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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3180

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".

You make this claim, but you still don't explain how it works out.

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)".

I didn't have to say Israel and the nations. I pointed out that Jeremiah was referring to Israel's redemption and Isaiah was referring to the nations' redemption.

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.

If the nations saw all the Jews return to Israel and dwell in peace, no one would have to be told.

Nobody has seen the resurrection, but we can observe the effects of the resurrection.

We can't observe no one any longer teaching his neighbor or his brother to "know the Lord", because that hasn't happened.

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.

It is not special pleading, because not every source claims a divine origin.


The Jewish Messiah and the Christian Messiah are not the same individual.

For Messianic Jews, they are the same.

Not even they can have a Messiah who countermands the law of Moses while simultaneously endorsing every jot and tittle of it and have him be the same individual.

There are many things Jesus did that deviated from the Jewish traditions.

"Do not add to the law" wasn't just a Jewish tradition. It was a commandment in the law of Moses. In the text, Jesus breaks that commandment by prohibiting divorces, remarriages and oath-taking which the law allows.

He was revealing it's not the letter of the law that had to be followed, but the spirit and intention of the law.

Then what's said about the law in Matthew 5:18-19 must have been said by that other Jesus.

Ultimately, the purpose of anointing was to convey authority granted by God. And we clearly see this occurred during the baptism of Jesus.

Unless those accounts aren't inerrant.


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.

Just because they're intended to lead the reader to the same conclusion doesn't mean that the conclusion is correct.


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.

Has having direct access ended the practice of teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord"?


An act of the United Nations hardly qualifies as a miracle.

That they voted to establish a nation of Israel is a miracle.

No greater miracle than the survivlal of any surviving Native American tribe.


No one is any longer teaching his neighbor or his brother to "know the Lord"?

No Christian is telling me "know the Lord".

If you preach to a congregation, then you're telling them to "know the Lord". Every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening all over the US alone, Christian preachers are "shepherding their flocks", teaching their neighbors and their brothers to "know the Lord". That's empirical evidence that the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 has not been established.


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.

We have the evidence that the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 has not been established in that Jews [and Christians] are still teaching their neighbors and their brothers to "know the Lord". And the evidence against the new covenant having been established is stronger than the evidence for the Turin cloth. The latter is a piece of fabric which some people choose to believe bears a miraculous image, assuming that there will never be a way to fully explain it. The new covenant is prophesied in the Bible concretely and in detail, and we can see that the details have not been realized.

Certainly repentance is necessary. But is it possible to keep all the laws after repentance?

According to the Torah, yes.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... -the-torah

As for textual evidence, if they use proper hermeneutics, only then could it be a valid interpretation.

It's being narrowed down. Instead of just hermeneutics, now it's "proper" hermeneutics. How exactly do you determine when hermeneutics is proper and when it's improper? Is it proper when it gives you the answer you want and improper when it doesn't?

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.

Ezekiel preached the availability of forgiveness, and he didn't even have a temple.

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.

Time is irrelevant. After the destruction of the first temple, prophets came preaching that the sacrifice of repentance is acceptable without a temple. If it was acceptable without the first temple, how has it not been acceptable without the second?


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.

This is about textual evidence which refutes it, like the textual evidence against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah, along with the empirical evidence of the new covenant not being established.

[otseng]

You're talking like you've never read that entire psalm. The lion image fits the context perfectly.

I'm pointing out in the context of the sentence, it makes no grammatical sense. Yes, lion is also mentioned in other verses in the chapter, but in those verses, they make grammatical sense. So, why should lion be used in Psa 22:16 where lion is used grammatically incorrect?

[Psa 22:13, 21 KJV] 13 They gaped upon me [with] their mouths, [as] a ravening and a roaring lion. ... 21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

The Septuagint is an inferior Greek translation.

Actually, that's debateable. In particular, the dating of the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint go back much farther than the Masoretic. So, it can be argued the Septuagint is more faithful to the original. This is also evidenced that it aligns with the DSS. So, it is more likely the Masoretic has been changed, either through a copy error or an intentional change.

It's easily plausible, for example, that a Septuagint translator lacking skill could mistake ka-'ari for "karah".

Asserting a plausible scenario without any evidence is merely speculation.

There doesn't have to be. The CEB, LEB, LOT, NET and TPT translations you list work perfectly well.

If it is translated as lion, I would not disagree. In particular, many of these translations can still apply to Jesus.

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.

Right, that is fundamentally what I have an issue with if it is actually a lion instead of pierced.

"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.

The traditional text is referring to the Masoretic. The green text is pointing out the DSS has a word variation with the Masoretic as what we are currently debating about. The Masoretic has like a lion. But the DSS has pierced.

As for affecting the meaning, it depends on how it's translated from the Masoretic. But the NET translation would not change the meaning:
"like a lion they pin my hands and feet."

I don't see this text in this source. However.....

I copied the source wrong, it should be:
https://torahresource.com/psalm-2216-like-lion-pierced/

[otseng]

You make this claim, but you still don't explain how it works out.

Readers can assess it for themselves by reviewing all the posts I've made.

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)".

I didn't have to say Israel and the nations. I pointed out that Jeremiah was referring to Israel's redemption and Isaiah was referring to the nations' redemption.

I'll also let readers judge what is the straight forward interpretation of what you wrote.

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.

If the nations saw all the Jews return to Israel and dwell in peace, no one would have to be told.

Are you proposing God would supernaturally reveal this knowledge to them?

It is not special pleading, because not every source claims a divine origin.

As I've stated numerous times, I'm not claiming the Bible has a divine origin.

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.

Just because they're intended to lead the reader to the same conclusion doesn't mean that the conclusion is correct.

If two independent sources testify to the same thing, even with minor differences, it makes the truthfulness stronger, not weaker.

Has having direct access ended the practice of teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord"?

Having direct access to God removed the requirement of telling a fellow believer to have a relationship with God. Those who accept Jesus have been adopted into the family. What I'm emphasizing is know in terms of a relationship, not intellectual knowledge.

No greater miracle than the survivlal of any surviving Native American tribe.

Bad comparison. The Native Indians were not exiled from America for thousands of years. Also, it was only the American government that decided to give them land. And it was the Americans that conquered them.

And the evidence against the new covenant having been established is stronger than the evidence for the Turin cloth.

Interesting that you'd place greater weight on the Bible than any empirical evidence. The only people who I've seen have this assumption are Bible Fundamentalists.

Certainly repentance is necessary. But is it possible to keep all the laws after repentance?

According to the Torah, yes.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... -the-torah

Please state what the video says.

In a sense, yes, we can keep the Torah. But in another sense, we cannot literally do it. I've already quoted from the Jewish source that it's impossible to not sin. Even from practical experience we know it's impossible to not sin.

It's being narrowed down. Instead of just hermeneutics, now it's "proper" hermeneutics. How exactly do you determine when hermeneutics is proper and when it's improper? Is it proper when it gives you the answer you want and improper when it doesn't?

Anyone can make up hermeneutical rules and claim that is how it should be done. But what I mean by proper is standard accepted practice.

Ezekiel preached the availability of forgiveness, and he didn't even have a temple.

The first temple was destroyed during the lifetime of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel began his prophetic ministry before Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC. Prior to the destruction, many false prophets assured the people that God was with them and that nothing would happen to them (Ezekiel 13:8–16). True prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel warned the people that God’s judgment was coming (Ezekiel 2:3–8). In Ezekiel 8–11, the prophet sees the glory of God leaving the temple.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Ezekiel-temple.html

After the temple was destroyed, they would need to repent and change their ways in order to reestablish a relationship with God. But nowhere is the idea that a temple is no longer needed. Even Ezekiel mentions in detail what the future temple looked like starting in chapter 40.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/eze/40/1/s_842001

Ezekiel's Temple is an unbuilt temple structure described in the biblical Book of Ezekiel.

Maimonides called it "the temple that will be built" and qualified these chapters of Ezekiel as complex for the common reader and even for the seasoned scholar.

Some Christian interpretations of Ezekiel's temple are: it is the temple that Zerubbabel should have built; a literal temple to be rebuilt during the millennial reign of Christ; a temple which is symbolic of the worship of God by the Christian church today; or a symbol of the future and eternal reign of God. A number of Christian commentators also believe that this temple will be a literal fourth temple, which will exist during the Millennial Kingdom, following the destruction of a future temple that will be desecrated by the Antichrist.[3][4][5][6]
Other theorists instead see Ezekiel's Temple as the New Jerusalem described in the book of Revelation; the bride of the Lamb (whose form and composite materials are similar to the Sanctuary); the Temple of God being the Christians themselves, where his Spirit will dwell in them (1 Corinthians 3:16).[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezekiel%27s_Temple

Time is irrelevant.

That's a strange statement. Of course time is relevant. The importance of time is throughout the scriptures.

After the destruction of the first temple, prophets came preaching that the sacrifice of repentance is acceptable without a temple. If it was acceptable without the first temple, how has it not been acceptable without the second?

It was a requirement to restore a relationship with God, but it didn't mean the temple was no longer needed. Why did they want to rebuild the second temple? Why are orthodox Jews seeking to build a third temple? Even for Christians, we believe there will be a temple in heaven. God and Jesus will be that temple.

[Rev 21:22 KJV] 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

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.

This is about textual evidence which refutes it, like the textual evidence against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah, along with the empirical evidence of the new covenant not being established.

I was answering in the context of the book of Mormon.

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.

As for textual evidence regarding the resurrection, actually you have presented no textual evidence against it that I can recall. All you've been arguing for is Jesus cannot be the Jewish Messiah, which are separate issues.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3182

I'm pointing out in the context of the sentence, it makes no grammatical sense. Yes, lion is also mentioned in other verses in the chapter, but in those verses, they make grammatical sense. So, why should lion be used in Psa 22:16 where lion is used grammatically incorrect?

The speaker is referring to being assailed by enemies acting like wild beasts. Lions are wild beasts.


The Septuagint is an inferior Greek translation.

Actually, that's debateable. In particular, the dating of the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint go back much farther than the Masoretic. So, it can be argued the Septuagint is more faithful to the original. This is also evidenced that it aligns with the DSS. So, it is more likely the Masoretic has been changed, either through a copy error or an intentional change.

The original text was in Hebrew and Aramaic, so the Masoretic is most likely correct.

The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies in various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among the various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue.

When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters in the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could be detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Masoretic-text

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. First, the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew source texts in many cases (particularly in the Book of Job).[15] Second, the translations appear at times to demonstrate an ignorance of Hebrew idiomatic usage.[15] A particularly noteworthy example of this phenomenon is found in Isaiah 7:14, in which the Hebrew word עַלְמָה‎ (‘almāh, which translates into English as "young woman") is translated into the Koine Greek as παρθένος (parthenos, which translates into English as "virgin").[43] 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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3183

If the nations saw all the Jews return to Israel and dwell in peace, no one would have to be told.

Are you proposing God would supernaturally reveal this knowledge to them?

I'm proposing what I said.

As I've stated numerous times, I'm not claiming the Bible has a divine origin.

Then Jesus might as well have been an incarnation of Vishnu.

If two independent sources testify to the same thing, even with minor differences, it makes the truthfulness stronger, not weaker.

If two sources testify to the same thing, but the details are inconsistent, it makes the case weaker, not stronger.

Having direct access to God removed the requirement of telling a fellow believer to have a relationship with God. Those who accept Jesus have been adopted into the family. What I'm emphasizing is know in terms of a relationship, not intellectual knowledge.

Adopted into what family? The houses of Israel and Judah, to whom Jehovah promises the new covenant in Jeremiah 31? They don't believe in Jesus.


No greater miracle than the survivlal of any surviving Native American tribe.

Bad comparison. The Native Indians were not exiled from America for thousands of years. Also, it was only the American government that decided to give them land. And it was the Americans that conquered them.

Between colonization and disease, it's no less a miracle that any of them have survived.


And the evidence against the new covenant having been established is stronger than the evidence for the Turin cloth.

Interesting that you'd place greater weight on the Bible than any empirical evidence. The only people who I've seen have this assumption are Bible Fundamentalists.

I'm placing weight on the observable fact that those promised the new covenant still teach neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord". That is the empirical evidence.

Certainly repentance is necessary. But is it possible to keep all the laws after repentance?

According to the Torah, yes.

Please state what the video says.

The video says that it's possible to keep all the laws, and that if people don't, there's always repentance.

It's only a few minutes long, and you should watch the whole thing for context anyway.

Anyone can make up hermeneutical rules and claim that is how it should be done. But what I mean by proper is standard accepted practice.

Is there such a thing?


Ezekiel preached the availability of forgiveness, and he didn't even have a temple.

The first temple was destroyed during the lifetime of Ezekiel.

And he kept preaching even without a temple.

Some Christian interpretations of Ezekiel's temple are: it is the temple that Zerubbabel should have built; a literal temple to be rebuilt during the millennial reign of Christ; a temple which is symbolic of the worship of God by the Christian church today; or a symbol of the future and eternal reign of God. A number of Christian commentators also believe that this temple will be a literal fourth temple, which will exist during the Millennial Kingdom, following the destruction of a future temple that will be desecrated by the Antichrist.[3][4][5][6]
Other theorists instead see Ezekiel's Temple as the New Jerusalem described in the book of Revelation; the bride of the Lamb (whose form and composite materials are similar to the Sanctuary); the Temple of God being the Christians themselves, where his Spirit will dwell in them (1 Corinthians 3:16).[7]

Which interpretation do you agree with?

It was a requirement to restore a relationship with God, but it didn't mean the temple was no longer needed.

A temple needed, perhaps, but for what?

You desired neither sacrifice nor meal offering; You dug ears for me; a burnt offering or a sin offering You did not request. (Psalms 40:7)

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-40.htm

As for textual evidence regarding the resurrection, actually you have presented no textual evidence against it that I can recall. All you've been arguing for is Jesus cannot be the Jewish Messiah, which are separate issues.

You're asserting that Jesus was the Messiah and that he was resurrected, so unless he didn't have to be the Messiah to be resurrected, how are they separate issues?

[otseng]

The speaker is referring to being assailed by enemies acting like wild beasts. Lions are wild beasts.

Yes, lions are attacking the speaker. But to add the lions are "gnawing" at the hands and feet is an unsubstantiated claim. How many lions attack their prey by gnawing at their hands and feet?

The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th century). [/i]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Masoretic-text

As the source points out, the earliest Masoretic text is late 9th century. The earliest LXX fragment is 2nd century BC. The earliest LXX manuscripts are 4th and 5th century AD. Thus the LXX precedes the Masoretic by centuries.

The oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint include 2nd-century-BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957) and 1st-century-BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943). Relatively-complete manuscripts of the Septuagint postdate the Hexaplar recension, and include the fourth-century-CE Codex Vaticanus and the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus. These are the oldest-surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date to about 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century.[33]

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

Yes, the LXX is rejected by mainstream Jews, but it was not so prior to the advent of Christianity. So, their rejection was a reaction to Christianity.

The Masoretic is not inerrant either, so it as well has errors in it. Even the LXX has errors in it. But, what we have to look at is the preponderance of the evidence. Given the grammatical support of Psa 22:16 supporting pierce instead of "like a lion" and the textual support of the DSS, it is more reasonable the text should be pierced. And even if it was "like a lion", the claim that "gnaws" should be added is an addition to the text that does not exist and is not translated that way in any English Bible.

[otseng]

As I've stated numerous times, I'm not claiming the Bible has a divine origin.

Then Jesus might as well have been an incarnation of Vishnu.

Your quote from the Hindu text is only one passage and even that has no reference to Jesus.

If two independent sources testify to the same thing, even with minor differences, it makes the truthfulness stronger, not weaker.

If two sources testify to the same thing, but the details are inconsistent, it makes the case weaker, not stronger.

Actually, the opposite. If the details are exactly alike, then there's suspicion of collusion, which would not make them independent.

Adopted into what family? The houses of Israel and Judah, to whom Jehovah promises the new covenant in Jeremiah 31? They don't believe in Jesus.

The Israelites that did not believe were pruned and those that believed in Jesus were grafted on.

[Rom 11:16-20 KJV] 16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches. 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

I'm placing weight on the observable fact that those promised the new covenant still teach neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord". That is the empirical evidence.

That is textual evidence (though highly questionable), not empirical evidence. Would any skeptic of the Bible consider text from the Bible as empirical evidence? I highly doubt it.

The video says that it's possible to keep all the laws, and that if people don't, there's always repentance.

It's only a few minutes long, and you should watch the whole thing for context anyway.

All I'm asking is for you to summarize the argument here. I can as well ask you to watch a bunch of videos and not explain anything.

Anyone can make up hermeneutical rules and claim that is how it should be done. But what I mean by proper is standard accepted practice.

Is there such a thing?

Yes, there is a set of standard accepted practice by both Jews and Christians on how to interpret the Bible.

And he kept preaching even without a temple.

Yes, and he even preached about what the future temple would look like.

Some Christian interpretations of Ezekiel's temple are: it is the temple that Zerubbabel should have built; a literal temple to be rebuilt during the millennial reign of Christ; a temple which is symbolic of the worship of God by the Christian church today; or a symbol of the future and eternal reign of God. A number of Christian commentators also believe that this temple will be a literal fourth temple, which will exist during the Millennial Kingdom, following the destruction of a future temple that will be desecrated by the Antichrist.[3][4][5][6]
Other theorists instead see Ezekiel's Temple as the New Jerusalem described in the book of Revelation; the bride of the Lamb (whose form and composite materials are similar to the Sanctuary); the Temple of God being the Christians themselves, where his Spirit will dwell in them (1 Corinthians 3:16).[7]

Which interpretation do you agree with?

Right now, I personally believe it is a metaphorical description of heaven.

It was a requirement to restore a relationship with God, but it didn't mean the temple was no longer needed.

A temple needed, perhaps, but for what?

You desired neither sacrifice nor meal offering; You dug ears for me; a burnt offering or a sin offering You did not request. (Psalms 40:7)

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-40.htm

If one takes this literally, then the entire Levitical sacrificial system was a waste.

As for textual evidence regarding the resurrection, actually you have presented no textual evidence against it that I can recall. All you've been arguing for is Jesus cannot be the Jewish Messiah, which are separate issues.

You're asserting that Jesus was the Messiah and that he was resurrected, so unless he didn't have to be the Messiah to be resurrected, how are they separate issues?

It's like parts of a train. The resurrection is the locomotive. Jesus being the Messiah is a passenger car that is being pulled by the engine. The engine car and the passenger car are separate cars. They are tied together as a whole to be a single train. What propels the train forward is not Jesus being the Messiah, but the resurrection. If Jesus did not resurrect, then the entire train would not move forward.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3186

Yes, lions are attacking the speaker. But to add the lions are "gnawing" at the hands and feet is an unsubstantiated claim. How many lions attack their prey by gnawing at their hands and feet?

They gnaw the extremities after they bring the prey down.

As the source points out, the earliest Masoretic text is late 9th century. The earliest LXX fragment is 2nd century BC. The earliest LXX manuscripts are 4th and 5th century AD. Thus the LXX precedes the Masoretic by centuries.

Most Jews and Protestants consider the Masoretic Text the authoritative Hebrew Bible (Protestants call it the Old Testament). While it was written sometime between the seventh and tenth centuries AD, it was based on the meticulously preserved oral tradition and the best available manuscripts of the original Hebrew text.

The Masoretic Text was an answer to a problem that had been building in the Jewish community for centuries: biblical Hebrew was ambiguous, and most Jews didn’t know how to read it anymore. With no vowels, punctuation, or stress marks, the original Hebrew left a lot of room for interpretive errors. And as biblical Hebrew fell out of usage, the Scriptures became virtually inaccessible to the public.

Rabbis were still confident in the combination of written and oral tradition and took steps to make them more accessible without corrupting the original Hebrew texts. But by the ninth century, Jewish tradition was being engulfed by Greek philosophy, and a popular Jewish sect known as the Karaites (“readers”) was advocating for Jews to abandon the rabbinic tradition and read the “unadulterated” (or rather, uninterpreted) Hebrew Bible.

To save the Hebrew Bible from dissolving into competing interpretations, a group known as the Masoretes (traditionalists) produced a new copy of the original Hebrew, working from the best available manuscripts, just as countless others had—but with a twist. They used rabbinic tradition to add the most intricate system of punctuation and stress marks anyone had ever seen, obliterating ambiguity once-and-for-all.

The Masoretic Text so rigidly defined the Hebrew Bible’s punctuation and wording that there could only be one way to read and understand it: the same way rabbis had for centuries.

While the Masoretic Text was completed rather late (the oldest copies we have of the Masoretic Text are from ninth century), it was the culmination of several centuries of work.

https://overviewbible.com/masoretic-text/
(bolding mine)

The Masoretic is not inerrant either, so it as well has errors in it. Even the LXX has errors in it. But, what we have to look at is the preponderance of the evidence. Given the grammatical support of Psa 22:16 supporting pierce instead of "like a lion" and the textual support of the DSS, it is more reasonable the text should be pierced.

I've already cited a description of the care which was taken with the Masoretic. Assuming that the mistake must be there is merely wishful thinking. Even the mention of a lion earlier in the passage is evidence that the Masoretic is correct. Why would it be copied correctly and just a few lines later be copied incorrectly, especially given the care which was taken?

And even if it was "like a lion", the claim that "gnaws" should be added is an addition to the text that does not exist and is not translated that way in any English Bible.

Again, "gnaw" is a logical extrapolation.

Yes, the LXX is rejected by mainstream Jews, but it was not so prior to the advent of Christianity. So, their rejection was a reaction to Christianity.

This is a non-sequitur.

One of the best examples of the Septuagint's erroneousness is its mistranslation of almah (young woman) as "parthenos" (virgin) in Isaiah 7:14, which isn't a messianic verse.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3187

As I've stated numerous times, I'm not claiming the Bible has a divine origin.

Then Jesus might as well have been an incarnation of Vishnu.

Your quote from the Hindu text is only one passage and even that has no reference to Jesus.

You quote an entire chapter [Isaiah 53] which has no reference to Jesus.

And why should the Hindu text matter to you if neither it nor the Bible is of divine origin?


If two sources testify to the same thing, but the details are inconsistent, it makes the case weaker, not stronger.

Actually, the opposite. If the details are exactly alike, then there's suspicion of collusion, which would not make them independent.

Then how can we know that the witnesses against Jesus in Mark 14:56 were false? If their witness didn't agree, doesn't that show that they weren't in collusion?

The Israelites that did not believe were pruned and those that believed in Jesus were grafted on.

That's a Christian claim and you back it up only with Christian text, which proves nothing.


I'm placing weight on the observable fact that those promised the new covenant still teach neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord". That is the empirical evidence.

That is textual evidence (though highly questionable), not empirical evidence. Would any skeptic of the Bible consider text from the Bible as empirical evidence? I highly doubt it.

That those promised the covenant [the houses of Israel and Judah, ie. the Jews] still teach each other is not textual evidence. It's objectively observable.

All I'm asking is for you to summarize the argument here. I can as well ask you to watch a bunch of videos and not explain anything.

For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.

It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it. (Deuteronomy 30:11-14)

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-30.htm

Look at the punishments prescribed in Deuteronomy for the people if they didn't keep the law. It would take a deeply immoral god to give people a set of laws to keep and punish them severely for not keeping it while knowing that they couldn't keep it.


Which interpretation do you agree with?

Right now, I personally believe it is a metaphorical description of heaven.

Right now? If you change your mind later, are you interpreting correctly or incorrectly?

Ezekiel's vision includes animals being offered as sacrifices for sin. What in heaven would that symbolize?

[otseng]

While it was written sometime between the seventh and tenth centuries AD, it was based on the meticulously preserved oral tradition and the best available manuscripts of the original Hebrew text.

To save the Hebrew Bible from dissolving into competing interpretations, a group known as the Masoretes (traditionalists) produced a new copy of the original Hebrew,

While the Masoretic Text was completed rather late (the oldest copies we have of the Masoretic Text are from ninth century), it was the culmination of several centuries of work.

https://overviewbible.com/masoretic-text/
(bolding mine)

There is no doubt the Masoretic was meticulously preserved from the original Hebrew over several centuries of work. It still does not show Psa 22 has been inerrantly preserved from the original. This is why I brought up the evidence of the DSS, which is earlier than the Masoretic. What makes more sense? An early Hebrew text being correct or a late Hebrew text being correct?

Why would it be copied correctly and just a few lines later be copied incorrectly, especially given the care which was taken?

Who's claiming the other passages were not copied correctly? The only passage we're debating is Psa 22:16.

Remember the only difference we're talking about here is a vav and an yod. The difference is so small it can easily be miscopied.

Again, "gnaw" is a logical extrapolation.

Can you cite any Bible that translates it this way?

Yes, the LXX is rejected by mainstream Jews, but it was not so prior to the advent of Christianity. So, their rejection was a reaction to Christianity.

This is a non-sequitur.

No, though there are other reasons for the eventual Jewish rejection of the Septuagint, their reaction to the rise of Christianity is one of them. As Wikipedia points out:

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

The Septuagint became synonymous with the Greek Old Testament, a Christian canon incorporating the books of the Hebrew canon with additional texts.

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

There was a need for translations to be closer to the original Hebrew, for one thing, for the sake of Jewish-Christian polemics, as depicted by the work by Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Tryphon (Fernández Marcos 2000:109). This would also contribute towards the gradual rejection of the LXX by Jews before the 2nd century CE, the fixing of the Hebrew canon and the hypothetical Synod of Yamni/Javneh.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scr ... 0000400034

Now, I don't want to minimize the importance of the Hebrew Bible. It is what I use to translate the Bible, not from the Septuagint. All things being equal, the Hebrew should take priority over any translation, including Greek. But, all things are not equal. The Masoretic text is late and the LXX is early, so it takes deeper digging to assess the truth.

One of the best examples of the Septuagint's erroneousness is its mistranslation of almah (young woman) as "parthenos" (virgin) in Isaiah 7:14, which isn't a messianic verse.

Interesting that all these "errors" happen to relate to Christian proof texts that Jesus is the Messiah.

Let's look at Isa 7:14:

[Isa 7:14 KJV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Virgin is almâ. It can be translated as virgin or young woman.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

So, the issue here is how should it be translated, virgin or young woman.

Translating it with young woman doesn't make it any special sign:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

What is the sign then? There is nothing special about a young woman conceiving or bearing a son. The only thing is calling him Immanuel, which is nothing special as a miraculous sign.

However, if it's translated as a virgin, then that would be a miraculous sign.