The Journey Away from Religion Continues

Posted: August 8, 2022 in Uncategorized

There is so much in the “Old Testament” that invalidates claims to being “reliable, inerrant, trustworthy, absolute truth” that the mind boggles. Some of it is almost silly. For example, Adam and Eve had 2 sons … one killed the other. These were the first humans. But Cain was worried about people seeking to kill him, so God put a mark on him, and he wandered off to another city and had a family. Where in hell did this people come from?

And the entire human race is the product of incest. Biologically impossible. BUT… it has to be true… so believers account for that impossible fact by saying that back in the good old days sperm and egg were especially pure … or something…. and the mutations resulting from “normal incest” did not occur.

Ummmmmmmm……

A few other thoughts about the “OT” and a couple of “foundational” passages for Christians that they have distorted and made up contrary to what the scriptures actually say. The “virgin birth” and “the shedding of blood is required for sacrifice”.

You know the classic “And a virgin shall conceive” and all that … the standard Christmas Message / Messianic Prophecy. Not. Nope.

Here is what Jews for Judaism has to say. They ought to know, eh? “

Although Ahaz was an evil king, God would continue to protect Jerusalem in the merit of his righteous predecessors. When Ahaz ignores Isaiah’s warning the prophet tells him to request a sign from God. After Ahaz refuses this offer, Isaiah informs him that God will give him a sign despite his stubbornness. He tells King Ahaz that “The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the Almah (הָעַלְמָה) shall conceive and give birth to a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”    Isaiah 7:14

Mistranslation

The word Almah has been mistranslated by most Christians as “virgin.” In truth, this word means “young woman.” Additionally, the definite article (Ha-ה) means “the” and indicates that the prophet is speaking about a specific woman who he can point to. Interestingly when Matthew quotes this passage he not only mistranslates “young woman” as “virgin” but, to deflect the reference from a specific woman standing before Isaiah, he intentionally mistranslates the young woman” as “virgin.” To prove that “Almah” does in fact mean “a virgin” missionaries fallaciously assert that this word is used 7 times in the bible and that it always refers to a woman who is a virgin.

First, those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” inconsistently translate the other six places a as “maiden or young woman” revealing their intentional mistranslation. The word “Almah” should always be translated as “a young woman.

“In context Isaiah is speaking about a specific young woman who will become pregnant during the lifetime of Isaiah and King Ahaz. A miraculous virgin birth that supposedly took place over 560 years later would be irrelevant to Ahaz, who required a sign prior to an imminent military invasion.

Christians attempt to avoid this problem by claiming that this is a “double level prophesy” that happens both during the time of Ahaz and again in the time of Jesus. If Christians want to believe that the word Almah means a virgin and simultaneously claim a “double level prophesy” they would have to believe that a virgin birth took place in the time of Ahaz. However, this never occurred and would also contradict the claim that Jesus’ virgin birth is unique.

The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse: “before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken”   Isaiah 7:15

Pretty clear, when accurately translated and read in context. It’s all about politics of the day.

And then we have “Are you washed … in the blood? There is power … wonderworking power … in the blood of the lamb.” Etc. Again, we have a fine example of the classic Christian tendency to distort and take passages out of context. Again … what do the People of the Book have to say?

One of my favorite points… and a nightmare for all my “saved” friends is that all through the Tanach sins are forgiven and followship with God restored through a person’s act of sincere repentance. That’s right, folks. Repentance. Change of mind… heart … behavior. A small point before I go to the mattresses…. think about your loving just God requiring animal sacrifice that the vast majority of the poor people living at the time could not afford … and therefore in their poverty regardless of their behavior they are damned because they could not afford a blood sacrifice. Eh?

So … what Leviticus actually teaches: “

If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You…” (I Kings 8:46-50).

This seminal passage puts the spotlight on the Christian misunderstanding of Leviticus 17:11. The Bible is clearly teaching that sacrifices weren’t necessary in order to atone for sins. Prayer and repentance are cited here as effective means for securing atonement. Certainly, when the Temple stood, and one could afford an animal, a sacrifice was brought as part of the atonement process for unintentional sins. Leviticus 17:11 teaches that when we bring such an animal as a sacrifice, we aren’t allowed to consume its blood, because as the life force, it is the part of the animal that affects our atonement.”

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT VICARIOUS ATONEMENT?

One wonders why throughout the four Gospels, Jesus never speaks about his death serving as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. Is the idea that an innocent person can be killed instead of those who are guilty consistent with what the Bible teaches? After the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d expressed His intention to destroy the Jewish people. Moses intercedes, and offers to die in their place. In response, G-d says “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book!” (Exodus 32:32-33). Throughout the Bible, G-d says that one person cannot die for the sins of another:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).

But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30).

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).

No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to G-d a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7).

……

THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF ATONEMENT

One of the clearest indications that Christianity is off base in its insistence on the centrality of blood sacrifices is that none of the prophets speaks about it. There isn’t one instance in the prophetic books where the Jewish people are told that in order to get right with G-d they need to get covered by the blood. If that’s the case, what is the fundamental teaching of the Tanach on the issue of atonement? What theme is reiterated time and again by the holy prophets in the Jewish Bible?

That every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin.” (Jeremiah 36:3).

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the L-rd, and He will have compassion on him; and to our G-d, for He will abundantly pardon.” (Isaiah 55:7).

I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, `I will confess my transgressions to the L-rd’, and You did forgive the guilt of my sin.” (Psalm 32:5).”

And so.. “

The central teaching of the Bible is that only a break with our past and a sincere turning in repentance can restore our relationships with G-d. If I go off the path, I have to put myself back on track, and G-d will forgive me. Even when sacrifices were offered, they in and of themselves didn’t effect atonement. The sacrifice was part of the process, it helped bring us to the core of atonement which is achieved by TESHUVAH, returning to G-d by forsaking our evil ways and praying for forgiveness. One of the main teachings of the prophets was to chide Jewish people who thought that sacrifices were the essential element of atonement:

What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the L-rd. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats…Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Come let us reason together says the L-rd, `Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be like wool, if you consent and obey…” (Isaiah 1:11-18).”

A lot here… but it speaks for itself. The Christian church as distorted and invented basic doctrinal teachings… important foundational concepts… which it turns out are not supported by history and scripture they claim they are bases on.

So … away I go.

Stay tuned … next blog will get into my experiences with the church and religion as I was supposed to believe.

Have a good day.

Comments
  1. Ombient's avatar Ombient says:

    Mistranslation…on purpose….aka, a lie.

    Liked by 1 person

    • AlBaldwin's avatar AlBaldwin says:

      Yup. The “virgin” lie for example. Modern biblical scholars agree that the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 was mistranslated from the original Hebrew.

      By the time the architects of the New Testament were writing about Jesus, people didn’t speak Hebrew anymore. The Gospel writers were working with Greek and Aramaic translations of the original Hebrew texts and working from that. So they were unaware that in Hebrew, “almah,” the word that the writers took to mean “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14, REALLY translates to “young woman.” Today, biblical scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity. But in Greek, the translation is a bit rougher, and the Gospel writers were reading manuscripts that used the Greek word “parthenos,” which DOES mean “virgin.”

      Taken in its original context, it’s clear that Isiah 7:14 is not talking about a future Messiah.

      In Isaiah, God is just telling Ahaz that in six or seven years (how long it would take for a baby to grow up enough to learn right from wrong), the opposing kings won’t be a problem anymore. There is no indication in this passage that the baby will be a savior; the child is just a harbinger (not a bringer!) of peace and prosperity. The context shows that God was reassuring Ahaz about the conflict at hand, not a messiah to come years and years in the future. And considering the mistranslation of ‘’almah,” it becomes impossible to connect Isaiah 7:14 with Jesus’ birth/divinity.

      Like

Leave a reply to Ombient Cancel reply