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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3281

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #0
At 22:44, he's talking about Mary and Joseph.
It's in part 2:




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.
Do you think Mormons would do any different? The thing is, they can graft the Book of Mormon onto the Christian Bible just like you can graft the Christian Bible onto the Tanakh.

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.
We know from the text that Immanuel was to be born before the conquest of Syria and Israel by Assyria. The "near" fulfillment gives us the names if the two kings who are to fall: Pekah and Rezin. You propose two other kings but, since we don't know who they would be, it's more reasonable to accept the "near" fulfillment as the only fulfillment.

You're trying to argue that since we can't know for sure whether Immanuel was born to the wife of the prophet or to the wife of the king, he must have been born to Mary 700 years after the event which his early life was supposed to foreshadow. That's completely illogical and nothing more than wishful thinking.

Even in the Orthodox Jewish Bible it uses "neither
And it's the same literary device.

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.
It doesn't come after alma because it doesn't signify what alma means. It signifies what betulah means. That's why it comes after betulah. Alma in verse 43 doesn't need a repetition of virginity because Rebekah's virginity was established in verse 16 with the term betulah, and that term got the repetition because that's the term which means "virgin".

Alma in verse 43 is describing what Rebekah will be doing, so it would make no sense for there to be a repetitive explanation after alma. Verse 16 is describing Rebekah herself, and betulah ["virgin"] is part of her description.

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.
And the mother of Immanuel in Isaiah 7.

Ahaz declined for a sign. So why should the sign necessarily be for him?
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;

We don't know who specifically is named Immanuel.
We do know specifically that Immanuel was to be born before the fall of Syria and Israel to Assyria (Isaiah 7:14-16, 8:7-8).

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.
This was refuted WAY back, but I'll refute it again to refresh everyone's memory.

There's nothing special about two invading kings being gone (this is the only thing being foretold) by the time a child is born 700 years later. The special sign was to be that they would fall within the early life of a child to be born soon.

And the "sign" of a virgin giving birth isn't a sign at all when no one can see that the woman is a virgin when she gives birth.

Another thing is in verse 16, land is singular, not plural.
The "land" is the alliance between Syria and Israel. It's clear that the "land" consists of two lands because it has 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.

Why would a single land be attributed to two foreign kings?
That is indeed the question. What single land would have two kings?

It's obvious that two lands are being referred to. They were one "land" in that they were united in an alliance. And it hardly seems accidental that Isaiah and Ahaz have just been discussing two kings: Pekah and Rezin.


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.
Then who gives birth to the child who won't know right from wrong before Pekah and Rezin----the only two kings being discussed----fall?

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.
If Immanuel's birth isn't foretold to precede the fall of Pekah and Rezin, why does Isaiah go on and on about those two kings in 7:8-9?

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.
Then what was the sign that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth?

Not hearsay. Not "testimony". What was the sign? What could anyone see about Mary which identified her as a virginal mother?

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.
You can't justify your "interpretation" unless you can explicitly identify which other two kings they would have been.

You ignore the context of the chapter because it unravels the entire Christian narrative.

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.
The assumption that the alma is not a virgin is based on the fact that Isaiah says she will give birth to Immanuel before the fall of Pekah and Rezin.

If she was not a virgin then it would not be a godly sign.
If she was not a virgin and not married, it would not be a godly sign. If she was not a virgin and married, it could easily be a godly sign.

There's no assumption on my part. It's what the NT text explicitly says.
Then there's no assumption on the part of Mormons that the other sheep of John 10:16 were Nephites. It's what the BoM explicitly says.


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?
She is exactly the mother of Immanuel, whose birth precedes the fall of Pekah and Rezin.

Who exactly are the hypothetical kings who aren't Pekah and Rezin?


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?
Was Jesus's violation of Deut. 4:2 correct, or was his statement that whoever broke the least commandment of the law would be "least in the kingdom of heaven" correct?

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.
If it's rooted in the Torah, then it doesn't violate the Torah.

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.
And when did you become Chief Rabbi?


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.
It isn't about me giving the Jews a pass. It's about you giving Jesus a pass. He's the one who supposedly kept the law perfectly.

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.
In how many ways can "But I say to you, do not swear at all" be interpreted?

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.
There's no need to take the exact number literally.

There is need to take all of them following a Jew literally.

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?
There is a requirement that a sign be observable in some fashion. How would a blind person be able to put an ear to a woman's abdomen and hear her virginity?

The whole point of something being a sign is that it can be noticed. If Mary's post-conception "virginity" wasn't seen, herd, felt, smelt or tasted, then it wasn't a sign.

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.
Or their testimony being an invention of the writers. That would certainly explain why there's no virgin birth narrative in Mark, the earliest of the gospels.

Why should a sign be promised to Ahaz if he refused to have a sign from God?
You'd have to ask Isaiah. He's the one who delivers the message, and he delivers it to Ahaz.

And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?

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.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3282

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2023 11:59 pm Do you think Mormons would do any different? The thing is, they can graft the Book of Mormon onto the Christian Bible just like you can graft the Christian Bible onto the Tanakh.
They have to first argue the BoM is authoritative and reliable. This goes with any other text also, such as the Quran and the Urantia book.
We know from the text that Immanuel was to be born before the conquest of Syria and Israel by Assyria.
No, we don't know. As we already discussed, it's implied, so it's an interpretation.
You propose two other kings but, since we don't know who they would be, it's more reasonable to accept the "near" fulfillment as the only fulfillment.
As you stated here, we don't know who they would be. So, it can be equally apply to any kings, whether near or far.
You're trying to argue that since we can't know for sure whether Immanuel was born to the wife of the prophet or to the wife of the king, he must have been born to Mary 700 years after the event which his early life was supposed to foreshadow. That's completely illogical and nothing more than wishful thinking.
Whose wishful thinking? It's certainly not mine. I'm just presenting what Matthew and Luke says.

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

[Luk 1:34 KJV] 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Now, if you think both Matthew and Luke were wishful thinking, then it could be a possibility. But it's more likely it's wishful thinking on the skeptic's part on dismissing any credibility of the authors.

So, the Christian interpretation is justified since the Isa 7:14 account and the Matthew and Luke accounts are consistent. They align with each other and it is derived from a plain reading of scripture.
i]Alma[/i] in verse 43 is describing what Rebekah will be doing, so it would make no sense for there to be a repetitive explanation after alma. Verse 16 is describing Rebekah herself, and betulah ["virgin"] is part of her description.
I already gave my explanation, so I'll let the jury decide between our arguments.
And the mother of Immanuel in Isaiah 7.
I highly dispute that. But I already gave my arguments and will let the court decide.
Ahaz declined for a sign. So why should the sign necessarily be for him?
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
For a near fulfillment, yes. But in a far fulfillment, he was addressing the Davidic line. We see this in the context of the previous verse:

[Isa 7:13-14 KJV] 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 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 do know specifically that Immanuel was to be born before the fall of Syria and Israel to Assyria (Isaiah 7:14-16, 8:7-8).
Again, it's only implied. So it's hyperbolic to say we do know.
The "land" is the alliance between Syria and Israel. It's clear that the "land" consists of two lands because it has two kings.
From the viewpoint of a Jew, it would be strange to consider a foreign nation to be identified as the same land as your own. This was also only a temporary alliance to fight against the Assyrians. It's not like they had any type of political agreement to unite as a single nation.
Why would a single land be attributed to two foreign kings?
That is indeed the question. What single land would have two kings?
Israel. With this view, it is honoring the land for the Jews since it's only referring to Israel and not claiming any foreign power is also included.
This is just a hypothetical person that you're proposing.
Then who gives birth to the child who won't know right from wrong before Pekah and Rezin----the only two kings being discussed----fall?
It's not my burden to answer that. You are the one who claims it's a near fulfillment.
If Immanuel's birth isn't foretold to precede the fall of Pekah and Rezin, why does Isaiah go on and on about those two kings in 7:8-9?
I already gave you my proposal on that.
Not hearsay. Not "testimony". What was the sign? What could anyone see about Mary which identified her as a virginal mother?
There is no requirement to be so hyperliteral. Even in the near fulfillment case of the unknown alma giving birth to an unknown Immanuel, what evidence can we see of her giving birth to him? Where's the empirical evidence?

The sign is simply a virgin having a child. There's no requirement that if we don't have empirical evidence for it, then even if a virgin had a child, it's disqualified as a sign.
You can't justify your "interpretation" unless you can explicitly identify which other two kings they would have been.
Well, the last king of Israel was Hoshea and the last king of Judah was Zedekiah.
You ignore the context of the chapter because it unravels the entire Christian narrative.
Actually I believe the opposite as I've extensively argued.

Now, I'm not completely dismissing a near fulfillment. But interestingly it has less support than a far fulfillment.
The assumption that the alma is not a virgin is based on the fact that Isaiah says she will give birth to Immanuel before the fall of Pekah and Rezin.
Well, how do you know she was not actually a virgin if we don't know who she was?
If she was not a virgin and married, it could easily be a godly sign.
But it would not be anything special.
Then there's no assumption on the part of Mormons that the other sheep of John 10:16 were Nephites. It's what the BoM explicitly says.
Do you believe the BoM is authoritative?
Was Jesus's violation of Deut. 4:2 correct, or was his statement that whoever broke the least commandment of the law would be "least in the kingdom of heaven" correct?
False dilemma. There is no need for a hyperliteral reading of not adding to the Torah and there is nothing in the Torah that Jesus countermanded.
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.
If it's rooted in the Torah, then it doesn't violate the Torah.
Exactly.
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.
And when did you become Chief Rabbi?
Where did I ever claim to be a rabbi?
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.
It isn't about me giving the Jews a pass. It's about you giving Jesus a pass. He's the one who supposedly kept the law perfectly.
I'm just pointing out Jesus did not do anything differently than the other rabbis in expounding on the Torah.
In how many ways can "But I say to you, do not swear at all" be interpreted?
As you agreed to, there is no commandment that says "you must swear".
There's no need to take the exact number literally.
Exactly, it's written metaphorically.
The whole point of something being a sign is that it can be noticed. If Mary's post-conception "virginity" wasn't seen, herd, felt, smelt or tasted, then it wasn't a sign.
As I've said, the only verification we would have of it is the testimony of Mary and Joseph. If you do not accept that as a sign, then not really going to spend time to persuade you that it is.

But, what I do claim as a sign and what Jesus himself claimed as a sign was his resurrection. And of course with that we do have empirical evidence that anyone can see.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3283

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3282

Do you think Mormons would do any different? The thing is, they can graft the Book of Mormon onto the Christian Bible just like you can graft the Christian Bible onto the Tanakh.
They have to first argue the BoM is authoritative and reliable.
Why can't they just say that the BoM is authoritative and reliable and dismiss any Bible-based argument against what they say as a "hyperliteral interpretation"?


We know from the text that Immanuel was to be born before the conquest of Syria and Israel by Assyria.
No, we don't know. As we already discussed, it's implied, so it's an interpretation.
Athetotheist wrote:You can use the words "girl" and "boy" to refer to young females and males, but there's no connotation of sexual state in those words. A girl or a boy can be a virgin or not. Neither of those words means "virgin". It's the same with alma and elem.
otseng wrote:Again, it's implied.
Why is what's "implied" supposed to be correct when you like it, but incorrect when you don't like it? That's a double standard.

Immanuel being born before the Assyrian conquest is clear from the context, because the Assyrian conquest is the historical event being described.


You propose two other kings but, since we don't know who they would be, it's more reasonable to accept the "near" fulfillment as the only fulfillment.
As you stated here, we don't know who they would be. So, it can be equally apply to any kings, whether near or far.
Wrong. It has to apply to two kings who are causing Ahaz to be afraid, because that's what the text says. And conveniently enough, Pekah and Rezin are explicitly named as the two kings who are making Ahaz afraid.

How can it be more clear than that?

Whose wishful thinking? It's certainly not mine. I'm just presenting what Matthew and Luke says.

Now, if you think both Matthew and Luke were wishful thinking, then it could be a possibility. But it's more likely it's wishful thinking on the skeptic's part on dismissing any credibility of the authors.
The context of Isaiah pre-empts any such likelihood.
So, the Christian interpretation is justified since the Isa 7:14 account and the Matthew and Luke accounts are consistent. They align with each other and it is derived from a plain reading of scripture.
A plain reading of Isaiah 7----the whole chapter, not just verse 14----tells of a child to be born before the conquest of Assyria over Syria and Israel, and whose early life is used as a timeline for the fall of the kings Pekah and Rezin.

That's what a plain reading of Isaiah chapter 7 tells.

Now, I assume, that plain reading is suddenly supposed to be a "hyperliteral interpretation".


Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
For a near fulfillment, yes. But in a far fulfillment, he was addressing the Davidic line. We see this in the context of the previous verse:

[Isa 7:13-14 KJV] 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
You must be running out of arguments. I pointed out some time back that this is clearly addressed only to Ahaz, because Ahaz is the only one wearying Isaiah's God. I also pointed out that it's Ahaz being referred to as the House of David in 7:2 because he was the one told about the upcoming attack by Syria and Israel.

So his heart and the heart of his people were shaken as the trees of the forest are shaken with the wind.

It's obvious that it isn't the entire Davidic line being shaken, because the entire Davidic line wasn't there to fear Pekah and Rezin.


We do know specifically that Immanuel was to be born before the fall of Syria and Israel to Assyria (Isaiah 7:14-16, 8:7-8).
Again, it's only implied. So it's hyperbolic to say we do know.
Again, you're rejecting what's implied----by the context----when you don't like it.


The "land" is the alliance between Syria and Israel. It's clear that the "land" consists of two lands because it has two kings.
From the viewpoint of a Jew, it would be strange to consider a foreign nation to be identified as the same land as your own. This was also only a temporary alliance to fight against the Assyrians. It's not like they had any type of political agreement to unite as a single nation.
Again, the word "land" is being used to refer to Syria and Israel as a united force.

Since you're----ironically----reading the word "land" literally in your attempt to remove Pekah and Rezin from the picture, what literal, single land had two kings? What "land" with two kings would Isaiah have been talking about if not the lands of Pekah and Rezin?


That is indeed the question. What single land would have two kings?
Israel. With this view, it is honoring the land for the Jews since it's only referring to Israel and not claiming any foreign power is also included.
What two kings did Israel have?


Then who gives birth to the child who won't know right from wrong before Pekah and Rezin----the only two kings being discussed----fall?
It's not my burden to answer that. You are the one who claims it's a near fulfillment.
My claim comes directly from a plain reading of the text, so it is your burden to answer.


If Immanuel's birth isn't foretold to precede the fall of Pekah and Rezin, why does Isaiah go on and on about those two kings in 7:8-9?
I already gave you my proposal on that.
You may have given your proposal, but you're not answering this question.


Not hearsay. Not "testimony". What was the sign? What could anyone see about Mary which identified her as a virginal mother?
There is no requirement to be so hyperliteral.
In other words, there was nothing anyone could see.
Even in the near fulfillment case of the unknown alma giving birth to an unknown Immanuel, what evidence can we see of her giving birth to him? Where's the empirical evidence?
Are you so desperate to erase the prophecy of the fall of Pekah and Rezin that you would have Isaiah uttering a false prophecy? You would have to strike everything chapter 7 says about Pekah and Rezin.
The sign is simply a virgin having a child. There's no requirement that if we don't have empirical evidence* for it, then even if a virgin had a child, it's disqualified as a sign.
Did you catch the statistic quoted by Rabbi Skobac in the opening of his virgin birth talk? 1 in 200 American women claim to have given birth as virgins. So if a virgin birth is itself a sign, then virgins must give birth all the time. That means that even if Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, his birth was nothing special.

*(Note that just two paragraphs above this you were demanding of me, "Where's the empirical evidence?")


You can't justify your "interpretation" unless you can explicitly identify which other two kings they would have been.
Well, the last king of Israel was Hoshea and the last king of Judah was Zedekiah.
And when did either of those kings cause Ahaz to fear?

When are Hoshea and Zedekiah even named in Isaiah 7? They're not. Pekah and Rezin are named in Isaiah 7----more than once----, so there is far more textual evidence that they are the kings whose fall is preceded by the child Immanuel than that those kings are Hoshea or Zedekiah or anyone else.

And even if Hoshea and Zedekiah were the two kings in Isaiah 7:16, what did they have to do with the birth of Jesus?

Now, I'm not completely dismissing a near fulfillment. But interestingly it has less support than a far fulfillment.
Then who are the two kings whose fall is preceded by the birth of the child Immanuel, if not Pekah and Rezin? (Hoshea and Zedekiah have already been ruled out.)


The assumption that the alma is not a virgin is based on the fact that Isaiah says she will give birth to Immanuel before the fall of Pekah and Rezin.
Well, how do you know she was not actually a virgin if we don't know who she was?
Since Isaiah says that the early life of her child will herald the fall of Pekah and Rezin, we know when she lived.

(And since at least 1 in 200 women can give birth as virgins, how do you know she wasn't a virgin?)


If she was not a virgin and married, it could easily be a godly sign.
But it would not be anything special.
It would as a sign of the fall of Pekah and Rezin.

Now, the fall of Pekah and Rezin taking place before the birth of Jesus 700 years after they lived----that was nothing special.


Then there's no assumption on the part of Mormons that the other sheep of John 10:16 were Nephites. It's what the BoM explicitly says.
Do you believe the BoM is authoritative?
The question is, Do you believe it's authoritative? And if you don't, why not----when the BoM can be defended with the same arguments you use to defend the Christian Bible?


Was Jesus's violation of Deut. 4:2 correct, or was his statement that whoever broke the least commandment of the law would be "least in the kingdom of heaven" correct?
False dilemma. There is no need for a hyperliteral reading of not adding to the Torah and there is nothing in the Torah that Jesus countermanded.
There's no such thing as a "hyperliteral" reading. It's just a literal reading or, as you would say, a "plain reading".

By acknowledging the literal text, you're admitting that there are things in the Torah which Jesus countermanded.

I'm just pointing out Jesus did not do anything differently than the other rabbis in expounding on the Torah.
When Jesus said that every jot and tittle of the law was to be kept and then violated the command not to add to the law by saying, "Do not swear at all", he was contradicting himself. Do the other rabbis do that?


In how many ways can "But I say to you, do not swear at all" be interpreted?
As you agreed to, there is no commandment that says "you must swear".
And as I pointed out, there is no commandment that says, Do not swear at all" and that there is a commandment that says, "Do not add to the law". You can try to brush that aside, but it won't go away.


There's no need to take the exact number literally.
Exactly, it's written metaphorically.
You left out the part where I pointed out that following after a Jew is to be taken literally, so pretending that I supported your argument will do no good.

But, what I do claim as a sign and what Jesus himself claimed as a sign was his resurrection. And of course with that we do have empirical evidence that anyone can see.
At most, we have a "sign" of someone who called the Jews to follow a god who wasn't the Jehovah of the Tanakh, who didn't say "Do not swear at all" or "for your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives".

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3284

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Oct 24, 2023 10:58 pm Why can't they just say that the BoM is authoritative and reliable and dismiss any Bible-based argument against what they say as a "hyperliteral interpretation"?
Are you suggesting I've done that? Instead, what I've been doing is giving evidence and arguments for hundreds of pages to argue the Bible is authoritative and reliable.
otseng wrote:Again, it's implied.
Why is what's "implied" supposed to be correct when you like it, but incorrect when you don't like it? That's a double standard.
I can ask you the same thing. But really it doesn't depend on either of us liking it or not liking it, but it depends on our evidence and arguments. And I'm content letting readers judge our arguments.
It has to apply to two kings who are causing Ahaz to be afraid, because that's what the text says. And conveniently enough, Pekah and Rezin are explicitly named as the two kings who are making Ahaz afraid.
I've never dismissed a near fulfillment. What I argue is there was also a far fulfillment.
Whose wishful thinking? It's certainly not mine. I'm just presenting what Matthew and Luke says.

Now, if you think both Matthew and Luke were wishful thinking, then it could be a possibility. But it's more likely it's wishful thinking on the skeptic's part on dismissing any credibility of the authors.
The context of Isaiah pre-empts any such likelihood.
I'll let the readers assess our arguments of what is wishful thinking and what's more likely.
Now, I assume, that plain reading is suddenly supposed to be a "hyperliteral interpretation".
Here's what I mean by a plain reading...

Why should the sign be addressed to Ahaz when Ahaz denies wanting a sign?

What is special about a sign of a non-virgin having a child? Why even call it a sign?

Why do contortions on Prov 30 to show that alma is an adulteress when all other passages refers to a virgin?

Who is the alma? Why use circular reasoning to say the mother of Immanuel is the mother of Immanuel?

What person specifically is named Immanuel?

Why is land singular?

Why doesn't the text explicitly say who the two kings are?
For a near fulfillment, yes. But in a far fulfillment, he was addressing the Davidic line. We see this in the context of the previous verse:

[Isa 7:13-14 KJV] 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
You must be running out of arguments. I pointed out some time back that this is clearly addressed only to Ahaz, because Ahaz is the only one wearying Isaiah's God.
Again, never said I denied a near fulfillment. I believe in a dual fulfillment.

The wording gives hints it is addressing more than Ahaz.

In verse 10, it specifically addresses Ahaz when asking for a sign. In verse 13, it addresses the house of David when presenting the sign.

[Isa 7:10, 13 KJV] 10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, ... 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
Again, it's only implied. So it's hyperbolic to say we do know.
Again, you're rejecting what's implied----by the context----when you don't like it.
All I'm saying is you claiming we do know something based on an interpretation of an implicit text is overstating your case.
Israel. With this view, it is honoring the land for the Jews since it's only referring to Israel and not claiming any foreign power is also included.
What two kings did Israel have?
The kings of northern Isreal and southern Israel.
My claim comes directly from a plain reading of the text, so it is your burden to answer.
You had asked, "Then who gives birth to the child who won't know right from wrong before Pekah and Rezin----the only two kings being discussed----fall?"

As I mentioned, since I believe in a far fulfillment, the person who gives birth to Immanuel is Mary. I do not know who it would have been for a near fulfillment. As a matter of fact, nobody knows who the person would be for a near fulfillment. So, there is no plain reading of the text to be able to answer that question for a near fulfillment.
If Immanuel's birth isn't foretold to precede the fall of Pekah and Rezin, why does Isaiah go on and on about those two kings in 7:8-9?
I already gave you my proposal on that.
You may have given your proposal, but you're not answering this question.
Again, I do not deny a near fulfillment. All I'm claiming is Isa 7:14-16 is the far fulfillment. Beyond that passage, I'm not claiming it is.
In other words, there was nothing anyone could see.
There is nothing I can think of that anyone can see to show she was a virgin. Unless perhaps we have a video of every single minute of her life to show she never had sex with anyone.
Even in the near fulfillment case of the unknown alma giving birth to an unknown Immanuel, what evidence can we see of her giving birth to him? Where's the empirical evidence?
Are you so desperate to erase the prophecy of the fall of Pekah and Rezin that you would have Isaiah uttering a false prophecy? You would have to strike everything chapter 7 says about Pekah and Rezin.
I'm just using your same logic. You say there's nothing we can see of Mary being a virgin or giving birth to Immanuel. All I'm saying is likewise there no evidence we can see of the alma giving birth to an Immanuel. As a matter of fact, we have nothing we can see that such an alma exists for a near fulfillment.

And you can't just argue it must've happened because otherwise Isaiah would've been a false prophet. It's not presenting anything that we can see.

Bottom line, I'm disputing the requirement that fulfilling a sign requires something that is directly seen with anyones' eyes.
Did you catch the statistic quoted by Rabbi Skobac in the opening of his virgin birth talk? 1 in 200 American women claim to have given birth as virgins. So if a virgin birth is itself a sign, then virgins must give birth all the time. That means that even if Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, his birth was nothing special.
I didn't watch the whole thing, but I know people have claimed to have a virgin birth. Who knows if what they claim is true or not? I'm not claiming they are true.

But even if it's true all those 200 women had virgin births, it'd be 200 out of billions of women who have ever given birth, which would still be a very small percentage.

For Mary, like I said before, it could be Mary and Joseph just made up the entire story. Even the Jews implied Jesus was illegitimate.

[Jhn 8:41 KJV] 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.
Well, the last king of Israel was Hoshea and the last king of Judah was Zedekiah.
And when did either of those kings cause Ahaz to fear?
A far fulfillment has nothing to do with Ahaz. So Ahaz would be irrelevant.
When are Hoshea and Zedekiah even named in Isaiah 7? They're not. Pekah and Rezin are named in Isaiah 7----more than once----, so there is far more textual evidence that they are the kings whose fall is preceded by the child Immanuel than that those kings are Hoshea or Zedekiah or anyone else.
Of course. For a near fulfillment, it would be referring to Pekah and Rezin.
And even if Hoshea and Zedekiah were the two kings in Isaiah 7:16, what did they have to do with the birth of Jesus?
The land of Israel no longer had kingly lines before Jesus was a child.
Then who are the two kings whose fall is preceded by the birth of the child Immanuel, if not Pekah and Rezin? (Hoshea and Zedekiah have already been ruled out.)
For a near fulfillment, it would be Pekah and Rezin.
Well, how do you know she was not actually a virgin if we don't know who she was?
Since Isaiah says that the early life of her child will herald the fall of Pekah and Rezin, we know when she lived.
You didn't answer the question. But the answer is we don't know.
But it would not be anything special.
It would as a sign of the fall of Pekah and Rezin.
Then what is the entire point of uttering Isa 7:14?

[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.
Now, the fall of Pekah and Rezin taking place before the birth of Jesus 700 years after they lived----that was nothing special.
Never claimed the fall of Pekah and Rezin has anything to do with a far fulfillment. However, it would be very serious for Israel to have no kings at all.
Then there's no assumption on the part of Mormons that the other sheep of John 10:16 were Nephites. It's what the BoM explicitly says.
Do you believe the BoM is authoritative?
The question is, Do you believe it's authoritative? And if you don't, why not----when the BoM can be defended with the same arguments you use to defend the Christian Bible?
I'm not the one citing the BoM. So you need to answer the question.
By acknowledging the literal text, you're admitting that there are things in the Torah which Jesus countermanded.
If it's read hyperliterally, which I've argued even the Jews do not do this.
When Jesus said that every jot and tittle of the law was to be kept and then violated the command not to add to the law by saying, "Do not swear at all", he was contradicting himself.
Only if there's a command that says one must swear would it be a contradiction. Is there such a command?
And as I pointed out, there is no commandment that says, Do not swear at all" and that there is a commandment that says, "Do not add to the law". You can try to brush that aside, but it won't go away.
How have I brushed it away? I've already presented the evidence that Jews have extensively added to the Torah through the Midrash, Mishnah, and the Talmud. These are all considered authoritative by the orthodox Jews. These are not just suggestions Jews might want to follow, but are traditions they keep.

Again, there is nothing different Jesus has done compared to all the other Jewish rabbis by expounding on the Torah.
Exactly, it's written metaphorically.
You left out the part where I pointed out that following after a Jew is to be taken literally, so pretending that I supported your argument will do no good.
I already addressed that as well. Christians have been grafted in to the Jews. Now, you might dispute this, but I've already presented evidence of there being a precedent of Gentiles being folded into the Jews, even to the point of being part of the Davidic line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_(biblical_figure)
But, what I do claim as a sign and what Jesus himself claimed as a sign was his resurrection. And of course with that we do have empirical evidence that anyone can see.
At most, we have a "sign" of someone who called the Jews to follow a god who wasn't the Jehovah of the Tanakh, who didn't say "Do not swear at all" or "for your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives".
We can go through the passages of Jesus being God after the discussion on his messiahship.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3285

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3284
Why should the sign be addressed to Ahaz when Ahaz denies wanting a sign?
The "why" is irrelevant. The text makes clear that the sign is addressed to Ahaz.
What is special about a sign of a non-virgin having a child? Why even call it a sign?
What's special about a sign of the fall of two kings 700 years after those kings fall? If a woman who's supposed to be a virgin gives birth when there's no evidence that she's a virgin, why even call that a sign?
Why do contortions on Prov 30 to show that alma is an adulteress when all other passages refers to a virgin?
Why is the word betulah used whenever a woman's virginity is specified?
Who is the alma? Why use circular reasoning to say the mother of Immanuel is the mother of Immanuel?
Why try to refute my argument with a strawman? I said that the woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz is the mother of Immanuel.
What person specifically is named Immanuel?
The child whose early life will mark the fall of Pekah and Rezin is specifically named Immanuel.
Why is land singular?
If the land is politically singular, why does it have two kings?
Why doesn't the text explicitly say who the two kings are?
The text does explicitly say who the two kings are. They are Pekah, son of Remaliah and king of Israel, and Rezin the king of Syria (7:1, 8-9). If the two kings in verse 16 are different kings, why doesn't verse 16 explicitly say that they are different kings? Since this would be the first place where new kings were coming into the passage, why doesn't verse 16 name them?

All of these questions have been answered repeatedly. Ignoring the answers and repeating the questions shows how weak your case is.

The wording gives hints it is addressing more than Ahaz.

In verse 10, it specifically addresses Ahaz when asking for a sign. In verse 13, it addresses the house of David when presenting the sign.

[Isa 7:10, 13 KJV] 10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, ... 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
You're cherrypicking verses.


And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
(Isaiah 7:2)

I've also addressed that before.


What two kings did Israel have?
The kings of northern Isreal and southern Israel.
I assume that you mean the kings of Israel and Judah. The king of Israel was Pekah. The king of Judah was Ahaz himself, and I've already pointed out the senselessness of assuming that Ahaz was dreading himself.


If Immanuel's birth isn't foretold to precede the fall of Pekah and Rezin, why does Isaiah go on and on about those two kings in 7:8-9?
Again, I do not deny a near fulfillment. All I'm claiming is Isa 7:14-16 is the far fulfillment. Beyond that passage, I'm not claiming it is.
Let's recap:

Starting with Isaiah 7:1-2, Pekah and Rezin are planning to attack Judah. Ahaz, referred to as "the house of David", is told of this and is deeply fearful.

Isaiah is sent to tell Ahaz not to be afraid of Pekah and Rezin [verses 3-9].

Isaiah and Ahaz have an exchange about Ahaz asking for and receiving a sign. Ahaz declines to ask for one. Isaiah, addressing Ahaz as "House of David", asks Ahaz if he must weary Isaiah's God along with wearying Isaiah himself [verses 10-13].

In verse 14, Isaiah says that Ahaz will be given a sign anyway. Isaiah points out a young woman and tells Ahaz that she is pregnant, will have a son and wlll call his name Immanuel. In verses 15 and 16, he tells Ahaz that the child will grow up in peace and safety [eating curds and honey] because before the child is old enough to tell right from wrong, the "land" Ahaz fears will be bereft of both its kings.

After Isaiah goes on for several verses telling Ahaz not to be afraid of Pekah and Rezin, specifically identifying them more than once, and then tells Ahaz that the child Immanuel will not know right from wrong before the two kings Ahaz fears are gone, what two kings would Ahaz think Isaiah was talking about? After going on at length specifically about Pekah and Rezin, what did Isaiah say to indicate to Ahaz that he had suddenly switched gears and was talking about two different kings? You yourself dwell on the two kings in verse 16 being unnamed, so what would have made Ahaz assume that they were anyone other than Pekah and Rezin? And since Isaiah gave Ahaz no indication that the two kings were any others than Pekah and Rezin, how would Isaiah have meant that they were any others than Pekah and Rezin?

If Isaiah was being straight-up honest with Ahaz, then he was telling Ahaz that the birth of the child Immanuel would shortly precede the fall of Pekah and Rezin.

I'm just using your same logic. You say there's nothing we can see of Mary being a virgin or giving birth to Immanuel. All I'm saying is likewise there no evidence we can see of the alma giving birth to an Immanuel. As a matter of fact, we have nothing we can see that such an alma exists for a near fulfillment.
Why would Isaiah lead Ahaz to believe that the child Immanuel would be born before the fall of Pekah and Rezin if they weren't the kings he meant?

And you can't just argue it must've happened because otherwise Isaiah would've been a false prophet. It's not presenting anything that we can see.
Neither is a virgin giving birth.

Bottom line, I'm disputing the requirement that fulfilling a sign requires something that is directly seen with anyones' eyes.
If you're disputing the requirement that a sign be observable, then you're disputing the requirement that a sign be a sign.

if it's true all those 200 women had virgin births, it'd be 200 out of billions of women who have ever given birth, which would still be a very small percentage.
A present global population of roughly 4 billion women ÷ 200 virgin births = 20,000,000 Messiahs. Is that your point?
Well, the last king of Israel was Hoshea and the last king of Judah was Zedekiah.
And when did either of those kings cause Ahaz to fear?
A far fulfillment has nothing to do with Ahaz. So Ahaz would be irrelevant.
A fulfillment in the time of Jesus would have had nothing to do with Hoshea or Zedekiah, so they are irrelevant.

Of course. For a near fulfillment, it would be referring to Pekah and Rezin.
And since Isaiah the prophet doesn't tell Ahaz that the two kings are any others than Pekah and Rezin who he has named, a near fulfillment is the only choice there is.


And even if Hoshea and Zedekiah were the two kings in Isaiah 7:16, what did they have to do with the birth of Jesus?
The land of Israel no longer had kingly lines before Jesus was a child.
Right. So what did Hoshea and Zedekiah have to do with the birth of Jesus?

Well, how do you know she was not actually a virgin if we don't know who she was?
Since Isaiah says that the early life of her child will herald the fall of Pekah and Rezin, we know when she lived.
You didn't answer the question. But the answer is we don't know.
I did answer the question. You don't like the answer and replace it with, "We don't know."


It would as a sign of the fall of Pekah and Rezin.
Then what is the entire point of uttering Isa 7:14?

[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.
The entire point of the entire chapter is foretelling the fall of Pekah and Rezin.

14Therefore, 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.

15Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

16For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.


You can't just join Matthew in picking out one mistranslated verse and completely ignoring the context which shows the mistranslation for what it is.

Never claimed the fall of Pekah and Rezin has anything to do with a far fulfillment.
Then a far fulfillment has nothing to do with Isaiah 7, because the fall of Pekah and Rezin is what Isaiah 7 is about.


The question is, Do you believe it's authoritative? And if you don't, why not----when the BoM can be defended with the same arguments you use to defend the Christian Bible?
I'm not the one citing the BoM. So you need to answer the question.
I cite the BoM to point out that it can be defended with the same arguments you use to defend the Christian Bible.


By acknowledging the literal text, you're admitting that there are things in the Torah which Jesus countermanded.
If it's read hyperliterally, which I've argued even the Jews do not do this.
If you go back to part 2 of Rabbi Skobac's virgin birth talk and look at 51:45-52:05, you'll see that he argues otherwise.

Again, there's no such thing as "hyper"literal reading, just literal.


When Jesus said that every jot and tittle of the law was to be kept and then violated the command not to add to the law by saying, "Do not swear at all", he was contradicting himself.
Only if there's a command that says one must swear would it be a contradiction. Is there such a command?
Jesus is adding to the law a command not to swear at all. There is a commandment that nothing be added to the law (Deut. 4:2). That's the commandment Jesus is violating.

How have I brushed it away? I've already presented the evidence that Jews have extensively added to the Torah through the Midrash, Mishnah, and the Talmud. These are all considered authoritative by the orthodox Jews. These are not just suggestions Jews might want to follow, but are traditions they keep.

Again, there is nothing different Jesus has done compared to all the other Jewish rabbis by expounding on the Torah.
As you like to say, I've already addressed this.

I already addressed that as well. Christians have been grafted in to the Jews.
That's still only a Christian claim and has nothing to do with pre-Christian Gentiles being accepted by Jews, especially when Jews still teaching each other to "know the Lord" proves that the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 hasn't been established.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3286

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2023 7:51 am The "why" is irrelevant. The text makes clear that the sign is addressed to Ahaz.
Ahaz was most likely standing there listening to it, but doubtful it was only addressed to him. As the text says, "And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David".
What is special about a sign of a non-virgin having a child? Why even call it a sign?
What's special about a sign of the fall of two kings 700 years after those kings fall? If a woman who's supposed to be a virgin gives birth when there's no evidence that she's a virgin, why even call that a sign?
There's nothing special of the fall of Rezin and Pekah in the far fulfillment. But, it would be tragic for there to be no kings in the entire land of Israel.

Nobody's claiming there's any empirical evidence of Mary's virginity. But, there is testimonial evidence. Simply you not accepting testimonial evidence does not mean there's no evidence.

It would be a completely different matter if Matthew and Luke did not mention Mary being a virgin. Then I would be completely making it up with no evidence. And this is the case of the near fulfillment where there is no textual evidence who is the alma or who is the Immanuel.
Why is the word betulah used whenever a woman's virginity is specified?
Are you talking about Gen 24:16? I already discussed this at:
otseng wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2023 8:24 am [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.
Who is the alma? Why use circular reasoning to say the mother of Immanuel is the mother of Immanuel?
Why try to refute my argument with a strawman? I said that the woman Isaiah points out to Ahaz is the mother of Immanuel.
Still circular reasoning.
What person specifically is named Immanuel?
The child whose early life will mark the fall of Pekah and Rezin is specifically named Immanuel.
I'll let the jury decide if this answer is adequate.
Why is land singular?
If the land is politically singular, why does it have two kings?
Which land are you talking about? Israel? Israel was originally one land and it was meant by God to only be one land. It was only the civil war that caused the division of it to have two kings.
Why doesn't the text explicitly say who the two kings are?
The text does explicitly say who the two kings are. They are Pekah, son of Remaliah and king of Israel, and Rezin the king of Syria (7:1, 8-9).
We've extensively argued this. I'll let readers assess our arguments.
The wording gives hints it is addressing more than Ahaz.
And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
(Isaiah 7:2)
Not saying Isaiah was not addressing Ahaz. But the language allows for more than addressing Ahaz.
The kings of northern Isreal and southern Israel.
I assume that you mean the kings of Israel and Judah.
They are the same thing.
what two kings would Ahaz think Isaiah was talking about? After going on at length specifically about Pekah and Rezin, what did Isaiah say to indicate to Ahaz that he had suddenly switched gears and was talking about two different kings?
In a dual fulfillment, it's not an either/or scenario, but a both scenario. It's not one verse only applies to a near fulfillment or a far fulfillment, but a single verse can apply to both a near fulfillment and a far fulfillment.

Yes, in a near fulfillment, the two kings being referred to are Pekah and Rezin. In a far fulfillment, I believe it's referring to the kings of Israel.
so what would have made Ahaz assume that they were anyone other than Pekah and Rezin?
Never claimed that. Of course Ahaz would think Isaiah is referring to Pekah and Rezin.
And since Isaiah gave Ahaz no indication that the two kings were any others than Pekah and Rezin, how would Isaiah have meant that they were any others than Pekah and Rezin?
Obviously there was a near fulfillment. Nobody is disputing that. The question is can we rule out a far fulfillment as well? And I've provided many arguments why we can also include a far fulfillment in addition to a near fulfillment.
I'm just using your same logic. You say there's nothing we can see of Mary being a virgin or giving birth to Immanuel. All I'm saying is likewise there no evidence we can see of the alma giving birth to an Immanuel. As a matter of fact, we have nothing we can see that such an alma exists for a near fulfillment.
Why would Isaiah lead Ahaz to believe that the child Immanuel would be born before the fall of Pekah and Rezin if they weren't the kings he meant?
No idea what Isaiah meant by that for a near fulfillment. I can't find any textual evidence to explain that.
If you're disputing the requirement that a sign be observable, then you're disputing the requirement that a sign be a sign.
A sign wouldn't be a sign if it didn't happen or we can't confirm it happened. We have confirmation Mary was a virgin by the testimony of Joseph and Mary as recorded in Matthew and Luke.

Is it strong evidence? I wouldn't classify it as that. It could be Mary, Joseph, Matthew, and Luke are all in collusion and making it all up. But again, it's doubtful.
A present global population of roughly 4 billion women ÷ 200 virgin births = 20,000,000 Messiahs. Is that your point?
Don't understand your math. My point is 200 / 4,000,000,000 = 0.000005%, which would be very small odds of a woman to have a virgin birth. So, it would still be an exceptional case even if 200 woman had virgin births.
Well, the last king of Israel was Hoshea and the last king of Judah was Zedekiah.
And when did either of those kings cause Ahaz to fear?
Not claiming they caused Ahaz to fear.
A far fulfillment has nothing to do with Ahaz. So Ahaz would be irrelevant.
A fulfillment in the time of Jesus would have had nothing to do with Hoshea or Zedekiah, so they are irrelevant.
It's relevant because at the time of Jesus there were no Davidic kings in Israel.
Of course. For a near fulfillment, it would be referring to Pekah and Rezin.
And since Isaiah the prophet doesn't tell Ahaz that the two kings are any others than Pekah and Rezin who he has named, a near fulfillment is the only choice there is.
We've already covered this.
The land of Israel no longer had kingly lines before Jesus was a child.
Right. So what did Hoshea and Zedekiah have to do with the birth of Jesus?
You had asked me who are the last kings, so I answered that. The point is there were no more kings in the land at that time.
Well, how do you know she was not actually a virgin if we don't know who she was?
Since Isaiah says that the early life of her child will herald the fall of Pekah and Rezin, we know when she lived.
You didn't answer the question. But the answer is we don't know
I did answer the question. You don't like the answer and replace it with, "We don't know."
I'll let the jury decide on the validity of your response.
Then what is the entire point of uttering Isa 7:14?

[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.
The entire point of the entire chapter is foretelling the fall of Pekah and Rezin.
You didn't answer my question. I'll move on since we're not really progressing anymore here.
I cite the BoM to point out that it can be defended with the same arguments you use to defend the Christian Bible.
The difference is the BoM is not accepted as authoritative by you. Whereas I accept the Bible as authoritative and have argued for it for hundreds of pages.
Again, there's no such thing as "hyper"literal reading, just literal.
With proper interpretation, there is just a literal.
Jesus is adding to the law a command not to swear at all. There is a commandment that nothing be added to the law (Deut. 4:2). That's the commandment Jesus is violating.
Yeah, I know that's what you claim. And as I've extensively shown, the Jewish rabbis do the same.

How have I brushed it away? I've already presented the evidence that Jews have extensively added to the Torah through the Midrash, Mishnah, and the Talmud. These are all considered authoritative by the orthodox Jews. These are not just suggestions Jews might want to follow, but are traditions they keep.

Again, there is nothing different Jesus has done compared to all the other Jewish rabbis by expounding on the Torah.
As you like to say, I've already addressed this.
And we can let readers assess our arguments.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3287

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3286

Ahaz was most likely standing there listening to it, but doubtful it was only addressed to him. As the text says, "And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David".
As I've pointed out more than once, Ahaz is referred to as the "house of David".

And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
(Isaiah 7:2)

Ignore that as often as you will, it's not going away.

3And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field.

4And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah.

Isaiah was sent to deliver his message to Ahaz, not to anyone else.

Nobody's claiming there's any emperical evidence of Mary's virginity. But, there is testimonial evidence. Simply you not accepting testimonial evidence does not mean there's no evidence.
"Testimonial" evidence, especially of something extraordinary, isn't evidence. It's hearsay.

"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
---Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason"

Simply referring to hearsay as "evidence" doesn't make it evidence.


Why is the word betulah used whenever a woman's virginity is specified?
Are you talking about Gen 24:16? I already discussed this at:

[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.
And I addressed that at:

"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.



If the land is politically singular, why does it have two kings?
Which land are you talking about? Israel? Israel was originally one land and it was meant by God to only be one land. It was only the civil war that caused the division of it to have two kings.
You know very well which land I'm talking about. You asked why the "land" in Isaiah 7:16 was singular and I pointed out that the "land" was the allied force of Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel.

The kings of northern Isreal and southern Israel.
I assume that you mean the kings of Israel and Judah.
They are the same thing.
They weren't the same thing in the time of Isaiah and Ahaz.

In a dual fulfillment, it's not an either/or scenario, but a both scenario. It's not one verse only applies to a near fulfillment or a far fulfillment, but a single verse can apply to both a near fulfillment and a far fulfillment.

Yes, in a near fulfillment, the two kings being referred to are Pekah and Rezin
Then in the "near" fulfillment, verse 14 refers to an alma who is not a virgin.

3And the Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son, to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field.

4And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.

5Since Syria planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying:

6'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us,'

7So said the Lord God, "Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass.

What won't succeed or come to pass? The invasion by Pekah and Rezin. This is what Isaiah is sent to prophesy to Ahaz.

10And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying,

11"Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."

What was Ahaz invited to ask for a sign of? The failure of the attack by Pekah and Rezin. If Ahaz had asked for a sign, what would he have been given a sign of? The failure of the attack by Pekah and Rezin.

14Therefore, 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.

15Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

16For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

What is Ahaz given a sign of anyway? The failure of Pekah and Rezin. How do we know? We know because Pekah and Rezin have been the subject of this entire address. Isaiah never tells Ahaz that he's referring to anyone or anything else. There's nothing about the Messiah, nothing about salvation from sin, nothing whatsoever about anything but the downfall of Pekah and Rezin.

And the child Immanuel is not linked to anything but the downfall of Pekah and Rezin. Therefore, the child Immanuel was born to that alma in the "near" fulfillment who was clearly not a virgin.
In a far fulfillment, I believe it's referring to the kings of Israel.
You yourself have acknowledged that Israel didn't have any kings in the time of Jesus, so who would those "far fulfillment" kings of Israel have been?


so what would have made Ahaz assume that they were anyone other than Pekah and Rezin?
Never claimed that. Of course Ahaz would think Isaiah is referring to Pekah and Rezin.
Then how could the prophet's message to Ahaz have meant anything else? You have three choices:

1. Isaiah was being deceitful

2. Isaiah was incompetent

3. Isaiah was honestly and competently relaying his true message, which was about no kings other than Pekah and Rezin.

Obviously there was a near fulfillment. Nobody is disputing that. The question is can we rule out a far fulfillment as well? And I've provided many arguments why we can also include a far fulfillment in addition to a near fulfillment.
Those arguments have been countered, and I'm continuing to counter them now.


Why would Isaiah lead Ahaz to believe that the child Immanuel would be born before the fall of Pekah and Rezin if they weren't the kings he meant?
No idea what Isaiah meant by that for a near fulfillment. I can't find any textual evidence to explain that.
It makes perfect sense if there's a single fulfillment of the prophecy in the time of Isaiah and Ahaz. In that simple, straightforward scenario, there's nothing more for Isaiah's words to mean to Ahaz because there's no more to Isaiah's prophecy than the fall of Pekah and Rezin.


A present global population of roughly 4 billion women ÷ 200 virgin births = 20,000,000 Messiahs. Is that your point?
Don't understand your math. My point is 200 / 4,000,000,000 = 0.000005%, which would be very small odds of a woman to have a virgin birth. So, it would still be an exceptional case even if 200 woman had virgin births.
The statistic is 1 in 200 women claiming to have given birth as virgins. That has nothing to do with the odds that an individual woman would give birth as a virgin. It's about the total number of women who make the claim. Converting the total number to a percentage to make it seem smaller doesn't work. Jesus would still have 19,999,999 other Messiahs to contend with.

A far fulfillment has nothing to do with Ahaz. So Ahaz would be irrelevant.
A fulfillment in the time of Jesus would have had nothing to do with Hoshea or Zedekiah, so they are irrelevant.
It's relevant because at the time of Jesus there were no Davidic kings in Israel.
Then there were no kings for a "far fulfillment" to be about, and the two kings in Isaiah 7:16 must be Pekah and Rezin.

Then what is the entire point of uttering Isa 7:14?

[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.
The entire point of the entire chapter is foretelling the fall of Pekah and Rezin.
You didn't answer my question. I'll move on since we're not really progressing anymore here.
Your question is irrelevant since you're trying to isolate a single verse [with a mistranslation] and I'm focusing on the entire chapter.

I cite the BoM to point out that it can be defended with the same arguments you use to defend the Christian Bible.
The difference is the BoM is not accepted as authoritative by you. Whereas I accept the Bible as authoritative and have argued for it for hundreds of pages.
It doesn't matter what I accept as authoritative. What matters is that the Christian Bible and the BoM can be defended using the same logic, yet you accept the former and reject the latter.

Again, there's no such thing as "hyper"literal reading, just literal.
With proper interpretation, there is just a literal.
Preconceived notions =/= "proper interpretation".


Jesus is adding to the law a command not to swear at all. There is a commandment that nothing be added to the law (Deut. 4:2). That's the commandment Jesus is violating.
Yeah, I know that's what you claim. And as I've extensively shown, the Jewish rabbis do the same.
You've "shown" the Talmud, Mishnah and Midrash, which I've pointed out are based on the Torah.

And even if the rabbis do violate the Torah, it's still a Tu Quoque argument which doesn't get Jesus off the hook. He's supposed to have been the one who kept the law perfectly.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3288

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Oct 27, 2023 6:53 pm As I've pointed out more than once, Ahaz is referred to as the "house of David".
Yes, we've pointed out things multiple times regarding the prophecies.

I'll be summarizing my arguments in separate posts why Jesus fulfilled them as messianic prophecies.
The statistic is 1 in 200 women claiming to have given birth as virgins.
I see. I knew there were virgins births before, but never heard so many people have claimed to have virgin births.
Jesus would still have 19,999,999 other Messiahs to contend with.
Out of all these other alleged virgin births, how many of them claimed to be a messiah?
The difference is the BoM is not accepted as authoritative by you. Whereas I accept the Bible as authoritative and have argued for it for hundreds of pages.
It doesn't matter what I accept as authoritative. What matters is that the Christian Bible and the BoM can be defended using the same logic, yet you accept the former and reject the latter.
I reject the latter because I do not accept it as authoritative. Only if I accept the BoM as authoritative would your logic apply.
Preconceived notions =/= "proper interpretation".
I agree preconceived notion is not proper interpretation.
Jesus is adding to the law a command not to swear at all. There is a commandment that nothing be added to the law (Deut. 4:2). That's the commandment Jesus is violating.
Yeah, I know that's what you claim. And as I've extensively shown, the Jewish rabbis do the same.
You've "shown" the Talmud, Mishnah and Midrash, which I've pointed out are based on the Torah.

And even if the rabbis do violate the Torah, it's still a Tu Quoque argument which doesn't get Jesus off the hook. He's supposed to have been the one who kept the law perfectly.
Jesus's teachings are also based on the Torah.

If adding to the law is a violation of the Torah, then the Jews have intentionally and systemically violated it for hundreds of years with a vast body of text that dwarfs the Torah. It doesn't make any sense to say the Jews have been willfully sinning all this time by adding to the law.

This is not a tu quoque argument. This is whose interpretation of Deut 4:2 is correct?

[Deu 4:2 KJV] 2 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.

With your view, both the Jews and Jesus would be violating this verse. With my view, neither are violating his verse.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3289

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3288

Jesus would still have 19,999,999 other Messiahs to contend with.
Out of all these other alleged virgin births, how many of them claimed to be a messiah?
I don't know how many of them have claimed it, but in the cases of virgin-born figures such as Tammuz, Attis and Krishna, others have claimed that they were messiahs. Like you claim that Jesus was the Messiah, even though he technically referred to himself only as "the Son of Man".
I reject the latter because I do not accept it as authoritative. Only if I accept the BoM as authoritative would your logic apply.
Why don't you accept it as authoritative when it can be defended with your own logic?

Jesus's teachings are also based on the Torah.
Where does the Torah say, "Do not swear at all"? Can you cite the book, chapter and verse?

If adding to the law is a violation of the Torah, then the Jews have intentionally and systemically violated it for hundreds of years with a vast body of text that dwarfs the Torah.
Again, just because they've written a vast body of text doesn't mean that they've nullified any of the commandments. It's like saying, "Christian preachers have added the traditions of men to the Gospels with all the thousands of sermons they've written!"
It doesn't make any sense to say the Jews have been willfully sinning all this time by adding to the law.
That's why I'm not saying it.

This is not a tu quoque argument.
Then it makes no sense to keep bringing up what the Jews supposedly do as if it were a tu quoque argument.

With your view, both the Jews and Jesus would be violating this verse. With my view, neither are violating his verse.
Have the Jews ever said, "Do not swear at all"? Have they ever claimed that Moses gave them the "commandment of the Lord" allowing divorce because of their "hardness of heart"?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3290

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2023 10:11 am Jesus would still have 19,999,999 other Messiahs to contend with.
Out of all these other alleged virgin births, how many of them claimed to be a messiah?
I don't know how many of them have claimed it
You're the one claiming there's "19,999,999 other Messiahs to contend with". So if you don't know then your claim is unsubstantiated.
but in the cases of virgin-born figures such as Tammuz, Attis and Krishna, others have claimed that they were messiahs.
Do they have empirical evidence they've existed and performed anything special?
I reject the latter because I do not accept it as authoritative. Only if I accept the BoM as authoritative would your logic apply.
Why don't you accept it as authoritative when it can be defended with your own logic?
My own logic is spending years on this single thread in providing evidence and arguments for the authority and reliability of the Bible.
Where does the Torah say, "Do not swear at all"? Can you cite the book, chapter and verse?
As far as I'm aware, it doesn't say that.
Again, just because they've written a vast body of text doesn't mean that they've nullified any of the commandments.
Never claimed the Jews have nullified the Torah or the commandments. Likewise, Jesus, who has expounded on the Torah, has not nullified it either.
It doesn't make any sense to say the Jews have been willfully sinning all this time by adding to the law.
That's why I'm not saying it.
But you are willing to say Jesus has sinned because he's added to the law?
Then it makes no sense to keep bringing up what the Jews supposedly do as if it were a tu quoque argument.
You keep claiming and repeating it doesn't necessarily make it one.
Have the Jews ever said, "Do not swear at all"? Have they ever claimed that Moses gave them the "commandment of the Lord" allowing divorce because of their "hardness of heart"?
Do we need to go into the details of all the things the Jews have added in the Mishnah, Midrash, and Talmud to the Torah?

Post Reply