God broke his promise to Abraham and the Bible admits it

"Again, all of the mentions of the "I will" versus "I am" are relatively the same regardless of the translation. If I say that because you are one cool dude, I will buy you a new car, would you assume that I meant later on today or tomorrow or sometime thousands of years into the future? What kind of promise is it if it is not going to come true when you actually need it - now? "Pro seems to concede that the verse was said in the future tense, however, he maintains that even so it means in the near future. He compares it to a case where one person promises something to another using the English term “I will” in which case it means in the near future. omnis traductor traditor, we cannot take a translation, and make inferences (I. E. deduce things not explicitly mentioned) based on how the translation term is used today in the 21st century. God did not say “I will”, he said " אתננה " all we know based on that is that God promised to give the land in the future we have no right to presume an immediate future implication based on the way “I will” is used today. (This is a sort of reverse Genetic fallacy. ) Furthermore, if one looks at the context, it is clear that God is making a promise pertaining to the distant future. In this same promise, God promises Abraham that his posterity will be exceedingly numerous obviously, clearly, that was not meant to be understood as pertaining to the immediate future. Furthermore, based on what I brought from Matthew Henry's six volume Complete Commentary, it is clear that God did not mean in the immediate future. As Matthew Henry writes: “The slow steps by which the promise made to Abraham advanced toward performance, plainly show that it had a spiritual meaning, and that the land intended was the heavenly. ” Finally, based on what I answered from Henry Wheeler Robinson & the Geneva Study Bible using the concept of synecdoche to explain that the promise was never that Abraham himself would receive it, but rather that his progeny would be the ones to receive it. "A promise that had no unspecified time of delivery is nothing more than just a promise. I promise to give you a million dollars. .. someday. You can never say that was a false promise because "someday" has not and never will arrive will it? Do you see what I mean? " I don’t think so, perhaps you mistyped, but this statement of yours actually seems to support my position. This is why (unless there is a pre-determined standard/norm,) serious transactions/agreements (such as a loan) should be made with clearly defined dates by when x happens. For precisely this reason, if there is no date, there is no deadline. (This is another reason why pros car analogy is invalid, it's unrealistic. ) "It is interesting that you mention the Judeo-Christian concept because the keyword is Christian. While some Jews do believe in life after death, it is mainly because of wishful thinking and tradition than it is the OT. Yes, there are some very vague mentions of life after death from poetic writings of the OT books but mostly, you will see affirmations of death being the end. From:. http://www.jewfaq.org...... we have this quote:"Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist. "The reason why there is such varying opinion on the subject is because the OT makes no clear dogma on the subject. The NT is a different story but the OT makes no reference to eternal life. " Pro completely dropped my argument based on the idea that the dead will be brought back to life. The only point of somewhat significance made was:“the OT makes no clear dogma on the subject. The NT is a different story but the OT makes no reference to eternal life. ”There are many points & counter arguments that I could make here, but pro is really just using Red herring. His whole contradiction argument was based on the new testament, so his entire point here is irrelevant. synecdoche: "The promise was to start with Abraham and his family and it did not get fulfilled. " Pro just completely ignores the point I’m making based on the concept of synecdoche, and more specifically, the statement made by Henry Wheeler Robinson which I quoted, and simply asserts his own interpretation of the verse. BOP is on Pro, he cannot simply ignore my arguments, make assertions without backing them up, and expect to get away with that. Just to remind the voters, the BOP is on pro to show that "God broke his promise to Abraham and the Bible admits it". I believe that I have shown this to be false, or at the very least not necessarily true (which is really all that I have to do).