REFUTING CHRISTIAN "PROOF TEXTS"

"Steve" 

REFUTING CHRISTIAN "PROOF TEXTS"

While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on
a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away
he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center.
Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you
become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center
of the bull's-eye?" "It's not difficult," responded the
archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."

When examining Christian "proof texts" that claim to point to Jesus
as the promised Messiah, we should always ask the following
question. "Has an arrow been shot into a circle or has a circle been
drawn around an arrow?" In other words, has the passage been
mistranslated, misquoted, taken out of context or fabricated?

Here are examples of several ways that missionaries "draw a circle
around the arrow" to prove their point.

Example 1: THE VERSE HAS BEEN FABRICATED AND DOES NOT EXIST IN the
HEBREW SCRIPTURES

The easiest prophecy to fulfill is one you yourself have invented.
The New Testament certainly bears witness to this principle,
fabricating a number of "prophecies" out of thin air and attributing
them to our Hebrew Scriptures.

The New Testament book of Matthew claims that Jesus was the Messiah
since he lived in the city of Nazareth. The New Testament utilizes
the following "proof text" to make its point: "He [Jesus] came and
resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the
prophets might be fulfilled. "He shall be called a Nazarene.'"
(Matthew 2:23) Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth
and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish
Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew
Scriptures. It was fabricated out of thin air.

Example 2: THE VERSE IS MISTRANSLATED

An effective missionary will work with crude English retranslations
of earlier Greek mistranslations, and will avoid looking at the
original Hebrew.

In Romans 11:26, the Christian Bible quotes Isaiah 59:20 as
saying, "The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove
ungodliness from Jacob," thus attempting to establish scriptural
support for the Christian belief that the Messiah will take away our
sins. How-ever, a careful examination of the Hebrew original reveals
a powerful dilemma. Isaiah 59:20 actually says the opposite: "A
redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression
in Jacob, declares the Lord." The Messiah's role is not to take away
our sins; rather, when we turn away from our sins, the Messiah will
then come! It is also noteworthy that many New Testaments translate
this verse correctly in Isaiah and incorrectly in Romans.

Example 3: THE PASSAGE IS MISTRANSLATED AND READ OUT OF CONTEXT

In an attempt to prove the concept of the "virgin birth," the book of
Matthew 1:22-23 states: "Now all this was done, that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and
they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which translated means, G-d with
us." Missionaries claim that this is the fulfillment of a prophecy
recorded in Isaiah 7:14, that actually reads: "Behold, the young
woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name
Emmanuel."

There are numerous inaccuracies in the Christian translation. For
example:

1) The Hebrew word, "almah -," means a young woman, not a virgin, a
fact recognized by biblical scholars1;

2) The verse says "ha'almah--," "the young woman," not a young woman,
specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his
lifetime; and

3) The verse says "she will call his name Emmanuel," not "they shall
call."

Even apart from these inaccuracies, if we read all of Isaiah Chapter
7, from which this verse is taken, it is obvious that Christians have
taken this verse out of context.

This chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to
allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of
Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years
before Jesus' birth. Isaiah's point is that these events will take
place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as
Christianity claims). Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear: "For
before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the
land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the
birth of a son to Isaiah. As it says in Isaiah 8:4, "For before the
child shall know to cry, "My father and my mother' the riches of
Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away before the
king of Assyria." This verse entirely rules out any connection to
Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years.

Example 4: VIEWED IN CONTEXT, THE VERSE COULD NOT REFER TO JESUS

In Hebrews 1:5, the New Testament quotes a verse from II Samuel
7:14, "I will be a Father to him, and he shall be a son to Me." This
is said to be a prophetic reference to Jesus as the son of G-d.
However, if we look at this verse from II Samuel in its entirety, the
verse doesn't end with the phrase quoted in the New Testament, but
continues: "When he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod
of men." This cannot possibly fit the Christian Bible's view of
a "sinless" Jesus. In addition, the verse is speaking specifically
about King Solomon, as is obvious from I Chronicles 22:9-10, "His
name shall be Solomon . . . he shall build a house for My name and I
will be a Father to him and he will be a son to Me."

The Bible frequently refers to individuals as G-d's "son." In fact, G-
d refers to the entire nation of Israel in the following
manner, "Israel is My son, My firstborn." (Exodus 4:22)

Example 5: THE PASSAGE IS NOT A PROOF

Missionaries incorrectly claim that Jesus fulfilled a prophesy that
the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. They attempt to utilize
Michah 5:2 as their proof text:

"But you Bethlehem Ephratah, though you are small among the thousands
of Judah, out of you will come to Me one who will be ruler in Israel,
whose goings out are from ancient time, from days of old."

This verse is not a prophesy that the Messiah will be born in
Bethlehem. The passage simply states it has been preordained that the
Messiah would be able to trace his roots back to Bethlehem. This is
consistent with the Biblical statement that the Messiah will be a
descendant of King David, who was from Bethlehem, as seen in I Samuel
16:18.

There is another problem with this missionary proof text. A major
distinction must be made between a scripture that serves as a proof
that someone is the Messiah and a scriptures that simply states a
requirement of the Messiah. A proof must be something so exclusive
that only one individual can fulfill it. For example: One criterion
of the Messiah is that he must be Jewish. If an individual is Jewish,
he has fulfilled this particular requirement; however, in and of
itself, this is obviously not a proof that the individual is the
Messiah since millions of individuals are Jewish and they all meet
this criterion. Therefore, the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
would not prove a thing, since thousands of children were born there.

SUMMARY

These examples demonstrate the confusion created when missionaries
shoot an arrow first and then draw a circle around it. Our advice is
to always take the time to examine and read passages carefully and in
their entirety. If you follow this advice, the correct interpretation
will be abundantly clear.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

1 Some missionaries argue that in an ancient translation of the Bible
called the "Septuagint," 70 great rabbis translated the word "almah--
" in Isaiah 7:14, as "parthenos--," and that this Greek word means a
virgin. This claim is false for several reasons: 1) The 70 rabbis did
not translate the book of Isaiah, only the "Pentateuch," the five
books of Moses. In fact, the introduction to the English edition of
the Septuagint states concerning the translation, "The Pentateuch is
considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah
appears to be the very worst;" 2) In Genesis 34:2-3 the
word "parthenos" is used in reference to a non-virgin, a young woman
who had been raped; 3) The entire Septuagint version that
missionaries quote from is not the original, but from a later,
corrupted version.

Brought to you by Jews for Judaism


http://www.jewsforjudaism.com