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]

[Replying to otseng in post #3267

Who are the Jewish scholars you are referring to? The only Jew I've seen that argues the way you've presented is Tovia Singer. Do other Jewish scholars also have this same interpretation?

Every Jewish scholar who rejects the messianic claim of Jesus argues that way.

Can you cite another that you're referring to with that interpretation?

Prov 30:17 is not linked either by the ESV to verses 15-16. Each has its own paragraph marker.

Again, the original text had no paragraph markers.

The paragraph markers are added there by interpretation. And the ESV, which is a widely used translation, has a lot of Biblical scholars represented:
https://www.esv.org/translation/review-scholars/

There is also no commonality shared between those two sayings:
Verses 15-16: leech, daughters, give, satisfied, enough, sheol, womb, land, water, fire
Verse 17: eye, father, scorn, obey, mother, picked, ravens, valley, eaten, vultures

You're focusing on two verses of the nine-verse passage I indicated, cherrypicking individual words and ignoring the context.

You're the one that brought up the other verses and implying Prov 30:15-17 is a single saying. As I've argued, it is not. Likewise, Prov 30:18-20 is not a single saying, but separate sayings.

John 10:16 and 3 Nephi 15:21 are separate verses. Does that mean that the other sheep of John 10:16 are the Nephites of the Book of Mormon?

If someone wants to make that claim, they are free to argue for it. But we're not debating the BoM here. Do you have another example from the Bible?

[Isa 7:14 ESV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God is with us].[/i]

You misquoted the ESV. It's:

[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.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/isa/7/14/s_686014

Changing the words of the ESV doesn't strengthen your argument.

Are you saying that Syria and Israel didn't fall?

What I asked is where is the textual confirmation of someone named Immanuel?

Emmanuel, also spelled Immanuel, is as biblical as it gets – a gorgeous name meaning "God is with us."

Yes, it also means God is with us. And with Jesus, God is literally with us.

I don't think your point of Hilkiah is relevant. The point is not exact words are required in order to refer to a single thing. My point is since there is not exact wording, it can allow to refer to multiple things.

Then what other book could Shaphan have been reading to the king?

He found the book of the Law. I'm not claiming that passage is referring to two different things.

Who is the prophetess? How do we know she is a young unmarried woman?

The text doesn't say that she's unmarried. It says that she's young and pregnant.

Then what does alma mean if not a young unmarried female? All the usages of it refers to that:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

There's no instance of it referring to someone that's pregnant.

The word "almah" doesn't specify sexual state or marital status. It's Jews for Jesus doing the presuming here.

The meaning of alma is "young woman" and it infers nothing else.

See above.

I don't claim the two kings being referred to in the prophecy are Pekah and Rezin.

Then who do you claim they are?

As I stated before, the near fulfillment of it is, but the far fulfillment, in my opinion, the kings of Israel and Judah.

Even if it was a non-virgin, it's problematic for it to refer to an unmarried young woman and be fulfilled. There is no textual confirmation of a young unmarried woman naming her child Immanuel.

You're assuming that the young woman Isaiah is pointing out is unmarried.

It's inferred by all the usages of alma in the Bible. Where does it ever refer to a married woman?

But the main point I'm making is not the woman, but naming someone Immanuel. Again, there's no textual confirmation of it.

And how would a sign of a son born from an unmarried young woman who is not a virgin be a sign from God? Wouldn't this rather be a sign of fornication rather than a godly sign?

Good point.

That indicates that the pregnant alma being pointed out by Isaiah is married. Otherwise, Jehovah wouldn't be using her for a prophecy.

And as I've argued, this does not align with how alma is used everywhere else in the Bible.

My emphasis is not on someone being "called". My emphasis is on a separate text showing another person being referred to as Immanuel. Where in the Tanakh has this textual confirmation?

There is someone soon to be born in Isaiah's time whose mother will call him Immanuel. The Tanakh assigns that name to no one else.

Right, the Tanakh does not assign the name to anyone.

There's no Christian text that "disallows" the other sheep in John 10:16 from being Nephites. Do you believe that they were?

Do you have an example from the Bible and not from the BoM?

The continuity is interpreting a passage in multiple ways and more than just a single literal sense.

What's the difference between "interpreting a passage in multiple ways" and just making something up? How do you tell the difference?

There has to be supporting evidence.

The fall of Syria and Israel is a matter of historical record. Isaiah is clearly referring to that event in the passage above just before measuring the time to the downfall of Pekah and Rezin by the early life of a child whose mother will call him Immanuel.

Yes, I understand that argument.

The only other "Immanuel" you have to offer is the one proposed by the author of Matthew, and that "Immanuel" was born far too late for his early life to mark Pekah's and Rezin's fall. To disqualify the child born in Isaiah's time from being Immanuel, you have to strike the entire passage above from scripture because Pekah and Rezin are explicitly and exclusively the kings Isaiah is referring to.

That's why I go with a dual fulfillment. A single fulfillment does not satisfy who is Immanuel and who is the unmarried woman. And this is not a belief that is just made up by modern readers, but it is explicitly stated by Matthew.

Then by your logic, denying that the other sheep of John 10:16 are Nephites is just a Christian denial of a Mormon claim.

I'm not debating Mormons and their beliefs, so it's irrelevant.

It's certainly relative to whether Jesus was untemptable God or not.

And I've already addressed it and I'll let readers assess our arguments.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3271

Every Jewish scholar who rejects the messianic claim of Jesus argues that way.

Can you cite another that you're referring to with that interpretation?

There've been 2,000 years of Jewish scholars who have rejected the Christian narrative. Take your pick.

The paragraph markers are added there by interpretation. And the ESV, which is a widely used translation, has a lot of Biblical scholars represented:
https://www.esv.org/translation/review-scholars/

"The chapter and verse divisions were added to the Bible for the sake of convenience. There is no authoritative basis for the divisions we now find."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... verses.cfm

You're the one that brought up the other verses and implying Prov 30:15-17 is a single saying. As I've argued, it is not. Likewise, Prov 30:18-20 is not a single saying, but separate sayings.

I've pointed out the example-commentary pattern in the passage.


John 10:16 and 3 Nephi 15:21 are separate verses. Does that mean that the other sheep of John 10:16 are the Nephites of the Book of Mormon?

If someone wants to make that claim, they are free to argue for it. But we're not debating the BoM here. Do you have another example from the Bible?

Christians claim that Christian scripture is a continuation of the Tanakh. LDS claim that the Book of Mormon is a continuation of Christian scripture.

There's a Jewish joke:

Q: Why did God make Mormons?

A: To show Christians how Jews feel.


[Isa 7:14 ESV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God is with us].

You misquoted the ESV.

I quoted the book of Isaiah.

Changing the words of the ESV doesn't strengthen your argument.

Changing the definitions of the words of the book of Isaiah doesn't strengthen your argument.


Then what other book could Shaphan have been reading to the king?

He found the book of the Law. I'm not claiming that passage is referring to two different things.

Why not? Do you make that claim only when you don't like a passage referring to only one thing?

Then what does alma mean if not a young unmarried female?

It means a young female.

Remember Rebekah? The text specifically says that she is a virgin. That's why she's referred to as a betulah, not just an alma.

What I asked is where is the textual confirmation of someone named Immanuel?

And the Lord continued to speak to me further, saying: "Since this people has rejected the waters of the Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah, therefore behold the Lord is bringing up on them the mighty and massive waters of the river-the king of Assyria and all his wealth, and it will overflow all its distributaries and go over all its banks. And it will penetrate into Judah, overflowing as it passes through, up to the neck it will reach; and the tips of his wings will fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel."
(Isaiah 8:5-8)

Immanuel obviously lived in the time of the conquest by Assyria.

As I stated before, the near fulfillment of it is, but the far fulfillment, in my opinion, the kings of Israel and Judah.

The "far fulfillment" of your opinion would have to be in the time of Jesus. In the time of Jesus, "Israel and Judah" didn't have kings.


There's no Christian text that "disallows" the other sheep in John 10:16 from being Nephites. Do you believe that they were?

Do you have an example from the Bible and not from the BoM?

See the Jewish joke above.

That's why I go with a dual fulfillment. A single fulfillment does not satisfy who is Immanuel and who is the unmarried woman.

You seem to have latched onto the notion of the alma being "unmarried" because Jews for Jesus suggested it, but "alma" still refers only to a young female.

And a dual fulfillment introduces an earlier childbearing virgin.

It's inferred by all the usages of alma in the Bible.

I notice you employing a double standard. You insist on going by what's "inferred" when you want the text to infer a certain thing, but you reject what the text doesn't "explicitly" say when you don't like what it infers.


Then by your logic, denying that the other sheep of John 10:16 are Nephites is just a Christian denial of a Mormon claim.

I'm not debating Mormons and their beliefs, so it's irrelevant.

See Jewish joke above again.

[otseng]

Then how can Jews not be "hung up" on the Messiah if they are all expecting for the messianic age?

They don't tap their foot waiting.

Christians are not waiting either.

Since the Jews have been waiting for thousands of years, yes, it would be a waste of time to constantly fret when their Messiah would come since who knows how much longer they would have to wait.

You try to use what the Tanakh says to prove what Christian text says. I use what the Tanakh says to show what the Tanakh says.

Of course. Since the Tanakh is part of the Christian Bible, Christians can quote from it.

"Talmud contains rabbinic commentaries, traditions and laws couched in the Torah’s infinite wisdom.

Changing the highlighting does not remove "laws" from the sentence.

How could a higher standard than that be set?

[Mat 5:20 KJV] 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[Mat 5:21-22 KJV] 21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[Mat 5:27-28 KJV] 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

[Mat 5:31-32 KJV] 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

[Mat 5:33-34 KJV] 33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

[Mat 43-44 KJV] 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

And there was no need----or room----for Jesus to bring any amendments from heaven:

For this commandment which I command you this day is not hidden from you, nor is it far off. it is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?"
(Deut. 30:11-12)

Yes, Moses dictated the law of God so the people could have it.

The law didn't need any adding to, as Jesus inadvertently admits in Matthew 22:37-40.

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

In a sense, yes. Though the entire heart of the Tanakh is these two commandments, we see in the Tanakh itself many additional commandments that detail how to practically keep these two commands. Further, we see in the Jewish literature many additional texts added on top of that.

(Technically, Jesus doesn't even get the first commandment right. It's actually to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength.)

Correct, it's not technically the same, mind has also been added.

When that was written, there were no Christians. The Jews read it with the understanding that it referred to them, and it wasn't written to be misleading.

If Christians are grafted in, then it's not misleading. I do not subscribe to replacement theology and say the Jews are out and everything now is just about Christians.

Besides, when are men of the nations supposed to grab onto the skirts of Christians? Aren't Christians supposed to be persecuted until the time of the end?

Who are the ten people and how are they grabbing their skirts? Obviously this is metaphorical language being used here.

What the translators have done is take the phrase ילגרו ידי יראכ, which means, “Like a lion my hands and my feet,” and intentionally mistranslate יראכ to mean “pierced.”

We've debated this at length and will let readers decide which argument is stronger.

All we have is testimonial evidence.

Then there wasn't any sign that Jesus was born to a virgin, so that can't be what Isaiah was prophesying.

Who says everything needs to have a "sign"? What we have is the textual evidence that Mary was a virgin.

[Mat 1:18 KJV] 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

[Luk 1:27 KJV] 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

If Jesus had risen from the dead, then the textual evidence that he called the Jews to follow a god they didn't know means that Deuteronomy 13:1-3 would apply.

Here's Deut 13:2:

[Deu 13:2 KJV] 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

Jesus did not say to go after a different god. The God of the NT is the same God of the OT - Yahweh.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3273

Since the Tanakh is part of the Christian Bible, Christians can quote from it.

Christians claim the Tanakh as part of the Christian Bible.

LDS can claim the Christian Bible as part of their scripture just as easily, so they can quote from that.


"Talmud contains rabbinic commentaries, traditions and laws couched in the Torah’s infinite wisdom.

Changing the highlighting does not remove "laws" from the sentence.

It doesn't have to. The sentence explains that the Torah is the source of the rabbinic laws.


How could a higher standard than that be set?

[Mat 5:20 KJV] 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
(Matthew 23:2-7)

The teachers and Pharisees would have told people to keep the law of Moses without adding to it. Jesus tells people to do as the teachers say but not as they do, because they do it in a showy way.


For this commandment which I command you this day is not hidden from you, nor is it far off. it is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?"
(Deut. 30:11-12)

Yes, Moses dictated the law of God so the people could have it.

And told them that it was all the law they needed.


On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

In a sense, yes. Though the entire heart of the Tanakh is these two commandments, we see in the Tanakh itself many additional commandments that detail how to practically keep these two commands. Further, we see in the Jewish literature many additional texts added on top of that.

We see additional details, not additional commandments. And the details don't conflict with initial commandments, as "Do not swear at all" does.


(Technically, Jesus doesn't even get the first commandment right. It's actually to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength.)

Correct, it's not technically the same, mind has also been added.

Thus Jesus violates the law's command in Deut. 4:2 not to add to the law. And "mind" isn't just added; it replaces "strength", so Jesus demonstrates an ignorance of what the law actually says, because he's supposed to be quoting the law.

If Christians are grafted in, then it's not misleading.

Since Christians graft themselves in, the ingrafting counts for nothing.

I do not subscribe to replacement theology and say the Jews are out and everything now is just about Christians.

Then you have to admit that the new covenant is still promised to the Jews, and that their continuing to teach each other to "know the Lord" means that the new covenant has not been established.

Who are the ten people and how are they grabbing their skirts? Obviously this is metaphorical language being used here.

It's not being used for nothing. It's used as a prophecy that the Jews will be sought out as the ones who know the way to God.


What the translators have done is take the phrase ילגרו ידי יראכ, which means, “Like a lion my hands and my feet,” and intentionally mistranslate יראכ to mean “pierced.”

We've debated this at length and will let readers decide which argument is stronger.

Then I'll just remind readers of this:

First, assuming that the root of this Hebrew word is krh, "to dig," then the function of the 'aleph in the word ka-'ari is inexplicable since it is not part of the root. Karah consists only of the Hebrew letters kaph, resh, and he, whereas the word in the Hebrew text, ka-'ari, consists of kaph, 'aleph, resh, and yod. Second, the verb krh, "to dig," does not have the meaning "to pierce." Karah generally refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh (cf. Genesis 26:25; Exodus 21:33; Numbers 21:18; Jeremiah 18:20, 22; Psalms 7:16, 57:7). There are a number of words that are used in Hebrew for piercing the body: rats'a, "to pierce, "to bore with an awl" (Exodus 21:6); dakar, "to pierce" (Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 13:15); nakar, "to pierce," "to bore," "to perforate" (2 Kings 18:21). This last word is used in a very significant sense in the last verse cited: "It [the reed] will go into his hand and pierce it." Any of these words would be far better suited for use in this passage than one that is generally used to denote digging the soil.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ike-a-lion

This suggests that the Masoretic copies are reliable.


Then there wasn't any sign that Jesus was born to a virgin, so that can't be what Isaiah was prophesying.

Who says everything needs to have a "sign"?

That's just it. According to Matthew the virgin birth of Jesus was supposed to be a sign, but what good is a sign which needs a sign of its own in order for it to be evident? No one saw that Mary was a virgin while she was pregnant with Jesus, so his "virgin birth" couldn't be the sign it was supposed to be because it wasn't a sign at all. A sign has to be visible.

What we have is the textual evidence that Mary was a virgin.

What we have is a textual claim that Mary was a virgin, and that claim is based on a mistranslation in a non-messianic passage.

In 3 Nephi 15:21, Mormons have textual evidence that the other sheep in John 10:16 were Nephites. Their textual evidence is just as good as yours.

Jesus did not say to go after a different god. The God of the NT is the same God of the OT - Yahweh.

Yahweh didn't say, "Do not swear at all." Yahweh didn't say that Moses permitted the Israelites to divorce their wives for the hardness of their hearts. So whichever god Jesus was calling the Jews to follow, it couldn't have been the Yahweh who sanctioned swearing and divorce in the Torah.

[otseng]

Can you cite another that you're referring to with that interpretation?

There've been 2,000 years of Jewish scholars who have rejected the Christian narrative. Take your pick.

What I'm asking is for you to cite another Jewish scholar that has the same interpretation of Prov 30:20 as Tovia Singer:

Therefore, in the following verse (Proverbs 30:20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman “eats” (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual infidelity, “wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’” The word alma clearly does not mean a virgin.

https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/

Are you suggesting all Jewish scholars in the past 2000 years have this same interpretation of Prov 30:20?

The paragraph markers are added there by interpretation. And the ESV, which is a widely used translation, has a lot of Biblical scholars represented:
https://www.esv.org/translation/review-scholars/

"The chapter and verse divisions were added to the Bible for the sake of convenience. There is no authoritative basis for the divisions we now find."

Never said it was an authoritative basis. I only claim a highly respected translation of the Bible backed by scores of scholars renders it this way which counters your argument. And the only thing you've presented is an interpretation from a single Jewish source - Rabbi Singer.

You're the one that brought up the other verses and implying Prov 30:15-17 is a single saying. As I've argued, it is not. Likewise, Prov 30:18-20 is not a single saying, but separate sayings.

I've pointed out the example-commentary pattern in the passage.

I'll leave it up to the jury to decide whose evidence is stronger.

LDS claim that the Book of Mormon is a continuation of Christian scripture.

Such a claim is irrelevant in this thread.

Changing the definitions of the words of the book of Isaiah doesn't strengthen your argument.

Where have I changed a definition? As I've pointed out before, here's the definition of alma:

virgin (4x), maid (2x), damsels (1x).
virgin, young woman
of marriageable age
maid or newly married

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

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

Why not? Do you make that claim only when you don't like a passage referring to only one thing?

Again, it's not whether I simply like it or not. I've argued extensively already on the Isa 7:14 prophecy and the justification for the Christian interpretation. I'll let the jury assess the arguments.

Remember Rebekah? The text specifically says that she is a virgin. That's why she's referred to as a betulah, not just an alma.

Here's the verse:

[Gen 24:16 KJV] 16 And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin(betula), neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

Damsel in the above verse is na'ara. This is a young woman that can either be a virgin or a non-virgin.

girl, damsel, female servant
girl, damsel, little girl
of young woman, marriageable young woman, concubine, prostitute
maid, female attendant, female servant

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

Alma is used later in the chapter, which is a repeat of verse 16 about meeting Rebekah, which confirms alma and betulah are equivalent.

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

Immanuel obviously lived in the time of the conquest by Assyria.

Yes, it could be a near fulfillment of the prophecy. But again it is unclear who is named Immanuel. Who do you think is Immanuel?

The "far fulfillment" of your opinion would have to be in the time of Jesus. In the time of Jesus, "Israel and Judah" didn't have kings.

Yes, the land was forsaken by the kings by that time.

You seem to have latched onto the notion of the alma being "unmarried" because Jews for Jesus suggested it, but "alma" still refers only to a young female.

Which most, if not all, would be virgins.

And a dual fulfillment introduces an earlier childbearing virgin.

Who are you referring to?

It's inferred by all the usages of alma in the Bible.

I notice you employing a double standard. You insist on going by what's "inferred" when you want the text to infer a certain thing, but you reject what the text doesn't "explicitly" say when you don't like what it infers.

The Bible is written with both explicit statements and implicit statements. So, it's not a double standard to interpret such passages either explicitly or through an inference.

And accusing me of a double standard does not address my question - Where does it ever refer to a married woman?

[otseng]

LDS can claim the Christian Bible as part of their scripture just as easily, so they can quote from that.

So, the fundamental issue is on what authority can Christians claim the New Testament is also scripture? The basis is the NT is the most reliable records of Jesus that we have. They are early, with most dating to within a few decades of Jesus's life. And the next issue is what's so special about Jesus? What is unique about him is his resurrection from the dead and the fulfillment of prophecies from the Tanakh.

The sentence explains that the Torah is the source of the rabbinic laws.

And so is Jesus's teachings.

The teachers and Pharisees would have told people to keep the law of Moses without adding to it.

Don't know what you mean. The Jewish teachers have added to the written Torah with the Mishnah, Midrash, and the Talmud.

And told them that it was all the law they needed.

I don't think the Jewish view of the Torah is such a static view that you're presenting. There is an entire tradition to add, expand, and even subtract from the Torah. By your own admission the Jews don't believe the sacrificial system is necessary anymore. So are Jews fully obeying the Torah?

We see additional details, not additional commandments. And the details don't conflict with initial commandments, as "Do not swear at all" does.

Here's the passage:
[Mat 5:33 ESV] 33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'

There is no commandment that says if you're going to perform something to God, you must swear that you'd do it. So, there is no conflict. His point was addressing people trying to give an excuse for not doing something because they did not swear to do it, even though they said they'd do it.

Thus Jesus violates the law's command in Deut. 4:2 not to add to the law.

I think you're the only one that has this literal view. Not even the Jews have this view.

The Torah has 79,976 words in it.

The Nevi'im and the Ketuvim were added to the Torah.
Nevi'im has around 141,414 words
Ketuvim has around 83,640 words

http://www.torahtots.com/torah/tanach_facts.htm

The Talmud, which is authoritative for Jews, contains over 1.8 million words.

Wolkenfeld herself was finishing her own study of the entire Talmud, and intrigued, got her computer programmers on it. It took them “eight minutes of work and fifteen lines of code” to come up with the answer: 1,860,131 words.

https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrown ... ian-talmud

In English, the Old Testament contains around 622,700 words, whereas the New Testament contains around 184,600 words.
https://wordcounter.net/blog/2016/02/21 ... bible.html

So, relatively speaking, the Jews have added a lot more than Christians.

Then you have to admit that the new covenant is still promised to the Jews, and that their continuing to teach each other to "know the Lord" means that the new covenant has not been established.

The issue is what is the Tanakh pointing to? An upcoming Messiah that comes in the messianic age or Yeshua Hamashiach? We've been discussing the prophecies of Isa 52-53, Isa 7, and Psalm 22. These are just some of the fulfilled prophecies that are stated by the New Testament.

Who are the ten people and how are they grabbing their skirts? Obviously this is metaphorical language being used here.

It's not being used for nothing. It's used as a prophecy that the Jews will be sought out as the ones who know the way to God.

Sure, it means something, but it doesn't have to be interpreted literally since it's metaphorical.

[Zec 8:22-23 KJV] 22 Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD. 23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days [it shall come to pass], that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard [that] God [is] with you.

No one saw that Mary was a virgin while she was pregnant with Jesus, so his "virgin birth" couldn't be the sign it was supposed to be because it wasn't a sign at all. A sign has to be visible.

Sure, it's not "visible", but it was testimonial. Not all evidence is visible.

What we have is the textual evidence that Mary was a virgin.

What we have is a textual claim that Mary was a virgin, and that claim is based on a mistranslation in a non-messianic passage.

Well, that's what the Jews claim. But I'll leave it up to readers to assess our arguments.

In 3 Nephi 15:21, Mormons have textual evidence that the other sheep in John 10:16 were Nephites. Their textual evidence is just as good as yours.

If Mormons want to create a 329 page+ thread on the authority of the BoM, they are free to do so.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3275

What I'm asking is for you to cite another Jewish scholar that has the same interpretation of Prov 30:20 as Tovia Singer:

Michael Skobac


21:01-22:53

Are you suggesting all Jewish scholars in the past 2000 years have this same interpretation of Prov 30:20?

All Jewish scholars in the past 2,000 years have known that alma doesn't mean "virgin".


LDS claim that the Book of Mormon is a continuation of Christian scripture.

Such a claim is irrelevant in this thread.

If the Book of Mormon is irrelevant in relation to the Christian Bible, then the Christian Bible is irrelevant in relation to the Tanakh.

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

Then the young woman who gave birth to Immanuel shortly before the conquest by Assyria may have been a virgin.

[Gen 24:16 KJV] 16 And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin(betula), neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

Damsel in the above verse is na'ara. This is a young woman that can either be a virgin or a non-virgin.

That's why the author specifies Rebekah's virginity with the word betulah.

Alma is used later in the chapter, which is a repeat of verse 16 about meeting Rebekah, which confirms alma and betulah are equivalent.

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

How was the servant supposed to know when a virgin came to draw water? Did Rebekah have a copy of her latest gynocological exam with her?

That's why the word betulah is used in the only place in the passage where Rebekah's virginity is mentioned [verse 16]. If alma meant "virgin", the author wouldn't have had to add the word betulah to tell the reader that Rebekah was a virgin.

Verse 43 doesn't repeat verse 16. It repeats verse 14:

And let it come to pass, that the damsel (na'ara) to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink;

When verse 14 is repeated in verse 43, the author uses the word "alma" to replace the word na'ara, not to replace the word "betulah". Alma and na'ara both mean "girl". Only betulah means "virgin".

"Alma" and "betulah" are not equivalent.


Immanuel obviously lived in the time of the conquest by Assyria.

Yes, it could be a near fulfillment of the prophecy.

Then you're admitting that Immanuel was born to a woman who was not a virgin.

But again it is unclear who is named Immanuel. Who do you think is Immanuel?

Immanuel was born shortly before the conquest by Assyria. The kingdoms of Pekah and Rezin were conquered by Assyria. Pekah and Rezin were the kings Ahaz feared. Isaiah was sent to calm Ahaz's fear. To calm Ahaz's fear, Isaiah assured Ahaz that the kings he feared [Pekah and Rezin] would fall before a child soon to be born was able to know good from bad. That child's mother would call him Immanuel.

It all fits together.


The "far fulfillment" of your opinion would have to be in the time of Jesus. In the time of Jesus, "Israel and Judah" didn't have kings.

Yes, the land was forsaken by the kings by that time.

Which would make the birth of Jesus a ridiculous thing for Isaiah to prophesy to Ahaz. Foretelling that two kings in the present will be gone by the time a child is born 700 years in the future is a tautology, not a prophecy.


And a dual fulfillment introduces an earlier childbearing virgin.

Who are you referring to?

The mother of Immanuel, mentioned above.

The Bible is written with both explicit statements and implicit statements. So, it's not a double standard to interpret such passages either explicitly or through an inference.

The Bible may include explicit and implicit statements, but that doesn't mean you get to pick and choose which is which. For example----In Isaiah 7:1-2, Pekah and Rezin are explicitly identified as the kings Ahaz fears. Verse 16 mentions the two kings of the land Ahaz fears again, which explicitly identifies them as the same two kings mentioned earlier, so you don't get to swap them out for two amorphous, unnamed kings just because Pekah and Rezin aren't referred to by name again, especially since they were named again in verses 7-9. They're still the two kings Ahaz fears, so it's still them.

And accusing me of a double standard does not address my question - Where does it ever refer to a married woman?

48:47-49:20


The sentence explains that the Torah is the source of the rabbinic laws.

And so is Jesus's teachings.

The Torah doesn't teach, "Do not swear at all." The Torah doesn't teach that Moses permitted the Israelites to divorce their wives for their "hardness of heart".

The Jewish teachers have added to the written Torah with the Mishnah, Midrash, and the Talmud.

Again, the Jewish teachers have added commentary, not commandments.

By your own admission the Jews don't believe the sacrificial system is necessary anymore.

What I pointed out is that the Jews don't believe the sacrificial system is necessary while they don't have a temple.

There is no commandment that says if you're going to perform something to God, you must swear that you'd do it.

True, but irrelevant. The commandment is that if you swear to do something, you must do it.

There is no commandment not to swear at all.

The Nevi'im and the Ketuvim were added to the Torah.

Again, the Nevi'im and Ketuvim are additional scripture, not additional commandment.

The Torah has 79,976 words in it.

141,414 words

83,640 words

1,860,131 words

622,700 words

184,600 words

So, relatively speaking, the Jews have added a lot more than Christians.

It's already been pointed out that the Jews added commentary and not commandments, so this word count is a red herring which makes no point at all.

The issue is what is the Tanakh pointing to? An upcoming Messiah that comes in the messianic age or Yeshua Hamashiach? We've been discussing the prophecies of Isa 52-53, Isa 7, and Psalm 22. These are just some of the fulfilled prophecies that are stated by the New Testament.

These are just some of the prophecies which you claim were fulfilled by Jesus (they aren't even all messianic prophecies, and some of it isn't prophecy at all).


It's not being used for nothing. It's used as a prophecy that the Jews will be sought out as the ones who know the way to God.

Sure, it means something, but it doesn't have to be interpreted literally since it's metaphorical.

It contains a metaphorical image, but what it's prophesying is meant to be taken literally. It can literally be read to say, "Ten men from all the languages of the nations will follow after a Jew.....".


No one saw that Mary was a virgin while she was pregnant with Jesus, so his "virgin birth" couldn't be the sign it was supposed to be because it wasn't a sign at all. A sign has to be visible.

Sure, it's not "visible", but it was testimonial. Not all evidence is visible.

Then Isaiah definitely isn't talking about Jesus. He doesn't say to Ahaz, "The Lord on his own will give you a testimonial.....".

When you drive along any given stretch of road, do you rely on testimonials on what the speed limit is, or do you look for a speed limit sign?

If it isn't visible, it isn't a sign.


What we have is a textual claim that Mary was a virgin, and that claim is based on a mistranslation in a non-messianic passage.

Well, that's what the Jews claim. But I'll leave it up to readers to assess our arguments.

Remembering, I assume, that a lot of readers are Jews.


In 3 Nephi 15:21, Mormons have textual evidence that the other sheep in John 10:16 were Nephites. Their textual evidence is just as good as yours.

If Mormons want to create a 329 page+ thread on the authority of the BoM, they are free to do so.

lf they did, how would you argue against their textual evidence?

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3275

What I'm asking is for you to cite another Jewish scholar that has the same interpretation of Prov 30:20 as Tovia Singer:

Michael Skobac

21:01-22:53

Rabbi Skobac does mention Prov 30:18-19, but he does not mention Prov 30:20, which is what I'm asking.

If the Book of Mormon is irrelevant in relation to the Christian Bible, then the Christian Bible is irrelevant in relation to the Tanakh.

The entire point of this thread is to debate the authority of the Christian Bible. So, it is the Christian Bible that is relevant, not the BoM.

Then the young woman who gave birth to Immanuel shortly before the conquest by Assyria may have been a virgin.

And the question is then who is this young woman?

That's why the author specifies Rebekah's virginity with the word betulah.

Yes.

How was the servant supposed to know when a virgin came to draw water? Did Rebekah have a copy of her latest gynocological exam with her?

The same applies to verse Gen 24:16. If you accept verse 16, then you cannot question verse 43 about her virginity.

Verse 43 doesn't repeat verse 16. It repeats verse 14:

It's all related and referring to Rebekah. The words betula and alma are referring to Rebekah as the one who was at the well and drew water. Betula is in verse 16 and alma is in verse 43.

Alma and na'ara both mean "girl". Only betulah means "virgin".

Actually, it can be interpreted to be the reverse. In verse 16:

[Gen 24:16 KJV] 16 And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin (betula), neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

When betula is mentioned, it immediately says "neither had any man known her". If betula always means virgin, it is pointless to explain to readers what does a virgin mean. But if it simply means a young women, then it might mean she was not a virgin. So it then clarifies by stating no man has had sex with her.

Does it make any sense if I say, "She is a virgin, neither had anyone had sex with her."? It would make more sense as, "She is a young girl, neither had anyone had sex with her."

In verse 43, it does not give the parenthetical comment about no man has known her, So alma would automatically convey virginity without the need to comment "neither had any man known her".

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

Yes, it could be a near fulfillment of the prophecy.

Then you're admitting that Immanuel was born to a woman who was not a virgin.

I said it could be. I do not claim to know either who is Immanuel or who was his mother, so it's unclear exactly how this had a near fulfillment.

That child's mother would call him Immanuel.

And who is the child's mother?

Foretelling that two kings in the present will be gone by the time a child is born 700 years in the future is a tautology, not a prophecy.

When the prophecy was spoken, none of the kings were out of power, whether the kings of Israel and Damascus or the kings of Israel and Judah.

And a dual fulfillment introduces an earlier childbearing virgin.

Who are you referring to?

The mother of Immanuel, mentioned above.

Now that's a tautology, the mother of Immanuel is the mother of Immanuel. I'm asking specifically who is Immanuel's mother? You have several candidates to choose from: the prophetess that Isaiah impregnated or one of Ahaz's wife.

The Bible may include explicit and implicit statements, but that doesn't mean you get to pick and choose which is which.

Does Isa 7:16 explicitly or implicitly say who are the two kings?

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

Where does it ever refer to a married woman?

48:47-49:20

That is a circular argument. You can't say alma means a married woman and then provide a married woman to prove alma is a married woman.

Now Skobac makes a good point here. The text says "the alma". If it was "the virgin", it would make more sense to refer to Mary since she's the only human female to have a virgin birth. If it was "the young woman", what would that mean?

The Torah doesn't teach that Moses permitted the Israelites to divorce their wives for their "hardness of heart".

Jesus was explaining why it was allowed.

Again, the Jewish teachers have added commentary, not commandments.

I don't know about that. Orthodox Jews follow many traditions from the writings outside the Torah as I've outlined. They are not just suggestions, but things they must follow.

What I pointed out is that the Jews don't believe the sacrificial system is necessary while they don't have a temple.

Yes, you've pointed that out. But it does not rule out the fact they are not following the Torah.

In addition, they aren't even following the pilgrimage feasts anymore. Of course they can't since there is no temple anymore, but it's another example.

But an example that is not related to the temple is Ex 31:15. Are the Jews executing anyone for violating the Sabbath rest?

[Exo 31:15 KJV] 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

There is no commandment that says if you're going to perform something to God, you must swear that you'd do it.

True, but irrelevant. The commandment is that if you swear to do something, you must do it.

Then your entire argument is likewise irrelevant. Jesus is not countermanding any commandment here.

The Nevi'im and the Ketuvim were added to the Torah.

Again, the Nevi'im and Ketuvim are additional scripture, not additional commandment.

It's arguable Jesus was giving additional commandments. Rather, he was pointing out existing commandments and addressing the heart of them.

So, relatively speaking, the Jews have added a lot more than Christians.

It's already been pointed out that the Jews added commentary and not commandments, so this word count is a red herring which makes no point at all.

The Jews have a lot of things they must follow that are not in the Torah. So, whether you want to call them commandments or not, they are following them.

It can literally be read to say, "Ten men from all the languages of the nations will follow after a Jew.....".

Don't know if "ten men" can be taken literally either.

Then Isaiah definitely isn't talking about Jesus. He doesn't say to Ahaz, "The Lord on his own will give you a testimonial.....".

The testimony itself is not the sign, but it's confirmation of the sign. Mary and Joseph testified to the sign of her virginity.

Remembering, I assume, that a lot of readers are Jews.

I don't know about "a lot", but yes, I'm debating from the perspective of addressing Jews in particular. Christians already accept what I'm claiming, so there's no need to address them.

If Mormons want to create a 329 page+ thread on the authority of the BoM, they are free to do so.

lf they did, how would you argue against their textual evidence?

Irrelevant again. I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole of debating the BoM.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3278

Rabbi Skobac does mention Prov 30:18-19, but he does not mention Prov 30:20, which is what I'm asking.

Yes, he does.
22:44-22:48

The entire point of this thread is to debate the authority of the Christian Bible. So, it is the Christian Bible that is relevant, not the BoM.

I'm pointing out that Mormons can use the exact same rationale which you're using.


Then the young woman who gave birth to Immanuel shortly before the conquest by Assyria may have been a virgin.

And the question is then who is this young woman?

Who she was doesn't really matter. What matters is that since she gave birth before the conquest of Syria and Israel by Assyria, she wasn't Mary and so the child Immanuel wasn't Jesus.

The same applies to verse Gen 24:16. If you accept verse 16, then you cannot question verse 43 about her virginity.

Verse 16 is the only place where she's identified as a virgin.

It's all related and referring to Rebekah. The words betula and alma are referring to Rebekah as the one who was at the well and drew water. Betula is in verse 16 and alma is in verse 43.

"Alma" identifies her as a young woman and "betulah" identifies the young woman as a virgin.

When betula is mentioned, it immediately says "neither had any man known her". If betula always means virgin, it is pointless to explain to readers what does a virgin mean. But if it simply means a young women, then it might mean she was not a virgin. So it then clarifies by stating no man has had sex with her.

Does it make any sense if I say, "She is a virgin, neither had anyone had sex with her."? It would make more sense as, "She is a young girl, neither had anyone had sex with her."

"Neither had any man known her" is the antique language of the KJV. It isn't adding information; it's a literary device repeating what has already been said.

And he said, Lo, it is yet high day, neither is it time that the cattle should be gathered together:
(Genesis 29:7)

If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
(Exodus 22:25)

And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
(Leviticus 2:13)

"Neither had any man known her" is just repeating that the young woman is a betulah.

In verse 43, it does not give the parenthetical comment about no man has known her, So alma would automatically convey virginity without the need to comment "neither had any man known her".

"Alma" in verse 43 doesn't have to convey virginity because Rebekah's virginity was already specified with the word "betulah" in verse 16.


Then you're admitting that Immanuel was born to a woman who was not a virgin.

I said it could be. I do not claim to know either who is Immanuel or who was his mother, so it's unclear exactly how this had a near fulfillment.

Chapters 7 and 8 are all about its fulfillment.


That child's mother would call him Immanuel.

And who is the child's mother?

The young woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz while they're talking. She is in their presence at the time.


Foretelling that two kings in the present will be gone by the time a child is born 700 years in the future is a tautology, not a prophecy.

When the prophecy was spoken, none of the kings were out of power, whether the kings of Israel and Damascus or the kings of Israel and Judah.

The prophecy was that the two kings Ahaz dreaded [Pekah and Rezin] would be out of power in very short order.


And a dual fulfillment introduces an earlier childbearing virgin.

Who are you referring to?

The mother of Immanuel, mentioned above.

Now that's a tautology, the mother of Immanuel is the mother of Immanuel.

No tautology. I'm pointing out that if the alma pointed out by Isaiah is to be the mother of Immanuel and "alma" means "virgin", the young woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz must be an earlier childbearing virgin.

I'm asking specifically who is Immanuel's mother? You have several candidates to choose from: the prophetess that Isaiah impregnated or one of Ahaz's wife.

And I've pointed out that it doesn't matter which of those two it is since neither of them is the mother of Jesus.

Does Isa 7:16 explicitly or implicitly say who are the two kings?

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

It explicitly identifies the land of the two kings as the land Ahaz abhors [dreads]. The land he dreads is the Syria-Israel alliance, whose kings are Pekah and Rezin.

Where does it ever refer to a married woman?

48:47-49:20

That is a circular argument. You can't say alma means a married woman and then provide a married woman to prove alma is a married woman.

You yourself pointed out that a pregnant woman who wasn't married wouldn't be a very godly sign.

Now Skobac makes a good point here. The text says "the alma". If it was "the virgin", it would make more sense to refer to Mary since she's the only human female to have a virgin birth.

Circular argument. You use the assumption that Mary gave birth as a virgin to argue that Isaiah was stating that a virgin would give birth.

If it was "the young woman", what would that mean?

It would mean----and does mean----that Isaiah was directing Ahaz's attention to a young woman who was present at the time.


The Torah doesn't teach that Moses permitted the Israelites to divorce their wives for their "hardness of heart".

Jesus was explaining why it was allowed.

Not according to Moses.

And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them;
(Deuteronomy 1:3)

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
(Dt. 4:2)

If Moses commanded them according to all that Jehovah had given him in commandment and Moses allowed them to divorce their wives, then Jehovah himself must have allowed them to divorce their wives and commanded that no law against that allowance be added, which means that Jesus's "explanation" was wrong.


Again, the Jewish teachers have added commentary, not commandments.

I don't know about that. Orthodox Jews follow many traditions from the writings outside the Torah as I've outlined. They are not just suggestions, but things they must follow.

You've outlined the Talmud, the Midrash and the Mishnah, and I've cited sources pointing out that they're rooted in the Torah.

But an example that is not related to the temple is Ex 31:15. Are the Jews executing anyone for violating the Sabbath rest?

Jews living around the world aren't in the "promised land", and that's where they were to establish their laws (Deut. 6:1). And the state of Israel not observing Torah commandments indicates that the ultimate prophetic return has not been fulfilled.

(As for the morality of such a harsh law, that's another debate.)


The commandment is that if you swear to do something, you must do it.

Then your entire argument is likewise irrelevant. Jesus is not countermanding any commandment here.

Yes, he is.

"But I say to you, do not swear at all"

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you
(Deut. 4:2)

It's arguable Jesus was giving additional commandments. Rather, he was pointing out existing commandments and addressing the heart of them.

The heart of

Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. (Deut. 6:13)

isn't

"Do not swear at all".

The Jews have a lot of things they must follow that are not in the Torah. So, whether you want to call them commandments or not, they are following them.

If "a lot of things" aren't in the Talmud, the Mishnah or the Midrash, which have their basis in the Torah, where are those things?

Besides, Jesus didn't live during the diaspora and thus didn't have the rabbinical teachings to deal with. He had the Torah, and his teaching on the Torah was contradictory. Even if the rabbis are deviating from the Torah, which is questionable, using that as an excuse for Jesus violating the Torah in his day is a Tu Quoque argument at best.


It can literally be read to say, "Ten men from all the languages of the nations will follow after a Jew.....".

Don't know if "ten men" can be taken literally either.

Ten men can't follow a single person?

"Ten" could indicate a group average.


Then Isaiah definitely isn't talking about Jesus. He doesn't say to Ahaz, "The Lord on his own will give you a testimonial.....".

The testimony itself is not the sign, but it's confirmation of the sign.

A sign can be seen, so it doesn't need "confirmation".

Mary and Joseph testified to the sign of her virginity.

If it were a sign, no testimony would have been needed. It could have been seen.

Joseph thought that Mary had just been unfaithful (he obviously didn't believe that Isaiah had prophesied a virgin giving birth). His only "confirmation" was having a dream about an angel telling him that Mary was still a virgin. Given the nature of dreams, that counts for nothing. And even if an angel did appear to Joseph, the appearance would be necessary only because there wasn't a sign.

Mary was the only one who would have directly experienced being pregnant while still a virgin, and no one would have accepted such a claim on the word of only one witness. If there was no way to tell that Mary was still a virgin, then there was no sign of a virgin birth. If there was a way to tell, Mary and Joseph never took advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate Mary's post-conception virginity, and again there was no sign of a virgin birth.

The sign was promised to Ahaz, who lived 700 years earlier. The sign was to be a portent of the downfall of Pekah and Rezin, and is never said in the text of Isaiah to be a sign of anything else.

[otseng]

Rabbi Skobac does mention Prov 30:18-19, but he does not mention Prov 30:20, which is what I'm asking.

Yes, he does.
22:44-22:48

At 22:44, he's talking about Mary and Joseph.

The entire point of this thread is to debate the authority of the Christian Bible. So, it is the Christian Bible that is relevant, not the BoM.

I'm pointing out that Mormons can use the exact same rationale which you're using.

The difference is I've been arguing for the past hundreds of pages on why the Bible is authoritative. I've been presenting evidence why the Old Testament is reliable and evidence why the New Testament is reliable. Now I'm arguing for the linkage between the OT and the NT through the fulfillment of prophecy.

And the question is then who is this young woman?

Who she was doesn't really matter. What matters is that since she gave birth before the conquest of Syria and Israel by Assyria, she wasn't Mary and so the child Immanuel wasn't Jesus.

And the answer is we don't really know. So, if we don't know, then how do we know it's had a near fulfillment? Whereas with the far fulfillment, we do know. So, it's more reasonable to accept a far fulfillment than a near fulfillment.

The same applies to verse Gen 24:16. If you accept verse 16, then you cannot question verse 43 about her virginity.

Verse 16 is the only place where she's identified as a virgin.

That's what we're debating. Asserting it doesn't make it so.

"Neither had any man known her" is the antique language of the KJV.

Even in the Orthodox Jewish Bible it uses "neither":

Gen 24:16 And the na’arah was tovat mareh me’od, a betulah, neither had any ish known her: and she went down to haayenah (the spring), and filled her jug, and came up.

It isn't adding information; it's a literary device repeating what has already been said.

Yes, the Bible often repeats. But it's interesting this phrase "neither had any man known her" is only after "betulah", but not found after "alma". This would imply alma has a stronger connotation of a virgin than betulah since it did not have a parenthetical repeating explanation.

"Alma" in verse 43 doesn't have to convey virginity because Rebekah's virginity was already specified with the word "betulah" in verse 16.

I argue otherwise. But even with this, alma is still referring to someone that is a virgin. There is no example in the Bible of alma referring to a non-virgin, except for the claim that Prov 30:19 is an adulteress.

I said it could be. I do not claim to know either who is Immanuel or who was his mother, so it's unclear exactly how this had a near fulfillment.

Chapters 7 and 8 are all about its fulfillment.

That's your claim, but many things are ambiguous so it's not totally clear.

First off, Ahaz declined for a sign. So why should the sign necessarily be for him?

[Isa 7:11-12 KJV] 11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

Since it was a sign, there's nothing special about a young woman (who is not a virgin) having a child. But if it was a virgin, then that would be a special sign.

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

We don't know who specifically is named Immanuel. And we don't know specifically who is the alma. We don't even know the significance of "God is with us" since it's more like God has left them since all of Israel and most of Judah was conquered by the Assyrians.

Another thing is in verse 16, land is singular, not plural.

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

Why would a single land be attributed to two foreign kings? Especially when they are kings of Israel and Syria?

And who is the child's mother?

The young woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz while they're talking. She is in their presence at the time.

This is just a hypothetical person that you're proposing.

I'm pointing out that if the alma pointed out by Isaiah is to be the mother of Immanuel and "alma" means "virgin", the young woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz must be an earlier childbearing virgin.

And we don't know who that person was. Another reason it's not clear the prophecy had a near fulfillment in addition to what I mentioned above.

I'm asking specifically who is Immanuel's mother? You have several candidates to choose from: the prophetess that Isaiah impregnated or one of Ahaz's wife.

And I've pointed out that it doesn't matter which of those two it is since neither of them is the mother of Jesus.

I'm giving you candidates for a near fulfillment, which is what you claim it had. My claim is it had a far fulfillment and Mary would be my answer.

Does Isa 7:16 explicitly or implicitly say who are the two kings?

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

It explicitly identifies the land of the two kings as the land Ahaz abhors [dreads]. The land he dreads is the Syria-Israel alliance, whose kings are Pekah and Rezin.

Again, you did not answer my question. The answer is it implicitly says who the two kings are. It does not explicitly say who the two kings are. So I'm justified in my interpretation since it's not explicit.

Where does it ever refer to a married woman?

48:47-49:20

What he says is, "It is either the wife of the prophet or the wife of the king." This interpretation is based on the assumption alma is not a virgin. So, it's not evidence because it's simply affirming the assumption.

You yourself pointed out that a pregnant woman who wasn't married wouldn't be a very godly sign.

If she was not a virgin then it would not be a godly sign. But if she was a virgin, then it can be a godly sign.

You use the assumption that Mary gave birth as a virgin to argue that Isaiah was stating that a virgin would give birth.

There's no assumption on my part. It's what the NT text explicitly says.

[Luk 1:27 KJV] 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

If it was "the young woman", what would that mean?

It would mean----and does mean----that Isaiah was directing Ahaz's attention to a young woman who was present at the time.

Which is a hypothetical woman in your case. Who exactly is she?

commanded that no law against that allowance be added, which means that Jesus's "explanation" was wrong.

This is what we're debating. Is your strict legalistic view of the Torah correct or the spirit of the Torah which Jesus espoused correct?

I don't know about that. Orthodox Jews follow many traditions from the writings outside the Torah as I've outlined. They are not just suggestions, but things they must follow.

You've outlined the Talmud, the Midrash and the Mishnah, and I've cited sources pointing out that they're rooted in the Torah.

Of course it's all rooted in the Torah. Nobody is disputing that. But my point is even the Jews have been adding and subtracting things that they follow to the Torah.

But an example that is not related to the temple is Ex 31:15. Are the Jews executing anyone for violating the Sabbath rest?

Jews living around the world aren't in the "promised land", and that's where they were to establish their laws (Deut. 6:1). And the state of Israel not observing Torah commandments indicates that the ultimate prophetic return has not been fulfilled.

Don't get your point. It doesn't matter where a Jew lives. An orthodox Jew should be following all of their traditions (Torah, Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud) wherever they live.

(As for the morality of such a harsh law, that's another debate.)

You didn't answer the question. Are they executing anyone or not for breaking the Sabbath? And since you won't answer this either, the answer is no. So, even the Jews are not literally and legalistically following the Torah.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you[/i]
(Deut. 4:2)

Then likewise the Jews are guilty of what you're claiming.

Even if the rabbis are deviating from the Torah, which is questionable, using that as an excuse for Jesus violating the Torah in his day is a Tu Quoque argument at best.

I'm pointing out the inconsistency with your interpretation. You can't just apply it to Jesus and then give all the Jews a pass. This would be special pleading.

Actually, I agree with the Jews in that the Torah is not just a strict legal document. It is much more than that.

I'm not claiming anybody is deviating from the Torah. But there is liberty in the interpretation. The Talmud itself is a testament to this since it contains multiple interpretations of the Torah.

It can literally be read to say, "Ten men from all the languages of the nations will follow after a Jew.....".

Don't know if "ten men" can be taken literally either.

Ten men can't follow a single person?

"Ten" could indicate a group average.

What if only 9 men followed a Jew? Or 10,000 men followed a Jew? Would it matter? No. There's no need to take it literally.

Mary and Joseph testified to the sign of her virginity.

If it were a sign, no testimony would have been needed. It could have been seen.

There is no requirement a sign being fulfilled requires someone to see it with their eyes. How would a blind person know if a sign was fulfilled?

Joseph thought that Mary had just been unfaithful (he obviously didn't believe that Isaiah had prophesied a virgin giving birth). His only "confirmation" was having a dream about an angel telling him that Mary was still a virgin. Given the nature of dreams, that counts for nothing. And even if an angel did appear to Joseph, the appearance would be necessary only because there wasn't a sign.

Mary was the only one who would have directly experienced being pregnant while still a virgin, and no one would have accepted such a claim on the word of only one witness. If there was no way to tell that Mary was still a virgin, then there was no sign of a virgin birth. If there was a way to tell, Mary and Joseph never took advantage of the opportunity to demonstrate Mary's post-conception virginity, and again there was no sign of a virgin birth.

What other options are there besides their testimony being true? I guess it could be possible Mary and Joseph were just making it all up as an elaborate hoax to cover up Mary slipping into infidelity.

The sign was promised to Ahaz, who lived 700 years earlier. The sign was to be a portent of the downfall of Pekah and Rezin, and is never said in the text of Isaiah to be a sign of anything else.

Why should a sign be promised to Ahaz if he refused to have a sign from God?