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 #3229

"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?

After an eagle flies across the sky, there's no trace that the eagle was there.

After a snake crawls over a rock, there's no trace that the snake was there.

After a ship passes over the sea and the waves die down, there's no trace that the ship was there.

And when a man has been with a woman who has been with men before, there's no trace of this latest man.

That's what the author is getting at, and he uses the word alma.


"Alma" does not mean "virgin".

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

Alma can refer to a woman who is a virgin, but it never refers to a woman's virginity. That's why the word betulah is used in Genesis 24:16 where the text refers specifically to Rebekah being a virgin.

David was not married at this time. So elem in this context refers to a virgin.

You're employing a technical fallacy. The text refers to someone who is a virgin, but does not refer to him as a virgin. It's like arguing that the word "butler" means "thief" because the butler happens to be a thief.

Your attempt to make the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 into a virgin on a technicality doesn't work.


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).

See explanation above.


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.

See explanation above again.


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.

Betulah may not always be translated as "virgin", but that's what it means.


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.

As long as hermeneutic principles go beyond simply reading into a text what you want to find there.

LDS "interpret" John 10:16 as referring to descendents of Joseph in ancient America. Do you consider their interpretation legitimate? If not, how do you refute it?

I agree the interpretations should be consistent. But what is at conflict here is your interpretation as we've discussed at length.

It takes more to refute an argument than just dismissing it as an "interpretation".


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

Again, I asked you first.

And again, you don't want to answer first?

[otseng]

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

You made this claim:

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

So, what did the witnesses say and how do their testimonies agree?

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

There is no requirement that Gentiles are excluded from being grafted in. As a matter of fact, there is a precedence of non-Jews in the OT that folded into the Jewish community.

Rahab

[Jos 6:25 KJV] 25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel [even] unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Ruth

[Rth 1:4 KJV] 4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one [was] Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.

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.

Yes, it could be fulfilled in the near future, but it does not explicitly say "in the near future" or anything with a similar meaning. There is no indication at the moment it was spoken how many months or years in the future it would be fulfilled.

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

What does "bulls of their lips" mean?

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.

The entire scapegoat ceremony was a symbolic act. Sin does not actually travel out of people into a goat. It was symbolic of the sins of the people being imputed onto a single lamb and it would suffer the fate of being sent outside their city. In the same way, our sins have been imputed onto Jesus and cast outside the city to Gehenna.

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.

It's not Ezekiel's and Hosea's problem, but it's a Jewish problem. Do they take the Torah seriously or think they can just pick and choose what to accept according to what they think is convenient?

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."

And your point? If there's a mystery in religion it's wrong? But if it's a mystery anywhere else it's OK?

We don't even know how the first life came into being. We might as well throw out all of biology since abiogenesis is a mystery.

since the characteristics of those natures [being temptable and being untemptable] are mutually exclusive.

Light has particle and wave properties that are also mutually exclusive.

Waves and particles each have unique properties, often properties that are mutually exclusive.

https://www.compadre.org/PQP/quantum-need/intro5.cfm

In classical physics, the concepts of waves and particles are mutually exclusive.

https://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio302/content/clsphy.htm

In quantum physics, these apparent exclusive properties are combined into the wave-particle duality.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, light was found to behave as a wave, and then later discovered to have a particulate character, whereas electrons were found to act as particles, and then later discovered to have wavelike aspects. The concept of duality arose to name these contradictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality

Though we can describe the wave-particle duality, we can't truly explain it. Likewise, we can describe Jesus having a dual human/deity nature, but we can't fully explain it.

[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?

While he was on earth, he could be tempted. While he is in heaven, he can not be tempted.

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?

Which of these are you claiming are core beliefs?

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?

Of course I have an answer. But asking me again does not absolve you of answering first.

But since you're not willing to answer, since the Jews have different interpretations, then there is nothing wrong with Christians also having a different interpretation of the Tanakh.

[otseng]

After an eagle flies across the sky, there's no trace that the eagle was there.

After a snake crawls over a rock, there's no trace that the snake was there.

After a ship passes over the sea and the waves die down, there's no trace that the ship was there.

And when a man has been with a woman who has been with men before, there's no trace of this latest man.

That's what the author is getting at, and he uses the word alma.

And if there's no trace, then wouldn't in that case be a virgin? How does a "young woman" have any significance with not leaving a trace?

Alma can refer to a woman who is a virgin, but it never refers to a woman's virginity.

Again, all I'm saying is alma can refer to a virgin, which is what you agree to. Since you agree alma can refer to a virgin, really I don't see what is the issue then.

That's why the word betulah is used in Genesis 24:16 where the text refers specifically to Rebekah being a virgin.

Again, many Hebrew words refer to the same concept. It would take too long to cover such examples.

It's like arguing that the word "butler" means "thief" because the butler happens to be a thief.

Bad example. A better example is more like saying a butler is a servant. All butlers are a servant. Sure, there can be exceptions to this, like some deranged butler who thinks he's the boss. But in the vast majority of cases, a butler is a servant. Likewise, an alma is an unmarried young woman, which typically means someone who is 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.

Again, it's implied.

Betulah may not always be translated as "virgin", but that's what it means.

Same with alma.

LDS "interpret" John 10:16 as referring to descendents of Joseph in ancient America. Do you consider their interpretation legitimate? If not, how do you refute it?

If they want to interpret it that way, they can do so. I have no position on it.

It takes more to refute an argument than just dismissing it as an "interpretation".

Of course, that's why I spent an inordinate amount of time addressing it. Again, do you really want me to rehash those arguments?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3232

You made this claim:

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

So, what did the witnesses say and how do their testimonies agree?

I didn't make a claim here. I asked questions in response to your position that testimonies can have minor differences and still be reliable.

For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together.
(Mark 14:56-59)

Since Mark doesn't tell us anything else they said, how are we supposed to know that their witness didn't agree?

There is no requirement that Gentiles are excluded from being grafted in.

....which is what Isaiah 53 is about.

Yes, it could be fulfilled in the near future, but it does not explicitly say "in the near future" or anything with a similar meaning. There is no indication at the moment it was spoken how many months or years in the future it would be fulfilled.

A woman who will soon give birth has just been pointed out. The early childhood of her son is given as a measuring rod for the timeframe in which the two invading kings will fall [before the child knows to refuse the evil and choose the good]. Verse 8 even specifies that Ephraim itself will fall within 65 years.


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

What does "bulls of their lips" mean?

Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to him, “Forgive all our guilt, and receive us graciously, and let us present the fruit of our lips as bulls."
(Hosea 14:2)

The entire scapegoat ceremony was a symbolic act.

On what do you base that assertion?

[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.

It's not Ezekiel's and Hosea's problem, but it's a Jewish problem. Do they take the Torah seriously or think they can just pick and choose what to accept according to what they think is convenient?

Isaiah and Hosea assure them that they have a means of atonement when they don't have access to the temple.


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."

And your point? If there's a mystery in religion it's wrong? But if it's a mystery anywhere else it's OK?

My point is that you can't just slip something unobservable by under the convenient label "mystery".

Light has particle and wave properties that are also mutually exclusive.

They're not morally exclusive, like being temptable and being untemptable.

In quantum physics, these apparent exclusive properties are combined into the wave-particle duality.

A particle can behave like a wave. Someone who can be tempted cannot behave like someone who can't be tempted.

While he was on earth, he could be tempted. While he is in heaven, he can not be tempted.

If God cannot be tempted and Jesus could be tempted on earth, how was Jesus God on earth?

Which of these are you claiming are core beliefs?

Which of them aren't core beliefs? ("Core belief" can reasonably be defined as a belief whose acceptance or rejection doesn't matter.)

Of course I have an answer. But asking me again does not absolve you of answering first.

But since you're not willing to answer, since the Jews have different interpretations, then there is nothing wrong with Christians also having a different interpretation of the Tanakh.

If Christians can interpret the Jewish Bible as pointing to Jesus being the Messiah, why can't Hindus interpret the Christian gospels as pointing to Jesus being an incarnation of Vishnu?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3233

And when a man has been with a woman who has been with men before, there's no trace of this latest man.

That's what the author is getting at, and he uses the word alma.

And if there's no trace, then wouldn't in that case be a virgin? How does a "young woman" have any significance with not leaving a trace?

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him
(Deuteronomy 22:13-18)

The cloth would be that on which the new wife had bled with the rupture of her hymen upon first intercourse. That's the trace a man would leave with a virgin and not with a nonvirgin.

By the way----every time the words "maid" and "virginity" appear in this passage, the word in the Hebrew text is betulim. Not an "alma" in the bunch. You can check the BLB.


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.

Again, it's implied.

It's implied in Isaiah 7 that the young woman in verse 14 is not a virgin.


Betulah may not always be translated as "virgin", but that's what it means.

Same with alma.

Proverbs 30:18-19 clearly shows otherwise.


The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16 is clearly referring to something which happened within a very short time of it's delivery [the downfall of Rezin and Pekah]. If the prophecy of the child's birth was fulfilled in Isaiah's time and then fulfilled again in Matthew's time, and it's a prophecy about a child being born to a virgin, who was the virgin who gave birth in Isaiah's time?

[otseng]

For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together.
(Mark 14:56-59)

Since Mark doesn't tell us anything else they said, how are we supposed to know that their witness didn't agree?

Because the text says "their witness agreed not together" and "But neither so did their witness agree together". As you pointed out, we have no exact details of who said what and how they differ with each other. So it cannot be argued this passage is relevant to different people saying the same thing with minor differences.

There is no requirement that Gentiles are excluded from being grafted in.

....which is what Isaiah 53 is about.

I agree Isa 53 is about the Gentiles being redeemed and grafted into Israel.

Verse 8 even specifies that Ephraim itself will fall within 65 years.

If it's within 65 years later, then the prophecy of Isa 7:14 cannot be referring to Isaiah's son Mahershalalhashbaz that is mentioned in Isa 8:3.

What does "bulls of their lips" mean?

Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to him, “Forgive all our guilt, and receive us graciously, and let us present the fruit of our lips as bulls."
(Hosea 14:2)

The point is it is the fruit of the lips as bulls, not "bulls of their lips". It's not claiming the sacrificial system is annulled and they can replace the sacrificial system with the "bulls of their lips".

Some more translations:

(ABP)
Take after your own words, and return to the lord ! Speak to him! so that you should not receive for your iniquities, and so that you should receive good things , and we will recompense the fruit of our lips.

(CSB)
Take words of repentance with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: “Forgive all our iniquity and accept what is good, so that we may repay you with praise from our lips.

(EBR)
Take with you words, and return to Yahweh: say unto him––Wholly, shalt thou take away iniquity, Accept, then, with favour, and we will make good the boldness of our lips!

(ERV)
Think about what you will say, and come back to the Lord. Say to him, "Take away our sin, and accept these words as our sacrifice. We offer you the praise from our lips.

The entire scapegoat ceremony was a symbolic act.

On what do you base that assertion?

[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.

You mean make the assertion it is symbolic and not literal? What I mean is the sins of Israel is symbolically carried away through the illustration of the scapegoat. The scapegoat ceremony was literally carried out, but symbolically it represented the carrying away of the nation's sins.

Isaiah and Hosea assure them that they have a means of atonement when they don't have access to the temple.

Then why did they have to build the second temple?

My point is that you can't just slip something unobservable by under the convenient label "mystery".

It doesn't matter what term is used. Can also say it is unknown, enigma, inexplicable, etc.

There are many things we cannot fully explain, so they all also fall under this, including areas of science as I've illustrated.

Light has particle and wave properties that are also mutually exclusive.

They're not morally exclusive, like being temptable and being untemptable.

Mutually exclusive is mutually exclusive. LIght has physically mutually exclusive concepts. Jesus has morally mutually exclusive concepts.

Someone who can be tempted cannot behave like someone who can't be tempted.

Never claimed Jesus could not be tempted while he was on earth.

If God cannot be tempted and Jesus could be tempted on earth, how was Jesus God on earth?

He made himself to be a form and likeness of a man while he was on earth.

[Phl 2:7 KJV] 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Which of these are you claiming are core beliefs?

Which of them aren't core beliefs? ("Core belief" can reasonably be defined as a belief whose acceptance or rejection doesn't matter.)

Core beliefs are expressed in the creeds, for example, the Apostles' Creed.

If Christians can interpret the Jewish Bible as pointing to Jesus being the Messiah, why can't Hindus interpret the Christian gospels as pointing to Jesus being an incarnation of Vishnu?

Because the Jewish text and the Christian text and even the Hindi text does not support it.

[otseng]

The cloth would be that on which the new wife had bled with the rupture of her hymen upon first intercourse. That's the trace a man would leave with a virgin and not with a nonvirgin.

I still don't get what you're arguing for. Here's the passage we are talking about:
"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)

What is the "too amazing" in reference to "the way of a man with an alma"? Discovering she is not a virgin?

By the way----every time the words "maid" and "virginity" appear in this passage, the word in the Hebrew text is betulim. Not an "alma" in the bunch. You can check the BLB.

Sure, I accept betulim means virgin. And you also stated before alma can also mean virgin.

It's implied in Isaiah 7 that the young woman in verse 14 is not a virgin.

How so?

Proverbs 30:18-19 clearly shows otherwise.

That's what we're debating. Merely reasserting your claim does not make it so.

If the prophecy of the child's birth was fulfilled in Isaiah's time and then fulfilled again in Matthew's time, and it's a prophecy about a child being born to a virgin, who was the virgin who gave birth in Isaiah's time?

Not even sure it was fulfilled in Isaiah's time since you pointed out it was around 65 years later the kingdoms would fall.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3236

Since Mark doesn't tell us anything else they said, how are we supposed to know that their witness didn't agree?

Because the text says "their witness agreed not together" and "But neither so did their witness agree together". As you pointed out, we have no exact details of who said what and how they differ with each other. So it cannot be argued this passage is relevant to different people saying the same thing with minor differences.

All you're saying here is that it should be believed because the text says so.

If it's within 65 years later, then the prophecy of Isa 7:14 cannot be referring to Isaiah's son Mahershalalhashbaz that is mentioned in Isa 8:3.

The 65-year period is that in which Ephraim is to fall and "no longer be a people". The early life of the child in verse 14 is marking the time in which Rezin and Pekah, the two kings threatening the upcoming attack, will fall.

Ahaz assumed the throne of Judah at the age of 20 or 25. Sometime later his kingdom was invaded by Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, in an effort to force him into an alliance with them against the powerful state of Assyria. Acting against the counsel of the prophet Isaiah, Ahaz appealed for aid to Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, to repel the invaders. Assyria defeated Syria and Israel, and Ahaz presented himself as a vassal to the Assyrian king. Not only was Judah’s political situation unimproved but Assyria exacted a heavy tribute and Assyrian gods were introduced into the Temple at Jerusalem.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ahaz

The point is it is the fruit of the lips as bulls, not "bulls of their lips". It's not claiming the sacrificial system is annulled and they can replace the sacrificial system with the "bulls of their lips".

"Bulls of your lips" is a poetic rendering which refers to their repentence.

You mean make the assertion it is symbolic and not literal? What I mean is the sins of Israel is symbolically carried away through the illustration of the scapegoat. The scapegoat ceremony was literally carried out, but symbolically it represented the carrying away of the nation's sins.

"to make atonement for him"


Isaiah and Hosea assure them that they have a means of atonement when they don't have access to the temple.

Then why did they have to build the second temple?

So they could resume the everlasting statute after having no access to the temple.

Mutually exclusive is mutually exclusive. LIght has physically mutually exclusive concepts. Jesus has morally mutually exclusive concepts.

How could he be simultaneously temptable and untemptable?


Someone who can be tempted cannot behave like someone who can't be tempted.

Never claimed Jesus could not be tempted while he was on earth.

You did assert that he was God on earth.


If God cannot be tempted and Jesus could be tempted on earth, how was Jesus God on earth?

He made himself to be a form and likeness of a man while he was on earth.

To make himself into a temptable man, he would have to stop being untemptable God.


Which of them aren't core beliefs? ("Core belief" can reasonably be defined as a belief whose acceptance or rejection doesn't matter.)

Core beliefs are expressed in the creeds, for example, the Apostles' Creed.

Are these the only Christian beliefs which matter? No significant issue with whether or not Jesus and Satan were brothers or Jesus a member of a divine trinity?


If Christians can interpret the Jewish Bible as pointing to Jesus being the Messiah, why can't Hindus interpret the Christian gospels as pointing to Jesus being an incarnation of Vishnu?

Because the Jewish text and the Christian text and even the Hindi text does not support it.

Why can't it depend on the "interpretation?"

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3237

I still don't get what you're arguing for. Here's the passage we are talking about:
"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)

What is the "too amazing" in reference to "the way of a man with an alma"? Discovering she is not a virgin?

Are you finally admitting that the alma is not a virgin?

It's not about the author's "too amazing" literary device. It's about all of the examples leaving no trace, which shows that the alma is not a virgin.

Sure, I accept betulim means virgin. And you also stated before alma can also mean virgin.

Wrong. I pointed out that an alma can be a virgin, but that the word "alma" does not mean "virgin".


It's implied in Isaiah 7 that the young woman in verse 14 is not a virgin.

How so?

By being written that way. She's pregnant and she's an alma, not a "betulah".


Proverbs 30:18-19 clearly shows otherwise.

That's what we're debating. Merely reasserting your claim does not make it so.

I'm not merely reasserting it. I'm re-introducing Proverbs 30:18-19 as evidence of it.


If the prophecy of the child's birth was fulfilled in Isaiah's time and then fulfilled again in Matthew's time, and it's a prophecy about a child being born to a virgin, who was the virgin who gave birth in Isaiah's time?

Not even sure it was fulfilled in Isaiah's time since you pointed out it was around 65 years later the kingdoms would fall.

This is addressed above, so the question remains unanswered.

[otseng]

All you're saying here is that it should be believed because the text says so.

I'm just accepting the plain reading of the text. To read what you're claiming cannot be supported at all by the text.

The 65-year period is that in which Ephraim is to fall and "no longer be a people". The early life of the child in verse 14 is marking the time in which Rezin and Pekah, the two kings threatening the upcoming attack, will fall.

It could be.

"Bulls of your lips" is a poetic rendering which refers to their repentence.

Yes, it's poetic. But it does not mean the Levitical sacrificial system has been annulled.

"to make atonement for him"

[Lev 16:21 KJV] 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send [him] away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

Then why did they have to build the second temple?

So they could resume the everlasting statute after having no access to the temple.

Which statutes are you referring to?

You did assert that he was God on earth.

I didn't assert he was in the form of God while on earth.

Like the analogy of light, it depends on the context. In the double slit experiment, when one emits a single photon, it acts like a particle. But when one emits multiple photons, the pattern reveals a wave. Do we really understand how that happens?

I will readily admit I don't fully understand the concept of the Trinity either. There are many unknowns in life.

No significant issue with whether or not Jesus and Satan were brothers or Jesus a member of a divine trinity?

Now that you mention it, I doubt the first Christians grasped the concept of the Trinity either. So, would they have been saved?

Because the Jewish text and the Christian text and even the Hindi text does not support it.

Why can't it depend on the "interpretation?"

Don't know what you mean. An interpretation cannot depend on an interpretation. Interpretations have to depend on the text.