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

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

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.

Betula is also translated maid and maiden: virgin (38x), maid (7x), maiden (5x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

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").

It is only used twice and is translated as: young man (1x), stripling (1x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

This is referring to David after he killed Goliath:
[1Sa 17:56 KJV] 56 And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling [is].

David was not married at this time.

The other one is referring to David's servant:
[1Sa 20:22 KJV] 22 But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold, the arrows [are] beyond thee; go thy way: for the LORD hath sent thee away.

Most likely he was just a young kid and not married either.

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

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.

Again, it's implied. It makes no sense they were married. The king doesn't keep an entourage of married women. And since they were young girls, it's another indicator they were not married.

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.

The entire passage is a prophecy. The text clearly says it with "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign". It cannot be discounted simply because it does not fit your interpretation.

[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.

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.

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

You just stated you brought it up because "Part of the debate has been about who is being addressed in Isaiah 53". Isaiah is the speaker, not the one who is being addressed.

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

Jesus had many names and Emmanuel is one of them.

[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.

Some songs where we call Jesus Emmanuel:
https://www.praisecharts.com/song-lists ... t-emmanuel

More names of Jesus at:
https://bibleresources.org/names-of-jesus/

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.

There is a sense of fulfillment. But I'm not sure how fully it was fulfilled. In Isa 7:16, it speaks of two kings. Who are these kings?

[Isa 7:16 KJV] 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Even if the prophecy was fulfilled, most prophecies had fulfillment to an immediate future event and had a symbolic reference to a far future event. These are interpreted to be a Christological typology.

Typology refers to historical people, places, objects, or events which foreshadow Christ and his work in the Old Testament.

https://bible.org/seriespage/9-typology-christ

Christological Typology is a subset of Old Testament Christology, and is primarily concerned with identifying and interpreting the parabolic representations of the person and work of Jesus Christ that are found in the people, things, and events of the Old Testament.

https://apologiaveritas.org/2015/06/09/ ... -typology/

As a point of trivia, Mahershalalhashbaz is the longest word in the Bible.

Among the many words found in the Bible, there is one that stands out as the longest word: “Mahershalalhashbaz.”

https://whythebookwins.com/knowledge/wh ... the-bible/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to earl in post #3220

It is understood that believers in Jesus know Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature .

Believers in Jesus believe that he had both human and divine nature, but the textual evidence shows the logical impossibility of that.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3221

Betula is also translated maid and maiden: virgin (38x), maid (7x), maiden (5x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Thus it's translated in the BLB.

It means virgin.


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").

It is only used twice and is translated as: young man (1x), stripling (1x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Twice is quite enough to convey the meaning.

This is referring to David after he killed Goliath:
[1Sa 17:56 KJV] 56 And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling [is].

David was not married at this time.

The text is about his killing of Goliath, not about his sexual state.

The other one is referring to David's servant:
[1Sa 20:22 KJV] 22 But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold, the arrows [are] beyond thee; go thy way: for the LORD hath sent thee away.

Most likely he was just a young kid and not married either.

The text is about the arrows, not about his sexual state.

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


The king doesn't keep an entourage of married women.

Queens are unmarried?

The queens were probably older and the almas younger, as the word "alma" [young woman] indicates.


The real prophecy is about the downfall of the kings of Israel and Syria who are threatening Judah. It is not a messianic passage.

The entire passage is a prophecy.

None of it is a messianic prophecy.

The text clearly says it with "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign".

The important thing about the sign is what it indicates. It's a sign of what? It's a sign that in the next couple of years, the alliance between Israel and Syria will no longer be a threat to Judah. That's also what the text clearly says.

It says nothing about the Messiah.

There is a sense of fulfillment. But I'm not sure how fully it was fulfilled. In Isa 7:16, it speaks of two kings. Who are these kings?

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it....
(Isaiah 7:1)

Even if the prophecy was fulfilled, most prophecies had fulfillment to an immediate future event and had a symbolic reference to a far future event.

Where does the Tanakh say that any prophecy therein is to be fulfilled more than once?

Christological Typology is a subset of Old Testament Christology, and is primarily concerned with identifying and interpreting the parabolic representations of the person and work of Jesus Christ that are found in the people, things, and events of the Old Testament.

Translation: Christological Typology is an attempt to retcon Christianity into the Tanakh.

[otseng]

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

Because you're the one making the claim:

What about the witnesses against Jesus? What if their testimonies generally agreed but had minor differences?

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?

It's so readers of this debate who are not familiar with what you are referring to can see what you are trying to argue for.

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.

For the Jews, they don't know the Lord? For Christians (as least for true Christians), they do know the Lord, so it would not apply.

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".

I'm specifically referring to the prophecy of Isa 7:13-16, not the earlier passages.

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.

I'm just showing the word masal cannot be interpreted to mean an extreme position. Should husbands have complete dominance over wives and they should obey every single word a husband says?

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?

The Yom Kippur covers all sins, both intentional and unintentional.

But the sacrifices on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) provided atonement for both intentional and unintentional sins, something taught emphatically in the Talmud and Law Codes. The Scriptures are clear on this, and Jewish tradition never questioned it.

https://www.jewishvoice.org/learn/theol ... -continued

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

It doesn't. And if you accept this, then Jews for the past 2000 years have not had their sins forgiven based on the Levitical sacrificial system.

For Christians, Jesus our High Priest is continually performing Yom Kippur. He shed his blood once, but in the Holy of Holies (which represents heaven), he is there continually interceding for us. He has never left the Holy of Holies and won't do so until he comes back during the Second Coming.

[Rom 8:34 KJV] 34 Who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

[Heb 7:25 KJV] 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

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.

Temptations exist on earth, so Jesus was tempted while he was on earth.

I don't believe temptations exist in heaven, so God cannot be tempted.

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

Depends on how one looks at it. Not everyone needs to interpret the Torah in a hyperliteralistic view like the strict Orthodox Rabbinic Jews. Even among Jews, there are many different interpretations of the Torah. So who is correct?

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3221

Betula is also translated maid and maiden: virgin (38x), maid (7x), maiden (5x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Thus it's translated in the BLB.

It means virgin.

And so does alma.

This is referring to David after he killed Goliath:
[1Sa 17:56 KJV] 56 And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling [is].

David was not married at this time.

The text is about his killing of Goliath, not about his sexual state.

The word was simply used to refer to David. Was David married at this time or not?

The text is about the arrows, not about his sexual state.

Was the young servant married or not?

I'm not claiming the Bible is trying to expound on their sexual state in these passages. I'm analyzing what the word elem means. Does it refer to a person who is married?

[Sng 6:8 KJV] 8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins[H5959] without number.
The king doesn't keep an entourage of married women.

Queens are unmarried?

They are only married to the King.

When I refer to the "entourage of married women", I'm referring to the "virgins without number", which is the context of what we're debating. It makes no sense here if alma refers to married girls.

The queens were probably older and the almas younger, as the word "alma" [young woman] indicates.

Of course. But it does not mean the "virgins without number" are married (to either the King or to other men).

The real prophecy is about the downfall of the kings of Israel and Syria who are threatening Judah. It is not a messianic passage.

The entire passage is a prophecy.

None of it is a messianic prophecy.

Sure, it doesn't necessarily have to be a messianic prophecy, but it still applies to Jesus, whether he is the Messiah or not.

Where does the Tanakh say that any prophecy therein is to be fulfilled more than once?

Jewish hermeneutics allows for multiple levels of interpretation for a passage. More specifically, there can be a literal interpretation and a symbolic interpretation.

The Torah, indeed life, may be discussed from four perspectives.

These are described by the acrostic, Pardes, which stands for peshat, the literal meaning; remez, the allusion or hint; drush, the homiletic; and sod, the underlying or esoteric.

https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article ... liness.htm

Translation: Christological Typology is an attempt to retcon Christianity into the Tanakh.

I don't know if retcon is the best way to describe it. Nothing in the OT is being rewritten or added to. Christianity is only offering a different interpretation, not a different narrative.

There have been many groups that have interpreted the Tanakh differently. Even among Jews there is not a monolithic interpretation of the scriptures. So, who's right among all the interpretations?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3224

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

Because you're the one making the claim


It's so readers of this debate who are not familiar with what you are referring to can see what you are trying to argue for.

They can read Mark 14 as easily as you or I can.


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.

For the Jews, they don't know the Lord? For Christians (as least for true Christians), they do know the Lord, so it would not apply.

Since the covenant is promised to the houses of Israel and Judah, it doesn't apply to Christians anyway.

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

I'm specifically referring to the prophecy of Isa 7:13-16, not the earlier passages.

There is a limitation on when the prophecy is to be fulflled, because he's prophesying something which will be fulfilled in a short time, not 700 years in the future.

I'm just showing the word masal cannot be interpreted to mean an extreme position. Should husbands have complete dominance over wives and they should obey every single word a husband says?

An "extreme position" is irrelevant. The application to one's wife and the application to sin are entirely different.

The Yom Kippur covers all sins, both intentional and unintentional.

"When the second Temple was destroyed in the year 3830 from creation (70 CE), the Yom Kippur service continued. Instead of a High Priest bringing the sacrifices in Jerusalem, every single Jew performs the Yom Kippur service in the temple of his or her heart."

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... Kippur.htm

As Ezekiel and Hosea indicated, no sacrificial Messiah required.


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

It doesn't. And if you accept this, then Jews for the past 2000 years have not had their sins forgiven based on the Levitical sacrificial system.

Ezekiel solved that problem before Jesus came along.


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.

Temptations exist on earth, so Jesus was tempted while he was on earth.

Then how did he have a divine nature on earth?

I don't believe temptations exist in heaven, so God cannot be tempted.

Then how was Jesus God come to earth and being tempted?

Depends on how one looks at it. Not everyone needs to interpret the Torah in a hyperliteralistic view like the strict Orthodox Rabbinic Jews. Even among Jews, there are many different interpretations of the Torah. So who is correct?

Since there are probably even more Christian denominations, many of which accuse each other of being heretical, look how many interpretations of Christian scripture there are.
So who is correct?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3225

Betula is also translated maid and maiden: virgin (38x), maid (7x), maiden (5x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Thus it's translated in the BLB.

It means virgin.

And so does alma.

There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with an alma.
(Proverbs 30:18-19)

The common characteristic here is that the things described leave no trace. The way of a man with a virgin leaves a trace. The way of a man with a non-virgin doesn't.

"Alma" does not mean "virgin".


The text is about his killing of Goliath, not about his sexual state.

The word was simply used to refer to David. Was David married at this time or not?

Since the word is simply used to refer to David, it doesn't refer to his marital status either.

The text is about the arrows, not about his sexual state.

Was the young servant married or not?

Again, marital status is not being discussed.

You can use the words "girl" and "boy" to refer to young females and males, but there's no connotation of sexual state in those words. A girl or a boy can be a virgin or not. Neither of those words means "virgin". It's the same with alma and elem.

I'm referring to the "virgins without number", which is the context of what we're debating. It makes no sense here if alma refers to married girls.

It makes no sense for alma to refer to a woman's virginity when betulah is the word for "virgin". Again, the text is referring simply to young women with no reference to their sexual state.

Sure, it doesn't necessarily have to be a messianic prophecy, but it still applies to Jesus, whether he is the Messiah or not.

Just because Christians apply it to Jesus doesn't mean that it applies to Jesus.

Jewish hermeneutics allows for multiple levels of interpretation for a passage. More specifically, there can be a literal interpretation and a symbolic interpretation.

Regardless of how many levels of interpretation there are, one immutable principle is that those interpretations cannot conflict with each other. If they do, they cannot all be correct.

The word of a deity who allows the swearing of oaths (Num. 30:2) does not point to a Messiah who says, "Do not swear at all." (Matthew 5:34-37) The word of a deity who allows men to put away their wives (Dt. 24:1) in a manner which is right in his eyes (Dt. 13:18) does not point to a Messiah who says that it was allowed only for the hardness of their hearts (Mt. 19:8). For interpretations to be true and right, they have to be consistent with what's being interpreted. Otherwise, "interpretation" is just a blank check you can fill in with anything you want.

There have been many groups that have interpreted the Tanakh differently. Even among Jews there is not a monolithic interpretation of the scriptures. So, who's right among all the interpretations?

If there's no way to tell, then none of it is profitable for doctrine. If it is profitable for doctrine, then there must be a clear way to discern what the doctrine is.

And then, who's right among all the Christian interpretations?

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3224

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

Because you're the one making the claim


It's so readers of this debate who are not familiar with what you are referring to can see what you are trying to argue for.

They can read Mark 14 as easily as you or I can.

I'm asking you to present your evidence. If you do not, then it is merely an unsubstantiated assertion.

Since the covenant is promised to the houses of Israel and Judah, it doesn't apply to Christians anyway.

As I mentioned before, Christians have been grafted in.

[Rom 11:17, 23-24 KJV] 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; ... 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

There is a limitation on when the prophecy is to be fulflled, because he's prophesying something which will be fulfilled in a short time, not 700 years in the future.

Where does it say it must be fulfilled in the near future?

An "extreme position" is irrelevant. The application to one's wife and the application to sin are entirely different.

The same word is used in both context. I'm simply analyzing how the word masal is used, so it's entirely relevant.

"When the second Temple was destroyed in the year 3830 from creation (70 CE), the Yom Kippur service continued. Instead of a High Priest bringing the sacrifices in Jerusalem, every single Jew performs the Yom Kippur service in the temple of his or her heart."

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... Kippur.htm

What this shows is Christians are better able to follow Yom Kippur since for Jews they have no component of a blood sacrifice anymore. There is no fulfillment of the requirements of a high priest representing the entire nation during Yom Kippur as set out in the Torah.

Even more, there is no scapegoat ritual performed by the Jews. Whereas for Christians, Jesus is our scapegoat.

[Lev 16:10 HNV] 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell for the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement for him, to send him away for the scapegoat into the wilderness.

As Ezekiel and Hosea indicated, no sacrificial Messiah required.

It doesn't make any sense to completely discount the entire Levitical sacrificial system. If Jews do believe this, then they are the ones rejecting the Torah, not Christians.

Then how did he have a divine nature on earth?

It's a mystery. And there is no requirement we need to fully explain something in order to believe in it. How does light have both the properties of a particle and a wave? Just because we can't fully explain something doesn't mean it is not true.

Then how was Jesus God come to earth and being tempted?

[Luk 4:2, 13 KJV] 2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered. ... 13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

Since there are probably even more Christian denominations, many of which accuse each other of being heretical, look how many interpretations of Christian scripture there are.

In terms of the core beliefs, there is wide acceptance of it. In terms of denominational beliefs, there are of course variations.

So who is correct?

I asked you first.

[otseng]

There are three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with an alma.
(Proverbs 30:18-19)

The common characteristic here is that the things described leave no trace. The way of a man with a virgin leaves a trace. The way of a man with a non-virgin doesn't.

I have no idea what you're suggesting. That sexual intercourse is being referred to as something that is too amazing?

"Alma" does not mean "virgin".

I'm not claiming alma always means virgin. I'm claiming alma can mean virgin.

Since the word is simply used to refer to David, it doesn't refer to his marital status either.

David was not married at this time. So elem in this context refers to a virgin. If you're going to claim elem refers to someone who is not a virgin, then you have to show that David (and the young servant) was married at this time.

Again, the text is referring simply to young women with no reference to their sexual state.

I'm not claiming they should always be translated as virgin. I'm claiming it is valid that they refer to an unmarried person (a virgin).

You can use the words "girl" and "boy" to refer to young females and males, but there's no connotation of sexual state in those words. A girl or a boy can be a virgin or not. Neither of those words means "virgin". It's the same with alma and elem.

I would say in the vast majority of cases they would be a virgin. Sure, some unmarried person could've been involved in some weekend drunken revelry and lost their virginity, but this would be the exception.

It makes no sense for alma to refer to a woman's virginity when betulah is the word for "virgin".

Betulah is not always translated as virgin, so it's in the same boat as alma.

Sure, it doesn't necessarily have to be a messianic prophecy, but it still applies to Jesus, whether he is the Messiah or not.

Just because Christians apply it to Jesus doesn't mean that it applies to Jesus.

If it's consistent with hermeneutic principles, then it's a valid interpretation.

Regardless of how many levels of interpretation there are, one immutable principle is that those interpretations cannot conflict with each other. If they do, they cannot all be correct.

The word of a deity who allows the swearing of oaths (Num. 30:2) does not point to a Messiah who says, "Do not swear at all." (Matthew 5:34-37) The word of a deity who allows men to put away their wives (Dt. 24:1) in a manner which is right in his eyes (Dt. 13:18) does not point to a Messiah who says that it was allowed only for the hardness of their hearts (Mt. 19:8). For interpretations to be true and right, they have to be consistent with what's being interpreted. Otherwise, "interpretation" is just a blank check you can fill in with anything you want.

I agree the interpretations should be consistent. But what is at conflict here is your interpretation as we've discussed at length. Though I'd rather not rehash all of the arguments again, but since you keep bringing this up, I might have to.

There have been many groups that have interpreted the Tanakh differently. Even among Jews there is not a monolithic interpretation of the scriptures. So, who's right among all the interpretations?

If there's no way to tell, then none of it is profitable for doctrine. If it is profitable for doctrine, then there must be a clear way to discern what the doctrine is.

And then, who's right among all the Christian interpretations?

Again, I asked you first.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3228

I'm asking you to present your evidence. If you do not, then it is merely an unsubstantiated assertion.

Evidence of what? What assertion have I made without evidence?

As I mentioned before, Christians have been grafted in.

[Rom 11:17, 23-24 KJV] 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; ... 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

This isn't evidence of Christians being grafted in. At most, it's evidence of Christians trying to graft themselves in.

Where does it say it must be fulfilled in the near future?

In verse 16.

For before the child [with whom the young woman is now pregnant] shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

What this shows is Christians are better able to follow Yom Kippur since for Jews they have no component of a blood sacrifice anymore.

They still have the bulls of their lips to offer, so all's well.

Even more, there is no scapegoat ritual performed by the Jews. Whereas for Christians, Jesus is our scapegoat.

[Lev 16:10 HNV] 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell for the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement for him, to send him away for the scapegoat into the wilderness.

Then Christians are the ones left hanging, because Jesus wasn't sent into the wilderness as the Levitical system dictates. Jesus was supposed to be the paschal lamb, but the paschal lamb wasn't offered for sin.

It doesn't make any sense to completely discount the entire Levitical sacrificial system. If Jews do believe this, then they are the ones rejecting the Torah, not Christians.

You can take that up with Ezekiel and Hosea.


Then how did he have a divine nature on earth?

It's a mystery.

When you ask Catholic apologists how bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus despite all the physical evidence to the contrary, you know what they say?

"It's a mystery."

How does light have both the properties of a particle and a wave? Just because we can't fully explain something doesn't mean it is not true.

Just because we can't fully explain how light is both a particle and a wave doesn't mean we can't see that it's both a particle and a wave. Light being both particle and wave is something we can verify by observation. Jesus having both a human nature and a divine nature is a claim, and a particularly difficult claim to reconcile since the characteristics of those natures [being temptable and being untemptable] are mutually exclusive.


Then how was Jesus God come to earth and being tempted?

[Luk 4:2, 13 KJV] 2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered. ... 13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

And this shows what? That he had a human nature which could be tempted? How does it show that he had a divine nature which couldn't be tempted?

In terms of the core beliefs, there is wide acceptance of it. In terms of denominational beliefs, there are of course variations.

The denomininational beliefs are rooted in the core beliefs.

Is Jesus part of a divine trinity?

Do sins have to be confessed to a priest?

Do bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus?

Are Jesus and Satan brothers?

Was God once a man? Will men become gods, ruling their own planets?


So who is correct?

I asked you first.

And you don't want to make yourself look better by answering first?

Or is it that you can't answer?