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]

How many proverbs are here? How many generations are being referred to? This text is separated into seven verses, but aren't they all the same proverb?

It's a single saying. A single saying can span multiple verses.

It's implied that verse 20 is a continuation from verse 19. The women in those verses have something important in common; they've both done something which has left no trace. And the woman in verse 20 is not innocent, so it's implied that the woman in verse 19 isn't innocent either.

Highly doubtful it's a continuation. An alma is not an adulterous woman. Also, what is so amazing about a man with an adulterous woman?

As for verse 19 referring to courtship, courtship doesn't entail anything being hidden.

Why is there a requirement for something to be hidden? Rather, the only description is that it is something amazing and mysterious.

A man comes to court a girl, everyone sees that she's been courted and that's all that happens.

I think another way to interpret the passage is how things travel and progress. Eagle traveling through the air, snake across rocks, ship in the sea, and a man and a maiden going through courtship.

Even if we grant it was not a virgin, who was born that was named Immanuel?

Not Yeshua, that's for sure.

I already gave you several verses that backs up Jesus called Immanuel, so the textual support is there.

In Isaiah 7, the child's mother is to call him Emmanuel.

What textual support do you have for this?

In chapter 8, his father [Isaiah] is commanded to call him Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

Yes, and this name is not Immanuel.

The text does not explicitly say who the kings are. All it says is "both her kings". It could be referring to Rezin and Pekah, but it's not explicit.

Rezin and Pekah don't have to be referred to by name in verse 16. It's implied that they're still the kings being referred to.

If verse 16 refers to other kings, why aren't they named?

Yes, it's implied, but you had stated it was explicitly stated: "And I've already pointed out that foretelling a birth 700 years in the future would be meaningless as a prophecy of the downfall of Rezin and Pekah, which the text explicitly says the prophecy is about."

My point is it is not clear who the two kings are. Again, it could be Rezin and Pekah, but it doesn't have to be.

You insist on interpreting it symbolically when the text implies that it's written literally.

Both Christian and Jewish methods of hermeneutics allows for this.

Payment is still made, with the bulls of their lips.

Here's the passage from Hosea:

[Hos 14:2 KJV] 2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

Obviously this is poetic language, it is not literally saying lips are bulls. Reading the entire chapter, it is full of poetic and symbolic language. Taking poetic language literally does not make any sense.

Also this is not stating the entire sacrificial system has been annulled. The Torah is the foundation of the Tanakh and the Levitical sacrificial system is detailed in many chapters across these books. And many places where the sacrificial system was instituted was from a direct commandment from God. Hosea is a minor prophet and speaks only in one verse in poetic form about bulls of our lips. To interpret this single passage as nullifying the entire sacrificial system would be a severe twisting of scripture.

At most, the expression "bulls of our lips" would be an idiom. It is symbolic language to communicate another meaning. This is done all the time in the Hebrew language. For example, hand represents strength and authority.

[Psa 110:1 KJV] 1 [[A Psalm of David.]] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

We do this all the time in English as well. When I say someone has kicked the bucket, it does not literally mean someone has kicked a bucket, but that he has died.

We see the passage in Hosea is an idiom by how several translations render it:

(2001)
Follow your own [good advice]And then turn back to Jehovah!'Just ask Him to please overlook All of your unrighteous ways So that you can receive what is good And be repaid for the fruit of your lips.

(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.

(ACV)
Take with you words, and return to LORD. Say to him, Take away all iniquity, and accept that which is good. So we will render as bullocks the offering of our lips.

(AFV)
Take with you words, and return to the LORD. Say to Him, "Take away all our iniquity, and receive us graciously, that we may repay with the sacrifices of our lips.

(AGB)
Bring words with you and return to the Lord. Say to him, "Forgive all our wrongdoing and accept us, and we will offer the fruit of our lips as sacrifice

(AGBL)
Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to him, "Forgive all our sin and accept what is good, so we may offer the fruit of our lips."

(BBE)
Take with you words, and come back to the Lord; say to him, Let there be forgiveness for all wrongdoing, so that we may take what is good, and give in payment the fruit of our lips.

(CEB)
Prepare to speak and return to the LORD; say to the LORD, “Forgive all wickedness; and receive the good. Instead of bulls, let us offer what we can say:

(CEVD)
Return to the LORD and say, “Please forgive our sins. Accept our good sacrifices of praise instead of bulls.

(CJB)
Take words with you, and return to ADONAI; say to him, "Forgive all guilt, and accept what is good; we will pay instead of bulls [[the offerings 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.

(ESV)
Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, "Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.

(GNT)
Return to the LORD, and let this prayer be your offering to him: “Forgive all our sins and accept our prayer, and we will praise you as we have promised.

(HCSB)
Take words [of repentance] with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him: "Forgive all [our] sin and accept what is good, so that we may repay You with praise from our lips.

(ISV)
Bring a prepared speech with you as you return to the LORD. Say to him: ‘Take away all our iniquity, and accept what is good. Then we will present the fruit of our lips.

(LEB)
Take words with you, and return to Yahweh. Say to him, “Take away all guilt; accept good, and we will offer the fruit of our lips.

(LXXE)
Take with you words, and turn to the Lord your God: speak to him, that ye may not receive the reward of unrighteousness, but that ye may receive good things: and we will render in return the fruit of our lips.

(NASB)
Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him, “Take away all guilt And receive us graciously, So that we may present the fruit of our lips.

(NIV)
Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: “Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.

(NLT)
Bring your confessions, and return to the LORD. Say to him, "Forgive all our sins and graciously receive us, so that we may offer you our praises.

(NRSV)
Take words with you and return to the LORD; say to him, “Take away all guilt; accept that which is good, and we will offer the fruit of our lips.

(OJB)
Take devarim (words) with you, and turn to Hashem; say unto Him, Take away avon (iniquity), and receive us graciously that we may render the sacrifices of our lips.[]

(UST)
So now, return to Yahweh, and think about how you will confess your sins to him. Say this to him: “Take away all our sins, and accept us; please be kind to us. Please accept us back, so that we may praise you in our words and song.

(YLT)
Take with you words, and turn to Jehovah, Say ye unto Him: 'Take away all iniquity, and give good, And we do render the fruit of our lips.

The only way to support your position is to conclude that Isaiah and Hosea were discounting the entire sacrificial system. Is that what you believe?

How do I discount the sacrificial system?

Then if Jesus was God, was God temptable until he got back to heaven?

If he was in the form of man, only then would he be temptable.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3251

How many proverbs are here? How many generations are being referred to? This text is separated into seven verses, but aren't they all the same proverb?

It's a single saying. A single saying can span multiple verses.

Hence verses 18-20.

Highly doubtful it's a continuation. An alma is not an adulterous woman.

Alma means "young woman". If an alma can be a virgin, an alma can be an adulteress.

I think another way to interpret the passage is how things travel and progress. Eagle traveling through the air, snake across rocks, ship in the sea, and a man and a maiden going through courtship.

Not a strong argument. There's nothing amazing or mysterious about any of those actions in themselves. What would be an amazing mystery is how you're supposed to know that they've happened when they leave no trace.

Even if we grant it was not a virgin, who was born that was named Immanuel?

Not Yeshua, that's for sure.

I already gave you several verses that backs up Jesus called Immanuel, so the textual support is there.

You've quoted Christian text calling him Immanuel and claimed that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus.


In Isaiah 7, the child's mother is to call him Immanuel.

What textual support do you have for this?

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... pter-7.htm

Since the child's father is commanded to call him Maher-shalal-hash-baz, who would name him Immanuel if not his mother?

My point is it is not clear who the two kings are. Again, it could be Rezin and Pekah, but it doesn't have to be.

Again, this is grasping at straws. It's clear from the context that the two kings are still Rezin and Pekah. Thus we can see why Matthew would pluck out only a single verse from the chapter. If he had put the verse in context, anyone could see that it isn't a messianic passage.

Obviously this is poetic language, it is not literally saying lips are bulls. Reading the entire chapter, it is full of poetic and symbolic language. Taking poetic language literally does not make any sense.

That's why I don't take it literally. The language is poetic, but the offering is literal.

Hosea is a minor prophet and speaks only in one verse in poetic form about bulls of our lips. To interpret this single passage as nullifying the entire sacrificial system would be a severe twisting of scripture.

I didn't state this as what I believe. I asked if it's what you believe.


Then if Jesus was God, was God temptable until he got back to heaven?

If he was in the form of man, only then would he be temptable.

Then if God is untemptable, how could Jesus be God while in temptable human form?

In the same way that a geometric shape cannot at the same time be both a perfect circle and a perfect square, someone who can be tempted cannot be an untemptable deity.

[otseng]

"The Messiah" does appear, just not under that title.

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
(Ezekiel 37:24)

As you pointed out, "the Messiah" is not in the text. Of course we have interpretations of passages that refer to the Messiah, but in the Hebrew text, "the Messiah" is not found in the Tanakh.

Prior to Rabbi Skobac pointing this out, I didn't realize this. So I tried to search for "the Messiah" in the Hebrew and I couldn't find it either.

In the English, "the Messiah" is only found in Dan 9:25.

Dan 9:25
25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

But, in the Hebrew, there is no "the" in front of Messiah.

Some other translations:

(CJB)
Know, therefore, and discern that seven weeks [[of years]] will elapse between the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Yerushalayim until an anointed prince comes. It will remain built for sixty-two weeks [[of years]], with open spaces and moats; but these will be troubled times.

(CSB)
Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an Anointed One, the ruler, will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with a plaza and a moat, but in difficult times.

(ESV)
Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

(Geneva)
Knowe therefore and vnderstande, that from the going foorth of the commaundement to bring againe the people, and to builde Ierusalem, vnto Messiah the prince, shall be seuen weekes and threescore and two weekes, and the streete shalbe built againe, and the wall euen in a troublous time.

(HCSB)
Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and 62 weeks. It will be rebuilt with a plaza and a moat, but in difficult times.

(NABRE)
Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt Until one who is anointed and a leader, there shall be seven weeks. During sixty-two weeks it shall be rebuilt, With streets and trenches, in time of affliction.

(NASB)
So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress.

(NRSV)
Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.

(YLT)
And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader is seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.

And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers.[/i]
(Numbers 1:2,4)

Yes, fathers is mentioned. But this is not a genealogical listing of a line of descendants, only father and son relationships.

Here is an example of a genealogy listing with a woman in it. Tamar is included in this lineage.

[1Ch 2:3-5 KJV] 3 The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: [which] three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him. 4 And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah [were] five. 5 The sons of Pharez; Hezron, and Hamul.

It doesn't fulfill the messianic requirement.

There is no "the Messianic" requirement if there is no "the Messiah" ever mentioned in the OT. This is only an interpretation requirement based on what people think "the Messiah" should be like.

His "legal" father also had lineage through Jeconiah, whose line was disqualified from future kingship (Jeremiah 22:28-30).

This is disputable. His grandson, Zerubbabel, was a leader of Judah and initiated rebuilding the temple.

Appointed by Darius the Great, Zerubbabel was governor of Yehud province. It was after this appointment that Zerubbabel began to rebuild the Temple.

The Davidic line from Jeconiah had been cursed by Jeremiah, saying that no offspring of "Coniah" would sit on the throne (Jeremiah 22:30). However, Zerubbabel was of the main Davidic line through Solomon and Jeconiah.

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

So Jeconiah’s curse didn't apply to his grandson. Most likely, the curse only applied during Jeconiah's lifetime.

[Jer 22:30 NIV] 30 This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

His mother had a lineage from David through Nathan, so she couldn't make him a descendent of David through Solomon, which the Jewish Messiah has to be.

Where is it stated the Messiah must come through Solomon? Instead, God tore the kingdom from Solomon because of his disobedience.

[1Ki 11:9-11 ESV] 9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the LORD commanded. 11 Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant.

Many passages refer to David's line, not Solomon's line:

[Isa 9:6-7 ESV] 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

[Jer 23:5 ESV] 5 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.

[Eze 34:23-24 ESV] 23 And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. 24 And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken.

And why is it so important to rebuild the temple if Jews now claim they don't need the temple and the sacrificial system to atone for their sins?

I've asked that question myself. I guess they would say that the temple is important to their spiritual identity.

It's not just that. The orthodox Jews want to also reinstitute the sacrificial system.

The generally accepted position among Orthodox Jews is that the full order of the sacrifices will be resumed upon the building of the Temple.[30] This belief is embedded in Orthodox Jewish prayer services. Three times a day, Orthodox Jews recite the Amidah, which contains prayers for the Temple's restoration and for the resumption of sacrifices, and every day there is a recitation of the order of the day's sacrifices and the psalms the Levites would have sung that day.

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

It is true all Jews have not embraced the commandments of the Torah.

Then it must also be true that the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 has not been established.

What Jesus taught is that if we love him, we must keep the commandments. So, from the perspective of Jesus's teaching, we must embrace the commandments.

[Jhn 14:15 ESV] 15 If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

[1Jo 2:3 ESV] 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

The new covenant was promised to the houses of Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), whose fathers had broken the covenant after being led out of Egypt (v. 32). Therefore, the new covenant isn't established until it's established among them.

Since Christians have been grafted into Israel, then the new covenant has been established.

This was spoken by Jesus to show he was fulfilling the prophecies of Psalm 22.

Psalm 22 is a prayer by David to be delivered from his enemies. The only prophetic text in the psalm is in the last few verses, which foretell that the nations of the world will turn to Jehovah.

Here is how Psa 22 was fulfilled by Jesus:

When Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", this was not some sort of statement of defeat, but Jesus was simply referring to Psalm 22.

[Mat 27:46 KJV] 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

[Psa 22:1 KJV] 1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?

Why did he point to Psalm 22? Because he was stating he was fulfilling the prophecies in Psalm 22.

[Psa 22:15-18 KJV] 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. 16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

As for piercing the hands and feet, we've covered this in multiple posts.

If the only messianic sign that generation was given about Jesus would be the sign of his resurrection, then that generation was not given any sign that he was born to a virgin.

Where did Jesus say his authority is based on him being born from a virgin?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3253

Yes, fathers is mentioned. But this is not a genealogical listing of a line of descendants, only father and son relationships.

Genealogical descent is father-to-son relationship.

Here is an example of a genealogy listing with a woman in it. Tamar is included in this lineage.

Tamar is mentioned as the mother of the children she bore to their father.

There is no "the Messianic" requirement if there is no "the Messiah" ever mentioned in the OT.

If there's no "the Messiah" in the Tanakh, how can Jesus have been "the Messiah"?


His "legal" father also had lineage through Jeconiah, whose line was disqualified from future kingship (Jeremiah 22:28-30).

This is disputable. His grandson, Zerubbabel, was a leader of Judah and initiated rebuilding the temple.

Zerubbabel was governor of Judea under the Persians. He wasn't a king.

So Jeconiah’s curse didn't apply to his grandson. Most likely, the curse only applied during Jeconiah's lifetime.

The text says that Jeconiah was to be written as "childless". A man who has no children will have no grandchildren, no great-grandchildren or any subsequent descendents.

Where is it stated the Messiah must come through Solomon?

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendant of King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalms 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... he-messiah

[1Ki 11:9-11 ESV] 9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the LORD commanded. 11 Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant.

"Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”
(1 Kings 11:12-13)

The kingdom wasn't taken from Solomon. It was taken from his son Rehoboam, and even then it wasn't all taken. When the ten northern tribes split off, Rehoboam retained the kingdom of Judah. And it's from the tribe of Judah that the Messiah is supposed to come, so the Messiah still comes through Solomon.

And why is it so important to rebuild the temple if Jews now claim they don't need the temple and the sacrificial system to atone for their sins?

I've asked that question myself. I guess they would say that the temple is important to their spiritual identity.

It's not just that. The orthodox Jews want to also reinstitute the sacrificial system.

"How is building the Temple in Jerusalem a prerequisite to collecting all Jews, and how does the ingathering of the exiles promote world peace? What’s the connection?

An explanation provided by Chabad thought is that the location of the temple is a gateway, or interface, between heaven and earth. The Temple itself, with all its chambers and accouterments, is a kind of resonance chamber, or amplifier, as well as a broadcaster of that system to the rest of the world."

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


The new covenant was promised to the houses of Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), whose fathers had broken the covenant after being led out of Egypt (v. 32). Therefore, the new covenant isn't established until it's established among them.

Since Christians have been grafted into Israel, then the new covenant has been established.

Christians being "grafted into Israel" is an exclusively Christian claim, and is therefore a circular argument.

Besides, since Jews still teach each other to "know the Lord", you're pushing them out altogether and going with replacement theology, not just being "grafted in". Since the promise was made to Israel and Judah who were brought out of Egypt, they definitely have to be included in the new covenant, which definitely shows that the new covenant has not been established.

Here is how Psa 22 was fulfilled by Jesus:

Quoting a psalm doesn't fulfill any prophecy about it, especially when the verses being quoted aren't prophetic.


If the only messianic sign that generation was given about Jesus would be the sign of his resurrection, then that generation was not given any sign that he was born to a virgin.

Where did Jesus say his authority is based on him being born from a virgin?

In the text he isn't asked for a sign of his authority; he's just asked for a sign. And wouldn't being born to a virgin be a sign of authority, had there been such a sign?

[otseng]

It's a single saying. A single saying can span multiple verses.

Hence verses 18-20.

No, though a saying can span multiple verses, each saying is in its own paragraph. Pro 30:18 and 19 is in one paragraph. Prov 30:20 is in another paragraph.

You can see it here with the paragraph markers:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/pro/30/19

Alma means "young woman". If an alma can be a virgin, an alma can be an adulteress.

No, alma is never rendered an adulterous. Please provide a lexicon definition that shows this.

There's nothing amazing or mysterious about any of those actions in themselves. What would be an amazing mystery is how you're supposed to know that they've happened when they leave no trace.

Again, there's nothing stated explicitly about leaving no trace, so there's no requirement it supposed to address it.

I think it's a reasonable interpretation and much more reasonable than asserting a man with an adulterous is too wonderful to grasp.

[Pro 30:18-19 ESV] 18 Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand: 19 the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a virgin.

The courtship between a man and an alma is a special time a couple goes through in order to reach the goal of marriage. Whereas you are impugning a negative light on it by claiming it's a man with an adulterous, I'm interpreting it with a positive light, which the proverb alludes to since it's amazing and wonderful.

Even if one interprets it with a sexual overtone, it is truly amazing a man can court a young woman and for her to remain a virgin.

You've quoted Christian text calling him Immanuel and claimed that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus.

They align and affirm each other, so it's a consistent claim. Whereas there is no Jewish source that names anybody else Immanuel so it cannot be shown the Jewish interpretation is correct.

In Isaiah 7, the child's mother is to call him Immanuel.

What textual support do you have for this?

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... pter-7.htm

You cannot use the same verse to show it both prophesied it and fulfilled it. What passage showed the fulfillment of someone called Immanuel?

Since the child's father is commanded to call him Maher-shalal-hash-baz, who would name him Immanuel if not his mother?

What text shows his mother named him Immanuel?

My point is it is not clear who the two kings are. Again, it could be Rezin and Pekah, but it doesn't have to be.

Again, this is grasping at straws. It's clear from the context that the two kings are still Rezin and Pekah. Thus we can see why Matthew would pluck out only a single verse from the chapter. If he had put the verse in context, anyone could see that it isn't a messianic passage.

No, it's not grasping at straws. Again, the text does not explicitly say Rezin and Pekah are the two kings.

Here's my interpretation. Actually, I do agree the prophecy was fulfilled with the fall of Rezin and Pekah. But it was also fulfilled with Jesus. There are issues with both of these fulfillments. With the former, there is nobody named Immanuel that was born of a virgin. With the latter, it's unclear who the two kings are. It could be representing the kings of Israel and Judah. Though this would be many years before Jesus was a young child, it would still be before it.

That's why I don't take it literally. The language is poetic, but the offering is literal.

Then this is an inconsistent way of interpretation. You can't just pick and choose literal things out of poetry to suit your interpretation.

Hosea is a minor prophet and speaks only in one verse in poetic form about bulls of our lips. To interpret this single passage as nullifying the entire sacrificial system would be a severe twisting of scripture.

I didn't state this as what I believe. I asked if it's what you believe.

To be clear, I've never stated the Levitical sacrificial system has been annulled. What I have stated is it is to be a perpetual statute.
So the question to you, do you believe the Levitical sacrifices has been nullified?

Then if God is untemptable, how could Jesus be God while in temptable human form?

In the same way that a geometric shape cannot at the same time be both a perfect circle and a perfect square, someone who can be tempted cannot be an untemptable deity.

Actually, a circle can be a square at the same time. It's all a matter of perspective. Same with Jesus and God.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3255

No, though a saying can span multiple verses, each saying is in its own paragraph. Pro 30:18 and 19 is in one paragraph. Prov 30:20 is in another paragraph.

You can see it here with the paragraph markers:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/pro/30/19

Two things here:

First,

"In the original text of the Bible, there were no chapter or verse divisions. This sometimes proved difficult when believers wanted to cite particular passages, so chapter headings and verses were added for ease of reference and communication."

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible ... erses.html

Second, let's take a look at the passage in the BLB:

(18) Three things are too wonderful for me;
four I do not understand:

(19) the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a serpent on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a virgin.

(20) This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I have done no wrong.”

https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/pro/30/1/

Verses 18 and 19 appear here as two paragraphs. So let's take your logic from the Isaiah 7 passage about the two kings and apply it here.

The first "paragraph" states that there are four things too wonderful for the writer to understand. The second "paragraph" lists four things, but does not explicitly say that they are the four things mentioned in the first "paragraph", so they could be the same four things, but they aren't necessarily.

Right?


Alma means "young woman". If an alma can be a virgin, an alma can be an adulteress.

No, alma is never rendered an adulterous.

Are you saying that an alma can't be an adulteress?

Again, there's nothing stated explicitly about leaving no trace, so there's no requirement it supposed to address it.

Again, there's nothing stated explicitly about the four things in v. 18 and the four things in v. 19 being the same four things.

Right?

All of the things mentioned leaving no trace is implied.

The courtship between a man and an alma is a special time a couple goes through in order to reach the goal of marriage. Whereas you are impugning a negative light on it by claiming it's a man with an adulterous, I'm interpreting it with a positive light, which the proverb alludes to since it's amazing and wonderful.

Even if one interprets it with a sexual overtone, it is truly amazing a man can court a young woman and for her to remain a virgin.

Now, that's impugning in a negative light.

It makes far more sense that the woman in verse 20 comes right out of verse 19 than that she pops suddenly out of nowhere on the heels of an amazing and wonderful "virginal" scene.

There's a whole section, beginning with verse 15 and running through verse 23, in which the "three-things-four-things" pattern is repeated. Verse 20 falls within that section, at the end of one repetition and just before the beginning of the next, so linking it to verses 18-19 makes the most literary sense.


You've quoted Christian text calling him Immanuel and claimed that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus.

They align and affirm each other, so it's a consistent claim. Whereas there is no Jewish source that names anybody else Immanuel so it cannot be shown the Jewish interpretation is correct.

The only source who calls Jesus Immanuel is Matthew, and he does so in claiming that others would call him Immanuel, which no one else does.

You cannot use the same verse to show it both prophesied it and fulfilled it. What passage showed the fulfillment of someone called Immanuel?

Not Matthew 1:23, that's for sure [unless it was supposed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy].


Since the child's father is commanded to call him Maher-shalal-hash-baz, who would name him Immanuel if not his mother?

What text shows his mother named him Immanuel?

What text shows that Mary named Jesus "Immanuel"?

At least Isaiah 7:14 states that the pregnant woman Isaiah was pointing out would call her child Immanuel.

Actually, I do agree the prophecy was fulfilled with the fall of Rezin and Pekah.

Then you agree that their fall was timed according to the early life of a child whose mother was pregnant with him before Rezin and Pekah fell.

But it was also fulfilled with Jesus. There are issues with both of these fulfillments. With the former, there is nobody named Immanuel that was born of a virgin.

Wrong. There's no one born to a virgin, but Isaiah prophesies that the pregnant woman he points out to Ahaz will call her son "Immanuel".

With the latter, it's unclear who the two kings are.

Wrong again.

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."
(Isaiah 7:16)

Isaiah is addressing Ahaz, and the "land" Ahaz dreads is the Israel-Syria alliance. Therefore, if you agree that the prophecy was fulfilled with the fall of Rezin and Pekah, you have to agree that they were the kings Isaiah was talking about when he said this to Ahaz.

It could be representing the kings of Israel and Judah.

Ahaz was the king of Judah. Was he dreading his own land? Was he dreading himself?

Though this would be many years before Jesus was a young child, it would still be before it.

That would make it closer to a tautology than a prophecy and render it absolutely useless as a prophetic sign.

Again, where does the Tanakh "explicitly" [as you would say] state that any prophecy therein will be fulfilled more than once? With that question in mind, let's look at Isaiah 7 again:

You've agreed that Isaiah 7:14-16 was fulfilled with the fall of Rezin and Pekah. That means you agree, as I mentioned earlier, that the fall of those two kings was timed within the early life of a child whose mother was still pregnant with him before the kings fell.

For Isaiah to have uttered that prophecy, he must have been referring to a woman who was not a virgin.

This means that Isaiah must be referring to a non-virgin when he uses the word "alma" in verse 14.

Isaiah 7:14 is scripture. If the "alma" in that scripture is a woman who is not a virgin, and "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), then the word "alma" in Isaiah 7:14----which refers to a woman who is not a virgin----cannot be reinterpreted to refer to a virgin.


That's why I don't take it literally. The language is poetic, but the offering is literal.

Then this is an inconsistent way of interpretation. You can't just pick and choose literal things out of poetry to suit your interpretation.

I'm not picking or choosing anything. They are literally offering their prayers, whatever poetic label those prayers are given.

To be clear, I've never stated the Levitical sacrificial system has been annulled. What I have stated is it is to be a perpetual statute.
So the question to you, do you believe the Levitical sacrifices has been nullified?

What I believe doesn't matter. A better question would be----Did Ezekiel believe that the Levitical sacrifices had been nullified?

Actually, a circle can be a square at the same time. It's all a matter of perspective. Same with Jesus and God.

The title of the video is, "three takes on the circle square illusion".

In each of the video's examples, at least one of the shapes [either cut or drawn] has vertices [points or corners]. They're not always seen, but they're always there.

Squares have vertices. Circles do not. So if this is your argument for temptable Jesus being untemptable God, the most you have is a man-God illusion.

That's the problem with assuming that it's "all a matter of perspective". It lets you choose the illusion over the reality.

[otseng]

Genealogical descent is father-to-son relationship.

I'm just pointing out Julius Ciss's example is a poor one since Num 1:1-18 is only a father and son relationship, not a line of descent spanning multiple generations.

Tamar is mentioned as the mother of the children she bore to their father.

I'm simply refuting the claim that females are never included in genealogical listings.

There is no "the Messianic" requirement if there is no "the Messiah" ever mentioned in the OT.

If there's no "the Messiah" in the Tanakh, how can Jesus have been "the Messiah"?

And here's the interesting point, Jesus never called himself the Messiah either. Rather, he most often called himself the "son of man". He didn't correct anybody when people called him the Messiah, so he could still be considered the Messiah.

This is disputable. His grandson, Zerubbabel, was a leader of Judah and initiated rebuilding the temple.

Zerubbabel was governor of Judea under the Persians. He wasn't a king.

Yes, but the text doesn't say a king. He sat on the throne and was still a leader of the people.

[Jer 22:30 NIV] 30 This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

The text says that Jeconiah was to be written as "childless". A man who has no children will have no grandchildren, no great-grandchildren or any subsequent descendents.

It doesn't say he is childless, but as if childless or record him as childless.

Some more versions:

(AGBK)
My dear, dear child, this is the message I have for Coniah: he will never have any children who will prosper in his lifetime. None of his offspring will sit on the throne of David or rule over Judah ever again."

(CEVD)
Erase the names of Jehoiachin's children from the royal records. He is a complete failure, and so none of them will ever be king. I, the LORD, have spoken.

(EBR)
Thus, saith Yahweh,––Register ye this man, childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days,––For there shall prosper of his seed, No man sitting upon the throne of David, Or ruling any more over Judah.

(FBV)
This is what the Lord says: Put this man down as having no children. He's a man who won't ever be successful in his whole life. None of his children will ever be successful either. None of them will sit on David's throne or be king in Judah.

(HCSB)
This is what the LORD says: Record this man as childless, a man who will not be successful in his lifetime. None of his descendants will succeed in sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah.

(NET)
The Lord says, “Enroll this man in the register as though he were childless. Enroll him as a man who will not enjoy success during his lifetime. For none of his sons will succeed in occupying the throne of David or ever succeed in ruling over Judah.”

Where is it stated the Messiah must come through Solomon?

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendant of King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalms 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... he-messiah

It was conditional on him being obedient.

[2Ch 7:17-18 KJV] 17 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments; 18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man [to be] ruler in Israel.

Since Solomon was not obedient, it was torn away from him.

[1Ki 11:9-11 KJV] 9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, 10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. 11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.

The kingdom wasn't taken from Solomon. It was taken from his son Rehoboam, and even then it wasn't all taken. When the ten northern tribes split off, Rehoboam retained the kingdom of Judah. And it's from the tribe of Judah that the Messiah is supposed to come, so the Messiah still comes through Solomon.

The division was started with Solomon's unfaithfulness and it gradually was fulfilled many years later when the Assyrians and the Babylonians conquered Israel.

No, there is no scriptural support the Messiah comes through Solomon. As the above verses show, it was torn away from him.

It's not just that. The orthodox Jews want to also reinstitute the sacrificial system.

"How is building the Temple in Jerusalem a prerequisite to collecting all Jews, and how does the ingathering of the exiles promote world peace? What’s the connection?

An explanation provided by Chabad thought is that the location of the temple is a gateway, or interface, between heaven and earth. The Temple itself, with all its chambers and accouterments, is a kind of resonance chamber, or amplifier, as well as a broadcaster of that system to the rest of the world."

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

Yes, there are multiple purposes for the temple, but it does not refute that they want to reinstitute the sacrificial system.

Christians being "grafted into Israel" is an exclusively Christian claim, and is therefore a circular argument.

Being a Christian claim does not automatically make it a circular argument. There are also examples of Gentiles being folded into the people of Israel from the Tanakh. I had mentioned Ruth and Rabab before:

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.

Besides, since Jews still teach each other to "know the Lord", you're pushing them out altogether and going with replacement theology, not just being "grafted in". Since the promise was made to Israel and Judah who were brought out of Egypt, they definitely have to be included in the new covenant, which definitely shows that the new covenant has not been established.

Never claimed that all Jews were to be excluded from the promises. If they do know the Lord (like the Messianic Jews), then they are included.

Here is how Psa 22 was fulfilled by Jesus:

Quoting a psalm doesn't fulfill any prophecy about it, especially when the verses being quoted aren't prophetic.

How can it not be prophetic if it was quoted by Jesus and actually fulfilled by him?

Where did Jesus say his authority is based on him being born from a virgin?

In the text he isn't asked for a sign of his authority; he's just asked for a sign.

And why did the religious leaders ask for a sign?

And wouldn't being born to a virgin be a sign of authority, had there been such a sign?

It was a sign of one of the fulfillments of prophecy.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3257

I'm simply refuting the claim that females are never included in genealogical listings.

I didn't make that claim, so the refutation is irrelevant. Women may appear in the records, but it's the father-to-son line being traced.

And here's the interesting point, Jesus never called himself the Messiah either. Rather, he most often called himself the "son of man". He didn't correct anybody when people called him the Messiah, so he could still be considered the Messiah.

If not correcting someone who calls you the Messiah means that you can be considered the Messiah, then history is quite possibly littered with Messiahs.

Besides, Jesus did claim to be the Messiah at least once.

The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”
(John 4:25-26)

The division was started with Solomon's unfaithfulness and it gradually was fulfilled many years later when the Assyrians and the Babylonians conquered Israel.

“When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you."
(2 Samuel 7:12-15)

"Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen."
(1Kings 11:12-13)

The establishment of the throne of Solomon's kingdom forever doesn't depend on Solomon being obedient. It's guaranteed by the promise which Jehovah makes to David.

No, there is no scriptural support the Messiah comes through Solomon.

Even if you have the Messiah coming through Jeconiah, you still have him coming through Solomon because Matthew's genealogy identifies Jeconiah as a descendent of Solomon.


Christians being "grafted into Israel" is an exclusively Christian claim, and is therefore a circular argument.

Being a Christian claim does not automatically make it a circular argument.

Using a claim to justify itself does automatically make it a circular argument.

Never claimed that all Jews were to be excluded from the promises. If they do know the Lord (like the Messianic Jews), then they are included.

In the new covenant, they all "know the Lord" from the least of them to the greatest (Jeremiah 31:34). Until that happens, the new covenant has not been established.


Quoting a psalm doesn't fulfill any prophecy about it, especially when the verses being quoted aren't prophetic.

How can it not be prophetic if it was quoted by Jesus and actually fulfilled by him?

How can it be prophetic when it's just text recording David's prayers to be delivered from his enemies? You have Jesus prophesying that he will fulfill something which isn't a prophecy.


In the text he isn't asked for a sign of his authority; he's just asked for a sign.

And why did the religious leaders ask for a sign?

Because they hadn't been given any sign that he was born to a virgin.


And wouldn't being born to a virgin be a sign of authority, had there been such a sign?

It was a sign of one of the fulfillments of prophecy.

How was it a sign of anything when no one could see it? How was there any prophecy to fulfill when the word "alma" in Isaiah 7:14 refers to a woman who wasn't a virgin and would give birth before Rezin and Pekah fell?

[otseng]

"In the original text of the Bible, there were no chapter or verse divisions."

Of course.

Verses 18 and 19 appear here as two paragraphs.

From the link in my post, verses 18 and 19 has a single paragraph marker (¶ ).

Pro 30:18 ¶ Three things are too wonderful for me;
four I do not understand:
Pro 30:19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a serpent on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a virgin.
Pro 30:20 ¶ This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I have done no wrong.”

https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/pro/30/19

Alma means "young woman". If an alma can be a virgin, an alma can be an adulteress.

No, alma is never rendered an adulterous.

Are you saying that an alma can't be an adulteress?

No, it doesn't refer to an adulteress. As I pointed out before, alma means: virgin (4x), maid (2x), damsels (1x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Please provide any lexicon definition that shows alma can refer to an adulteress.

All of the things mentioned leaving no trace is implied.

It's obviously poetic, so it's not explicit what the meaning is. The question is what is being implied.

The courtship between a man and an alma is a special time a couple goes through in order to reach the goal of marriage. Whereas you are impugning a negative light on it by claiming it's a man with an adulterous, I'm interpreting it with a positive light, which the proverb alludes to since it's amazing and wonderful.

Even if one interprets it with a sexual overtone, it is truly amazing a man can court a young woman and for her to remain a virgin.

Now, that's impugning in a negative light.

No, claiming a man having a relationship with an adulterous woman, when he is actually having a relationship with an alma, is the one impugning on the man.

It makes far more sense that the woman in verse 20 comes right out of verse 19 than that she pops suddenly out of nowhere on the heels of an amazing and wonderful "virginal" scene.

The entire book of Proverbs have things that pop up out of nowhere. It's just a collection of sayings and not a narrative.

There's a whole section, beginning with verse 15 and running through verse 23, in which the "three-things-four-things" pattern is repeated.

Here's Prov 30:15-17:

[Pro 30:15-17 ESV]
15 The leech has two daughters: Give and Give. Three things are never satisfied; four never say, "Enough":
16 Sheol, the barren womb, the land never satisfied with water, and the fire that never says, "Enough."
17 The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/pro/30/19/s_658019

How does verse 17 relate to 15-16?

The only source who calls Jesus Immanuel is Matthew, and he does so in claiming that others would call him Immanuel, which no one else does.

We do not have any explicit text of anyone "calling" him Immanuel, but this is the closest we have of anyone being called Immanuel. What Immanuel means is "God with us". Jesus, since he was God, fulfilled this. Who else can be considered to be "God with us"?

You cannot use the same verse to show it both prophesied it and fulfilled it. What passage showed the fulfillment of someone called Immanuel?

Not Matthew 1:23, that's for sure [unless it was supposed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy].

No idea what you mean by "self-fulfilling". We have a passage from Isaiah and we have a passage from somewhere else. This is how we show prophecies are fulfilled.

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

[Mat 1:23 ESV] 23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

Now, if you claim it is erroneous for Matthew to claim this was the fulfillment of Isaiah, then that's another matter.

What text shows his mother named him Immanuel?

What text shows that Mary named Jesus "Immanuel"?

You were the one who claimed "In Isaiah 7, the child's mother is to call him Immanuel."
viewtopic.php?p=1132839#p1132839

I've never claimed any such thing, so you cannot shift the burden to me. Since you won't answer the question, it's obvious there is no textual support for your claim.

There's no one born to a virgin, but Isaiah prophesies that the pregnant woman he points out to Ahaz will call her son "Immanuel".

Again, there's no additional textual support of anyone else being named Immanuel. A single verse cannot be used to both show what is the prophecy and the fulfillment of it.

Wrong again.
"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."
(Isaiah 7:16)

If I'm wrong, then where are the words Rezin and Pekah in this passage? It is an interpretation that you refer to them from this passage.

Therefore, if you agree that the prophecy was fulfilled with the fall of Rezin and Pekah, you have to agree that they were the kings Isaiah was talking about when he said this to Ahaz.

As I stated, I believe it was partially fulfilled at that time and it was referring to the downfall of Israel and Syria. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm pointing out there is no requirement it exclusively had to refer to them.

It could be representing the kings of Israel and Judah.

Ahaz was the king of Judah. Was he dreading his own land? Was he dreading himself?

It's only my opinion, but it's a possible scenario.

Again, where does the Tanakh "explicitly" [as you would say] state that any prophecy therein will be fulfilled more than once?

No, I do not claim the Tanakh explicitly says this. I readily acknowledge it's an interpretation.

You've agreed that Isaiah 7:14-16 was fulfilled with the fall of Rezin and Pekah. That means you agree, as I mentioned earlier, that the fall of those two kings was timed within the early life of a child whose mother was still pregnant with him before the kings fell.

For Isaiah to have uttered that prophecy, he must have been referring to a woman who was not a virgin.

Yes, I understand that interpretation. But it doesn't make any sense of the whole point of Isa 7:14 of giving a sign. There is nothing special or sign worthy of having a non-virgin having a child and bearing a son. Further, there is no textual confirmation of anyone named Immanuel. And we don't even know who exactly who was the alma.

[Isa 7:14 HNV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu'el.

What textual support shows verse 14 was fulfilled as a sign? Or should it be dismissed altogether as a sign?

This means that Isaiah must be referring to a non-virgin when he uses the word "alma" in verse 14.

I've never claimed alma only refers to a virgin. I've claimed alma can refer to a virgin. Yes, with your interpretation, alma cannot refer to a virgin.

Then this is an inconsistent way of interpretation. You can't just pick and choose literal things out of poetry to suit your interpretation.

I'm not picking or choosing anything. They are literally offering their prayers, whatever poetic label those prayers are given.

You had stated:

But it can be paid with the bulls of your lips until a new temple is built

If the whole point is just praying, why even mention "bulls"?

To be clear, I've never stated the Levitical sacrificial system has been annulled. What I have stated is it is to be a perpetual statute.
So the question to you, do you believe the Levitical sacrifices has been nullified?

What I believe doesn't matter. A better question would be----Did Ezekiel believe that the Levitical sacrifices had been nullified?

Well, since it doesn't matter what you believe, then there's no contest to what I believe.

No, I don't believe Ezekiel either had nullified the Levitical sacrifices. Where does he say it has been nullified?

In each of the video's examples, at least one of the shapes [either cut or drawn] has vertices [points or corners]. They're not always seen, but they're always there.

That's the problem with assuming that it's "all a matter of perspective". It lets you choose the illusion over the reality.

One's reality is based on perspective. The circle and the square is only that way because of the perspective (angle of viewing). What we perceive with our eyes from the video is from a two-dimensional viewpoint, so we perceive the shape as either a circle or a square depending on where we view it from. In actuality, it's neither a circle or a square, but a 3-dimensional shape that has both the properties of a square and a circle when projected on a 2-D plane.

Likewise, God is not a 3-dimensional entity, but is beyond our dimensions. Since we are limited by our 3-D perspective and vocabulary, we cannot truly understand God's actual nature, including what it means to be both temptable and non-temptable.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3259

"In the original text of the Bible, there were no chapter or verse divisions."

Of course.

Verses 18 and 19 appear here as two paragraphs.

From the link in my post, verses 18 and 19 has a single paragraph marker (¶ ).

Did the original text have paragraph markers?

Please provide any lexicon definition that shows alma can refer to an adulteress.

That's a loaded challenge. The word alma means "young woman". A young woman can be an adulteress, so "alma" doesn't have to be translated as "adulteress" for the young woman to be an adulteress. It can be gathered from the context.


All of the things mentioned leaving no trace is implied.

It's obviously poetic, so it's not explicit what the meaning is. The question is what is being implied.

What's being implied is that everything mentioned leaves no trace. The function of poetry as a literary device is to convey meaning.


There's a whole section, beginning with verse 15 and running through verse 23, in which the "three-things-four-things" pattern is repeated.

Here's Prov 30:15-17:

[Pro 30:15-17 ESV]
15 The leech has two daughters: Give and Give. Three things are never satisfied; four never say, "Enough":
16 Sheol, the barren womb, the land never satisfied with water, and the fire that never says, "Enough."
17 The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/pro/30/19/s_658019

How does verse 17 relate to 15-16?

Why are you focusing on 15-17 when I'm talking about 15-23?

(15) There are three things that are never satisfied, four never say, "Enough!"......

(18) There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yes, four which I do not understand:......

(21) For three things the earth is perturbed, yes, for four it cannot bear up:......

See the pattern?


The only source who calls Jesus Immanuel is Matthew, and he does so in claiming that others would call him Immanuel, which no one else does.

We do not have any explicit text of anyone "calling" him Immanuel, but this is the closest we have of anyone being called Immanuel.

Wrong. We have Isaiah 7:14, in which the pregnant woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz is to call her child Immanuel.

What Immanuel means is "God with us".

Immanuel does not mean "God with us". It means "God IS with us". It's a statement, not a title.

Jesus, since he was God, fulfilled this.

Since you begin this argument with the conclusion you want to reach, the argument is circular.

You cannot use the same verse to show it both prophesied it and fulfilled it. What passage showed the fulfillment of someone called Immanuel?

Not Matthew 1:23, that's for sure [unless it was supposed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy].

No idea what you mean by "self-fulfilling". We have a passage from Isaiah and we have a passage from somewhere else. This is how we show prophecies are fulfilled.

We have a passage in which Isaiah points out a pregnant woman who will give birth before Pekah and Rezin fall.

Now, if you claim it is erroneous for Matthew to claim this was the fulfillment of Isaiah, then that's another matter.

"Another matter"? It's exactly the matter we're discussing. It was indeed erroneous of Matthew, because Matthew refers to a virgin while Isaiah refers to a young pregnant woman who obviously isn't a virgin.


What text shows that Mary named Jesus "Immanuel"?

You were the one who claimed "In Isaiah 7, the child's mother is to call him Immanuel."

Isaiah uses the early life of a child to foretell the downfall of Pekah and Rezin. That has nothing to do with Mary.

I've never claimed any such thing, so you cannot shift the burden to me. Since you won't answer the question, it's obvious there is no textual support for your claim.

"Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel."
(Isaiah 7:14)

If you're saying that there's no textual evidence of the child's mother calling him Immanuel, are you saying that Isaiah made a false statement?

Again, there's no additional textual support of anyone else being named Immanuel.

Again, you seem to be saying that Isaiah made a false statement.

If I'm wrong, then where are the words Rezin and Pekah in this passage? It is an interpretation that you refer to them from this passage.

If any other kings are being referred to, where do their names appear in the passage?

Let's apply the logic of your argument elsewhere:

Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the Lord and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple.” Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.

When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes.
(2 Kings 22:8-11)

What book does Shaphan tell the king about? If it's the book of the law, why does Shaphan refer to it simply as "a book"? Why doesn't he call it the book of the law?

The text says that Shaphan read to the king from the book he had and that the king heard the words of the book of the law, but it doesn't explicitly say that the book Shaphan had was the book of the law or that the king heard the words of the law from the book Shaphan had. So the book read to the king by Shaphan could have been an entirely different book from the book of the law found by Hilkiah in the temple.

That's the way you're arguing.
You're trying to split hairs and exploit a weak technicality to avoid the glaringly obvious fact that the two kings referred to in Isaiah 7:16 are Pekah and Rezin.

As I stated, I believe it was partially fulfilled at that time and it was referring to the downfall of Israel and Syria.

Isaiah's prophecy about the downfall of Israel and Syria involves a woman who is not a virgin giving birth to a child who begins to grow before Israel and Syria fall. Isaiah refers to that woman in verse 14 as an alma. She is obviously a nonvirgin who became pregnant through natural means and there is no evidence that she is anyone else.

It could be representing the kings of Israel and Judah.

Ahaz was the king of Judah. Was he dreading his own land? Was he dreading himself?

It's only my opinion, but it's a possible scenario.

When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

Now the house of David was told, “Syria has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and of the son of Remaliah. Syria, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“It will not take place; it will not happen"
(Isaiah 7:1-7)

For Ahaz himself to be one of the kings referred to, Isaiah would have to have been sent to say to him, "Take heart and don't be afraid of yourself, because two kings will soon fall and you'll be one of them."


Again, where does the Tanakh "explicitly" [as you would say] state that any prophecy therein will be fulfilled more than once?

No, I do not claim the Tanakh explicitly says this. I readily acknowledge it's an interpretation.

Then you have no case to make for Isaiah 7 being about anything other than the downfall of Pekah and Rezin.


For Isaiah to have uttered that prophecy, he must have been referring to a woman who was not a virgin.

Yes, I understand that interpretation. But it doesn't make any sense of the whole point of Isa 7:14 of giving a sign. There is nothing special or sign worthy of having a non-virgin having a child and bearing a son.

There's nothing special----and certainly nothing prophetic----about the downfall of two kings foretold by the early life of a child who wasn't born until 700 years after those kings fell. Not only is it not signworthy, it's downright nonsensical.

The prophecy is about the fall of Pekah and Rezin, not about the woman giving birth.

Further, there is no textual confirmation of anyone named Immanuel.

Again, there is textual confirmation that the child whose early life will mark the time to Pekah's and Rezin's downfall will be called Immanuel [unless Isaiah the Prophet made a false statement].

And we don't even know who exactly who was the alma.

[Isa 7:14 HNV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu'el.

What textual support shows verse 14 was fulfilled as a sign?

The Lord said to me, “Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.” So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me. Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”
(Isaiah 8:1-4)


This means that Isaiah must be referring to a non-virgin when he uses the word "alma" in verse 14.

I've never claimed alma only refers to a virgin. I've claimed alma can refer to a virgin.

Then alma can refer to a nonvirgin in Psalm 30:19, as the context suggests.

Yes, with your interpretation, alma cannot refer to a virgin.

Alma does not refer to virginity.


But it can be paid with the bulls of your lips until a new temple is built

If the whole point is just praying, why even mention "bulls"?

The bulls are what the prayers are replacing.


What I believe doesn't matter. A better question would be----Did Ezekiel believe that the Levitical sacrifices had been nullified?

Well, since it doesn't matter what you believe, then there's no contest to what I believe.

Non sequitur.

What I "believe" doesn't matter, and what you "believe" doesn't matter. What matters is what's true.

No, I don't believe Ezekiel either had nullified the Levitical sacrifices. Where does he say it has been nullified?

That's just it. He doesn't say that it's been nullified, yet he does say that acceptable sacrifice can be offered even without a temple.

One's reality is based on perspective.

One's "perspective" is not one's reality. Heat rising from the earth's surface can make the horizon look like a lake shore, but the water isn't there. A pencil standing in a glass of water is still in one piece; it only looks like it's in two pieces. Our perspectives are given to us by our senses, and our senses can be fooled. When our senses are fooled, what we're perceiving is not reality.

Likewise, God is not a 3-dimensional entity, but is beyond our dimensions. Since we are limited by our 3-D perspective and vocabulary, we cannot truly understand God's actual nature, including what it means to be both temptable and non-temptable.

I agree that our limited senses aren't capable of informing us on the full nature of God, but that doesn't apply to being temptable and being untemptable. The existence of God is a metaphysical issue, but temptability and untemptability are a moral issue. The illusion of morality is worthless.

"Your Honor, my client admits that he was caught red-handed stealing a home entertainment system, but from his perspective, theft for personal gratification isn't wrong.

The Defense rests."


Then why is it so important that God be untemptable?

I think it's a pointer to the fact that when we get to heaven, we won't be tempted to sin as well.

Is that the only reason it's important that God be untemptable?

What would be the consequences of God being temptable?