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]

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.

I would not disagree that there can be errors in the Septuagint, but I think it's hyperbolic to say it "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.

Of course it was authoritative. It was used as a source for quotations in the New Testament and it was used as a source for translations into other languages.

In about 90 instances, the Septuagint is quoted literally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation ... _Testament

With the spread of Early Christianity, this Septuagint in turn was rendered into Latin in a variety of versions and the latter, collectively known as the Vetus Latina, were also referred to as the Septuagint[30][31][32] initially in Alexandria but elsewhere as well.[17] The Septuagint also formed the basis for the Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian, and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament.

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

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

Since the TS and the Bible align and support each other, it is very convincing.

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

Actually, there is no need for a messiah to establish the final paradise. Where in the Bible does it say that must happen?

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

Well, didn't you just agree that "all" doesn't mean the entire world? If it's not the entire world, then what is "all"?

Therefore, the new covenant has not been established.

The new covenant has been established through Jesus and the New Testament. Now, Jews might not believe that, but that doesn't mean it's false.

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

Were the other nations involved in writing the scriptures? If not, how can they also be included in "we"?

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.

Because God does not desire for any to perish, but wants to reconcile mankind into a relationship with himself.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

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).

Yes, Israel is a light to the nations, but I'm referring to God afflicting Israel. In particular I'm referring to the holocaust. Was God involved in that?

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

I'm not claiming whether or not there is a conspiracy to not read Isa 53 by the Jews. All I'm claiming is Jews typically do not read that chapter, either in private or public readings.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3121

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

Of course it was authoritative. It was used as a source for quotations in the New Testament and it was used as a source for translations into other languages.

Being authoritative for Christians didn't make it authoritative for Jews.


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

Since the TS and the Bible align and support each other, it is very convincing.

The Turin cloth and the Bible do not align and support each other. On the Turin cloth is supposed to be an image of Jesus, who disqualified himself as a resurrected Messiah with his contradictory teaching on the law of Moses.

It's like being in a pitch-black cavern with only a single shaft of light illuminating a path ahead of you. What lies unseen in the darkness doesn't matter, because you have that one shaft of light showing you solid ground. The indisputable fact that the Jesus of the Christian Bible is an inconsistent teacher is that shaft of light.

Actually, there is no need for a messiah to establish the final paradise. Where in the Bible does it say that must happen?

That's actually a valid point, and another thing which the Christian Bible gets wrong:

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
(Romans 11:26)

......

And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who repent of transgression in Jacob, says the Lord.
(Isaiah 59:20)


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

Well, didn't you just agree that "all" doesn't mean the entire world? If it's not the entire world, then what is "all"?

Do you remember who we're talking about? The houses of Israel and Judah. The Jews.


Therefore, the new covenant has not been established.

The new covenant has been established through Jesus and the New Testament. Now, Jews might not believe that, but that doesn't mean it's false.

The Jews still teaching each other to "know the Lord" is precisely what proves that the new covenant has not been established, because the Jews no longer teaching each other to "know the Lord" is precisely what's to take place when the new covenant is established.


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

Were the other nations involved in writing the scriptures? If not, how can they also be included in "we"?

The Jewish author is writing from the perspective of the nations.


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.

Because God does not desire for any to perish, but wants to reconcile mankind into a relationship with himself.

That, according to the Hebrew Bible, is what happens after the nations realize that they've punished the servant Israel unjustly.

Yes, Israel is a light to the nations, but I'm referring to God afflicting Israel. In particular I'm referring to the holocaust. Was God involved in that?

"In the Holocaust, the Jewish people become the "suffering servant" of Isaiah, collectively suffering for the sins of the world. Ignaz Maybaum explored this shocking claim, holding that perhaps in the Holocaust Jews even atoned for humanity's wickedness."

"Some in the Orthodox community have taught that European Jews were punished for their sins, either for the heresy of liberal Judaism or for an unfaithful rejection of the Holy Land. In these views, the Shoah is God's just retribution."

https://www.dbu.edu/mitchell/modern-res ... aust-views

I'm not claiming whether or not there is a conspiracy to not read Isa 53 by the Jews. All I'm claiming is Jews typically do not read that chapter, either in private or public readings.

Since the article I cited illustrates that there isn't a conspiracy, how often Jews read the chapter is of no consequence.

[otseng]

Being authoritative for Christians didn't make it authoritative for Jews.

Of course it was also authoritative for the Jews. The Septuagint was written by Jews and also hundreds of years before the first Christians even existed.

Biblical scholars agree that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible were translated from Biblical Hebrew into Koine Greek by Jews living in the Ptolemaic Kingdom, probably in the early or middle part of the third century BCE.[8] The remaining books were presumably translated in the 2nd century BCE.

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

It is only after Christianity came along have the Jews rejected the Septuagint.

While the Septuagint appears to have been widely accepted by Jews of the Second Temple period, it has been largely rejected as scriptural by mainstream Rabbinic Judaism since late antiquity for several reasons....
Finally, the rabbis also wanted to distinguish their tradition from the emerging tradition of Christianity, which relied heavily on the Septuagint.

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

who disqualified himself as a resurrected Messiah with his contradictory teaching on the law of Moses.

You keep on making this non sequitur claim which is so convoluted you won't summarize it.

It's like being in a pitch-black cavern with only a single shaft of light illuminating a path ahead of you. What lies unseen in the darkness doesn't matter, because you have that one shaft of light showing you solid ground. The indisputable fact that the Jesus of the Christian Bible is an inconsistent teacher is that shaft of light.

No, it's only your assertion, it's not an "indisputable fact" that Jesus is an inconsistent teacher regarding divorce. I've never even heard your argument from skeptics before regarding the resurrection. It's such a minority view that it's amazing nobody has caught on to this "indisputable fact".

What it reveals is no rational skeptical arguments can be presented by skeptics in this thread regarding the "light on solid ground" that it requires making up a hole in the corner of the cave. Why are arguments directly related to the TS and resurrection all avoided, but instead red herrings like divorce constantly brought up?

The most skeptical book I've read on the resurrection of Jesus is "The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History" by Dale Allison. If someone wants to present some arguments by a scholar in this field, I'd suggest presenting some from that book.

That's actually a valid point, and another thing which the Christian Bible gets wrong:

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
(Romans 11:26)

Why is it wrong? This is not referring to the present, but the future. The present situation (both in the time of Paul and now) is many Jews reject Jesus. But later the Jews will be grafted back in.

[Rom 11:25 KJV] 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Do you remember who we're talking about? The houses of Israel and Judah. The Jews.

So only the Jews would be forgiven of their sins?

[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 Jews still teaching each other to "know the Lord" is precisely what proves that the new covenant has not been established, because the Jews no longer teaching each other to "know the Lord" is precisely what's to take place when the new covenant is established.

I agree the new covenant has not fully arrived yet since people are still teaching each other.

But I don't see how that's compatible with the interpretation of Isa 53 that it is the Israelite nation that will redeem the Gentile nations. Is God's intention only to forgive the sins of Israel or also to the Gentiles? If Jeremiah is used, then God is only interested in the Jews. If Isaiah is used, God is interested also in the Gentiles.

In Paul's interpretation of Jeremiah, the Gentiles were grafted into Israel. The Gentiles received forgiveness of sins first, then all the Jews will have their sins forgiven.

[Rom 11:23 KJV] 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

[Rom 11:26-27 KJV] 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Also, from the Jewish perspective, how does God finally forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more?

[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 Jewish author is writing from the perspective of the nations.

Are there other examples of this in the Hebrew Bible?

That, according to the Hebrew Bible, is what happens after the nations realize that they've punished the servant Israel unjustly.

Where does it say the nations (or even we) will realize they've punished the servant?

Actually, many verses puts God as the one who afflicts the servant, not we (or the nations).

[Isa 53:4 KJV] 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

[Isa 53:6 KJV] 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

[Isa 53:10 KJV] 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

"In the Holocaust, the Jewish people become the "suffering servant" of Isaiah, collectively suffering for the sins of the world. Ignaz Maybaum explored this shocking claim, holding that perhaps in the Holocaust Jews even atoned for humanity's wickedness."

"Some in the Orthodox community have taught that European Jews were punished for their sins, either for the heresy of liberal Judaism or for an unfaithful rejection of the Holy Land. In these views, the Shoah is God's just retribution."

https://www.dbu.edu/mitchell/modern-res ... aust-views

And are any Jews grateful God afflicted them with the holocaust?
How specifically did the Jewish holocaust benefit the Gentiles?
Were they in some way a propitiation for the sins of the Gentiles?

how often Jews read the chapter is of no consequence.

To understand something, at a minimum it should be read.

[Athetotheist]

[*][Replying to otseng in post #3123

Of course it was also authoritative for the Jews. The Septuagint was written by Jews and also hundreds of years before the first Christians even existed.

Being translated by Jews didn't make it authoritative.

It is only after Christianity came along have the Jews rejected the Septuagint.

If that's the case, maybe it's because Jesus's failure as Messiah disillusioned them on the Septuagint.


who disqualified himself as a resurrected Messiah with his contradictory teaching on the law of Moses.

You keep on making this non sequitur claim which is so convoluted you won't summarize it.

The conclusion I reach comes directly from what the text says. What's non sequitur is your assertion that my conclusion is "convoluted" just because I haven't summarized it.

Again, there's no need to summarize it. I've laid my argument out in detail and all you've done is try to brush it aside by calling it my "interpretation" of precisely what the text clearly says. If I were to summarize it, how would you approach it any differently?

No, it's only your assertion, it's not an "indisputable fact" that Jesus is an inconsistent teacher regarding divorce. I've never even heard your argument from skeptics before regarding the resurrection. It's such a minority view that it's amazing nobody has caught on to this "indisputable fact".

Another non sequitur. Just because you've never encountered an argument before and it's a "minority view" doesn't mean that the argument lacks merit.

What it reveals is no rational skeptical arguments can be presented by skeptics in this thread regarding the "light on solid ground" that it requires making up a hole in the corner of the cave. Why are arguments directly related to the TS and resurrection all avoided, but instead red herrings like divorce constantly brought up?

Arguments which bear directly on the claim that Jesus was a divine savior are not red herrings. The text is full of evidence that the Jesus of the Christian Bible doesn't measure up to that role.

You're taking the position that it's impossible for the Turin cloth not to be proof of a resurrected Jesus, but there are too many unknowns for that to be reasonably declared impossible. At the same time, it's demonstrably impossible for the biblical Jesus to have taught in complete harmony with the law of Moses and to have established the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Those are the impossibilities, and as Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains----however improbable----must be the truth.


That's actually a valid point, and another thing which the Christian Bible gets wrong:

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
(Romans 11:26)

Why is it wrong? This is not referring to the present, but the future. The present situation (both in the time of Paul and now) is many Jews reject Jesus. But later the Jews will be grafted back in.

Your exclusion of the mistranslated text from Isaiah which I quoted shows the weakness in your argument:

And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who repent of transgression in Jacob, says the Lord.
(Isaiah 59:20)

Paul has the Messiah coming from Zion to do the turning; Isaiah has the Messiah coming to Zion after the turning has been done.


Do you remember who we're talking about? The houses of Israel and Judah. The Jews.

So only the Jews would be forgiven of their sins?

No, you can't rebuild my argument into that strawman. The text doesn't say that only the sins of the Jews would be forgiven. It does say that the Jews are the ones the covenant is made with.

I agree the new covenant has not fully arrived yet since people are still teaching each other.

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

Show me in any translation of the Christian Bible where Deut. 18:22 is rendered:

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, but you WANT the thing to be true, assume that the prophet is right and that the thing IS going to come to pass, no matter how much time it takes."

Exactly how long does the condition of the Jeremiah 31 covenant have to go unestablished for you to accept that Jesus didn't establish it? How can you discern that any prophecy is false if you're willing to give it an indefinite amount of time?

But I don't see how that's compatible with the interpretation of Isa 53 that it is the Israelite nation that will redeem the Gentile nations. Is God's intention only to forgive the sins of Israel or also to the Gentiles? If Jeremiah is used, then God is only interested in the Jews. If Isaiah is used, God is interested also in the Gentiles.

Jeremiah 31 focuses on the Jews. Isaiah 53 brings in the Gentiles.

In Paul's interpretation of Jeremiah, the Gentiles were grafted into Israel. The Gentiles received forgiveness of sins first, then all the Jews will have their sins forgiven.

[Rom 11:23 KJV] 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

[Rom 11:26-27 KJV] 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Here is Paul's backwards mistranslation of Isaiah again.


The Jewish author is writing from the perspective of the nations.

Are there other examples of this in the Hebrew Bible?

Do there have to be? How many examples of a virgin birth do you think there are in the Hebrew Bible?

Where does it say the nations (or even we) will realize they've punished the servant?

What chapter have we been talking about?

4Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them

Actually, many verses puts God as the one who afflicts the servant, not we (or the nations).

[Isa 53:4 KJV] 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

[Isa 53:6 KJV] 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

You have the emphasis in the wrong place.

yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.

And here is another mistranslated verse:

6We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.
וכֻּלָּ֙נוּ֙ כַּצֹּ֣אן תָּעִ֔ינוּ אִ֥ישׁ לְדַרְכּ֖וֹ פָּנִ֑ינוּ וַֽיהֹוָה֙ הִפְגִּ֣יעַ בּ֔וֹ אֵ֖ת עֲו‍ֹ֥ן כֻּלָּֽנוּ:

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-53.htm

And are any Jews grateful God afflicted them with the holocaust?
How specifically did the Jewish holocaust benefit the Gentiles?
Were they in some way a propitiation for the sins of the Gentiles?

Why are you asking me? I'm quoting Jewish perspectives.


how often Jews read the chapter is of no consequence.

To understand something, at a minimum it should be read.

That's why I've read Jesus's teaching on the Law of Moses in the context of the law itself.

[otseng]

Of course it was also authoritative for the Jews. The Septuagint was written by Jews and also hundreds of years before the first Christians even existed.

Being translated by Jews didn't make it authoritative.

As I've already evidenced, the Jews also used the Septuagint even before Christians came along.

If that's the case, maybe it's because Jesus's failure as Messiah disillusioned them on the Septuagint.

As wikipedia says:
"the rabbis also wanted to distinguish their tradition from the emerging tradition of Christianity, which relied heavily on the Septuagint."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

What's non sequitur is your assertion that my conclusion is "convoluted" just because I haven't summarized it.

That's only one of the many reasons which I've brought up in multiple posts.

If I were to summarize it, how would you approach it any differently?

It wouldn't change anything for me. But I assert it will reveal to the readers how weak your argument is.

Just because you've never encountered an argument before and it's a "minority view" doesn't mean that the argument lacks merit.

This is only another reason your argument lacks merit. Since it's pretty much your own argument which is not used by anyone else I've seen, what is required from you is powerful evidence, which your argument also lacks. You even admit hermeneutics is not necessary, which reveals a lack of properly interpreting the Bible.

Hermaneutics shouldn't be necessary.

You're taking the position that it's impossible for the Turin cloth not to be proof of a resurrected Jesus, but there are too many unknowns for that to be reasonably declared impossible.

Where did I say that? All I claim is it is more reasonable to believe it's evidence of the resurrection of Jesus than it being a fake. I'm not out to prove anything. So, could I be wrong? Yes. But showing that I'm wrong requires arguments with evidence, not merely claiming "there are too many unknowns".

Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains----however improbable----must be the truth.

I completely agree with Holmes. I have investigated all the major arguments against the authenticity of the shroud and none of them stack up. Though the idea of actually having the burial shroud of Jesus in our possession is highly improbable, it remains the only viable option standing.

Your exclusion of the mistranslated text from Isaiah which I quoted shows the weakness in your argument.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
(Romans 11:26)

And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who repent of transgression in Jacob, says the Lord.
(Isaiah 59:20)

I'm not bound by inerrant quotations either since I'm not assuming inerrancy. The only differences you've pointed to are a few preposition differences in the English. We have many different versions in the English that differ on how they translate it.

(2001)
'Then a savior will come out of Zion Who'll remove the irreverence from Jacob,' said Jehovah.

(EBR)
So shall come in, for Zion, a Redeemer, Even for such as are turning from transgression in Jacob,––Declareth Yahweh.

(Logos)
And the deliverer shall come for Zion's sake, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

(Rotherham)
So shall come in for Zion, a Redeemer, Even for such as are turning from transgression in Jacob,Declareth Ya

So only the Jews would be forgiven of their sins?

No, you can't rebuild my argument into that strawman. The text doesn't say that only the sins of the Jews would be forgiven. It does say that the Jews are the ones the covenant is made with.

Here's what the text says:

[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.

It does not mention covenant, but it does mention forgiveness. So who's making the strawman?

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

Show me in any translation of the Christian Bible where Deut. 18:22 is rendered:

What things did Jesus specifically prophesy about himself? As far as I can find, only two things - the sign of Jonah and the destruction and rebuilding of the temple. Both of which is a reference to his resurrection. If he did not resurrect, this would immediately falsify his claim as the Messiah and he would be a false prophet. Why would anyone make such a massive assertion that cannot be fulfilled by any human?

Exactly how long does the condition of the Jeremiah 31 covenant have to go unestablished for you to accept that Jesus didn't establish it? How can you discern that any prophecy is false if you're willing to give it an indefinite amount of time?

Jeremiah was the one who spoke it, so it would be Jeremiah that would be judged if he was a true prophet or not.

Are there other examples of this in the Hebrew Bible?

Do there have to be?

If you claim the "us" is from the Gentile perspective, yes you have to demonstrate this is done elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

How many examples of a virgin birth do you think there are in the Hebrew Bible?

The issue is not how many times an event occurred in the Bible, but what is the proper way of interpreting text.

Where does it say the nations (or even we) will realize they've punished the servant?

What chapter have we been talking about?

4Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them

It doesn't say we punished the servant. It says he bore and carried them. And there's nothing about "realizing" it.

You have the emphasis in the wrong place.

yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.

Yes, we accounted him, which does not mean we punished him. It was God who smote the servant.

And here is another mistranslated verse:

6We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.
וכֻּלָּ֙נוּ֙ כַּצֹּ֣אן תָּעִ֔ינוּ אִ֥ישׁ לְדַרְכּ֖וֹ פָּנִ֑ינוּ וַֽיהֹוָה֙ הִפְגִּ֣יעַ בּ֔וֹ אֵ֖ת עֲו‍ֹ֥ן כֻּלָּֽנוּ:

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-53.htm

Don't really see what you're getting to get at. Are you simply claiming verses are misquoted by NT authors?

And are any Jews grateful God afflicted them with the holocaust?
How specifically did the Jewish holocaust benefit the Gentiles?
Were they in some way a propitiation for the sins of the Gentiles?

Why are you asking me? I'm quoting Jewish perspectives.

Well, you're the one arguing from a Jewish perspective and I'm the one debating against the Jewish perspective. So that's why I'm asking you.

To understand something, at a minimum it should be read.

That's why I've read Jesus's teaching on the Law of Moses in the context of the law itself.

Reading it is just the starting point. It also requires proper hermeneutics to understand the Bible.

[POI]

It also requires proper hermeneutics to understand the Bible.

If that was all it took, there would be "one official" proper hermeneutic translation. And yet, how many denominations do we have again?

[otseng]

It also requires proper hermeneutics to understand the Bible.

If that was all it took, there would be "one official" proper hermeneutic translation. And yet, how many denominations do we have again?

Didn't say that it was all it took. There are many other things in addition to reading and understanding hermeneutics to properly interpret the text. I'm not claiming either we can ever fully understand the text since we'll be studying it for a very long time.

As for translations, it also requires understanding translation studies.

As for many denominations, sure some have differing ways of interpreting the Bible (or even what is the Bible).

[otseng]

Torah Family posted a video arguing against the TS from a scriptural point of view:

Is the Shroud of Turin the burial Cloth of Yeshua?

2:03
The mere fact of seeing how there is a gap of the image in the middle of the cloth proves the cloth was definitely not wrapped around him. In fact the implication of the imprinted image on the cloth implies the imprinted areas of the cloth top and bottom were the only parts of the cloth that were touching Yeshua's body.

What this means is the image could not have been made by a contact or vapor method. But, it does not rule out the vertically collimated radiation or the cloth collapse imaging theories.

2:31
The scriptures tell us that Joseph of Arimathea literally wrapped Yeshua's body in Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, and John 19:40. The word used for wrapped here in John 19 implies Joseph and Nicodemus literally bound Yeshua's body in the cloth.

Here are the verses:

[Mat 27:59 KJV] 59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat ... onc_956058

[Mar 15:46 KJV] 46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mar/15/46/s_972046

[Luk 23:53 KJV] 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/23/53/s_996053

[Jhn 19:40 KJV] 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/19/40/s_1016040

In Matthew, Luke, and John, wrapped is "entylissō".
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

In Mark, wrapped is "eneileō".
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

These are the only places in the Bible these words are used. From the context, we do not know exactly how Jesus was wrapped. But according to John Jackson, it was probably like this:

3:20
It's impossible to have a perfect flat image of the body on a cloth when it was literally bound tight by that cloth will there be an image of course but it would be distorted from every angle. It wouldn't be a perfect two-dimensional image as given on the Shroud of Turin.

There's only two theories that can account for it: vertically collimated radiation and cloth collapse. Other imaging theories that involve a wrapped body would have severe distortion, including vapor theories and bas-relief.

4:19
The word is actually plural for cloths thus it's interpreted as strips of linen.

John is the only one that uses the plural form of clothe.

[Jhn 20:5-7 KJV] 5 And he stooping down, [and looking in], saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

The shroud was not just a single piece, but actually two pieces - the main cloth and a side strip. More on the side strip at:
viewtopic.php?p=1119872#p1119872

4:44
Also notice the facial cloth here where else do we see this you guessed it with Yeshua seen here in John chapter 20 verses 6 and 7. This shows even more clarification that the facial cloth was one that surrounded his whole head and it was separate from the strips that surrounded his body.

The head cloth would be the Sudarium of Oviedo.

5:27
English translations there definitely appears to be contradictions Luke 24:12 makes it appear as strips of linen however Matthew 27:59 implies it to be a singular piece of cloth so are these contradictions or are they translation errors.

This would not be a problem of the Turin Shroud, but more of a textual issue. But from the shroud point of view, it can either be considered a single cloth or two cloths, depending on how one views it. The side strip was cut from the main cloth, so it was originally one piece.

7:28
Please consider the following Prophecy from Isaiah 52 verse 13. See my servant will act wisely he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted just as there were many who were appalled at him his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness. So Yeshua was so disfigured there was no recognizing him even as a man yet looking at the Shroud you see an image of a man hardly scarred at all in comparison to Isaiah 52.

Not even sure what image he is looking at. There are scourge marks over most of the body.


viewtopic.php?p=1107524#p1107524

Even without considering the shroud, how was Jesus disfigured and marred? What does the Bible say happened to him?

8:56
Pilate had Yeshua flogged. Yeshua was beat so bad he wasn't even recognizable the cloth would have been covered in blood.

And we see the shroud body image covered with scourge marks.

9:34
There's also claims that the text Jesus and Nazarene implying Jesus of Nazareth are written on the Shroud of Turin in Greek.

Yes, some claim this, but it is disputable.

10:52
All I'm saying here is there's way too much evidence in the scriptures that should cause all of us to think before blindly believing what scientists in the Catholic Church tells us regarding this cloth.

There's actually no viable scriptural arguments against the shroud that I've ever encountered. As for the scientific evidence for the shroud, I gave two talks about it:

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3125

"the rabbis also wanted to distinguish their tradition from the emerging tradition of Christianity, which relied heavily on the Septuagint."

Yes, because they wanted the integrity of the original text preserved.

This is only another reason your argument lacks merit. Since it's pretty much your own argument which is not used by anyone else I've seen, what is required from you is powerful evidence, which your argument also lacks. You even admit hermeneutics is not necessary, which reveals a lack of properly interpreting the Bible.

Why does your "hermeneutics" have to be correct and every other incorrect? The Catholic Church "interprets" the text one way. Mainline Protestants "interpret" it another way. Seventh-Day Adventists "interpret" it a third way.......and so on and on. If the whole game is about interpretation, then every sect can claim to be the correct one even in the Great White Throne judgement. Are they all going to finish in a tie?

I'm not out to prove anything. So, could I be wrong? Yes. But showing that I'm wrong requires arguments with evidence, not merely claiming "there are too many unknowns".

I'm not merely claiming "there are too many unknowns". As I pointed out, I've presented textual evidence that Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. You may not want it to be evidence because it runs counter to what you want to believe, but evidence it is.

I completely agree with Holmes. I have investigated all the major arguments against the authenticity of the shroud and none of them stack up. Though the idea of actually having the burial shroud of Jesus in our possession is highly improbable, it remains the only viable option standing.

You say that you're not out to prove anything, but here you admit no other possibility (I've even pointed out that the image on the cloth can be "interpreted" as evidence of Jesus having been an incarnation of Vishnu).

If the image on the Turin cloth is Jesus, which Jesus is it? Is it the Jesus who told the crowd that every jot and tittle of the law of Moses should still be followed, or is it the Jesus who violated that same law by forbidding divorce and oath taking when the law said not to forbid them?

I'm not bound by inerrant quotations either since I'm not assuming inerrancy. The only differences you've pointed to are a few preposition differences in the English.

Those preposition differences reverse what the text says.

If no one should assume inerrancy in the Christian Bible, then why can't anyone just as easily regard....

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

....as errant text, especially on the basis of so much textual evidence that it's errant?

[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.

It does not mention covenant, but it does mention forgiveness. So who's making the strawman?

YOU are:

32 For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days......

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

What things did Jesus specifically prophesy about himself?

I'm not talking about what Jesus says. I'm talking about what Paul says. It's Paul who claims that Jesus established the Jeremiah 31 covenant when it hadn't been established.


Exactly how long does the condition of the Jeremiah 31 covenant have to go unestablished for you to accept that Jesus didn't establish it? How can you discern that any prophecy is false if you're willing to give it an indefinite amount of time?

Jeremiah was the one who spoke it, so it would be Jeremiah that would be judged if he was a true prophet or not.

Jeremiah didn't say that it would be Jesus who established the covenant.

If you claim the "us" is from the Gentile perspective, yes you have to demonstrate this is done elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

Why does the suffering servant story have to be told more than once?


How many examples of a virgin birth do you think there are in the Hebrew Bible?

The issue is not how many times an event occurred in the Bible

Then the suffering servant story doesn't have to be told more than once.

It doesn't say we punished the servant.

Perhaps "persecuted" would be a better word.

And there's nothing about "realizing" it.

The whole thing is about realizing it.


And here is another mistranslated verse:

6We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.
וכֻּלָּ֙נוּ֙ כַּצֹּ֣אן תָּעִ֔ינוּ אִ֥ישׁ לְדַרְכּ֖וֹ פָּנִ֑ינוּ וַֽיהֹוָה֙ הִפְגִּ֣יעַ בּ֔וֹ אֵ֖ת עֲו‍ֹ֥ן כֻּלָּֽנוּ:

Don't really see what you're getting to get at. Are you simply claiming verses are misquoted by NT authors?

Since that bears directly on the reliability of the Christian Bible, it's quite enough to get at.


Why are you asking me? I'm quoting Jewish perspectives.

Well, you're the one arguing from a Jewish perspective and I'm the one debating against the Jewish perspective. So that's why I'm asking you.

Clarification:

I'm not arguing "from" a Jewish perspective; I'm arguing for the Jewish perspective pertaining to the text of the Jewish Bible.


That's why I've read Jesus's teaching on the Law of Moses in the context of the law itself.

Reading it is just the starting point. It also requires proper hermeneutics to understand the Bible.

And again, you seem to assume that the only "proper" hermeneutics is yours. On what basis?

[otseng]

Why does your "hermeneutics" have to be correct and every other incorrect? The Catholic Church "interprets" the text one way. Mainline Protestants "interpret" it another way. Seventh-Day Adventists "interpret" it a third way.......and so on and on. If the whole game is about interpretation, then every sect can claim to be the correct one even in the Great White Throne judgement. Are they all going to finish in a tie?

Hermeneutics is how to interpret, not what is the interpretation. Everyone should use the same principles of proper hermeneutics, but that does not mean everyone would be guaranteed to arrive at the same interpretation. Any of their interpretations could arguably be the correct one. But if someone uses improper hermeneutics, then it's most likely their interpretation is wrong.

I'm not merely claiming "there are too many unknowns". As I pointed out, I've presented textual evidence that Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. You may not want it to be evidence because it runs counter to what you want to believe, but evidence it is.

It is not only I who do not accept your argument, but your argument is not even found in any of the resurrection skeptics sources I've ever encountered. So, really it is only you that believe it is evidence against the resurrection.

You say that you're not out to prove anything, but here you admit no other possibility

It could be possible a viable naturalistic theory comes up in the future, so I'm not willing to say I'm 100% certain of my position.

(I've even pointed out that the image on the cloth can be "interpreted" as evidence of Jesus having been an incarnation of Vishnu).

Anyone can claim anything they want, but they need evidence to back it up. We've already looked at the text and there's no direct or indirect reference to Jesus. For reference, here's what I posted:

Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, and there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I Myself come forth;

For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, for the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I am born from age to age.

https://vivekavani.com/bhagavad-gita-ch ... verse-7-8/

There is no direct or indirect reference to Jesus, so it's entirely speculation this is referring to him.

If the image on the Turin cloth is Jesus, which Jesus is it? Is it the Jesus who told the crowd that every jot and tittle of the law of Moses should still be followed, or is it the Jesus who violated that same law by forbidding divorce and oath taking when the law said not to forbid them?

How many Jesus of Nazereth are there?

Those preposition differences reverse what the text says.

Hebrew and Greek allows that flexibility. So, it's difficult to translate into the English.

If no one should assume inerrancy in the Christian Bible, then why can't anyone just as easily regard....
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
....as errant text, especially on the basis of so much textual evidence that it's errant?

It's similar to any witness in a courtroom. It's not that everything they say is either true or false. We have to use the totality of evidence to determine what is true or false.

[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.

It does not mention covenant, but it does mention forgiveness. So who's making the strawman?

YOU are:

32 For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days......

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

Yes, earlier it mentions a new covenant. But in verse Jer 31:34 where it says shall "all know me" and it also says "I will forgive their iniquity", so is it only the Jews that would have their sins forgiven?

What things did Jesus specifically prophesy about himself?

I'm not talking about what Jesus says. I'm talking about what Paul says. It's Paul who claims that Jesus established the Jeremiah 31 covenant when it hadn't been established.

I think we need to go back a step for clarification.

Jesus resurrected from the dead before Paul wrote anything. As a matter of fact, Jesus rose from the dead before any NT book was written. So, what was written in the NT has no impact whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. It can testify to the event, but it cannot casually affect whether it happened or not.

We need to distinguish between Jesus's resurrection and whether he is the Messiah. These are two completely separate discussions, though related.

If Jesus did not resurrect, then automatically he's not the Messiah. If Jesus did resurrect, then he must either be the Messiah or a false messiah.

Since I've already presented my case Jesus resurrected from the dead, then I'm going to the next step of presenting the case he's the Messiah. But it's a non sequitur to argue he's not the Messiah, therefore he did not rise from the dead.

Do you agree with this or not? If not, please explain.

Jeremiah didn't say that it would be Jesus who established the covenant.

Who did Jeremiah say would fulfill his prophecy?

If you claim the "us" is from the Gentile perspective, yes you have to demonstrate this is done elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

Why does the suffering servant story have to be told more than once?

I'm not saying the suffering servant story has to be told more than once. I'm saying the literary technique of writing a prophecy using "us" from a Gentile perspective. If this is the only example in scripture of doing this, then it is a highly speculative claim it is using this literary technique.

The whole thing is about realizing it.

What do you mean by "realize"? Do you mean to actualize it and bring into reality? Or do you mean recognizing it and understanding it?

Since that bears directly on the reliability of the Christian Bible, it's quite enough to get at.

Still don't see your point. This is not a debate on the inerrancy of scripture.

Well, you're the one arguing from a Jewish perspective and I'm the one debating against the Jewish perspective. So that's why I'm asking you.

Clarification:

I'm not arguing "from" a Jewish perspective; I'm arguing for the Jewish perspective pertaining to the text of the Jewish Bible.

Then I'm asking you since you're arguing for the Jewish perspective. Here's the questions again:
And are any Jews grateful God afflicted them with the holocaust?
How specifically did the Jewish holocaust benefit the Gentiles?
Were they in some way a propitiation for the sins of the Gentiles?

And again, you seem to assume that the only "proper" hermeneutics is yours. On what basis?

I'm not claiming my interpretation of scripture is the only proper one. But I'm claiming we must use the proper techniques of interpretation to arrive at logical interpretations. You claim hermeneutics is not even necessary, so why should anyone accept your interpretations?