famous 53rd chapter of Isaiah are rare in Rabbinic literature.
[Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians, it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons (Haftarot) for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths. These seven lessons a called the *Seven (Chapters) of Comfort', and are taken from the preceding and following parts of the book: the omission is deliberate and striking. (H. L.)]

Rabbinic Anthology, by C. Montefiore & H. Loewe
https://archive.org/details/rabbinicant ... p?q=Isaiah

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3117

It's the other way around. Primary sources trumps secondary sources. The Hebrew Bible would be the primary source. What people say what the Hebrew Bible says would be a secondary source.

That explains why the Septuagint translators got so much wrong.

Neither the Hebrew Bible nor the Septuagint are inerrant. Also, it's not just Christians that used the Septuagint, but Jews as well, even before the time of Christ.

They may have read it, but it wasn't considered authoritative.

If they have empirical evidence Buddha resurrected from the dead, then it would be more convincing.

If the empirical evidence clearly didn't match the individual described in reliable, authoritative text, it would be less convincing.

Of course it's not the entire world population. But you're the one claiming there is no middle ground and it's either all or nothing.

The text doesn't say anything about a halfway establishment of the new covenant.


if the covenant being established means that from the least to the greatest they will all "know the Lord", from a Christian perspective it means that the Jews should all convert to belief in Jesus.
Has that ever happened?

Yes, we have Messianic Jews. Do "all" Jews believe in Jesus? Obviously not. But it goes back to what is meant by "all".

And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-31.htm

"All" means.....all. From the smallest. To the greatest. It doesn't get more clear than that.

Has that ever happened? No. It has not. The clear outward feature of the new covenant's establishment has not come about. Therefore, the new covenant has not been established.

If "he" is the nation of Israel, then who is the "we" in the above passage? Since "we" is inclusive and not referring to "they", it must be the Jews.

Again, the "we" is supposed to be the nations which have made the servant (Israel) suffer.

Also, in verse 10, God was pleased to bruise and put the servant to grief.

Isa 53:10
(KJV) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief:
(OJB) Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering;

Why would God be pleased to inflict pain on Israel?

Why would God be pleased to inflict pain on a son in whom he was "well
pleased"? If the former scenario doesn't work, neither does the latter.

However, if it referred to Jesus, it would be an act of self-sacrifice.
Also, how many Jews are grateful that God has afflicted them? Not many.

Jews pride themselves on being a "light to the nations" (Isa. 49:6).

[Athetotheist]

I pointed out most Jews don't read or study the Hebrew Bible:

I'm talking about the average Jew. Most do not read Isa 53, let alone study it. I would even say most Jews don't even read the Torah very much or take it to be the word of God.

65% of Jews say they seldom or never read scripture.
37% of Jews believe the Torah to be the word of God.

https://reformjudaism.org/blog/3-facts- ... view-torah

Even in the public readings of the scriptures, they don't read Isa 53.

Here's the list of their weekly scripture reading:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/we ... h-readings

And as noted by Jewish scholar Claude Montefiore, Isaiah 53 is rarely found in any Rabbinic literature.

Quotations from the famous 53rd chapter of Isaiah are rare in Rabbinic literature.
[Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians, it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons (Haftarot) for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths. These seven lessons a called the *Seven (Chapters) of Comfort', and are taken from the preceding and following parts of the book: the omission is deliberate and striking. (H. L.)]

Rabbinic Anthology, by C. Montefiore & H. Loewe
https://archive.org/details/rabbinicant ... p?q=Isaiah

The chapter that missionaries say the rabbis do not want you to read is Isaiah 53. Most Christians believe this chapter describes the messiah [Jesus] dying for our sins.

This easily debunked claim[1] is a ploy to get people to read “The Forbidden Chapter” out of context and consequently accept Jesus. However, when read in context, Isaiah 53 is not speaking about anyone dying “for” our sins. Isaiah describes the Jewish people who suffered “from” the violence perpetrated against them by the nations of the world.

Furthermore, concerning a conspiracy, the missionaries are either intentionally misleading people or are ignorant of the history of the public reading of the prophets.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... conspiracy