ScumDog

This may have been done before, but does anyone know of any information regarding the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Cyrus and how it was made 200 years before his birth, that he would become king, or whatnot? An evangelic is using this prophecy and another prophecy about Alexander the Great conquering the empire and his 4 generals splitting up the country (found in David) to prove that the bible is the true word of god, and that these prophecies are too detailed to be coincidence. Any skeptical thoughts?

-DM-

For some insight into the matter of so-called prophecies allegedly proving the Bible, see PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by Farrell Till in the Library. Keep in mind that only one failed prophecy would prove the Bible untrustworthy. And there's more: the Prophecy index page in the Library.

-Don-

DrJim

Ask the evangelical to prove that the passage about Cyrus is actually as old as he says it is! The earliest manuscripts are only a few centuries bce at most.

The most logical explanation for the reference to Cyrus, of course, is that someone in or after Cyrus' time wrote the passage and inserted it into a book attributed to an ancient prophet to give it legitimacy.

This kind of reasoning is standard fare in biblical studies, and according to a lot of scholars, including some Christians, Isaiah has gone through several expansion programs, including one in the Persian Period.

So too with Daniel (I assume this is the book you mean, not David): its setting is not identical to its date of composition! In fact, lots of scholars think that at least the last half of Daniel was not written until well into the Hellenistic period, ca. 165 bce and the Maccabean rebellion. Just because the narrator says Daniel lived in the exilic age counts for nothing in terms of dating the actual contents of the book prior to Alexander.



JRL

CJD

One also ought to keep in mind that rarely were any of the OT prophecies spoken as single, specific prognostications (and not conditional with explicit or implicit sanctions). Assuming they were and then faulting biblical religion for it is nothing more than faulting a construction of your own mind (despite its promulgation by modern fundies or evangelicals, since, as presumably one who seeks to know truth, you're obligated to know and defend the best reasons why you accept or reject a given subject).

Regards,

CJD

ScumDog

Thanks everybody, and great links DM! I got the gist of it, and made my reply thusly.