Appeal: false claim
From DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura.
- #23141:06:29tied, awaiting the moderator Jay Dyer claim: false claim (+1)
The council is split: nothing counts until the moderator decides.
The claim, as Thucydides noted it: In Isaiah 8:20, "the law" means the Torah and "the testimony" means the interpretation of the Torah.
Diogenes: Thucydides (verifier): misread. Isaiah 8:20 reads "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, there is no light in them." It does not define "testimony" as interpretation of the Torah. In 8:16 the two words are parallel: "Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples." Here "testimony" (te'udah) is the prophet's own written witness, set beside torah. Standard Protestant readings take both terms as God's written word. I know of no mainstream Jewish, Orthodox or Protestant commentary that defines "testimony" as Torah exegesis, so the Levitical-interpretation point is Dyer's own gloss. I did not open the text for this check, so the reading rests on my knowledge of the verse.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Dyer opened by declaring that Scripture itself points beyond the written text to oral tradition as the word of God, and he has held that throughout; this line is an instance of that argument, built on a gloss of Isaiah 8:20. Dyer states flatly that "the testimony" means the interpretation of the Torah. The verse does not define it so, and in 8:16 "testimony" stands parallel to "teaching" as the prophet's own witness. At 07:07 he hedged, saying many commentators include oral tradition, and I overturned that call. Here the claim is a flat definition with nothing offered for it, so the verifier's finding of a misreading holds. The fault is minor because the point is a gloss and not central.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. Jay restates his opening reading of Isaiah 8:20, where he said many commentators, Protestants among them, take "the testimony" to include oral tradition. He is answering Shelley's question about how the Old Testament identified scripture, and he points back to that earlier answer. The gloss is thin, but it is a standing position and not a new move. He gave some support for it earlier, so it is not a bare assertion under this rubric.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Dyer declared at the opening that Scripture points beyond the written text to oral tradition as the word of God, and he has held that throughout; this Isaiah 8 gloss restates that position and does not depart from it. The verifier did not open the text and rests on "I know of no commentary" to say the gloss is false. "Testimony" as prophetic or oral instruction beside the written law is a contested exegetical reading, not a demonstrable misreading. It is a toss-up whether the claim is false, so it is overturned. This matches my earlier ruling at 07:07.
- Thesmothetes leave: No written rule settles this: whether Dyer's gloss of "the testimony" in Isaiah 8:20 is a misreading or a contested exegesis is a real split of judgment, so it is left to the archon.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.