Diogenes the Cynic

Your quote does not represent mainstream Biblical scholarship, nor mainstream Christian scholarship as to the authorship of Isaiah. Rather than turn this into a battle of cites, maybe it would be better if you were to present a reasoned argument for your assertion that Isaiah was the work of a single author. That's an extraordinary claim, contradicted by available evidence and rejected by serious scholars. Can you actually back it up?

badger3k

Ezekiel:
Well, if we have a new kingdom of Persia, and they join with Libya and Ethiopia, and there is a "prince of Meshech and Tubal", and they gather their horsemen, with bucklers, swords and shields, and they ride into Israel, then maybe there's something to it.

I'm not sure how Jim Nabors applies to the prophecy, though.

Jenn6162

Well I was really not familiar with the criticism of Isaiah, until it was brought up on this board. I have never heard this and I have been on Christian sites for at least 5 years. It may be more outside of fundamental Christianity? I didn't want to turn it into dueling sites, but bring up the other side of the argument. If I knew more about it I would have used my own words.

Jenn6162

Persia is Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia

Why would it need to be a new kingdom? Can't you see why Ezekiel would use the ancient names for the lands?

http://www.answering-christianity.co...rity_fence.htm

I am trying to use sources you all would accept.

You lost me with the Jim Nabors reference.

Edited to add, sorry I am young. I couldn't even tell you what show that was. I asked my mom, she said Gomer somebody. Then I knew what you were referring to, sort of.

Why would they have to use horses and such to be accepted? Why would it not be enough that those exact nations would come against Israel? What would Ezekiel call modern technology with no words to use? If you look at the wording he used, it seemed as though he was trying his best to describe what he was seeing. "all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields"

And if the defeat came in a way which was supernatural why would you insist that it didn't happen because they did not use horses and swords?

Amaleq13

I'm referring to the allegedly predicted outcome, not the prediction. Israel did not become a nation until after the SIX DAY WAR. That is arguably a much more realistic description of how long it took to reach the outcome and that clearly renders the prophecy false.

This isn't about "exciting" but the absence of any need to appeal to the supernatural to explain it. In other words, if we accept your more limited interpretation of the prediction, it allows the prophecy to be correct but at the price of rendering it into an entirely mundane statement that requires no appeal to magical foreknowledge.

This particular prediction was either wrong (it took 6 days not 1) or it was not really a prophecy at all because it was a prediction that was essentially axiomatic (ie any declaration of nationhood would only take 1 day) and, therefore, did not require any divine inspiration whatsoever. It either wasn't fulfilled or the "fulfillment" was entirely predictable and requires no amazement or explanation beyond a functioning human brain.

Jenn6162

From the info I posted earlier, I believe the nation of Israel was born in a day in 1948, thanks to the US. My question was how did Isaiah know that it would be born in a day? I assume that didn't happen much in his day. A war would probably have to be fought for a nation to become a nation.

Diogenes the Cynic

Fundamentalist Christianity is not mainstream and tends to ignore evidence it finds inconvenient. American fundamentalism is a minority view and a recent one at that. It also does not employ scholarly method but starts with conclusions and adheres to them in the face of all contrary evidence. many American fundamentalists are surprised to learn that some of the views which they believe to be universally or majority "Christian" are, in fact, outside the mainstream both historically and currently. For instance, it is the mainstream Christian view that evolution is a fact, that there was no global flood and that Genesis is not a literal account of creation. For another example, it's been my experience that more than a few fundies are surprised to learn that the majority of Christians worldwide do not believe in the Rapture, that the Rapture is not in the Bible and that the idea of a Rapture did not even exist before the 19th Century.

Getting back to Isaiah, there are good, objective, empirically supportable reasons why scholars - even Christian and Jewish scholars (and your website represents doctrine, not methodological scholarship) do not believe that Isaiah can be the work of a single author. If you'd like to know the reasons, I can ennumerate them. I imagine you probably don't want to get bogged down in a debate which you don't feel informed enough defend (and I know you've already gotten a taste of what you're up against here. We're a pretty informed lot around here, and quite experienced in these kinds of debates) but you should at least realize that citing Isaiah as predictive prophecy will not be read as convincing to this audience. Be careful not to cite your own faith as evidence.

Jenn6162

Thanks Diogenes. I am well aware that mainstream Christianity does not hold many of the views that I do. I am not trying to look smart and well informed, I am learning about various views and criticisms. I think mainstream Christianity is wrong to use replacement theology. I could be wrong, or I could be right. I hope I did not cite my faith as evidence, and I don't think I did. I originally asked a poster what he thought about the prophecies relating to Israel, and it became a debate. I learned in the process. I have said many times how and why I came here. I am not trying to convert anyone, and I honestly am not sure why I am here. I am no Bible expert, and my faith and many answered prayers is all I really have as evidence for me. I like this site, and if I am irritating posters I will leave. I have also said many times that most posters here are very well informed about lots of things relating to religion. I like to participate, and I am not concerned if I come across as an idiot, as I said before I could make for interesting entertainment. I am good at nursing, but really not much else. Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me.

Amaleq13

That was just the day that it was officially proclaimed and to claim that this is what was predicted is to "predict" nothing that requires an appeal to the supernatural. It also ignores everything that had to occur prior to that declaration so that it was possible. IOW, there is no rational basis for the assertion that Israel was born in a day.

He didn't because it wasn't. The only thing that happened in a day was the official declaration and it makes no sense to suggest this is what the author was predicting.

Jenn6162

Okay, so by your standards the prophecy means nothing. To me it was still fulfilled just as it said it would be, in one day. I find it very accurate, because in Isaiah's day that would be next to impossible for a nation to be born in a day. Nothing had to occur, the British Mandate was up, and the Jews declared independence. The US then recognized Israel that night. It's fine with me that you disagree, but you act as though yours is the only possible conclusion. You think you are right, and I don't. So I can agree that we can disagree.