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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20660
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 347 times
Contact:

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

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20660
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 347 times
Contact:

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

Post #3171

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 11:36 pm [Replying to otseng in post #3166
Have you changed your mind that hermeneutics is necessary? If so, then I'll post it after my concluding post on Isa 53.
Why wait? Why not enlighten me now?
Because your current stance is hermeneutics is not necessary. If you believe it's not necessary, then it's pointless for me to present it. And obviously you have good research skills, so it should be easy for you to look this up without requiring me to present it for you.
Then why can't the same be applicable to "I am the way, the truth and the life"?
Sure, I don't take that literally either. Most interpret it metaphorically.
Are you sure? I don't think I've ever known a Christian who interpreted that "metaphorically".
"Way" is "hodos". Literally, this means road. Nobody literally believes Jesus is a road. Metaphorically, it means a way of thinking.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
Just to make sure that I'm clear on this, are you saying that Jesus could have been resurrected from the dead even if he isn't "the way, the truth and the life"?
I'm saying Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. But this is understood in a symbolic sense. He is not a literal road. But he is the path that we should walk on in our life in a metaphorical sense. Jesus is the truth, not in the sense that we can derive mathematical or computational logic from it, but Jesus is the foundational truth in our life. Even if we believe in Jesus, we will still die one day, but we have have life by having an eternal relationship with God.
You're shifting the goal. The question is what does God-breathed actually mean?
Didn't the BLB tell us?
No, BLB doesn't tell us. Again, here's what I originally noted:
otseng wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:58 am 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 to expect inerrancy from God, I've never claimed God wrote the Bible. Men wrote the Bible.
Just as men wrote the texts of every other organized religion? If so, how then is the Bible any more reliable or authoritative than those?
As noted by the sheer size of this thread, this requires a long time to address. But for now, we can say it's differentiated from all other religions in that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and we have empirical evidence for it.
No, it doesn't mean the Bible needs to be inerrant.
Then how can man know what words to live by?
The entire Bible because it is authoritative and reliable.
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.

Where do I say that only Israel will have their sins forgiven? You're insisting on seeing a contradiction where there isn't one.
I highlighted it for you above. When you said "(Israel's)", it does not even imply it's more than Israel.
You also conveniently dismiss the fact that Israel is referred to as "my servant" in the discourse of Isaiah.
I believed I acknowledged it. Yes, my servant sometimes refers to Israel, but other times it also refers to an individual.
Not according to the text. If ten men from the nations are going to grab onto the cloak of a Jew and say, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you" (Zechariah 8:23), they apparently get that message somewhere else.
Yeah, and the question is from who? Why wouldn't the Jews want to be the messengers since they claim they know the Tanakh the best?
The issue is the timing of your proposal that the messianic utopia will come first and then the Messiah will come. Please cite Jewish sources that believe this.
I just cited a Jewish source. It's not "my" proposal; it's theirs.
They don't even believe this. So, there is no place you can cite to support this assertion, except for perhaps some extreme minority viewpoint.

Here's what they do believe:
The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).
https://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach
I've investigated all the major naturalistic explanations and none of them are viable. Whereas the cloth collapse theory so far is the most viable. Does it explain everything? No, I don't claim it does. But does it explain it better than anything else? Yes.
It isn't about explaining "better than". If it doesn't explain everything, it doesn't work.
False assertion. Even the laws of gravity doesn't explain how gravity works. We can describe it, but we cannot explain it. Even in a court of law, there is no need to explain everything, but simply which side has the preponderance of evidence.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20660
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 347 times
Contact:

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

Post #3172

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:55 am If the "Shroud" argument is still alive and well, I'd like to also offer, for consideration:
What is there to consider? That skeptics keep on posting irrelevant things and are unable to rationally present arguments against the shroud?

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1704 times
Been thanked: 1158 times

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

Post #3173

Post by POI »

otseng wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:54 pm
POI wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:55 am If the "Shroud" argument is still alive and well, I'd like to also offer, for consideration:
What is there to consider? That skeptics keep on posting irrelevant things and are unable to rationally present arguments against the shroud?
They, and I, already did, eons ago. But I'm willing to bet the claimers of these found "alien remains" would too stand firm in their conviction that no one can refute them. Carry on.....
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20660
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 347 times
Contact:

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

Post #3174

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:50 am
Why did he point to Psalm 22? Because he was stating he was fulfilling the prophecies in Psalm 22.
Another mistranslation.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ike-a-lion
Here's the passage again:
[Psa 22:16 KJV] 16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/psa/22/16/s_500016
They render this verse as: "They pierced my hands and my feet." This follows the Septuagint version, used by the early Christians, whose error is repeated by the Vulgate and the Syriac. However, it should be noted that the Septuagint underwent textual revisions by Christian copyists in the early centuries of the Common Era; it is not known if the rendering "pierced" is one of those revisions.
This is asserted, but there's no evidence presented there was a textual revision of this passage.
In any case, this rendering contains two fallacies. First, assuming that the root of this Hebrew word is krh, "to dig," then the function of the 'aleph in the word ka-'ari is inexplicable since it is not part of the root.
Yes, kārâ can be translated as dig. It can also be translated as: make, open, bore, give a feast, to get by trade. There are many ways the word can be translated.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

But, it makes no sense to translate it as dig in this passage. What does "they dug my hands and my feet" mean?
There are a number of words that are used in Hebrew for piercing the body: rats'a, "to pierce," "to bore with an awl" (Exodus 21:6); dakar, "to pierce" (Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 13:15); nakar, "to pierce," "to bore," "to perforate" (2 Kings 18:21).
Yes, there are other words used for pierce in the Hebrew Bible.

[Exo 21:6 KJV] 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore (rāṣaʿ) his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

rāṣaʿ is only used once in the Bible. And it's used in the context of the ear.

[Zec 12:10 KJV] 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced (dāqar), and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

dāqar means thrust through, pierce, wounded.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

As a matter of fact, this passage is a prophecy about Jesus.

[Jhn 19:37 KJV] 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Isa 13:15 also uses dāqar, but it's translated as thrust through.

[Isa 13:15 KJV] 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through (dāqar); and every one that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword.

[2Ki 18:21 KJV] 21 Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, [even] upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce (nāqaḇ) it: so [is] Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him.

nāqaḇ means curse, expressed, blaspheme, bore, name, pierce, appoint, holes, pierce through, strike through.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

nāqaḇ should probably not be used for Jesus since it can carry a connotation of blasphemy.
Any of these words would be far better suited for use in this passage than one that is generally used to denote digging the soil.
Not necessarily. But I do agree Psa 22 can be better translated. It is probably better translated as "they bore my hands and my feet", where bore means to make a hole shaped like a tube.
The correct interpretation of the verse must be based on the elliptical style of this particular psalm. The text should read, in effect: "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet."
This makes even less sense. How can one get "gnaw" out of kārâ?
Ellipsis (the omission of words) is an apt rhetorical device for a composition in which suffering and agony is described. A person in agony does not usually express his feelings in complete round sentences. Such a person is capable of exclaiming only the most critical words of his thoughts and feelings. In this case: "Like a lion . . . my hands and my feet!"
This also makes no sense. Why would one completely drop a word in a translation?
Rashi's interpretation of the verse--"As if crushed by the mouth of a lion are my hands and my feet"--is similar in thought to the one we have offered though differently stated.
Crushed also makes no sense.
As a result of a careful study of this verse, we see that the Christian claim that Psalms 22:17 (16 in some versions) foretells that Jesus' hands and feet would be pierced has no truth to it.
This is just posturing since the "careful study" has explanations that makes no sense.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 491 times

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

Post #3175

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3174
As a matter of fact, this passage is a prophecy about Jesus.

[Jhn 19:37 KJV] 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
Another mistranslation.

And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son (Zechariah 12:10)

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-12.htm

On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon.

And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart.

The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart.

All the remaining families-every family apart, and their wives apart.
(vv. 11-14)

Every family of Jerusalem didn't mourn for Jesus, so the prophecy obviously isn't about him.

Yes, kārâ can be translated as dig. It can also be translated as: make, open, bore, give a feast, to get by trade. There are many ways the word can be translated.

But, it makes no sense to translate it as dig in this passage. What does "they dug my hands and my feet" mean?
Karah consists only of the Hebrew letters kaph, resh, and he, whereas the word in the Hebrew text, ka-'ari, consists of kaph, 'aleph, resh, and yod.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ike-a-lion

'ari (אֲרִי) is "a lion".

This makes even less sense. How can one get "gnaw" out of kārâ?
Considering that the word in the text is ka-'ari (see the aforementioned lion), it's easy.


Ellipsis (the omission of words) is an apt rhetorical device for a composition in which suffering and agony is described. A person in agony does not usually express his feelings in complete round sentences. Such a person is capable of exclaiming only the most critical words of his thoughts and feelings. In this case: "Like a lion . . . my hands and my feet!"
This also makes no sense. Why would one completely drop a word in a translation?
You ask a question right after quoting the answer.

Crushed also makes no sense.
A lion's bite exerts at least 650 lbs. psi.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 491 times

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

Post #3176

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3171

Why wait? Why not enlighten me now?
Because your current stance is hermeneutics is not necessary. If you believe it's not necessary, then it's pointless for me to present it. And obviously you have good research skills, so it should be easy for you to look this up without requiring me to present it for you.
The sacred status of the Bible in Judaism and Christianity rests upon the conviction that it is a receptacle of divine revelation. This understanding of the Bible as the word of God, however, has not generated one uniform hermeneutical principle for its interpretation.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hermen ... rpretation

And therein lies the problem with hermeneutics, because it can be taken as license to interpret in one way what was actually written in another.

When Jesus countermands the law of Moses by saying, "But I say to you: do not swear at all", that has to be taken at face value. There's no way to spin it into allegory. Any attempt to interpret it in a moral sense forces the interpreter to interpret the law being countermanded as immoral. And it must be interpreted in the context of Jesus's own assertion that the law of Moses, which he is here countermanding, is still to be kept down to every jot and tittle. The conflict is unavoidable.

I'm saying Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. But this is understood in a symbolic sense. He is not a literal road. But he is the path that we should walk on in our life in a metaphorical sense. Jesus is the truth, not in the sense that we can derive mathematical or computational logic from it, but Jesus is the foundational truth in our life. Even if we believe in Jesus, we will still die one day, but we have have life by having an eternal relationship with God.
There's a difference between metaphorical hermeneutics and the Appeal to Poetic Language fallacy. You can recognize symbolism, but you can't just say nice things about the symbols and have them be true because you want them to be.

How is the Bible God-breathed? What is the process? How was God involved in the creation of the Bible?
If it isn't God-revealed, how then is it authoritative?

As noted by the sheer size of this thread, this requires a long time to address. But for now, we can say it's differentiated from all other religions in that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and we have empirical evidence for it.
We have textual evidence which refutes the empirical evidence.

I highlighted it for you above. When you said "(Israel's)", it does not even imply it's more than Israel.
Where does it say it's only Israel?

I believed I acknowledged it. Yes, my servant sometimes refers to Israel, but other times it also refers to an individual.
And what determines which and when? Your opinion?

Yeah, and the question is from who? Why wouldn't the Jews want to be the messengers since they claim they know the Tanakh the best?
If the ten men had heard it from the Jews to begin with, they could have just followed those Jews and not looked for a single Jew to latch onto. You're presuming to know their motives. And why wouldn't they know the Tanakh the best? It's written in their language.

False assertion. Even the laws of gravity doesn't explain how gravity works. We can describe it, but we cannot explain it.
The only thing we don't understand about gravity is how general relativity and quantum gravity fit together.

We have two theories that work incredibly well: in all the years we’ve been testing them, we’ve never found a single observation or made a single experimental measurement that’s conflicted with either Einstein’s General Relativity or with the Standard Model’s predictions from quantum field theory.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... m-physics/

And even so, we can see gravity working. We've never seen a resurrection.

Even in a court of law, there is no need to explain everything, but simply which side has the preponderance of evidence.
This isn't about civil law. It's about natural law.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20660
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 347 times
Contact:

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

Post #3177

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2023 10:12 pm 'ari (אֲרִי) is "a lion".
"Like a lion" doesn't even make sense grammatically. The article says you have to add either ellipses or gnawing, which neither makes sense. With ellipses, what does "Like a lion . . . my hands and my feet" mean? If you add gnawing (which obviously is not in the text), it would render "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." What does it even mean that a lion is gnawing at my hands and feet?

The Septuagint uses the word oryssō, which is dug, not lion.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/psa ... onc_500016

There is no evidence the LXX would have somehow had errors during transmission in this passage. Suppose the original LXX was leōn (lion). How can it have a copy error from leōn to oryssō? The accusation of a textual revision doesn't have any support either.

But let's suppose it should be a lion, let's look at translations that favor lion and see how they render it:

(AGB)
Dogs surround me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me; like a lion, my hands and feet are paralysed.

(CEB)
Dogs surround me; a pack of evil people circle me like a lion — oh, my poor hands and feet.

(LEB)
Because dogs have surrounded me; a gang of evildoers has encircled me. Like the lion they are at my hands and my feet.

(LOT)
(22:17) For dogs have encompassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: like lions they threaten my hands and my feet.

(NET)
Yes, wild dogs surround me – a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet.

(Noyes)
For dogs have surrounded me; Bands of evildoers have encompassed me, Like lions my hands and my feet.

(TPT)
They have pierced my hands and my feet. Like a pack of wild dogs they tear at me, swirling around me with their hatred. They gather around me like lions to pin my hands and feet.

There is no Bible translation that says "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." It is only the article's author (Gerald Sigal) that is proposing this.

The evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scroll Nahal Hever) also supports pierced rather than lion.

16 For dogs have surrounded me. A company of evildoers have enclosed me. They have pierced[2] my hands and feet.
[2] The MT says “like a lion” rather than “they have pierced.” There is a one letter difference between the two. This scroll reads ”they have pierced.”
http://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%2022.htm
One of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments contains Psalm 22:16. This fragment, published in 1997, was discovered in a cache of Scrolls at Naḥal Ḥever in Israel during the early 1950s. Significantly, the 5/6 Ḥev–Sev4Ps Fragment 11 of Psalm 22 contains the crucial word in the form of a third-person plural verb, written וראכ (“pierced/dug”).36 While it can often be difficult to distinguish between a waw (ו) and yod (י) in the Dead Sea texts, the editors of the most authoritative edition of the scrolls, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, confirm this reading in its transliteration and in two notes: “Although the photograph . . . is very faded, most of the letters are clearly identifiable under magnification,” and regarding וראכ the editors conclude, “with waw (ו) and yod (י) clearly distinguishable in this hand . . . this important variant [וראכ] reading is assured.”37
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the- ... a-scrolls/
Scraps from a scroll containing some of the Psalms were discovered at Nachal Hever, and one scrap contained the line from Psalm 22:16 with the word in question well in view. Though the writing on the scrap was faint, under magnification it was easy to see and decipher. The word clearly ended in a vav not a yod, and was therefore a 3rd person plural verb: “they dug” or “they pierced.”
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ike-a-lion

With the grammatical support, Septuagint support, and the DSS support, it is more likely it is the Masoretic that is incorrect. But even if you accept the Masoretic, there is no Bible translation that says lions were gnawing at the hands and feet.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 491 times

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

Post #3178

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3170
As Rabbi Skobac says, "The Bible never calls him the Messiah." So, if the Jews can still believe in "the Messiah", then Christians can also believe in "the Messiah".
The Jewish Messiah and the Christian Messiah are not the same individual.


What did the oil represent? There's nothing magical about oil in itself, rather it is symbolic of the Holy Spirit.
But Jesus wasn't anointed with oil.

During the baptism of Jesus, he had the actual anointing of the Holy Spirit.
There are inconsistencies here too.

According to Matthew 3:14, John knew who Jesus was before baptizing him. The fourth gospel indicates that John didn't know this until after baptizing Jesus (John 1:33).

Did the voice from heaven say "This is my beloved son", as Matthew says, or "You are my beloved son" as Mark says?

Yes, Jesus established the new covenant.

[Luk 22:20 NIV] 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Did his blood end the practice of teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord"? That's supposed to happen when the new covenant is established.

The fact that there is a state of Israel is a miracle.
An act of the United Nations hardly qualifies as a miracle.

Isa 11:12 NIV] 12 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.
From the four quarters of the earth.....presumably to one place.

When I refer to the "ten lost tribes of Israel", I'm assuming those ten tribes of Israel exist somewhere and are in hiding because they will somehow be gathered back to Israel. So, if they exist somewhere on this planet, where are they and who are they?
Are you assuming that they don't exist?
If you believe it's referring to lost tribes of Israel that have lived in the past and that they will be resurrected, what text says that would happen?
I was referring to it being no more difficult for their descendents to return than for the long-dead and dismembered to be restored.

It's a supernatural event, so we don't know how it happened.
It's a supernatural [and unwitnessed] claim, so we don't know that it happened.

I already presented passages that the new covenant has been established. There is no need to wait for it to happen since it has already happened.
No one is any longer teaching his neighbor or his brother to "know the Lord"?

And John the Baptist fulfilled the Isa 40 passages with proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.
About John.....

viewtopic.php?t=36956

I already presented passages from the NT he established the new covenant. This was a fulfillment of the passages from Jeremiah:

[Jer 31:31-34 NIV] 31 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
You quote the very text which shows that the new covenant has not been established.

Of course Jews do not interpret it this way as the Christians do. But one has to ask the Jews when will God ever forgive their wickedness and sins? Do they have to wait for the Messianic age for this to happen?
No.

Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity.

Take words with yourselves and return to the Lord. Say, "You shall forgive all iniquity and teach us [the] good [way], and let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips.
(Hosea 14:2-3)

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-14.htm

And if the wicked man repent of all his sins that he has committed and keeps all My laws and executes justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered regarding him: through his righteousness that he has done he shall live.
(Ezekiel 18:21-22)

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-18.htm


There are many instances of Pagan deities doing the same.
Any of them have any empirical evidence for existing on earth?
If they do, there's probably textual evidence to refute it.

The day of atonement covered all sins.

Leviticus ends its description of the yearly purification of the Tabernacle on Yom Kippur by explaining that the day’s ritual cleanses and atones for all sins of any kind
https://www.thetorah.com/article/does-a ... -atonement
The very article you cite relates that it's not as simple as that.

"What we see in the development of Yom Kippur in the Jewish tradition is how the contradictory viewpoints of Numbers 15 and Leviticus 16 serve as correctives to each other."


If being without a temple means that the Jews need their Messiah to be a final sacrifice, why didn't the Messiah come after the destruction of the first temple?
This is a complicated answer, but simply put, his time had not yet come.
If he was the Messiah and the Messiah's role was to be a sacrifice for people who no longer had a temple for offering sacrifices, how had his time not come?


Mormons reinterpret scripture in "light" of Joseph Smith finding plates of gold. Does that prove that it happened?
If they have empirical evidence to demonstrate its veracity, then they are free to present it.
If they did present empirical evidence and there were textual evidence in the BoM refuting it, which evidence would you accept?

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 491 times

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

Post #3179

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3177
"Like a lion" doesn't even make sense grammatically. The article says you have to add either ellipses or gnawing, which neither makes sense. With ellipses, what does "Like a lion . . . my hands and my feet" mean? If you add gnawing (which obviously is not in the text), it would render "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." What does it even mean that a lion is gnawing at my hands and feet?
You're talking like you've never read that entire psalm. The lion image fits the context perfectly.

The Septuagint uses the word oryssō, which is dug, not lion.
The Septuagint is an inferior Greek translation. It's easily plausible, for example, that a Septuagint translator lacking skill could mistake ka-'ari for "karah".

There is no Bible translation that says "Like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and my feet." It is only the article's author (Gerald Sigal) that is proposing this.
There doesn't have to be. The CEB, LEB, LOT, NET and TPT translations you list work perfectly well.

The problem, I think, is that you're hung up on the word "gnaw", which is an extrapolation, instead of focusing on the word 'ari ["lion"], which is in the text.

The evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scroll Nahal Hever) also supports pierced rather than lion.

16 For dogs have surrounded me. A company of evildoers have enclosed me. They have pierced[2] my hands and feet.
[2] The MT says “like a lion” rather than “they have pierced.” There is a one letter difference between the two. This scroll reads ”they have pierced.”
Side notes in your source:

"The translation to the left is based on the World English Bible. Words in regular black font are words in the scrolls matching the traditional text for that passage."

The word "pierced" is not in black.

"Words present in the scroll but with spelling differences that do not affect the meaning are in green like this: green. This is common in Hebrew."

The word "pierced" is in green. So the word "pierced" does not match the word in the traditional text. And according to the side note, the difference in the word doesn't affect the meaning.

Scraps from a scroll containing some of the Psalms were discovered at Nachal Hever, and one scrap contained the line from Psalm 22:16 with the word in question well in view. Though the writing on the scrap was faint, under magnification it was easy to see and decipher. The word clearly ended in a vav not a yod, and was therefore a 3rd person plural verb: “they dug” or “they pierced.”

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ike-a-lion
I don't see this text in this source. However.....
With the grammatical support, Septuagint support, and the DSS support, it is more likely it is the Masoretic that is incorrect.
.....I do see this there:

Grammatical proof of the correctness of the Masoretic text is seen by the use of the qamatz under the kaph in ka-'ari, which is the result of an assimilated definite article. Thus, the literal translation would be "Like the lion. . . ."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20660
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 347 times
Contact:

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

Post #3180

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 17, 2023 12:16 am The sacred status of the Bible in Judaism and Christianity rests upon the conviction that it is a receptacle of divine revelation. This understanding of the Bible as the word of God, however, has not generated one uniform hermeneutical principle for its interpretation.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hermen ... rpretation
This is one of the possible assumptions going into hermeneutics that can affect the interpretation outcome. So, it's important to understand at the outset what are the assumptions before starting to interpret the Bible.

As I've been stating in this thread, I have not been assuming the Bible has a sacred status and I've been approaching the Bible as any other book. Further, there is no assumption the Bible is inerrant in this thread.

Why do I do this? Because I believe it's circular logic to argue the Bible should have a special sacred status while also assuming it has a special sacred status. Also, there are no textual documents that are inerrant, so assuming the Bible is inerrant would also give it a special status. The Bible should be able to speak for itself and demonstrate it is authoritative and reliable without these special assumptions.
And therein lies the problem with hermeneutics, because it can be taken as license to interpret in one way what was actually written in another.
Actually, it's the opposite. Hermeneutics provides the methodology to try to arrive at a reasonable interpretation. But if the assumptions held from the onset are different, then it can lead to different interpretations.
When Jesus countermands the law of Moses by saying, "But I say to you: do not swear at all", that has to be taken at face value. There's no way to spin it into allegory. Any attempt to interpret it in a moral sense forces the interpreter to interpret the law being countermanded as immoral. And it must be interpreted in the context of Jesus's own assertion that the law of Moses, which he is here countermanding, is still to be kept down to every jot and tittle. The conflict is unavoidable.
No, the principles of proper hermeneutics explains your "unavoidable conflict".
There's a difference between metaphorical hermeneutics and the Appeal to Poetic Language fallacy. You can recognize symbolism, but you can't just say nice things about the symbols and have them be true because you want them to be.
I'm not claiming that passage proves anything nor am I saying since the Bible says Jesus is the truth then everyone should believe he is the truth. All I'm saying is that is my interpretation of the passage, which by the way is pretty much how all evangelicals interpret the passage. How else do others interpret the passage?
I highlighted it for you above. When you said "(Israel's)", it does not even imply it's more than Israel.
Where does it say it's only Israel?
The most straight forward reading of what you wrote meant only Israel. You said it was referring to the same thing. Also you did not say "(Israel's and the nations')", but simply "(Israel's)". Further, when I mentioned about the nations, you attribute it to confusion on my part:
"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."
I believed I acknowledged it. Yes, my servant sometimes refers to Israel, but other times it also refers to an individual.
And what determines which and when? Your opinion?
We have to look at the context.
And why wouldn't they know the Tanakh the best? It's written in their language.
Exactly my point. If their interpretation of the Isa 53 is they are the suffering servant (which very few Gentiles either know or believe this), then it would have to be the Jews to point this out to the nations and explain they are the ones that would suffer for them and redeem them. Nobody would be able to figure this out without the Jews teaching them.
And even so, we can see gravity working. We've never seen a resurrection.
We observe the effects of gravity, we don't see how it is working.

Nobody has seen the resurrection, but we can observe the effects of the resurrection.
Even in a court of law, there is no need to explain everything, but simply which side has the preponderance of evidence.
This isn't about civil law. It's about natural law.
Even in natural law, there is no requirement everything needs to be explained.

This is a common argument laid out by skeptics. They say the Bible must hold to some high standard in order for it to be true. But, those standards are not applied to anything else. This is the special pleading fallacy. The biggest case in point is the Bible must be inerrant, which has been repeatedly been brought up by skeptics, even though the very first post says inerrancy is not assumed.
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:01 pm The Jewish Messiah and the Christian Messiah are not the same individual.
For Messianic Jews, they are the same.
But Jesus wasn't anointed with oil.
There are many things Jesus did that deviated from the Jewish traditions. He was revealing it's not the letter of the law that had to be followed, but the spirit and intention of the law.

Ultimately, the purpose of anointing was to convey authority granted by God. And we clearly see this occurred during the baptism of Jesus.
Did the voice from heaven say "This is my beloved son", as Matthew says, or "You are my beloved son" as Mark says?
If they recalled what was said was different, it doesn't matter. The intent and meaning that Jesus is God's beloved son is the same.
Did his blood end the practice of teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord"? That's supposed to happen when the new covenant is established.
As Christians, we all have direct access to the Father to know him. In the OT, it required going through a priest to have a relationship with God.
The fact that there is a state of Israel is a miracle.
An act of the United Nations hardly qualifies as a miracle.
That they voted to establish a nation of Israel is a miracle. The Jews have been desiring a homeland for thousands of years and never achieved it before.
When I refer to the "ten lost tribes of Israel", I'm assuming those ten tribes of Israel exist somewhere and are in hiding because they will somehow be gathered back to Israel. So, if they exist somewhere on this planet, where are they and who are they?
Are you assuming that they don't exist?
If there's no evidence they exist, then it's not likely they do exist. Is there any evidence they currently exist?
It's a supernatural [and unwitnessed] claim, so we don't know that it happened.
That's why we have the evidence of the TS. It's not just an unsupported claim, but we have empirical evidence that we can actually see.
No one is any longer teaching his neighbor or his brother to "know the Lord"?
No Christian is telling me "know the Lord".
And if the wicked man repent of all his sins that he has committed and keeps all My laws and executes justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered regarding him: through his righteousness that he has done he shall live.
(Ezekiel 18:21-22)

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-18.htm
Certainly repentance is necessary. But is it possible to keep all the laws after repentance? Because if he doesn't, he will die again.

[Eze 18:24 KJV] 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Though Jesus, all of our sins are atoned for. It is not just a yearly day of atonement where the sins are covered for one year. It is the final day of atonement where our sins are covered for all time.

Yes, we still need to repent when we do sin. But we are no longer is jeopardy of dying when we do sin.
There are many instances of Pagan deities doing the same.
Any of them have any empirical evidence for existing on earth?
If they do, there's probably textual evidence to refute it.
I'm just asking for a yes or no response. The answer is no, they don't have any empirical evidence for any god to have existed on earth.

As for textual evidence, if they use proper hermeneutics, only then could it be a valid interpretation.
"What we see in the development of Yom Kippur in the Jewish tradition is how the contradictory viewpoints of Numbers 15 and Leviticus 16 serve as correctives to each other."
It also states:
From the perspective of Leviticus 16, Numbers 15 is overly exacting, utopian, and impossible to live by.

Leviticus 16’s near-automatic, yearly, cancellation of individual and national sins threatens to undermine any real and painful confrontation with serious failures that demand attention of the most serious kind. As a corrective to this, Numbers 15 reminds us that intentional sin is unacceptable, and that even unintentional sins must be dealt with carefully, on a one-by-one basis.

On the other hand, Numbers 15’s severity threatens to lead to dangerously negative sentiments, such as despair or self-hatred on both the personal and national levels. And it also threatens to develop into communal intolerance and heated fragmentation.

As a corrective to this, Leviticus 16 reminds us that as unacceptable as sins and wrongdoings truly are, we are flawed and wanting like everyone else, for iniquity is part of the human condition. This should not be taken as a free pass, but it should help us to temper unrealistic expectations of ourselves, our people, and the other individuals and groups within and around us.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/does-a ... -atonement

Though the Christian interpretation of the Torah, it has solved the dilemma. We are flawed and sin all the time. But though we strive to avoid sin, when we do sin, there is forgiveness of all of our sins through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
If he was the Messiah and the Messiah's role was to be a sacrifice for people who no longer had a temple for offering sacrifices, how had his time not come?
First temple was destroyed around 587 BC. The second temple was completed around 515 BC. This is a gap of 72 years.
The second temple was destroyed at 70 AD. The third temple has not been built yet. This is a gap of 1953 years and counting.

So, it'd be better for Jesus to come before the destruction of the second temple.
If they did present empirical evidence and there were textual evidence in the BoM refuting it, which evidence would you accept?
First present the empirical evidence and we can evaluate that on its own merits. Then we can analyze the textual evidence that attests to it.

Post Reply