Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 12:08 am
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.bible.ca/manuscripts/Book-o ... -error.htm
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.
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.