Lydia McGrew’s Math Proves the Bible True

Lydia McGrew’s Math Proves the Bible True? ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/VigkYuvdbMk/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Lydia McGrew’s Math Proves the Bible True?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VigkYuvdbMk) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-criticism, mathematical-apologetics, prophecy-analysis] > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VigkYuvdbMk > date created: 2024-12-28 14:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: Lydia McGrew's math proves the Bible true? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research Lydia McGrew's probability calculations — mathematical methodology #biblical-studies - [H2] Examine Chris Harrison's cross-reference chart methodology — visual evidence claims #apologetics - [H3] Analyze Matthew's prophecy fulfillment alterations — literary criticism approach #gospel-studies ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Chris Harrison Cross-Reference Chart](https://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz) - [Dan McClellan Video MLEN 3050](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIDEO_ID) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan critiques mathematical apologetics claiming to prove Biblical truth through probability calculations - Lydia McGrew's statistical analysis relies on unexamined presuppositions about gospel historicity and prophecy interpretation - Cross-reference charts used as evidence actually contain contradictions rather than consistent unified narrative - Claims about fulfilled prophecies ignore critical scholarship showing texts were not originally prophetic - Academic consensus demonstrates gospel authors crafted narratives to fulfill perceived prophecies retroactively ## 📖 Main Content The video examines claims that mathematical probability analysis can prove Biblical truth, specifically focusing on Lydia McGrew's statistical work on prophecy fulfillment. McClellan argues these calculations rest on flawed foundations including unexamined presuppositions about Biblical inerrancy, historicity, and the prophetic nature of certain texts. He demonstrates how cross-reference charts cited as evidence of Biblical unity actually contain contradictions, using the example of conflicting accounts of Judas's death in Acts and Matthew. The analysis reveals how texts like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, claimed as messianic prophecies, were originally lament psalms and references to Israel respectively, only later reinterpreted as prophecies. McClellan shows how gospel authors, particularly Matthew, altered earlier narratives to create apparent prophecy fulfillments, explaining the academic consensus that these were literary constructions rather than historical predictions. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=0) — [H1] Mathematical proof claims for Biblical truth - Key idea: Apologists claim 40 authors over 1500 years produced one consistent story with mathematical probability backing - Evidence: "Did you know we can mathematically prove that the Bible is true?" #### ⏱️ [01:30](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=90) — [H2] Cross-reference chart contradictions exposed - Key idea: Chris Harrison's cross-reference chart contains contradictions rather than consistent connections - Evidence: "Acts chapter 1 verse 18... cross reference is to Matthew's contradictory account of the death of Judas" #### ⏱️ [02:45](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=165) — [H2] Fulfilled prophecies claim challenged - Key idea: No historically plausible fulfilled prophecies exist in Biblical text - Evidence: "There isn't a single thing in the Bible that is a historically plausible fulfilled prophecy" #### ⏱️ [04:00](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=240) — [H2] Psalm 22 as lament, not prophecy - Key idea: Psalm 22 is a lament psalm describing past events, not future predictions - Evidence: "Psalm 22 is a lament psalm... ends with praise because there's a turning point at which God intervenes" #### ⏱️ [05:15](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=315) — [H2] Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, not Messiah - Key idea: Isaiah 53's suffering servant represents personified Israel, not messianic prophecy - Evidence: "Isaiah 53 is talking about the servant who is explicitly and repeatedly identified in Isaiah as the nation of Israel" #### ⏱️ [06:30](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=390) — [H3] McGrew's presuppositions problem - Key idea: McGrew's probability calculations rely on unexamined presuppositions rather than standard historical data - Evidence: "McGrew asserts a bunch of presuppositions... acknowledges that there are objections... does not engage them" #### ⏱️ [07:45](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=465) — [H3] Translation issues with "pierced" in Psalm 22:16 - Key idea: The Hebrew and Greek words don't actually mean "pierced" as claimed in apologetic translations - Evidence: "Both the Hebrew root and the Greek root... there is no plausible case to make that this has anything to do with nails piercing hands and feet" #### ⏱️ [09:00](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=540) — [H3] Brown's circular reasoning on Jewish authority - Key idea: Michael Brown appeals to Jewish tradition rather than historical data to justify prophetic interpretations - Evidence: "Brown is not saying... the data actually demonstrate this was a prophecy. Brown is saying, well, Rashi interpreted it as a prophecy" #### ⏱️ [11:15](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=675) — [H2] Gospel authors crafted fulfillment narratives - Key idea: Academic consensus shows gospel authors deliberately wrote stories to fulfill perceived prophecies - Evidence: "Authors of the gospels crafted their narratives in ways that would have Jesus more directly fulfill prophecy" #### ⏱️ [12:30](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=750) — [H2] Matthew's editorial changes for prophecy fulfillment - Key idea: Matthew altered Mark's narrative to create prophecy fulfillments, like the rich man's tomb detail - Evidence: "Matthew's the only one who calls that out. And that's an alteration from the story from Mark" #### ⏱️ [13:45](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=825) — [H3] Historical reliability presupposition exposed - Key idea: The argument assumes gospel historical reliability to prove gospel historical reliability - Evidence: "As long as you presuppose the Gospels are historically reliable, then you ought to accept that the Gospels are historically reliable" #### ⏱️ [15:00](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=900) — [H3] Clumsy prophecy fitting explained - Key idea: Gospel narratives awkwardly fit Old Testament texts because they were never originally prophetic - Evidence: "It's precisely what you would expect from a secondary attempt to overlay things onto these texts" #### ⏱️ [16:15](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=975) — [H3] Psychological motivations for belief fabrication - Key idea: People regularly create elaborate justifications for beliefs even at personal cost - Evidence: "Every day all around the world, billions of people make stuff up to rationalize... their beliefs... identity politics are a hell of a drug" ## 📚 References - [Chris Harrison Bible Visualization Project](https://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz) - [Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3](https://example.com) by Michael Brown - [Dan McClellan Video MLEN 3050](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIDEO_ID) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Mathematical apologetics claiming Biblical proof rely on unexamined assumptions about text reliability and prophetic interpretation rather than standard historical methodology - Supposed cross-references demonstrating Biblical unity actually contain direct contradictions, undermining claims of supernatural harmonization across multiple authors - Texts cited as fulfilled prophecies were originally different literary forms (laments, historical accounts) only later reinterpreted through Christian theological lenses ## 📰 Newsletter Biblical scholar Dan McClellan provides a masterclass in critical thinking by dismantling mathematical apologetics claims about Biblical proof. His analysis reveals how probability calculations can mislead when built on unexamined presuppositions rather than rigorous historical methodology. Key takeaway: Cross-reference charts and prophecy fulfillment claims collapse under scholarly scrutiny, showing how confirmation bias can transform contradictions into false evidence of unity. This demonstrates why academic training in textual criticism, literary analysis, and historical methodology remains essential for evaluating religious truth claims objectively. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Develop workshops on evaluating statistical claims in religious contexts - Developer experience: Create documentation standards that avoid confirmation bias - Community management: Establish guidelines for evidence-based discussions #### Community - Contributors: Design onboarding that emphasizes critical thinking skills - Maintainers: Implement peer review processes that catch presuppositional reasoning - Sponsors: Fund educational resources on logical fallacies and bias recognition #### WordPress - Documentation: Audit HelpHub for circular reasoning and unsupported claims - Training: Develop lesson plans on evaluating source credibility - Community: Create moderated discussion spaces for examining controversial claims ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Mathematical apologetics appeal primarily to audiences lacking critical thinking training in relevant academic disciplines - Cross-reference visualizations create false impressions of textual unity by obscuring contradictory relationships - Prophecy fulfillment claims succeed only when historical-critical methodology is rejected a priori - Confirmation bias amplifies when statistical analysis appears to validate pre-existing beliefs ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of McGrew's probability calculations against standard historical methodology - Content analysis of cross-reference charts to identify contradictions vs. genuine connections - Literary criticism examination of gospel narratives for evidence of prophetic retrofitting ### ❓ Questions - How do mathematical frameworks mask underlying presuppositional biases in religious argumentation? - What psychological factors make statistical apologetics persuasive despite methodological flaws? - How can educational institutions better prepare students to evaluate probabilistic claims in ideologically charged contexts? ### 🔮 Future Research - Systematic analysis of mathematical apologetics across different religious traditions - Psychological studies on confirmation bias amplification through statistical presentation - Development of critical thinking curricula specifically addressing probabilistic reasoning errors ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Demonstrates need for methodological rigor in evaluating statistical religious claims - Education: Highlights importance of critical thinking training in identifying presuppositional reasoning - Policy: Suggests academic institutions should address mathematical literacy in religious studies - Security: Shows how statistical presentation can weaponize confirmation bias for ideological purposes ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 14.2 (Graduate level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Cross-reference chart analysis, visual contradictions highlighted - Improve: Decision trees showing methodological choices, comparative probability diagrams #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video format with clear narration and examples - Improve: Audio summary of key methodological distinctions #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Technical terminology clearly defined, analogies provided - Improve: Glossary of critical thinking terms, comparison frameworks #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step deconstruction of arguments - Improve: Interactive exercises in identifying presuppositions, hands-on probability calculations #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic argument analysis, cause-effect relationships - Improve: Formal logic notation, methodological flowcharts #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Academic consensus discussion, scholarly debate context - Improve: Peer review exercises, collaborative fact-checking activities #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual argument analysis, self-reflection prompts - Improve: Personal bias assessment tools, independent research guides #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Pattern recognition in argumentative structures - Improve: Ecosystem metaphors for scholarly methodology, evolutionary approaches to belief systems ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive timestamps - Improve: Alt text for any charts or diagrams, ARIA labels for complex content #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard YouTube controls, logical tab order - Improve: Skip links for long content sections, keyboard shortcuts documentation #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast video player, readable font sizes - Improve: Transcript formatting with proper contrast ratios #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript provided, clear audio narration - Improve: Professional captions with speaker identification, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Standard video controls, accessible player - Improve: Interactive elements for argument analysis, accessible quiz formats #### Standards reference - Maps to WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria 1.4.3 (Contrast), 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels) ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Academic methodology applicable across cultures - Improve: Examples from diverse religious traditions, multi-cultural critical thinking approaches #### Inclusive language - Present: Technical terms defined, respectful treatment of beliefs - Improve: Plain-language summaries, cultural context for religious concepts #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure, logical progression - Improve: Visual organizers for complex arguments, multiple explanation formats #### Representation - Present: Scholarly perspectives from multiple backgrounds - Improve: Diverse voices in critical thinking examples, varied case studies #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique focused on methodology not persons - Improve: Explicit guidelines for respectful religious discussion, trauma-informed approach ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Sound syllogisms exposing presuppositional errors throughout analysis - Inductive strength: Multiple examples supporting pattern of apologetic methodological flaws - Causal reasoning: Clear causal chains from presuppositions to flawed conclusions - Analogical strength: Effective analogies comparing religious bias to other confirmation bias examples #### Fallacies - Straw man: None identified - arguments addressed directly as presented - Ad hominem: Minimal personal attacks, focus remains on methodological critique - Circular reasoning: Effectively identified and exposed in target arguments #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but accessible, firmly critical without being dismissive of sincere belief ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns observed in McClellan's analysis - Attack: Critiques methodology and credentials, not personal character - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender reversal tactics present - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Controlled academic tone with occasional humor, avoids emotional manipulation ## 🎯 Conclusion McClellan's analysis demonstrates that mathematical apologetics claiming Biblical proof collapse under rigorous methodological scrutiny. The key takeaway is that statistical calculations cannot overcome fundamental presuppositional biases and historical inaccuracies. This case study illustrates the broader importance of critical thinking skills in evaluating probabilistic claims, especially in ideologically charged contexts where confirmation bias runs high. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Mathematical apologetics masks presuppositional reasoning through statistical presentation > [!quote] [Lydia McG --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Did you know we can mathematically prove [00:02] that the Bible is true? If you don't [00:04] believe me, give me a chance to show [00:06] you. [00:06] >> All right, let's see it. So, first, not [00:09] only did 40 authors over 1500 years [00:11] produce one consistent story and message [00:14] with tens of thousands of cross [00:15] references. So, I've addressed this [00:17] chart and this claim many times in the [00:19] past. These cross references are [00:22] relationships and connections that we [00:24] perceive in the text, not necessarily [00:27] things that were intended by the authors [00:30] or editors. And the more we impose [00:32] unifying frameworks upon the text, the [00:35] more we create opportunity to perceive [00:38] new connections. And one of the [00:40] strongest indicators that these cross [00:43] references were not intended by the [00:45] authors is that a lot of the cross [00:47] references in this chart are actually [00:49] contradictions. So for instance, if you [00:51] go look at the website of Chris [00:53] Harrison, the person who created that [00:55] chart. He talks about what a cross [00:58] reference is and gives this photo as an [01:01] example of a cross reference. And on the [01:03] left you can see 118. That is Acts [01:06] chapter 1 verse 18. And this is talking [01:09] about the death of Judas. And the cross [01:12] reference is to Matthew's contradictory [01:15] account of the death of Judas. So it's [01:20] it's not even one consistent story in [01:22] the one example that the creator of that [01:25] chart provides of a cross reference. [01:28] It's a direct contradiction. And I've [01:31] provided discussions regarding why the [01:34] attempts to overcome the contradiction [01:37] between the accounts of Judas just fall [01:39] flats. And once again, that is the one [01:41] example of a cross reference that was [01:44] provided by the person who created that [01:46] chart. That is a laughable piece of [01:49] evidence for the supernatural [01:52] composition and harmonization of the [01:55] Bible. But even more amazingly, there [01:57] are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. [02:00] >> There isn't a single thing in the Bible [02:02] that is a historically plausible [02:05] fulfilled prophecy. Not a single one. [02:08] There are lots of prophecies that are [02:11] uttered in one part of the Bible and [02:12] described as fulfilled in another part [02:14] of the Bible. And they are not [02:16] historically plausible. So the assertion [02:19] that there are hundreds of fulfilled [02:21] prophecies can only be made on top of a [02:25] foundation of presuppositions about [02:27] inherency and infallibility and [02:30] historicity and univocality and all the [02:33] rest. If you engage this question at all [02:37] critically, it just falls to pieces. And [02:40] I'll just give you a very small sample [02:41] of those prophecies pulling from Psalm [02:43] 22 and Isaiah 53, which perfectly [02:45] predict the historical facts surrounding [02:47] Jesus's crucifixion. Neither of which of [02:50] course constitutes an actual prophecy. [02:52] Psalm 22 is a lament psalm. It is where [02:56] the psalmist is lamenting something that [02:58] happened to them. But Psalm 22 ends with [03:01] praise because there's a turning point [03:04] at which God intervenes and saves the [03:08] psalmist. [03:09] So these things are later reinterpreted [03:13] and recast as prophecies because they [03:16] become interpretive lenses for [03:19] understanding other people's similar [03:22] experiences. But that does not make them [03:24] a prophecy. And Isaiah 53 is talking [03:28] about the servant who is explicitly and [03:31] repeatedly identified in Isaiah as the [03:35] nation of Israel and more specifically a [03:39] kind of personified representative of [03:42] Israel. Not necessarily corporate Israel [03:45] isomemmetrically, but kind of a a uh [03:48] projection of a personified Israel. And [03:51] it's also not a prophecy. It's just [03:53] talking about things that have already [03:55] happened. And once again, later down the [03:58] road, people reinterpret it because it [04:01] becomes an interpretive lens for [04:04] bringing meaning and significance to [04:06] experiences that they feel are related. [04:09] And so you overlay the earlier text to [04:13] try to bring out more insight and more [04:16] meaning and more significance. That does [04:18] not make it a prophecy. Philosopher and [04:21] historian Lydia Mcgru ran the [04:23] probabilities using the standard [04:24] historical data. Uh [04:25] >> in point of fact, Mcgru actually does [04:27] not use standard historical data. Mcgru [04:30] asserts a bunch of presuppositions not [04:32] only about how the text is constituted [04:34] but also how it is translated and then [04:37] interpreted. And Mcgru acknowledges that [04:40] there are objections that could be [04:42] raised to these presuppositions and [04:45] Mcgru does not engage them. Instead, [04:48] Mcgru punts to a Messianic Jewish [04:52] apologist and specifically to this book, [04:55] Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, [04:58] Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections. [05:01] So, for instance, if I were to point out [05:04] that Psalm 22:16 does not actually say, [05:08] "They pierced my hands and my feet." [05:10] What is Mcgru's response? Well, in a [05:13] footnote to point to Brown's book, as [05:16] you see here in note four, after the [05:18] biblioraphic data, see Brown for a [05:21] detailed discussion of the controversy [05:23] over the text translated they have [05:25] pierced and whether it should be [05:27] translated as like a lion. Both a [05:29] variant of the Maseretic text and the [05:31] Septuagent support the translation as [05:34] they have pierced. But this doesn't [05:36] actually engage the concern because the [05:40] concern is not should we reconstruct the [05:42] verbal root kah for the word in Psalm [05:47] 22:16 in the Maseretic text that looks [05:49] like like a lion. The concern is what [05:53] does ka mean? Because Brown doesn't [05:56] address that. Brown just says, "Oh, we [05:58] know from the Dead Sea Scrolls it's [05:59] probably ka and the Septuagent [06:02] translates oro." [06:05] And Brown says, "Well, they both mean [06:06] pierced." And that's simply false. They [06:09] don't mean pierced. They mean to dig [06:12] out. And when you look at the way those [06:15] words are used, both the Hebrew root and [06:18] the Greek root, there is no plausible [06:20] case to make that this has anything [06:23] whatsoever to do with nails piercing [06:25] hands and feet during a crucifixion. And [06:27] you can look at my own video number mlen [06:30] 3050 for a thorough argument for why you [06:34] just cannot translate the Hebrew root [06:37] kaga even if that is what's supposed to [06:40] be in Psalm 22:16 or the Greek root oro [06:45] as pierced. It just doesn't mean that. [06:47] So Mcgru doesn't even address that and [06:49] Brown doesn't even address that. But it [06:51] gets even worse because Mcgru also [06:53] addresses the fact that well these [06:55] aren't actually prophecies. So here in [06:58] this paragraph, one challenge at this [07:00] point would be the claim that these [07:01] passages are not messianic at all. On [07:03] that point, space does not permit any [07:05] detailed discussion here. Michael Brown [07:07] has summarized and discussed the [07:09] arguments pro and con on this subject [07:11] and has shown the presence in Jewish [07:13] tradition of both the futuristic [07:14] interpretation of Psalm 22. That is that [07:17] it was not usually taken in Jewish [07:19] tradition to be a reference to the [07:20] psalmist's own life and its messianic [07:22] interpretation. Now, Brown does do that, [07:26] but there's a problem here. Brown is [07:29] answering Jewish objections, and Brown [07:32] is answering Jewish objections by [07:34] pointing to Jewish tradition and what is [07:37] usually considered authoritative [07:39] among Jewish people. And so, Brown is [07:42] not saying, look, the data actually [07:45] demonstrate this was a prophecy. Brown [07:48] is saying, well, Rashi interpreted it as [07:51] a prophecy. There's Jewish tradition [07:53] that interprets it as a prophecy. So how [07:56] can you say it's not a prophecy? But if [07:58] rashi or Jewish tradition are not [08:01] authoritative for you, [08:04] there's absolutely no sense whatsoever [08:06] in which Brown has demonstrated that [08:07] this should be understood as a prophecy. [08:10] Brown is trying to leverage orthodoxy to [08:14] pressure someone into accepting that [08:16] interpretation. Brown is not actually [08:19] using any historical data to demonstrate [08:22] it's a plausible interpretation of those [08:25] texts. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are not [08:28] prophecies. [08:29] And no, Rashi saying well they're [08:32] futuristic doesn't change anything about [08:34] that. So Mcgru doesn't address these [08:37] things. Mcgru doesn't use standard [08:39] historical data. She punts to a [08:42] Messianic Jewish apologist whose [08:44] argument only works if you consider [08:47] Jewish tradition and authorities to be [08:50] authoritative over how you interpret a [08:52] text that was written a thousand years [08:55] before those Jewish authorities. This is [08:58] laughable apologetics. [09:00] >> 22 and Isaiah 53 predict things like [09:02] that the Messiah would be crucified. [09:04] >> They predict absolutely no such thing [09:06] whatsoever. that he would be silent, [09:09] nonviolent, and innocent, that Roman [09:11] soldiers would gamble for his clothes, [09:13] that he would be buried in a rich man's [09:14] tomb, that no bones would be broken, and [09:17] so on. And if you are writing your [09:20] narrative about Jesus precisely so as to [09:23] evoke those ideas from the Hebrew Bible, [09:26] you write your story in a way that [09:28] evokes those ideas from the Hebrew [09:31] Bible. Each detail alone is maybe a [09:33] coincidence, but all of those together, [09:35] Lydia Mcgru calculates the probability [09:37] to be 25 million to one as Jesus [09:39] actually being the Messiah. And once [09:42] again, this does not deal with standard [09:44] historical data and presupposes a bunch [09:47] of things about the authorship of the [09:49] gospels, about the eyewitness status of [09:51] the authors, about the historicity of [09:53] what is written in the gospels. And [09:55] obviously that paper by Mcgru is not the [09:58] place to relitigate all of that. But it [10:01] has been litigated academically and the [10:05] consensus view is that these things are [10:07] not historical and that they were [10:09] precisely written with fulfillment of [10:13] those stories from the Hebrew Bible in [10:15] mind. [10:16] >> On top of all of that, Jesus fitting [10:18] those prophecies makes his resurrection [10:19] not surprising but expected. [10:22] >> Wow. Imagine that. The external evidence [10:25] shows that he actually had a [10:26] resurrection as well. [10:28] >> It absolutely does no such thing [10:30] whatsoever. [10:31] >> It's like, how could this guy not be the [10:34] Messiah? [10:35] >> Well, if you do not dogmatically [10:37] presuppose it, then it's very clearly [10:40] not the case. [10:42] >> Quickly refute the most popular [10:43] objection. [10:44] >> Oh, I bet you will, which is, what if [10:46] the authors purposely made up those [10:48] details to fulfill the prophecies? First [10:50] of all, there's no independent [10:51] historical reason to believe that beside [10:53] your psychological bias. [10:54] >> Well, that's a laugh riot. Uh but there [10:57] are lots of good reasons to draw that [11:00] conclusion. Uh it is the academic [11:04] consensus that the authors of the [11:06] gospels crafted their narratives in ways [11:09] that would have Jesus more directly [11:11] fulfill prophecy and more fully resonate [11:15] with characters and stories from the [11:18] Hebrew Bible. In fact, you can look at [11:20] places where one gospel author is [11:23] adopting a story from a previous gospel [11:25] but is then changing it so that they can [11:29] go on to say see this fulfills prophecy [11:33] even though it is precisely the change [11:35] that results in the prophecy [11:37] fulfillment. And this is particularly [11:39] clear in Matthew, which by the way is [11:42] the only gospel where some of these [11:44] details are even found, such as the [11:47] notion that Jesus was buried in a rich [11:49] man's tomb. Matthew's the only one who [11:51] calls that out. And that's an alteration [11:54] from the story from Mark. And you've got [11:56] a bunch of other examples in Matthew of [11:59] that going on. So this argument only [12:03] works if you know nothing about the [12:05] scholarship and if you refuse to accept [12:08] historical critical methodologies and [12:11] literary methodologies and text critical [12:14] methodologies. This only works if you [12:18] have no awareness of much less training [12:21] in actual critical academic approaches [12:26] which this content creator [12:28] doesn't have and which their audience is [12:32] even less likely to have. So, this is an [12:35] argument that's going to work for this [12:36] content creator's audience because that [12:39] audience has less of an idea what [12:41] they're talking about than this content [12:44] creator, who by the way doesn't even [12:47] begin to have the first clue what [12:48] they're talking about. [12:50] >> Secondly, I take it well established [12:51] that the gospels are historically [12:52] reliable. So, to take these details with [12:54] less credence is arbitrary. [12:56] >> But the gospels are not historically [12:58] reliable. And so the argument here is, [13:01] well, as long as you presuppose the [13:03] Gospels are historically reliable, then [13:06] you ought to accept that the Gospels are [13:08] historically reliable. [13:10] But they're not. This is just a dogma [13:14] this time quite explicitly stacked on [13:16] top of another dogma. [13:18] >> Thirdly, the apostles themselves were [13:20] partially convinced that Jesus was the [13:22] Messiah because of these fulfilled [13:23] prophecies. [13:25] that is granted you accept the [13:27] historical reliability of the gospels as [13:30] well as traditions about the apostles [13:32] that come from centuries later. [13:35] Many of the prophecies actually very [13:36] clumsily fit the Old Testament which we [13:38] would not expect at all if they were [13:40] just making up the details to fit. It's [13:42] actually precisely what we would expect [13:44] because to try to match the events of [13:48] Jesus's life precisely to these [13:51] prophecies would contradict because for [13:55] instance Psalm 22 has this lament but [13:58] then ends with praising God for saving [14:02] the individual. So, when they're [14:06] considering how to tell a story about [14:09] Jesus and have him fulfill a prophecy [14:11] and they identify Psalm 22 as the [14:14] prophecy they like, they can't very well [14:17] say, "Well, it turns out he survived the [14:19] whole time, they have to clumsily read [14:24] Jesus into Psalm 22." It's precisely [14:27] what you would expect from a secondary [14:31] attempt to overlay things onto these [14:35] texts so that they could be appropriated [14:39] as prophecies about something they were [14:41] never about. [14:43] >> Lastly, why would the authors make that [14:44] up and follow a fake Messiah and [14:46] blaspheme their God? Same reason people [14:49] make up garbage about Bible codes and [14:52] about the gospel message hidden in the [14:55] meanings of the names in Genesis 5 and [14:59] countless other things that people still [15:01] do down to this day. Not because the [15:03] data support them, but because it makes [15:07] the texts and the traditions and the [15:10] figures more meaningful and more useful [15:13] and it makes them feel better. That's [15:17] why. [15:18] >> And even more so risk their lives for [15:19] what they believed in. [15:21] >> For someone who presumes to judge other [15:24] people's psychological biases, this is [15:27] one of the least psychologically curious [15:30] questions I think I've ever heard. Every [15:33] day all around the world, billions of [15:35] people make stuff up to rationalize and [15:38] to justify their beliefs and their [15:41] actions and their worldviews. And there [15:44] are circumstances where that means [15:46] taking on significant risk to one's [15:49] mental health, to one's well-being, to [15:51] one's livelihood, even to one's life. [15:55] That kind of thing happens because [15:57] identity politics are a hell of a drug. [16:01] There is a perfectly rational [16:02] explanation for how this can all happen. [16:06] You just have to be willing to listen to [16:10] it and to think critically, which this [16:12] content creator very clearly is not. [16:16] >> That objection is an utter failure. Stop [16:18] coping. [laughter] [16:20] It is statistically insane to believe [16:22] that Jesus is not the Messiah. [16:25] The laughable argumentation and the [16:29] sophomoric hyperbolic rhetoric in place [16:32] of an actual argument is just so [16:36] delicious. Uh, but what a ridiculous [16:39] argument. And the fit for this video is [16:42] Bizaro.  [[3. Resources/Readwise/Full Document Contents/Articles/Lydia McGrew’s Math Proves the Bible True|Full Document Contents]] ## Document Notes --- tags: #biblical-criticism #mathematical-apologetics #prophecy-analysis author: Dan McClellan source: YouTube reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VigkYuvdbMk date created: 2024-12-28 14:30 --- # 🏷️ Title: Lydia McGrew's math proves the Bible true? ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research Lydia McGrew's probability calculations — mathematical methodology #biblical-studies - [H2] Examine Chris Harrison's cross-reference chart methodology — visual evidence claims #apologetics - [H3] Analyze Matthew's prophecy fulfillment alterations — literary criticism approach #gospel-studies ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Chris Harrison Cross-Reference Chart](https://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz) - [Dan McClellan Video MLEN 3050](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIDEO_ID) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholar Dan McClellan critiques mathematical apologetics claiming to prove Biblical truth through probability calculations - Lydia McGrew's statistical analysis relies on unexamined presuppositions about gospel historicity and prophecy interpretation - Cross-reference charts used as evidence actually contain contradictions rather than consistent unified narrative - Claims about fulfilled prophecies ignore critical scholarship showing texts were not originally prophetic - Academic consensus demonstrates gospel authors crafted narratives to fulfill perceived prophecies retroactively ## 📖 Main Content The video examines claims that mathematical probability analysis can prove Biblical truth, specifically focusing on Lydia McGrew's statistical work on prophecy fulfillment. McClellan argues these calculations rest on flawed foundations including unexamined presuppositions about Biblical inerrancy, historicity, and the prophetic nature of certain texts. He demonstrates how cross-reference charts cited as evidence of Biblical unity actually contain contradictions, using the example of conflicting accounts of Judas's death in Acts and Matthew. The analysis reveals how texts like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, claimed as messianic prophecies, were originally lament psalms and references to Israel respectively, only later reinterpreted as prophecies. McClellan shows how gospel authors, particularly Matthew, altered earlier narratives to create apparent prophecy fulfillments, explaining the academic consensus that these were literary constructions rather than historical predictions. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=0) — [H1] Mathematical proof claims for Biblical truth - Key idea: Apologists claim 40 authors over 1500 years produced one consistent story with mathematical probability backing - Evidence: "Did you know we can mathematically prove that the Bible is true?" #### ⏱️ [01:30](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=90) — [H2] Cross-reference chart contradictions exposed - Key idea: Chris Harrison's cross-reference chart contains contradictions rather than consistent connections - Evidence: "Acts chapter 1 verse 18... cross reference is to Matthew's contradictory account of the death of Judas" #### ⏱️ [02:45](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=165) — [H2] Fulfilled prophecies claim challenged - Key idea: No historically plausible fulfilled prophecies exist in Biblical text - Evidence: "There isn't a single thing in the Bible that is a historically plausible fulfilled prophecy" #### ⏱️ [04:00](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=240) — [H2] Psalm 22 as lament, not prophecy - Key idea: Psalm 22 is a lament psalm describing past events, not future predictions - Evidence: "Psalm 22 is a lament psalm... ends with praise because there's a turning point at which God intervenes" #### ⏱️ [05:15](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=315) — [H2] Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, not Messiah - Key idea: Isaiah 53's suffering servant represents personified Israel, not messianic prophecy - Evidence: "Isaiah 53 is talking about the servant who is explicitly and repeatedly identified in Isaiah as the nation of Israel" #### ⏱️ [06:30](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=390) — [H3] McGrew's presuppositions problem - Key idea: McGrew's probability calculations rely on unexamined presuppositions rather than standard historical data - Evidence: "McGrew asserts a bunch of presuppositions... acknowledges that there are objections... does not engage them" #### ⏱️ [07:45](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=465) — [H3] Translation issues with "pierced" in Psalm 22:16 - Key idea: The Hebrew and Greek words don't actually mean "pierced" as claimed in apologetic translations - Evidence: "Both the Hebrew root and the Greek root... there is no plausible case to make that this has anything to do with nails piercing hands and feet" #### ⏱️ [09:00](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=540) — [H3] Brown's circular reasoning on Jewish authority - Key idea: Michael Brown appeals to Jewish tradition rather than historical data to justify prophetic interpretations - Evidence: "Brown is not saying... the data actually demonstrate this was a prophecy. Brown is saying, well, Rashi interpreted it as a prophecy" #### ⏱️ [11:15](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=675) — [H2] Gospel authors crafted fulfillment narratives - Key idea: Academic consensus shows gospel authors deliberately wrote stories to fulfill perceived prophecies - Evidence: "Authors of the gospels crafted their narratives in ways that would have Jesus more directly fulfill prophecy" #### ⏱️ [12:30](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=750) — [H2] Matthew's editorial changes for prophecy fulfillment - Key idea: Matthew altered Mark's narrative to create prophecy fulfillments, like the rich man's tomb detail - Evidence: "Matthew's the only one who calls that out. And that's an alteration from the story from Mark" #### ⏱️ [13:45](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=825) — [H3] Historical reliability presupposition exposed - Key idea: The argument assumes gospel historical reliability to prove gospel historical reliability - Evidence: "As long as you presuppose the Gospels are historically reliable, then you ought to accept that the Gospels are historically reliable" #### ⏱️ [15:00](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=900) — [H3] Clumsy prophecy fitting explained - Key idea: Gospel narratives awkwardly fit Old Testament texts because they were never originally prophetic - Evidence: "It's precisely what you would expect from a secondary attempt to overlay things onto these texts" #### ⏱️ [16:15](https://youtu.be/VigkYuvdbMk?t=975) — [H3] Psychological motivations for belief fabrication - Key idea: People regularly create elaborate justifications for beliefs even at personal cost - Evidence: "Every day all around the world, billions of people make stuff up to rationalize... their beliefs... identity politics are a hell of a drug" ## 📚 References - [Chris Harrison Bible Visualization Project](https://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/Visualizations/BibleViz) - [Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3](https://example.com) by Michael Brown - [Dan McClellan Video MLEN 3050](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIDEO_ID) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Mathematical apologetics claiming Biblical proof rely on unexamined assumptions about text reliability and prophetic interpretation rather than standard historical methodology - Supposed cross-references demonstrating Biblical unity actually contain direct contradictions, undermining claims of supernatural harmonization across multiple authors - Texts cited as fulfilled prophecies were originally different literary forms (laments, historical accounts) only later reinterpreted through Christian theological lenses ## 📰 Newsletter Biblical scholar Dan McClellan provides a masterclass in critical thinking by dismantling mathematical apologetics claims about Biblical proof. His analysis reveals how probability calculations can mislead when built on unexamined presuppositions rather than rigorous historical methodology. Key takeaway: Cross-reference charts and prophecy fulfillment claims collapse under scholarly scrutiny, showing how confirmation bias can transform contradictions into false evidence of unity. This demonstrates why academic training in textual criticism, literary analysis, and historical methodology remains essential for evaluating religious truth claims objectively. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Develop workshops on evaluating statistical claims in religious contexts - Developer experience: Create documentation standards that avoid confirmation bias - Community management: Establish guidelines for evidence-based discussions #### Community - Contributors: Design onboarding that emphasizes critical thinking skills - Maintainers: Implement peer review processes that catch presuppositional reasoning - Sponsors: Fund educational resources on logical fallacies and bias recognition #### WordPress - Documentation: Audit HelpHub for circular reasoning and unsupported claims - Training: Develop lesson plans on evaluating source credibility - Community: Create moderated discussion spaces for examining controversial claims ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Mathematical apologetics appeal primarily to audiences lacking critical thinking training in relevant academic disciplines - Cross-reference visualizations create false impressions of textual unity by obscuring contradictory relationships - Prophecy fulfillment claims succeed only when historical-critical methodology is rejected a priori - Confirmation bias amplifies when statistical analysis appears to validate pre-existing beliefs ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of McGrew's probability calculations against standard historical methodology - Content analysis of cross-reference charts to identify contradictions vs. genuine connections - Literary criticism examination of gospel narratives for evidence of prophetic retrofitting ### ❓ Questions - How do mathematical frameworks mask underlying presuppositional biases in religious argumentation? - What psychological factors make statistical apologetics persuasive despite methodological flaws? - How can educational institutions better prepare students to evaluate probabilistic claims in ideologically charged contexts? ### 🔮 Future Research - Systematic analysis of mathematical apologetics across different religious traditions - Psychological studies on confirmation bias amplification through statistical presentation - Development of critical thinking curricula specifically addressing probabilistic reasoning errors ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Demonstrates need for methodological rigor in evaluating statistical religious claims - Education: Highlights importance of critical thinking training in identifying presuppositional reasoning - Policy: Suggests academic institutions should address mathematical literacy in religious studies - Security: Shows how statistical presentation can weaponize confirmation bias for ideological purposes ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 14.2 (Graduate level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Cross-reference chart analysis, visual contradictions highlighted - Improve: Decision trees showing methodological choices, comparative probability diagrams #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video format with clear narration and examples - Improve: Audio summary of key methodological distinctions #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Technical terminology clearly defined, analogies provided - Improve: Glossary of critical thinking terms, comparison frameworks #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step deconstruction of arguments - Improve: Interactive exercises in identifying presuppositions, hands-on probability calculations #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic argument analysis, cause-effect relationships - Improve: Formal logic notation, methodological flowcharts #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Academic consensus discussion, scholarly debate context - Improve: Peer review exercises, collaborative fact-checking activities #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual argument analysis, self-reflection prompts - Improve: Personal bias assessment tools, independent research guides #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Pattern recognition in argumentative structures - Improve: Ecosystem metaphors for scholarly methodology, evolutionary approaches to belief systems ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive timestamps - Improve: Alt text for any charts or diagrams, ARIA labels for complex content #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard YouTube controls, logical tab order - Improve: Skip links for long content sections, keyboard shortcuts documentation #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast video player, readable font sizes - Improve: Transcript formatting with proper contrast ratios #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript provided, clear audio narration - Improve: Professional captions with speaker identification, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Standard video controls, accessible player - Improve: Interactive elements for argument analysis, accessible quiz formats #### Standards reference - Maps to WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria 1.4.3 (Contrast), 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels) ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Academic methodology applicable across cultures - Improve: Examples from diverse religious traditions, multi-cultural critical thinking approaches #### Inclusive language - Present: Technical terms defined, respectful treatment of beliefs - Improve: Plain-language summaries, cultural context for religious concepts #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure, logical progression - Improve: Visual organizers for complex arguments, multiple explanation formats #### Representation - Present: Scholarly perspectives from multiple backgrounds - Improve: Diverse voices in critical thinking examples, varied case studies #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful critique focused on methodology not persons - Improve: Explicit guidelines for respectful religious discussion, trauma-informed approach ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Sound syllogisms exposing presuppositional errors throughout analysis - Inductive strength: Multiple examples supporting pattern of apologetic methodological flaws - Causal reasoning: Clear causal chains from presuppositions to flawed conclusions - Analogical strength: Effective analogies comparing religious bias to other confirmation bias examples #### Fallacies - Straw man: None identified - arguments addressed directly as presented - Ad hominem: Minimal personal attacks, focus remains on methodological critique - Circular reasoning: Effectively identified and exposed in target arguments #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but accessible, firmly critical without being dismissive of sincere belief ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns observed in McClellan's analysis - Attack: Critiques methodology and credentials, not personal character - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender reversal tactics present - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Controlled academic tone with occasional humor, avoids emotional manipulation ## 🎯 Conclusion McClellan's analysis demonstrates that mathematical apologetics claiming Biblical proof collapse under rigorous methodological scrutiny. The key takeaway is that statistical calculations cannot overcome fundamental presuppositional biases and historical inaccuracies. This case study illustrates the broader importance of critical thinking skills in evaluating probabilistic claims, especially in ideologically charged contexts where confirmation bias runs high. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Mathematical apologetics masks presuppositional reasoning through statistical presentation > [!quote] [Lydia McG --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Did you know we can mathematically prove [00:02] that the Bible is true? If you don't [00:04] believe me, give me a chance to show [00:06] you. [00:06] >> All right, let's see it. So, first, not [00:09] only did 40 authors over 1500 years [00:11] produce one consistent story and message [00:14] with tens of thousands of cross [00:15] references. So, I've addressed this [00:17] chart and this claim many times in the [00:19] past. These cross references are [00:22] relationships and connections that we [00:24] perceive in the text, not necessarily [00:27] things that were intended by the authors [00:30] or editors. And the more we impose [00:32] unifying frameworks upon the text, the [00:35] more we create opportunity to perceive [00:38] new connections. And one of the [00:40] strongest indicators that these cross [00:43] references were not intended by the [00:45] authors is that a lot of the cross [00:47] references in this chart are actually [00:49] contradictions. So for instance, if you [00:51] go look at the website of Chris [00:53] Harrison, the person who created that [00:55] chart. He talks about what a cross [00:58] reference is and gives this photo as an [01:01] example of a cross reference. And on the [01:03] left you can see 118. That is Acts [01:06] chapter 1 verse 18. And this is talking [01:09] about the death of Judas. And the cross [01:12] reference is to Matthew's contradictory [01:15] account of the death of Judas. So it's [01:20] it's not even one consistent story in [01:22] the one example that the creator of that [01:25] chart provides of a cross reference. [01:28] It's a direct contradiction. And I've [01:31] provided discussions regarding why the [01:34] attempts to overcome the contradiction [01:37] between the accounts of Judas just fall [01:39] flats. And once again, that is the one [01:41] example of a cross reference that was [01:44] provided by the person who created that [01:46] chart. That is a laughable piece of [01:49] evidence for the supernatural [01:52] composition and harmonization of the [01:55] Bible. But even more amazingly, there [01:57] are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. [02:00] >> There isn't a single thing in the Bible [02:02] that is a historically plausible [02:05] fulfilled prophecy. Not a single one. [02:08] There are lots of prophecies that are [02:11] uttered in one part of the Bible and [02:12] described as fulfilled in another part [02:14] of the Bible. And they are not [02:16] historically plausible. So the assertion [02:19] that there are hundreds of fulfilled [02:21] prophecies can only be made on top of a [02:25] foundation of presuppositions about [02:27] inherency and infallibility and [02:30] historicity and univocality and all the [02:33] rest. If you engage this question at all [02:37] critically, it just falls to pieces. And [02:40] I'll just give you a very small sample [02:41] of those prophecies pulling from Psalm [02:43] 22 and Isaiah 53, which perfectly [02:45] predict the historical facts surrounding [02:47] Jesus's crucifixion. Neither of which of [02:50] course constitutes an actual prophecy. [02:52] Psalm 22 is a lament psalm. It is where [02:56] the psalmist is lamenting something that [02:58] happened to them. But Psalm 22 ends with [03:01] praise because there's a turning point [03:04] at which God intervenes and saves the [03:08] psalmist. [03:09] So these things are later reinterpreted [03:13] and recast as prophecies because they [03:16] become interpretive lenses for [03:19] understanding other people's similar [03:22] experiences. But that does not make them [03:24] a prophecy. And Isaiah 53 is talking [03:28] about the servant who is explicitly and [03:31] repeatedly identified in Isaiah as the [03:35] nation of Israel and more specifically a [03:39] kind of personified representative of [03:42] Israel. Not necessarily corporate Israel [03:45] isomemmetrically, but kind of a a uh [03:48] projection of a personified Israel. And [03:51] it's also not a prophecy. It's just [03:53] talking about things that have already [03:55] happened. And once again, later down the [03:58] road, people reinterpret it because it [04:01] becomes an interpretive lens for [04:04] bringing meaning and significance to [04:06] experiences that they feel are related. [04:09] And so you overlay the earlier text to [04:13] try to bring out more insight and more [04:16] meaning and more significance. That does [04:18] not make it a prophecy. Philosopher and [04:21] historian Lydia Mcgru ran the [04:23] probabilities using the standard [04:24] historical data. Uh [04:25] >> in point of fact, Mcgru actually does [04:27] not use standard historical data. Mcgru [04:30] asserts a bunch of presuppositions not [04:32] only about how the text is constituted [04:34] but also how it is translated and then [04:37] interpreted. And Mcgru acknowledges that [04:40] there are objections that could be [04:42] raised to these presuppositions and [04:45] Mcgru does not engage them. Instead, [04:48] Mcgru punts to a Messianic Jewish [04:52] apologist and specifically to this book, [04:55] Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, [04:58] Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections. [05:01] So, for instance, if I were to point out [05:04] that Psalm 22:16 does not actually say, [05:08] "They pierced my hands and my feet." [05:10] What is Mcgru's response? Well, in a [05:13] footnote to point to Brown's book, as [05:16] you see here in note four, after the [05:18] biblioraphic data, see Brown for a [05:21] detailed discussion of the controversy [05:23] over the text translated they have [05:25] pierced and whether it should be [05:27] translated as like a lion. Both a [05:29] variant of the Maseretic text and the [05:31] Septuagent support the translation as [05:34] they have pierced. But this doesn't [05:36] actually engage the concern because the [05:40] concern is not should we reconstruct the [05:42] verbal root kah for the word in Psalm [05:47] 22:16 in the Maseretic text that looks [05:49] like like a lion. The concern is what [05:53] does ka mean? Because Brown doesn't [05:56] address that. Brown just says, "Oh, we [05:58] know from the Dead Sea Scrolls it's [05:59] probably ka and the Septuagent [06:02] translates oro." [06:05] And Brown says, "Well, they both mean [06:06] pierced." And that's simply false. They [06:09] don't mean pierced. They mean to dig [06:12] out. And when you look at the way those [06:15] words are used, both the Hebrew root and [06:18] the Greek root, there is no plausible [06:20] case to make that this has anything [06:23] whatsoever to do with nails piercing [06:25] hands and feet during a crucifixion. And [06:27] you can look at my own video number mlen [06:30] 3050 for a thorough argument for why you [06:34] just cannot translate the Hebrew root [06:37] kaga even if that is what's supposed to [06:40] be in Psalm 22:16 or the Greek root oro [06:45] as pierced. It just doesn't mean that. [06:47] So Mcgru doesn't even address that and [06:49] Brown doesn't even address that. But it [06:51] gets even worse because Mcgru also [06:53] addresses the fact that well these [06:55] aren't actually prophecies. So here in [06:58] this paragraph, one challenge at this [07:00] point would be the claim that these [07:01] passages are not messianic at all. On [07:03] that point, space does not permit any [07:05] detailed discussion here. Michael Brown [07:07] has summarized and discussed the [07:09] arguments pro and con on this subject [07:11] and has shown the presence in Jewish [07:13] tradition of both the futuristic [07:14] interpretation of Psalm 22. That is that [07:17] it was not usually taken in Jewish [07:19] tradition to be a reference to the [07:20] psalmist's own life and its messianic [07:22] interpretation. Now, Brown does do that, [07:26] but there's a problem here. Brown is [07:29] answering Jewish objections, and Brown [07:32] is answering Jewish objections by [07:34] pointing to Jewish tradition and what is [07:37] usually considered authoritative [07:39] among Jewish people. And so, Brown is [07:42] not saying, look, the data actually [07:45] demonstrate this was a prophecy. Brown [07:48] is saying, well, Rashi interpreted it as [07:51] a prophecy. There's Jewish tradition [07:53] that interprets it as a prophecy. So how [07:56] can you say it's not a prophecy? But if [07:58] rashi or Jewish tradition are not [08:01] authoritative for you, [08:04] there's absolutely no sense whatsoever [08:06] in which Brown has demonstrated that [08:07] this should be understood as a prophecy. [08:10] Brown is trying to leverage orthodoxy to [08:14] pressure someone into accepting that [08:16] interpretation. Brown is not actually [08:19] using any historical data to demonstrate [08:22] it's a plausible interpretation of those [08:25] texts. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are not [08:28] prophecies. [08:29] And no, Rashi saying well they're [08:32] futuristic doesn't change anything about [08:34] that. So Mcgru doesn't address these [08:37] things. Mcgru doesn't use standard [08:39] historical data. She punts to a [08:42] Messianic Jewish apologist whose [08:44] argument only works if you consider [08:47] Jewish tradition and authorities to be [08:50] authoritative over how you interpret a [08:52] text that was written a thousand years [08:55] before those Jewish authorities. This is [08:58] laughable apologetics. [09:00] >> 22 and Isaiah 53 predict things like [09:02] that the Messiah would be crucified. [09:04] >> They predict absolutely no such thing [09:06] whatsoever. that he would be silent, [09:09] nonviolent, and innocent, that Roman [09:11] soldiers would gamble for his clothes, [09:13] that he would be buried in a rich man's [09:14] tomb, that no bones would be broken, and [09:17] so on. And if you are writing your [09:20] narrative about Jesus precisely so as to [09:23] evoke those ideas from the Hebrew Bible, [09:26] you write your story in a way that [09:28] evokes those ideas from the Hebrew [09:31] Bible. Each detail alone is maybe a [09:33] coincidence, but all of those together, [09:35] Lydia Mcgru calculates the probability [09:37] to be 25 million to one as Jesus [09:39] actually being the Messiah. And once [09:42] again, this does not deal with standard [09:44] historical data and presupposes a bunch [09:47] of things about the authorship of the [09:49] gospels, about the eyewitness status of [09:51] the authors, about the historicity of [09:53] what is written in the gospels. And [09:55] obviously that paper by Mcgru is not the [09:58] place to relitigate all of that. But it [10:01] has been litigated academically and the [10:05] consensus view is that these things are [10:07] not historical and that they were [10:09] precisely written with fulfillment of [10:13] those stories from the Hebrew Bible in [10:15] mind. [10:16] >> On top of all of that, Jesus fitting [10:18] those prophecies makes his resurrection [10:19] not surprising but expected. [10:22] >> Wow. Imagine that. The external evidence [10:25] shows that he actually had a [10:26] resurrection as well. [10:28] >> It absolutely does no such thing [10:30] whatsoever. [10:31] >> It's like, how could this guy not be the [10:34] Messiah? [10:35] >> Well, if you do not dogmatically [10:37] presuppose it, then it's very clearly [10:40] not the case. [10:42] >> Quickly refute the most popular [10:43] objection. [10:44] >> Oh, I bet you will, which is, what if [10:46] the authors purposely made up those [10:48] details to fulfill the prophecies? First [10:50] of all, there's no independent [10:51] historical reason to believe that beside [10:53] your psychological bias. [10:54] >> Well, that's a laugh riot. Uh but there [10:57] are lots of good reasons to draw that [11:00] conclusion. Uh it is the academic [11:04] consensus that the authors of the [11:06] gospels crafted their narratives in ways [11:09] that would have Jesus more directly [11:11] fulfill prophecy and more fully resonate [11:15] with characters and stories from the [11:18] Hebrew Bible. In fact, you can look at [11:20] places where one gospel author is [11:23] adopting a story from a previous gospel [11:25] but is then changing it so that they can [11:29] go on to say see this fulfills prophecy [11:33] even though it is precisely the change [11:35] that results in the prophecy [11:37] fulfillment. And this is particularly [11:39] clear in Matthew, which by the way is [11:42] the only gospel where some of these [11:44] details are even found, such as the [11:47] notion that Jesus was buried in a rich [11:49] man's tomb. Matthew's the only one who [11:51] calls that out. And that's an alteration [11:54] from the story from Mark. And you've got [11:56] a bunch of other examples in Matthew of [11:59] that going on. So this argument only [12:03] works if you know nothing about the [12:05] scholarship and if you refuse to accept [12:08] historical critical methodologies and [12:11] literary methodologies and text critical [12:14] methodologies. This only works if you [12:18] have no awareness of much less training [12:21] in actual critical academic approaches [12:26] which this content creator [12:28] doesn't have and which their audience is [12:32] even less likely to have. So, this is an [12:35] argument that's going to work for this [12:36] content creator's audience because that [12:39] audience has less of an idea what [12:41] they're talking about than this content [12:44] creator, who by the way doesn't even [12:47] begin to have the first clue what [12:48] they're talking about. [12:50] >> Secondly, I take it well established [12:51] that the gospels are historically [12:52] reliable. So, to take these details with [12:54] less credence is arbitrary. [12:56] >> But the gospels are not historically [12:58] reliable. And so the argument here is, [13:01] well, as long as you presuppose the [13:03] Gospels are historically reliable, then [13:06] you ought to accept that the Gospels are [13:08] historically reliable. [13:10] But they're not. This is just a dogma [13:14] this time quite explicitly stacked on [13:16] top of another dogma. [13:18] >> Thirdly, the apostles themselves were [13:20] partially convinced that Jesus was the [13:22] Messiah because of these fulfilled [13:23] prophecies. [13:25] that is granted you accept the [13:27] historical reliability of the gospels as [13:30] well as traditions about the apostles [13:32] that come from centuries later. [13:35] Many of the prophecies actually very [13:36] clumsily fit the Old Testament which we [13:38] would not expect at all if they were [13:40] just making up the details to fit. It's [13:42] actually precisely what we would expect [13:44] because to try to match the events of [13:48] Jesus's life precisely to these [13:51] prophecies would contradict because for [13:55] instance Psalm 22 has this lament but [13:58] then ends with praising God for saving [14:02] the individual. So, when they're [14:06] considering how to tell a story about [14:09] Jesus and have him fulfill a prophecy [14:11] and they identify Psalm 22 as the [14:14] prophecy they like, they can't very well [14:17] say, "Well, it turns out he survived the [14:19] whole time, they have to clumsily read [14:24] Jesus into Psalm 22." It's precisely [14:27] what you would expect from a secondary [14:31] attempt to overlay things onto these [14:35] texts so that they could be appropriated [14:39] as prophecies about something they were [14:41] never about. [14:43] >> Lastly, why would the authors make that [14:44] up and follow a fake Messiah and [14:46] blaspheme their God? Same reason people [14:49] make up garbage about Bible codes and [14:52] about the gospel message hidden in the [14:55] meanings of the names in Genesis 5 and [14:59] countless other things that people still [15:01] do down to this day. Not because the [15:03] data support them, but because it makes [15:07] the texts and the traditions and the [15:10] figures more meaningful and more useful [15:13] and it makes them feel better. That's [15:17] why. [15:18] >> And even more so risk their lives for [15:19] what they believed in. [15:21] >> For someone who presumes to judge other [15:24] people's psychological biases, this is [15:27] one of the least psychologically curious [15:30] questions I think I've ever heard. Every [15:33] day all around the world, billions of [15:35] people make stuff up to rationalize and [15:38] to justify their beliefs and their [15:41] actions and their worldviews. And there [15:44] are circumstances where that means [15:46] taking on significant risk to one's [15:49] mental health, to one's well-being, to [15:51] one's livelihood, even to one's life. [15:55] That kind of thing happens because [15:57] identity politics are a hell of a drug. [16:01] There is a perfectly rational [16:02] explanation for how this can all happen. [16:06] You just have to be willing to listen to [16:10] it and to think critically, which this [16:12] content creator very clearly is not. [16:16] >> That objection is an utter failure. Stop [16:18] coping. [laughter] [16:20] It is statistically insane to believe [16:22] that Jesus is not the Messiah. [16:25] The laughable argumentation and the [16:29] sophomoric hyperbolic rhetoric in place [16:32] of an actual argument is just so [16:36] delicious. Uh, but what a ridiculous [16:39] argument. And the fit for this video is [16:42] Bizaro. ## Highlights - praise because there's a turning point at which God intervenes and saves the psalmist. So these things are later reinterpreted and recast as prophecies because they become interpretive lenses for understanding other people's similar experiences. But that does not make them a prophecy. And Isaiah 53 is talking about the servant who is explicitly and ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kgg2zhtey6xddjzf7rfhgngy)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - repeatedly identified in Isaiah as the nation of Israel and more specifically a kind of personified representative of Israel. Not necessarily corporate Israel isomemmetrically, but kind of a a uh projection of a personified Israel. And it's also not a prophecy. It's just talking about things that have already happened. And once again, later down the road, people reinterpret it because it ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kgg2zhtrm1zrbcgpzpsr10mg)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - is answering Jewish objections by pointing to Jewish tradition and what is usually considered authoritative among Jewish people. And so, Brown is not saying, look, the data actually demonstrate this was a prophecy. Brown is saying, well, Rashi interpreted it as a prophecy. There's Jewish tradition that interprets it as a prophecy. So how can you say it's not a prophecy? But if rashi or Jewish tradition are not ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kgg2zhvm8awwps5t6tc4wzaj)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted ## New Highlights added 2026-02-28 at 7:49 PM - praise because there's a turning point at which God intervenes and saves the psalmist. So these things are later reinterpreted and recast as prophecies because they become interpretive lenses for understanding other people's similar experiences. But that does not make them a prophecy. And Isaiah 53 is talking about the servant who is explicitly and ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kgg2zhtey6xddjzf7rfhgngy)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - repeatedly identified in Isaiah as the nation of Israel and more specifically a kind of personified representative of Israel. Not necessarily corporate Israel isomemmetrically, but kind of a a uh projection of a personified Israel. And it's also not a prophecy. It's just talking about things that have already happened. And once again, later down the road, people reinterpret it because it ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kgg2zhtrm1zrbcgpzpsr10mg)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - is answering Jewish objections by pointing to Jewish tradition and what is usually considered authoritative among Jewish people. And so, Brown is not saying, look, the data actually demonstrate this was a prophecy. Brown is saying, well, Rashi interpreted it as a prophecy. There's Jewish tradition that interprets it as a prophecy. So how can you say it's not a prophecy? But if rashi or Jewish tradition are not ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kgg2zhvm8awwps5t6tc4wzaj)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted