Philosoft

I shall now make Howard's prophecy come true...

Doctor X

If an unkind man, I would recognize it as less vile than a hypocritical theistic attempt to reject knowledge.

Fortunately . . . I am not. . . .

Anyways, there are no verified successful specific prophecies that are not obvious. The most infamous "non-specific" prophecy comes from Delphi--when asked by King Croesus if he will defeat the Persians, he is told he will destroy a great empire . . . the Oracle did not specify that it was his empire he would destroy. . . .

I add "not obvious" because every year you can predict a famous figure will die that year . . . one day you will be right. Also, if you gain no points for predicting Ronald Reagan will die. . . .

--J.D.

DrJim

Absolutely NO manuscript of Isaiah pre-dates the Hellenistic period, let alone predating the Persian period.

There is substantial evidence that ancient Israelite / Jewish scribal traditions allowed for existing books to be selectively quoted (e.g., Chronicles basing itself on Kings), expanded (MT Jeremiah: cf. shorter LXX Jeremiah; MT Daniel and Esther being supplemented in the Greek editions) and paraphrased (Jubilees retelling Genesis-Exodus 12) to produce new texts. Massive amounts of 2nd temple era material is pseudepigraphical in nature, written in the name of an ancient figure: Jubilees, Enoch, etc etc etc. and describing events between the time of the alleged author to the time of the actual writer.

There are many little variants between MT and LXX Isaiah, for example. Why should we regard Isaiah as imune to larger variations as implied in the common phenomena of literary growth, rewriting and fabrication and anachronisms?

To say Isiaiah MUST have predated Cyrus and been transmitted through the Persian and Hellenistic era fundamentally unchanged is a claim that needs pretty serious argumentation.

Are you up to it Magus55?

The simplest solution based on the available physical evidence and known conventions of anceint literary production is that Isaiah (in its entirety, forget 1, 2, 3, Isaiah) is a product of the Persian or early Hellenistic period. The burden of proof is properly on those who claim that the whole or any part thereof is substantially earlier than the extant manuscripts. I will grant that some of it may be monarchic, but to conclude that references to named individuals predates the career and even birth of those individuals does not require logical argumetns, but blind belief in miracles.

Why should we believe your miracle stories Magus55?

Bernard Muller

Magus55 wrote:
Got any evidence that the prophecy in Isaiah was added after the fact, or is this just another stupid atheist attempt to reject God and the Bible?

The best evidence for me:
Isaiah 44:28 "[God] says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid"'"

I cannot imagine a Cyrus, or any other authority, authorizing ONLY the foundations of a building.

But the author of 2nd Isaiah had to take in account that only the foundations of the temple were finished during Cyrus' rule.
We know that from 'Ezra', admittingly written after the facts (Ezra3).

'Ezra' also says Cyrus authorized the construction of the WHOLE temple:
Ezra1:2-4 "This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:
" 'The LORD , the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. 3 Anyone of his people among you-may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem. 4 And the people of any place where survivors may now be living are to provide him with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the temple of God in Jerusalem.' "

We have a contradiction here: 'Ezra' did not take in account the so-called prophecy of 2nd Isaiah. Maybe 2nd Isaiah was very much doubted then.
Also 2nd Isaiah says the walls of Jerusalem will be rebuilt by foreigners (Isa60:10) but 'Nehemiah' clearly indicates the Jews themselves did it.

Best regards, Bernard

Magus55

Its proven to me, your lack of proof is your problem.

Magus55

How is Israel becoming a nation in one day, and the 6 day war not specific prophecies? Israel didn't exist 3000 years ago, so how the heck would a "prophet" have known that Israel would be so hated, yet still triumph?

Jeremy Pallant

[/Moderator]

Okay gentlemen. I can feel the temperature increasing in here. Can we please attempt to keep it at a simmer rather than let it rise to a rolling boil?

[Moderator]

Doctor X

They were not specifically prophesized.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Now . . . about my CHALLENGE?

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless

I'm not sure of the details regarding Isaiah, but in the case of the book of Daniel this is pretty much universally accepted by Biblical scholars, atheist or otherwise.

...Mostly because the historical and "prophetic" details in Daniel are initially inaccurate, then become increasingly better as the narrative progresses (further into "the future" from Cyrus, but closer to the time Daniel was actually written), eventually becoming a very accurate "prophecy" of the author's times, then suddenly becoming wildly inaccurate again as it attempts (and fails) to actually predict the future.

In particular, there is a "prophesy" of a long reign for (IIRC) Antiochus II, who reigned only for a few years, allowing Daniel to be dated rather precisely to 168 BC, give or take a year or two.

There was also a known tradition from that period of writing in an "archaic" style for dramatic effect.

Hence, this could easily have happened with Isaiah too.

Doctor X

What? You have never heard of "practice makes perfect?"

--J.D.