(July 15, 2014 at 2:58 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: At times, assertions about the "real meaning" are made up completely. One classic example is the reference in Matthew to Isaiah chapter 7, a supposed prophecy of the future messiah being born of a virgin. Setting aside the "bethula/almah" issue, Isaiah 7:14 relates to the time of the author, not to a messiah born centuries later. Without batting an eye, the apologist will simply assert that Isaiah 7:14 is a "double prophecy". There is no reason to think a double prophecy was ever intended by the author nor is there any reference to a messiah born centuries later. This assertion about the author's intent is simply made up.
Typically, debates on a straightforward skeptical reading of Biblical passages vs. the Olympic-level mental gymnastic readings performed by the apologist end with the skeptic invoking Occam's Razor and the apologist ironically accusing the skeptic of reading the passages with an agenda.
Tiring of this merry-go-round, I've recently taken a new approach.
Why didn't the early Christians read the Bible the same way?
Er, Matthew was an early Christian - much earlier than the examples you give - and he apparently did read the Bible that way.
