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 #3208

Mark is the one saying that they brought charges, so it's his responsibility to tell you what they were.

No, it's not my responsibility nor Mark's. You were the one who brought up the witnesses against Jesus

I did so in the context of your argument that testimonies can be inconsistent but still be reliable.

If you claim it's pretext, please then explain the full context and how it is contrary to my analysis.

I've been putting texts in context all along.


Blurring the line between text and empirical evidence won't help.

Actually, I'm differentiating between textual evidence and empirical evidence. And here you are conflating the two. So who's the one blurring the line?

You are. I've been presenting empirical evidence from outside the Bible.


"Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it." (Genesis 4:7)

If you want to take that literally, it was only addressing Cain, so it only applies to Cain. Also, it's obvious Cain was not able to rule over sin.

Why could it be addressed to Cain and to no one else? And if Jehovah tells Cain that he can rule over sin, how is it obvious that he can't? (It's obvious that he doesn't, but that's beside the point.)

Repentance is necessary, but it's not sufficient. The entire Levitical sacrificial system is heavily detailed out in the Torah to atone for sins. There are two things necessary for forgiveness - a blood sacrifice and repentance.

The reason Jews now resort only on repentance is because the temple does not exist. But, it is clear from the Jewish scriptures a blood sacrifice was required to atone for sins.

The Levitical sacrificial system is indeed heavily detailed, and the details show that blood sacrifice is not a universal requirement even when there is a temple.

[Lev 16:33-34 KJV] 33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Again----if this statute is everlasting, the Messiah won't be changing it.

According to the Bible, the sacrifice was to be an everlasting statute. As Christians who also believe in the Torah, we accept this. Jesus, as our sinless High Priest, fulfilled the requirements of Yom Kippur of offering innocent blood on the mercy seat. And even now, he is interceding for us all.

"There is no innate sin that separates the individual from God and forgiveness of sin is not dependent on a sinless sacrifice. Even when sacrifices were offered in the Temple the sinless animal's blood did not automatically redeem from sin. Blood sacrifice was part of a process that was primarily dependent on confessionary prayer to achieve reconciliation between the repentant sinner and God."

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... edeem-them

[otseng]

I'm finding it difficult to locate a Hebrew lexicon*, so let's go with the Bible itself. Can you point to any other place in the Tanakh where the word alma refers specifically to a woman's virginity?

[Gen 24:43 KJV] 43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin[H5959] cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

[Sng 1:3 KJV] 3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name [is as] ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins[H5959] love thee.

[Sng 6:8 KJV] 8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins[H5959] without number.

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

You cite a definition, but the definition you cite doesn't fit the context of the passage.

It fits with my interpretation of the passage. However, it does not fit with your interpretation. So the point is the definition supports my interpretation.

Whose heart? Ahaz's heart. Whose people? Ahaz's people. Even if it refers to others in the royal house, they are all living in the time when Ahaz receives the news of the impending attack. They're the ones who tremble, so they're the ones the verse is about.

Again, I agree the first part of the chapter is addressing Ahaz. What we're talking about is the prophecy of Isa 7:14, not the beginning of the chapter. There is no requirement a chapter should always have the same subject. In Isa 7:13, it specifically mentions who Isaiah is addressing.

[Isa 7:13 KJV] 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

You seem to be claiming that I take the text as empirical evidence to give yourself an excuse to do so.

I'm just using your same logic. If you think your logic is correct that the Biblical text can be used as empirical evidence, then you should accept my usage of your logic.

If a historian writes down the testimony of another person, would that also be hearsay evidence?

Yes.

Then might as well throw out the vast majority of historical writings. Few historians have actually personally witnessed things they have recorded. Rather, they got their information from other sources.

*While I was looking, however, I did find this:

"Isaiah (“Yeshayahu”) is the fifth book of the Prophets and is known for its visions of universal peace and renewal. Beginning in the period of the First Temple against the backdrop of a rising Assyrian empire and Israel on the decline, Isaiah rebukes Israel for abandoning God and pursuing corruption, calls for change, and warns the nations of their ultimate downfalls."

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Tanakh
(bolding mine)

Yes, I agree with this. But how is it relevant to the debate?

[Replying to otseng in post #3207

Then the prophecy of a virgin birth is a highly suspect interpretation.

It's also mentioned by the NT, so it's an affirmation of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

[Mat 1:23 KJV] 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Correction: it's invented out of a prophecy about the downfall of two neighboring powers.

Then what passage in the OT fulfilled Isa 7:14? Who is the virgin/young woman? What son was called Emmanuel?

Then the questions I pose stand unanswered.

I'll let readers decide that.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3208

Mark is the one saying that they brought charges, so it's his responsibility to tell you what they were.

No, it's not my responsibility nor Mark's. You were the one who brought up the witnesses against Jesus

I did so in the context of your argument that testimonies can be inconsistent but still be reliable.

And my argument then stands since you have not brought up a valid counterargument for it.

If you claim it's pretext, please then explain the full context and how it is contrary to my analysis.

I've been putting texts in context all along.

Claiming you've been putting it in context does not make it so. Nor claiming I've been putting things in pretext also does not make it so.

I'll let readers decide who has provided the better explanation.

Blurring the line between text and empirical evidence won't help.

Actually, I'm differentiating between textual evidence and empirical evidence. And here you are conflating the two. So who's the one blurring the line?

You are. I've been presenting empirical evidence from outside the Bible.

What empirical evidence outside the Bible are you referring to? What you've been claiming is the Biblical text is empirical evidence.

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.

Why could it be addressed to Cain and to no one else?

If you accept it could be addressed to someone else, then in Isaiah 7, Isaiah can also be addressing someone else other than Ahaz.

And if Jehovah tells Cain that he can rule over sin, how is it obvious that he can't? (It's obvious that he doesn't, but that's beside the point.)

There's several ways to interpret it. What I'm saying is a literal interpretation does not make sense. Rule does not have to mean absolute mastery and domination over so that he can be perfectly sinless.

The Levitical sacrificial system is indeed heavily detailed, and the details show that blood sacrifice is not a universal requirement even when there is a temple.

What Rabbi Skobac talks about is a very special case:

[Lev 5:11 KJV] 11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering.

This case is only for very poor people. And it was for a sin offering. A sin offering is only for unintentional sins.

This offered sacrifice accompanied the important required core means of atonement for the committing of an unintentional transgression of a prohibition, that either has brought guilt upon the 'community of Israel' or the individual.[3] This offering is brought during or after atonement for those transgressions that had been committed inadvertently, or in ignorance: intentional transgressions could only be absolved by other forms of atonement, or in severe cases kareth.

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

Again----if this statute is everlasting, the Messiah won't be changing it.

He's not changing it. He fulfilled it.

"There is no innate sin that separates the individual from God and forgiveness of sin is not dependent on a sinless sacrifice. Even when sacrifices were offered in the Temple the sinless animal's blood did not automatically redeem from sin. Blood sacrifice was part of a process that was primarily dependent on confessionary prayer to achieve reconciliation between the repentant sinner and God."

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... edeem-them

Yes, Jesus's blood also do not automatically redeem someone. They also need to repent.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3212

[Gen 24:43 KJV] 43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin[H5959] cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

There are three words in this passage which refer to a young woman. One is alma, which means "young woman", and a second is na'ara, which the BLB translates as "damsel". The third, which is used in the only place referring to Rebekah's sexual state, appears in verse 16:

And the damsel [na'ara] was very fair to look upon, a virgin [betulah], neither had any man known her....

"Betulah" is the word for virgin, and it appears in the one place where Rebekah's sexual state is mentioned.

[Sng 1:3 KJV] 3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name [is as] ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins[H5959] love thee.

[Sng 6:8 KJV] 8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins[H5959] without number.

The sexual state of the women in these verses is not specified as is that of Rebekah in Gen. 24:16.


You cite a definition, but the definition you cite doesn't fit the context of the passage.

It fits with my interpretation of the passage. However, it does not fit with your interpretation. So the point is the definition supports my interpretation.

Your definition may support your interpretation, but my interpretation fits the context.

Again, I agree the first part of the chapter is addressing Ahaz. What we're talking about is the prophecy of Isa 7:14, not the beginning of the chapter.

The beginning of the chapter introduces us to the people in the subsequent verses. The only prophecies in verse 14 are about the gender of the child soon to be born and what his mother will call him.

There is no requirement a chapter should always have the same subject. In Isa 7:13, it specifically mentions who Isaiah is addressing.

Yes----it's addressing Ahaz. He's the one doing the wearying, which is specifically why Isaiah is addressing him as he does in verse 13.


You seem to be claiming that I take the text as empirical evidence to give yourself an excuse to do so.

I'm just using your same logic. If you think your logic is correct that the Biblical text can be used as empirical evidence, then you should accept my usage of your logic.

You're still pushing the off-base notion that I'm presenting text as empirical evidence and ignoring the real-world observations which I'm actually presenting as empirical evidence.

If a historian writes down the testimony of another person, would that also be hearsay evidence?

Yes.

Then might as well throw out the vast majority of historical writings. Few historians have actually personally witnessed things they have recorded. Rather, they got their information from other sources.

A disagreement over who could have been the last defender at the Alamo is of considerably less significance than a disagreement over who could have been the Messiah.


"Isaiah (“Yeshayahu”) is the fifth book of the Prophets and is known for its visions of universal peace and renewal. Beginning in the period of the First Temple against the backdrop of a rising Assyrian empire and Israel on the decline, Isaiah rebukes Israel for abandoning God and pursuing corruption, calls for change, and warns the nations of their ultimate downfalls."

Yes, I agree with this. But how is it relevant to the debate?

Part of the debate has been about who is being addressed in Isaiah 53.

It's also mentioned by the NT, so it's an affirmation of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

[Mat 1:23 KJV] 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Correction: it's invented out of a prophecy about the downfall of two neighboring powers.

Then what passage in the OT fulfilled Isa 7:14? Who is the virgin/young woman? What son was called Emmanuel?

Moreover the Lord said to me, “Take a large scroll, and write on it with a man’s pen concerning Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. And I will take for Myself faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.” Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz; for before the child shall have knowledge to cry ‘My father’ and ‘My mother,’ the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be taken away before the king of Assyria.”
(Isaiah 8:1-4)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3213

Mark is the one saying that they brought charges, so it's his responsibility to tell you what they were.

No, it's not my responsibility nor Mark's. You were the one who brought up the witnesses against Jesus

I did so in the context of your argument that testimonies can be inconsistent but still be reliable.

And my argument then stands since you have not brought up a valid counterargument for it.

Does your argument then exonerate the witnesses in Mark?

Claiming you've been putting it in context does not make it so.

That's why I've been doing it, not just claiming it.

What empirical evidence outside the Bible are you referring to? What you've been claiming is the Biblical text is empirical evidence.

Rabbi Skobac's lectures, which show that the new covenant hasn't been established.

Rabbi Singer's program, which shows that the new covenant hasn't been established.

Various Jewish countermissionary organizations, which show that the new covenant hasn't been established.

That's what I've been presenting as empirical evidence.


Why could it be addressed to Cain and to no one else?

If you accept it could be addressed to someone else, then in Isaiah 7, Isaiah can also be addressing someone else other than Ahaz.

Cain wouldn't be the only one tempted to sin; those living after his time would also be tempted.

Isaiah is addressing those trembling at the news of the attack from Israel and Syria, which mean's he's addressing only people living in his own time.

There's several ways to interpret it. What I'm saying is a literal interpretation does not make sense. Rule does not have to mean absolute mastery and domination over so that he can be perfectly sinless.

Then what does "rule" mean?

This case is only for very poor people.

It still means that Hebrews 9:22 is incorrect.

And it was for a sin offering. A sin offering is only for unintentional sins.

Wasn't Jesus supposed to be a sin offering?


Again----if this statute is everlasting, the Messiah won't be changing it.

He's not changing it. He fulfilled it.

"And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year."

How does someone "fulfill" a statute which is to be carried out every year by doing it only once?

Yes, Jesus's blood also do not automatically redeem someone. They also need to repent.

How could Jesus's blood redeem anyone at all when it was human blood (human sacrifice was forbidden), it wasn't sprinkled on the corners of the altar in the temple.......it didn't come close to meeting the criteria for a blood sacrifice.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3212

[Gen 24:43 KJV] 43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin[H5959] cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

There are three words in this passage which refer to a young woman. One is alma, which means "young woman", and a second is na'ara, which the BLB translates as "damsel". The third, which is used in the only place referring to Rebekah's sexual state, appears in verse 16:

There are multiple words that can be used for virgin. This is true for many Hebrew words where a single concept has multiple words. But it does not show that alma cannot mean virgin.

[Sng 1:3 KJV] 3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name [is as] ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins[H5959] love thee.

[Sng 6:8 KJV] 8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins[H5959] without number.

The sexual state of the women in these verses is not specified as is that of Rebekah in Gen. 24:16.

It's implied. There are three categories of women described. It is implied the third group are sexually inactive. Otherwise why have three groups mentioned?

Your definition may support your interpretation, but my interpretation fits the context.

I'll let readers decide.

The only prophecies in verse 14 are about the gender of the child soon to be born and what his mother will call him.

Which is not really that special of a prophecy.

Yes----it's addressing Ahaz. He's the one doing the wearying, which is specifically why Isaiah is addressing him as he does in verse 13.

I'll let readers judge based on the evidence presented.

A disagreement over who could have been the last defender at the Alamo is of considerably less significance than a disagreement over who could have been the Messiah.

Of course. As a matter of fact, there are few things more impactful than Jesus being the Messiah or not.

"Isaiah (“Yeshayahu”) is the fifth book of the Prophets and is known for its visions of universal peace and renewal. Beginning in the period of the First Temple against the backdrop of a rising Assyrian empire and Israel on the decline, Isaiah rebukes Israel for abandoning God and pursuing corruption, calls for change, and warns the nations of their ultimate downfalls."

Yes, I agree with this. But how is it relevant to the debate?

Part of the debate has been about who is being addressed in Isaiah 53.

What you cited makes no claim about the restoration of the nations or who will be restoring them.

Then what passage in the OT fulfilled Isa 7:14? Who is the virgin/young woman? What son was called Emmanuel?

Moreover the Lord said to me, “Take a large scroll, and write on it with a man’s pen concerning Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. And I will take for Myself faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.” Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz; for before the child shall have knowledge to cry ‘My father’ and ‘My mother,’ the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be taken away before the king of Assyria.”
(Isaiah 8:1-4)

Mahershalalhashbaz is not Emmanuel. It means ""swift is booty, speedy is prey"
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Emmanuel means ""God with us" or "with us is God"
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

[otseng]

Does your argument then exonerate the witnesses in Mark?

I don't know what there is to exonerate or not. Again, what charges did they make?

That's why I've been doing it, not just claiming it.

I'll let readers judge.

Rabbi Skobac's lectures, which show that the new covenant hasn't been established.

Rabbi Singer's program, which shows that the new covenant hasn't been established.

Various Jewish countermissionary organizations, which show that the new covenant hasn't been established.

Sure, I agree as well the utopian state has not arrived yet.

Why could it be addressed to Cain and to no one else?

If you accept it could be addressed to someone else, then in Isaiah 7, Isaiah can also be addressing someone else other than Ahaz.

Cain wouldn't be the only one tempted to sin; those living after his time would also be tempted.

Isaiah is addressing those trembling at the news of the attack from Israel and Syria, which mean's he's addressing only people living in his own time.

There is no limitation really who Isaiah is addressing since he's not telling anyone to do anything. He's only presenting a prophecy to be observed to be fulfilled in the future.

There's several ways to interpret it. What I'm saying is a literal interpretation does not make sense. Rule does not have to mean absolute mastery and domination over so that he can be perfectly sinless.

Then what does "rule" mean?

The Hebrew word used is māšal.
It is translated: rule (38x), ruler (19x), reign (8x), dominion (7x), governor (4x), ruled over (2x), power (2x), indeed (1x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Another usage of the word is in:
[Gen 3:16 KJV] 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule[H4910] over thee.

Clearly in this passage it is not about complete mastery over sin, but rather about a position of authority over.

Wasn't Jesus supposed to be a sin offering?

Yes. He was a fulfillment of all the offerings. But most importantly, he was the fulfillment of the most holy offering, the Yom Kippur offering.

How does someone "fulfill" a statute which is to be carried out every year by doing it only once?

The Levitical sacrifice was only a shadow of the reality of the ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God.

[Heb 10:1-2 NIV] 1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.

How could Jesus's blood redeem anyone at all when it was human blood (human sacrifice was forbidden),

I agree human blood cannot redeem anyone. However, he was not only human, but also divine.

it wasn't sprinkled on the corners of the altar in the temple.......it didn't come close to meeting the criteria for a blood sacrifice.

If one studies the Levitical sacrificial system, many aspects of it points to Jesus, which even includes the Shroud of Turin.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3216

There are multiple words that can be used for virgin. This is true for many Hebrew words where a single concept has multiple words. But it does not show that alma cannot mean virgin.

There may be multiple words which can refer to a woman who is a virgin, but there is one specific word [betulah] which refers to a woman's virginity.

As a side note, the word alma ["young woman"] is a gender-specific feminine noun with a masculine form [elem], which means "young man" (it doesn't mean "male virgin").


The sexual state of the women in these verses is not specified as is that of Rebekah in Gen. 24:16.

It's implied. There are three categories of women described. It is implied the third group are sexually inactive. Otherwise why have three groups mentioned?

The women in the third group are of an unspecified sexual catagory. Some of them may be virgins, some may be married. The text catagorizes them by their age [young] and gender [female], not by their sexual state.


The only prophecies in verse 14 are about the gender of the child soon to be born and what his mother will call him.

Which is not really that special of a prophecy.

Right. They're just the setup for the real prophecy, which is given in verses 15 and 16. The real prophecy is about the downfall of the kings of Israel and Syria who are threatening Judah. It is not a messianic passage.

What you cited makes no claim about the restoration of the nations or who will be restoring them.

What I cited doesn't have to specify. It refers to Isaiah.

Mahershalalhashbaz is not Emmanuel. It means ""swift is booty, speedy is prey"

"Jesus" [Yeshua, Joshua] is not Emmanuel either. It means "God is salvation".

Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz; for before the child shall have knowledge to cry ‘My father’ and ‘My mother,’ the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be taken away before the king of Assyria.”

The child's name is given in reference to the same event which is to take place within the next few years, so it is clear that Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is the child whose birth is foretold in Isaiah 7.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3217

Does your argument then exonerate the witnesses in Mark?

I don't know what there is to exonerate or not. Again, what charges did they make?

You've quoted the Bible extensively. Why are you suddenly depending on me to look up a simple reference for you?

Is it because you know that Mark doesn't specify on the witnesses testimony which he says "did not agree", so he has no case to make against them?


Rabbi Skobac's lectures, which show that the new covenant hasn't been established.

Rabbi Singer's program, which shows that the new covenant hasn't been established.

Various Jewish countermissionary organizations, which show that the new covenant hasn't been established.

Sure, I agree as well the utopian state has not arrived yet.

If you acknowledge the work of the rabbis and countermissionary groups, you logically have to accept that the new covenant, under which the Jews will no longer teach their neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord", has not been established.

There is no limitation really who Isaiah is addressing since he's not telling anyone to do anything.

Wrong. Jehovah sends Isaiah to tell Ahaz to "Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands".

Ahaz is also told to ask for a sign.

The Hebrew word used is māšal.
It is translated: rule (38x), ruler (19x), reign (8x), dominion (7x), governor (4x), ruled over (2x), power (2x), indeed (1x).

Another usage of the word is in:
[Gen 3:16 KJV] 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule[H4910] over thee.

Clearly in this passage it is not about complete mastery over sin, but rather about a position of authority over.

Cain is told to reject sin in Genesis 4:7, so the word obviously doesn't mean the same in those passages.


Wasn't Jesus supposed to be a sin offering?

Yes. He was a fulfillment of all the offerings. But most importantly, he was the fulfillment of the most holy offering, the Yom Kippur offering.

Does that mean that he was an offering for only unintentional sins?


How does someone "fulfill" a statute which is to be carried out every year by doing it only once?

The Levitical sacrifice was only a shadow of the reality of the ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God.

[Heb 10:1-2 NIV] 1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.

Where does the Torah say that the sacrificial system has an expiration date?

I agree human blood cannot redeem anyone. However, he was not only human, but also divine.

As I observed in another thread:

If we consider Jesus as having been tempted in all things common to men [Hebrews 4:15], we can hardly consider him to have had a divine nature which cannot be tempted [James 1:13]. Either someone can be tempted or they can't. It's strictly either/or.


it wasn't sprinkled on the corners of the altar in the temple.......it didn't come close to meeting the criteria for a blood sacrifice.

If one studies the Levitical sacrificial system, many aspects of it points to Jesus, which even includes the Shroud of Turin.

If it doesn't all line up, it doesn't work.

[earl]

"We can hardly consider him to have had a divine nature which cannot be tempted"

It is understood that believers in Jesus know Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature .
Jesus' mission was just that ,becoming a born man of the world having a human nature and being a son of God .
This dual nature confused the Jews as it does confuse so many today.