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 you'll accept textual evidence for this, why won't you accept all my textual evidence that Jesus violated the law of Moses, indicating that he wasn't the Messiah?

Why do you keep on claiming this and asking me this? I've already explained why it is a spurious argument multiple times in many different ways. Again, I'll let readers go through what we've discussed and let them judge.

Severe burning is also brutal and can result in death......

Yes, it can result in death.

If your point is debating the degree of marring, I'm not so sure the point of the passage was he was the most marred man in human history, but that he was severely marred.

And you don't think you can formulate an argument which can change my mind?

I don't think so since you have the a priori belief hermeneutics is not necessary. Now, if you believe hermeneutics is necessary, I can then present interpretation principles.

So what does God-breathed mean? This is a rhetorical question because nobody really knows what that means.

Well, we know what it's supposed to mean. It's supposed to mean "....profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". It doesn't take "hermeneutics" to figure that out.

Actually, you're even interpreting this passage wrong. God-breathed doesn't mean "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". It's describing scripture, not explaining what does God breathed means.

Here's the passage again:
[2Ti 3:16 KJV] 16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Please cite from any book, and not just your own interpretation, explaining exactly what does theopneustos means. I have yet to see a good explanation for it.

You've claimed that my argument is spurious.

Yes, that is what I've stated and I'll let readers assess it.

They are referring to the same thing. It's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations.

Exactly my point. Interpretations of scripture has to be consistent with other passages. If the prophetic passages of Jeremiah and Isaiah refers to the future utopia, the interpretations has to be consistent. If Jeremiah says "all" is only the Jews having their sins forgiven and Isaiah refers to the Gentile nations being forgiven, then it's not consistent.

Standard procedure when things don't come out as expected.....

Yes, some have made such predictions.

Like Paul.

What prophecies from Paul are you referring to?

Why should you have to wait for the second coming when Paul says in Hebrews 8 that Jesus has already received ministry as mediator of the new covenant?

Through the First Coming.

No one you talk to saw Jesus die. If Israel is exalted before the nations, that will be seen.

Dying doesn't make someone exalted. However, if someone gets resurrected, then he's exalted over death. And for that we have the evidence of the Turin Shroud that anybody can see.

How will Israel be exalted before the nations? Victory in war? Voted most exalted nation by the UN? What would be the possible ways people would be able to come to the conclusion Israel is exalted?

If you were to come up with a new argument in favor of the Christian Bible and I asked you, "If that makes sense, how come nobody found it before?", how would you respond?

I would present counter argument and evidence for all the opposing arguments. And I would present a hermeneutically sound argument with evidence to support my position. Then I would summarize all my arguments in a single post and then let readers judge for themselves.

[otseng]

Earlier, I argued against the position the suffering servant in Isa 53 would be the nation of Israel.
viewtopic.php?p=1131017#p1131017

I also stated, "Jews underwent vicarious suffering during the Holocaust is a minority view among Jews."

There are at least 20 different Jewish views of the Holocaust. One of them is the view that the Jews as a nation underwent vicarious suffering (#12).

1. "God is dead." If there were a God, he would surely have prevented the Holocaust. Since God did not prevent it, then God as traditionally understood either does not exist or has changed in some way. For some, this means that God has abandoned them, while for others it means God never did exist. Jews must be in the world for themselves. This may mean a turn to atheism or perhaps a turn to some more like pantheism. Sherman Wine holds that no God can possibly exist, while Richard Rubenstein has come to suggest a kind of neo-paganism as the best alternative.
2. "The Eclipse of God." There are times when God is inexplicably absent from history. Martin Buber made this phrase famous, suggesting that the 20th century was passing through a period where God, for reasons unknowable to us, refused to reveal himself.
3. A Distant God. The experience of the Holocaust calls for Jews to reinterpret their belief in God. God is obviously not a being who actually interferes with human existence in any tangible, measurable way. Arthur A. Cohen holds that God is so transcendent that he cannot be held responsible for the Holocaust.
4. A Limited God. God is not omnipotent. He does not have the power to bring to a halt such things as the Holocaust. Harold Kushner made this view popular in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People.
5. Free Will & God. Terrible events such as the Holocaust are the price we have to pay for having free will. God will not and cannot interfere with history, otherwise, our free will would effectively cease to exist. Eliezer Berkovits, for example, stresses that God is all-powerful but that he curtails his own freedom to respect human freedom, even with such horrific consequences.
6. A Suffering God. Borrowing from Christian reflection on Christ and the passibility of God, Hans Jonas has suggested that God is limited in power but able to suffer with the pain of the Jewish people. Others stress the compassion and love of God, even if not understood in the Holocaust.
7. Jewish Survival. The event issues a call for Jewish affirmation for survival. The rise of the nation of Israel is one way of reading this revelation. Emil Fackenheim speaks of the 614th commandment-- ""Jews are forbidden to give Hitler posthumous victories." He further states this as Jews are "commanded to survive as Jews, lest the Jewish people perish;" "to remember the victims of Auschwitz, lest their memory perish;" and they are "forbidden to despair of Man, lest they co-operate in delivering the world to the forces of Auschwitz;" nor "to despair of the God of Israel, lest Judaism perish."
8. Incomprehensible Silence. The Shoah exceeds human comprehension. It is a so horrific as to strip away any attempts at explanation. André Neher believes that there can only be silence after the Holocaust--God's silence and our own.
9. A Theodicy of Protest. If the Holocaust is a mystery, it is nonetheless on the surface a clearly unjust and wicked horror that God should have prevented. What does this then reveal about the character of God? Perhaps God is capable of evil. David Blumenthal has argued that an analogy can be drawn between child abuse and the Holocaust. Children of abusing parents can learn to eventually make their peace with such a parent but should never be required to abstain from challenging the parent's misuse of authority.
10. A Broken Covenant. The Holocaust is proof that God has broken his covenant with the Jewish people. One need not conclude, Irving Greenberg holds, that Jews can still not choose to hold to Jewish law, but it is now only on a voluntary basis.
11. Providential History. Some have suggested the Shoah had the providential outcome of overturning old medieval Jewish structures and replacing them with modern Jewish life, and that this is what needed to happen.
12. Vicarious Suffering. 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.
13. Coming Messiah. Sha’ar Yashuv Cohen has argued that the Shoah represents the birth pangs of the Messiah, that the Jewish people are in the final days before the Jewish savior finally comes.
14. "Because of our sins we were punished." (mi-penei hataeinu) 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.
15. One More Tragedy. Some would suggest that the Holocaust is not a singular event, but only represents one more horror in human history. From this viewpoint, Jews make too much of the Holocaust as a crisis event that changes everything. David Weiss has taken something like this position.
16. Jewish Reconstruction. The Holocaust is better understood as a historical tragedy, singular or otherwise, that must now be answered with Jewish commitment to the restoration of cultural and ethnic life. Those who survive must rebuild what has been violated and lost.
17. Christian Responsibility. Christians need to face up to the their history of anti-Semitism and the role it played in the Holocaust. Ben Zion Bokser has suggested that Christianity's exclusive view of itself rendered the German people numb to the moral repugnance of Nazi racial theories. Others argue that this culpability should put an end to any exclusive claims on Christianity's part or to any assigning of "second-class" status to Jewish faith. Supersessionism is no longer a credible theology.
18. Jewish Responsibility. Marc Ellis argues that national Israel now uses the rhetoric of the Holocaust to justify the oppression of the Palestinian people. The Holocaust should become a reminder to care for the disadvantaged state of all colonized groups. In a broader way, the Shoah is a reminder that to be a Jew is to be a chosen people, one that must carry out the covenant and bring salvation to others in daily life.
19. Jewish Witness. Jews must not allow despair to shut their testimonies forever. Memory and writing is at the heart of what it means to be Jewish, and the Holocaust is a temptation to hopelessness and to the secular Enlightenment, a project wholly discredited by the Shoah. It is better to keep one's Jewish identity and belief in the face of this. Even God cannot rob Jews of this loyalty.
20. God's Female Face. God was not absent in the Holocaust, rather present in the face of female Jewish sufferers, who by covering themselves and holding to their dignity were bringing the Jewish God into Auschwitz. Melissa Raphael has made this position part of the current Jewish discussion.
21. No Theology nach Auschwitz. Any attempt at theology totalizes the ultimate horror, and by doing so, it lessens the suffering of what happened, as well as opening up humanity to ultimately excusing it and letting it happen again. For some this is a radical negation of any attempt to explain, while for others it is a simple dismissal of religious attempts at an answer. Any talk of God's justice or love makes a mockery of what happened in the Shoah.

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

Wikipedia presents many Jewish theological views of the Holocaust, none of which mentions the vicarious suffering of the Jews.

Holocaust theology is a body of theological and philosophical debate concerning the role of God in the universe in light of the Holocaust of the late 1930s and early 1940s.

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

Several believe the Holocaust was the result of Israel's sins.

Satmar leader Joel Teitelbaum writes:
Because of our sinfulness we have suffered greatly, suffering as bitter as wormwood, worse than any Israel has known since it became a people.

The well-known Lithuanian Jewish leader, Rabbi Elazar Shach taught that the Holocaust was a divine punishment for the sins of the Jewish people, and for the abandoning of religious observance for the enlightenment.

Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, in 1939, stated that the Nazi persecution of the Jews was the fault of non-Orthodox Jews

Both Meir Kahane and Avigdor Miller have written extensively in defense of God during the Holocaust, while criticizing the European Jewish community's abandonment of traditional Jewish values.

God is "amputating limbs to save the body":

In 1980, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch wrote:

"[The limb] is incurably diseased... God, like the professor-surgeon... seeks the good of Israel, and indeed, all He does is done for the good.... In the spiritual sense, no harm was done, because the everlasting spirit of the Jewish people was not destroyed." ("Mada Ve'emuna," Machon Lubavitch, 1980, Kfar Chabad)[23][24][25]

There is no divine purpose and Jews must reject God.

Prof. Richard Rubenstein's original piece on this issue, After Auschwitz, held that the only intellectually honest response to the Holocaust is to reject God, and to recognize that all existence is ultimately meaningless. According to this piece, there is no divine plan or purpose, no God that reveals His will to humankind, and God does not care about the world.

God decided to remain hidden and not do anything.

Eliezer Berkovits held that man's free will depends on God's decision to remain hidden. If God were to reveal himself in history and hold back the hand of tyrants, man's free will would be rendered non-existent.

It is not a result of sin.

David Weiss Halivni
What happened in the Shoah is above and beyond measure (l'miskpat): above and beyond suffering, above and beyond any punishment. There is no transgression that merits such punishment... and it cannot be attributed to sin."[32]

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3150

Yet you presumably have no problem with the idea of that same deity brutally drowning every innocent child on earth in a global flood.

What I'm addressing is towards the Jewish viewpoint of the holocaust. Jews would never respond back this way since they would have to address this same problem from their own scriptures.

If so, that's a topic of its own. But it's still an issue you have to deal with.

But using their logic, couldn't all the "innocent people" who died from the flood be considered a propitiation for those who survived the flood?

If you're trying to justify the flood narrative in Genesis, I guess that's another issue for you to deal with.


How can someone who repeatedly violated the law of Moses be considered sinless?

Only you are claiming this.

Only I am claiming what? That Jesus violated the law of Moses? Didn't his critics take issue with that?

And even if I were the only one claiming it, so what? When only Copernicus was suggesting that the earth moves around the sun, was he wrong?


The nazis meant to destroy all of the Jews. They failed. Many Jews survived. That was the Jews' victory.

It was not a victory for those that died. And it's arguable any that survived claimed they were victors over the Nazis, rather they were victims.

".....but now I decided it's time to show the world that, thank God, we are still alive. I won."




And again, you assume that Jesus was resurrected.

That's why I presented the evidence of the Shroud of Turin.

And that's why I've been presenting evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3151

If you'll accept textual evidence for this, why won't you accept all my textual evidence that Jesus violated the law of Moses, indicating that he wasn't the Messiah?

Why do you keep on claiming this and asking me this? I've already explained why it is a spurious argument multiple times in many different ways. Again, I'll let readers go through what we've discussed and let them judge.

Again, all you've done is dismiss my points as my "interpretation" and spun nice-sounding fluff around the glaring inconsistencies between the law of Moses and the teaching of Jesus. Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus's "interpretation" of the law might be wrong?

If your point is debating the degree of marring, I'm not so sure the point of the passage was he was the most marred man in human history, but that he was severely marred.

I believe the point is that he was supposed to have been marred beyond human likeness.

God-breathed doesn't mean "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

It does in the context of 2 Timothy 3. Paul is saying that scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness because it's God-breathed.

Please cite from any book, and not just your own interpretation, explaining exactly what does theopneustos means. I have yet to see a good explanation for it.

Really? It's right there in that Blue Letter Bible you like to use.

Strong’s Definitions

θεόπνευστος theópneustos, theh-op'-nyoo-stos; from G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154; divinely breathed in:—given by inspiration of God.


They are referring to the same thing. It's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations.

Exactly my point. Interpretations of scripture has to be consistent with other passages. If the prophetic passages of Jeremiah and Isaiah refers to the future utopia, the interpretations has to be consistent. If Jeremiah says "all" is only the Jews having their sins forgiven and Isaiah refers to the Gentile nations being forgiven, then it's not consistent.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Jeremiah is not saying that "only" the Jews are to have their sins forgiven.


Why should you have to wait for the second coming when Paul says in Hebrews 8 that Jesus has already received ministry as mediator of the new covenant?

Through the First Coming.

Not according to the author:

For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Hebrews 8:3-6)

Dying doesn't make someone exalted. However, if someone gets resurrected, then he's exalted over death. And for that we have the evidence of the Turin Shroud that anybody can see.

But we have textual evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, that anybody can see.

How will Israel be exalted before the nations? Victory in war? Voted most exalted nation by the UN? What would be the possible ways people would be able to come to the conclusion Israel is exalted?

The messianic utopia beginning and the Jewish Messiah arriving.


If you were to come up with a new argument in favor of the Christian Bible and I asked you, "If that makes sense, how come nobody found it before?", how would you respond?

I would present counter argument and evidence for all the opposing arguments. And I would present a hermeneutically sound argument with evidence to support my position. Then I would summarize all my arguments in a single post and then let readers judge for themselves.

So, you wouldn't have to explain why no one had found it before?

[otseng]

If so, that's a topic of its own. But it's still an issue you have to deal with.

If you're trying to justify the flood narrative in Genesis, I guess that's another issue for you to deal with.

Yes, it's a topic of its own. Can perhaps deal with the general accusation that God is a moral monster after discussing the messiahship of Jesus.

And even if I were the only one claiming it, so what? When only Copernicus was suggesting that the earth moves around the sun, was he wrong?

The issue is not being the only one. The issue is if you are going to present a novel idea, then you need to have powerful evidence and rational reasoning to be convincing.

".....but now I decided it's time to show the world that, thank God, we are still alive. I won."

OK, yes some can claim surviving is victory.

And again, you assume that Jesus was resurrected.

That's why I presented the evidence of the Shroud of Turin.

And that's why I've been presenting evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

It's based on your faulty interpretation and it's also a non sequitur. Again, this reveals there are no viable arguments against the TS since it's all these tangential arguments brought up against it. If the TS is a fake, shouldn't it be easy to present arguments that directly relate to it?

[otseng]

Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus's "interpretation" of the law might be wrong?

Isn't it more likely you're wrong since you say hermeneutics is not necessary and don't know the principles of Biblical interpretation?

I believe the point is that he was supposed to have been marred beyond human likeness.

Do humans normally look like they've been crowned with thorns, scourged, crucified, and pierced in side?

Paul is saying that scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness because it's God-breathed.

Right. But it doesn't describe the mechanism of how the Bible was God-breathed.

Please cite from any book, and not just your own interpretation, explaining exactly what does theopneustos means. I have yet to see a good explanation for it.

Really? It's right there in that Blue Letter Bible you like to use.

The context I'm talking about is the mechanism. How is the Bible God-breathed? What is the process? How was God involved in the creation of the Bible? What method was involved when the writers were inspired by God? Many books have been written on this subject attempting to address this. None of the ones I've read gives an adequate explanation of this. For example, in Introduction to Bibliology by Jefrey Breshears, he states:
"Christians believe that the divine inspiration of the Bible is a reality, but there is no question that it is a mystery. Although the term is commonly and casually used by Christians, in fact the church has never articulated a clear, precise, or comprehensive definition of inspiration."

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Jeremiah is not saying that "only" the Jews are to have their sins forgiven.

Then it is a contradiction with your statements:

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

It would make more sense if the "all" and "their" referred to the same thing.

They are referring to the same thing. It's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations.

For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Hebrews 8:3-6)

What are you asserting this passage means?

The messianic utopia beginning and the Jewish Messiah arriving.

First off, few of the Gentiles knows the prophecies of the Jewish Bible, so they would not recognize it even if it happened.

And even if they know the prophecies, there is no Biblical text stating the future utopia requires the Jewish Messiah to bring in that utopia.

So, you wouldn't have to explain why no one had found it before?

If it's completely novel, it would be good to be able to explain that.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3155

The issue is not being the only one. The issue is if you are going to present a novel idea, then you need to have powerful evidence and rational reasoning to be convincing.

If the Bible is that important, then textual evidence from the Bible is plenty powerful. And I think it's fair to say that my reasoning has been rational.


And that's why I've been presenting evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

It's based on your faulty interpretation and it's also a non sequitur. Again, this reveals there are no viable arguments against the TS since it's all these tangential arguments brought up against it. If the TS is a fake, shouldn't it be easy to present arguments that directly relate to it?

Who are you to judge my "interpretation" as faulty? I've put the teaching of Jesus alongside the law of Moses and pointed out where the incompatibilities lie. I've also pointed out why the fanciful contrivance for how the Turin cloth image was formed would not produce the image we see.

I make the further claim that if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection.

Suppose that there had been no Turin cloth at all. Presumably, you would reject the claim of the resurrection of Jesus. Also presumably, you would not regard the Christian Bible as reliable or authoritative, and that it would be foolish to believe that it was.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:29)

Was it only because of the Turin cloth that Jesus said this?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3156

Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus's "interpretation" of the law might be wrong?

Isn't it more likely you're wrong since you say hermeneutics is not necessary and don't know the principles of Biblical interpretation?

Do you know those principles? I asked you what they were and you gave me a vague answer about how important they [supposedly] are.

It's not more likely that I'm wrong, because anyone can see the discrepancies between what Jesus says and what the law of Moses says. All it takes is looking at them together. I'm not wrong just because I refuse to spin what the text plainly says in a Jesus-friendly fashion.


I believe the point is that he was supposed to have been marred beyond human likeness.

Do humans normally look like they've been crowned with thorns, scourged, crucified, and pierced in side?

Humans can go through all that and still appear human.


Paul is saying that scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness because it's God-breathed.

Right. But it doesn't describe the mechanism of how the Bible was God-breathed.

It doesn't have to describe a mechanism. Paul is stating that they happen together.

The context I'm talking about is the mechanism. How is the Bible God-breathed? What is the process? How was God involved in the creation of the Bible? What method was involved when the writers were inspired by God? Many books have been written on this subject attempting to address this. None of the ones I've read gives an adequate explanation of this. For example, in Introduction to Bibliology by Jefrey Breshears, he states:
"Christians believe that the divine inspiration of the Bible is a reality, but there is no question that it is a mystery. Although the term is commonly and casually used by Christians, in fact the church has never articulated a clear, precise, or comprehensive definition of inspiration."

Without a mechanism, cloth collapse "theory" is hypothesis.

You're just asserting that layered cloth collapse is the only explanation with no mechanism to support it.

And you don't have any mechanism for making dematerialization happen in that conveniently odd fashion anyway.

No, I don't claim to have a mechanism for it.

Now, all of a sudden, you're hung up on mechanism.


As I have repeatedly pointed out, Jeremiah is not saying that "only" the Jews are to have their sins forgiven.

Then it is a contradiction with your statements:

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

They are referring to the same thing. It's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations.

There's no contradiction here. Jeremiah focuses on the Jews, Isaiah brings the Gentiles into the focus.

If God is going to rescue a puppy and a kitten, and God tells Isaiah about the puppy and tells Jeremiah about the kitten, and each prophet relays what he respectively has been told, are they contradicting each other?

For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Hebrews 8:3-6)

What are you asserting this passage means?

That he didn't obtain the "more excellent ministry" while he was on earth, but after death.

First off, few of the Gentiles knows the prophecies of the Jewish Bible, so they would not recognize it even if it happened.

According to the Jewish Bible, the Gentiles must have some way of knowing:

Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you. (Zechariah 8:23)

And even if they know the prophecies, there is no Biblical text stating the future utopia requires the Jewish Messiah to bring in that utopia.

That's why I wrote, "The messianic utopia beginning and the Jewish Messiah arriving." That would fit with a redeemer coming to those who turn from iniquity in Jacob, rather than turning them.


So, you wouldn't have to explain why no one had found it before?

If it's completely novel, it would be good to be able to explain that.

It might be good, but it isn't necessary.

[otseng]

Who are you to judge my "interpretation" as faulty?

I've already laid out my case and readers can judge who is correct.

Suppose that there had been no Turin cloth at all. Presumably, you would reject the claim of the resurrection of Jesus.

Then the only evidence would be textual evidence. If there were no textual evidence, only then would the claim have no justification at all.

I have not even argued for the resurrection purely on the textual evidence. There are so many books that have done this that it would take forever to discuss if we want to go down this path.

Also presumably, you would not regard the Christian Bible as reliable or authoritative, and that it would be foolish to believe that it was.

I've spent many pages arguing for the Bible as authoritative before I even broached the Turin Shroud.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:29)

Was it only because of the Turin cloth that Jesus said this?

It was because Thomas didn't believe Jesus was resurrected unless he saw evidence. It could be Jesus is saying this to our scientifically minded culture and saying we have the TS as evidence for his resurrection.

[otseng]

Do you know those principles?

I already said I know them.

If it's relevant to you, you should be able to identify them.

Of course I'm able to.

It's not more likely that I'm wrong, because anyone can see the discrepancies between what Jesus says and what the law of Moses says. All it takes is looking at them together.

How can it be clearly seen it if you're the first to see it? Doesn't make any sense.

Do humans normally look like they've been crowned with thorns, scourged, crucified, and pierced in side?

Humans can go through all that and still appear human.

I don't think the passage either means to take it in a hyperliteral way and say he's no longer human looking. Not everything in the Bible has to be taken in a literalistic way.

Here are additional translations of Isa 52:14:

(2001)
To the amazement of all.'Though men will despise his appearance, And his glory will be hated by sons of men;

(ABP)
In which manner [²shall be amazed ³by ⁴you ¹many], so [⁴shall be despised ⁵by ⁶men ¹the ²sight ³of your appearance], and your glory by the sons of men.

(AGBK)
Many people will be surprised by him because he will look very different from other people. He will have lots of scars and bruises, and his body will be very different from other people's bodies.

(JUB)
As many rejected thee, in such manner was his likeness and his beauty, disfigured from the sons of men:

(LXXE)
As many shall be amazed at thee, so shall thy face be without glory from men, and thy glory shall not be honoured by the sons of men.

Now, all of a sudden, you're hung up on mechanism.

No, I don't claim I know the mechanism for how the Bible was inspired either. But if you're going to claim God-breathed must imply some sort of requirement of inerrancy, then you'll need to be specific what does God-breathed means.

There's no contradiction here. Jeremiah focuses on the Jews, Isaiah brings the Gentiles into the focus

The contradiction is in your statements about who is forgiven in Jer 31.

At one point you say non-Jews are forgiven:

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Jeremiah is not saying that "only" the Jews are to have their sins forgiven.

Then you state only the Jews are being referred to:

It would make more sense if the "all" and "their" referred to the same thing.

They are referring to the same thing. It's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations.

If God is going to rescue a puppy and a kitten, and God tells Isaiah about the puppy and tells Jeremiah about the kitten, and each prophet relays what he respectively has been told, are they contradicting each other?

A straight forward interpretation doesn't need to introduce a separate puppy and kitten and then fuse them together.

[Isa 53:5 KJV] 5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

[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.

These passages are referring to all those who trust in Jesus. Our transgressions and iniquities was placed on Jesus and their sins have been forgiven.

That he didn't obtain the "more excellent ministry" while he was on earth, but after death.

Jesus came down to earth. And he was the atoning lamb, so he died for our sins. So, don't really see the issue here.

According to the Jewish Bible, the Gentiles must have some way of knowing:

Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you. (Zechariah 8:23)

And what is that some way? Most likely, some Jewish rabbi would have to teach and proclaim this to the Gentile world.

As Romans says:
[Rom 10:14-15 KJV] 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

That's why I wrote, "The messianic utopia beginning and the Jewish Messiah arriving." That would fit with a redeemer coming to those who turn from iniquity in Jacob, rather than turning them.

Is there any Jewish person that has this view?

If it's completely novel, it would be good to be able to explain that.

It might be good, but it isn't necessary.

Nothing is necessary. But it would give greater weight to your arguments if it can be presented.