Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jenn6162 · 07-29-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

1. The Exodus.

2. The return from Babylon.

I have searched, and I cannot come up with a good source to prove that the second return was not the return from Babylon. Although I did find some vague references stating that the Jews were far from Babylon, and about land their fathers did not know of. So for now I am putting that particular prophecy on hold. I am so tired. Maybe I will try again tomorrow, or ask someone who knows better than me. For now you got me on that one.

Still it was a fulfilled prophecy, but not a remarkable one if it is indeed referring to the return from Babylon.

Now back to the Isaiah 66 prophecy...

Jenn6162 · 07-29-2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

I was unaware Israel was the authoritative source on the inner workings of the US political process.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. Are you disputing the accuracy of the information below?

Quote:

THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
May 14, 1948
On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was recognized that night by the United States.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

I don't see a "PC reasons" qualifiers anywhere in Isaiah.

What? IMHO that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Did Israel win the war to regain control over Jerusalem in 1967? Simple yes or no if at all possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel is part of the covenant beginning with David. In prophecy, it is the City of David that, amongst other things, the nations flock to: in the world we currently inhabit, the nations have flocked to Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. According to the Hebrew texts, it cannot be claimed Israel has been recognized in a prophetically meaningful sense until Jerusalem is recognized as the capital of Israel.

Now you are beginning to make sense. The question is what are the ramifications if Israel itself hands over Jerusalem for PC reasons? That is a whole other topic. I don't recall any prophecy stating that Israel had to keep control over Jerusalem whether by choice or not to be considered Israel. We know it will be an issue as in the verse below. Again I would need a source for the last statement. Even though you haven't given me even one yet

Zec 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Jenn6162 · 07-29-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

The normative Jewish view is that Isaiah was written in 3 main chunks, spanning a period of rougly 250 years.

*sigh* source?

Wallener · 07-29-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

*sigh* source?

My rabbi. Would you like his phone number? He quite enjoys dealing with Christian mischaracterizations of the Hebrew texts.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-29-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

*sigh* source?

It's commonly accepted even among Christian and Jewish scholars that Isaiah was not the work of a single author or era. Scholars even refer to the authors separately as Isaiahs 1, 2 and 3 according to their respective sections. This is quite uncontroversial in Biblical scholarship, I assure you.

The following is from an article on the authorship (and purported predictive prophecies) of Isaiah from a Christian commentator.

Quote:

This evidence leads to two conclusions. First, it seems entirely likely from the book itself, that the Isaiah traditions stretch over a span of time from the era of Isaiah of Jerusalem in the middle eighth century BC to the post exilic era in the early fifth century BC. The three sections of the book sort out into three distinct time periods within the life of the community during that period.

The first section, chapters 1-39, comes from the Assyrian period and is directly associated with the ministry of Isaiah of Jerusalem from 740 to 700 BC. That does not mean that all material within those chapters dates from that period, however, since there are clearly some later additions to this collection from the Babylonian era. But it does establish Isaiah of Jerusalem as the founder of the Isaiah traditions.

The second section of the book, 40-55, comes from the late exilic period as the empire of Babylon was coming to an end and the Persian empire was emerging as the new ruler of the Middle East. If we take the edict of Cyrus in 538 as a benchmark for this era, this section of the book dates to about 540-539 BC.

The third section of the book, 56-66, reflects the crisis of faith precipitated by unfulfilled or delayed prophecy, a situation that we know from Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi prevailed between 520 and 450 BC. If we use the time of Haggai around 520 as benchmark for this era, this third section of Isaiah probably comes from the period 515-500, with the possibility that it may extend as late as 450.

As suggested earlier, the unity of the book of Isaiah is not to be found on the level of history or authorship. Its unity lies on the level of its theological message about God and how the people responded, and should respond, to his work in the world.

Second, seen in this light, there is really nothing in the book itself that directly addresses the idea of predictive prophecy, either for or against. It is simply not what lies at the heart of the book. This means on the one hand, it is probably a mistake to use the book as any kind of proof text to support the authority of Scripture based on the correspondence of prediction with events that happened hundreds of years later. On the other hand, seeing the book as the unfolding witness to God’s work in the world provides no direct proof that there is no predictive prophecy. In other words, the whole issue of predictive prophecy must be dealt with on other grounds than a study of the book of Isaiah. That issue is much more an problem that arises from certain theological assertions than it does from most biblical texts. There are other texts that address the issue more directly (see Ezekiel and the Oracles Against Tyre). But at least in the way that the Isaiah texts have been used, the unity and authorship of Isaiah are not very good weapons with which to fight that battle.

Amaleq13 · 07-29-2005, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

I answered this in my response to Paradox.

And, by your own admission, it would be more accurate to say that it took at least SIX DAYS to accomplish what the prophecy predicted would only take one.

Like I said, if we interpret it as specifically as you suggest, it was wrong. If we interpret it more realistically, it is considerably less than amazing since any formal declaration would be expected to take less than one day.

You'll need to look elsewhere for evidence of divine foreknowledge.

Blui · 07-29-2005, 11:24 PM

These prophecies dont seem credible.

For me, a prophecy fulfillment is only valid IF

1.It can be reliably concluded that it was written before the 'prophecised' event.

2.The author of the prophecy had no knowledge that could have influenced his prophetic outcome, he/she would basically be totally external to the prophecy in every way.

3.The propheciy contains enough 'detail' to make the prophecised event very improbably to come about, thus when it does come about it is more believable as a true prophecy.
One key detail which i believe all prophecies must contain is a timeframe such that it is unlikely the prophecy would come true in it.

All bible prophecies fail this.

Jenn6162 · 07-30-2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

And, by your own admission, it would be more accurate to say that it took at least SIX DAYS to accomplish what the prophecy predicted would only take one.

Like I said, if we interpret it as specifically as you suggest, it was wrong. If we interpret it more realistically, it is considerably less than amazing since any formal declaration would be expected to take less than one day.

You'll need to look elsewhere for evidence of divine foreknowledge.

I never said it would take six days for the Isaiah 66 prophecy to occur. I said one day. I can't prove the Isaiah 11:11 right now. So until I can, I have no problem saying that it isn't that exciting of a prophecy. As I said before it still was fulfilled.

Jenn6162 · 07-30-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's commonly accepted even among Christian and Jewish scholars that Isaiah was not the work of a single author or era. Scholars even refer to the authors separately as Isaiahs 1, 2 and 3 according to their respective sections. This is quite uncontroversial in Biblical scholarship, I assure you.

The following is from an article on the authorship (and purported predictive prophecies) of Isaiah from a Christian commentator.

Thanks Diogenes, I like to look at things for myself and decide if it is credible or biased. It may be accepted among some Christian scholars, but certainly not most.

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/isaiah1b.htm

Quote:

I think the entire book was written by the great prophet Isaiah in the eight century, for the following reasons:

1- Jewish and Christian traditions:
Jewish and Christian traditions from the earliest times have supported the single authorship of Isaiah. The Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient texts also give no hint of multiple authorship:

a- Jewish tradition holds for one author:
- Later prophets: Nahum 1:15--Isa.52:7; Zeph.2:15--Isa.47:8, 10).
- The book of Ecclesiasticus, written in the early second century B.C. writes: "By the Spirit of might he (Isaiah) saw the last things, and comforted those who mourned in Zion (a reference to Isaiah 61:3)." (Ecclesiasticus 48:24).
- The Septuagint, LXX, before Christ, has one heading for the entire book, The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. (Is.1:1). The absence of a heading at the beginning of chapters 40 and 56 is particularly significant (Grogan, 10).
- Silence from the Qumran community about the supposed multiple authorship. In fact, the oldest copy of Isaiah that we have, discovered among the Qumran scrolls, and coming from before the time of Christ, has chapter 40 beginning in the same column in which chapter 39 ends. Thus by that time the unity of the book was seen as firmly established. The book was seen as one.
- Josephus holds to one author, Antiquities XI, 3-6 --i. 1-2
- In fact, there is no record of anyone denying Isaiah's authorship of chapters 40-66 in the Old Testament period
- Rabbinic tradition up to the emergence of rationalistic critical approaches holds to one author.

b- Christian tradition holds for one author:
- Jesus Christ and the apostles quoted him as being the author of the prophecies at least 21 times, and these quotations by them are taken from every part of the book demonstrating their view that the whole book resulted from his work. He was quoted more often than all the other writing prophets combined. Thus by the time of the New Testament Isaianic authorship of the whole was considered certain.
For example, Mt. 3:3 quotes Is.40:3, Mt. 8:7 quotes Is.53:3, Mt. 12:17 quotes Is.42:1, Mk. 7:6 quotes Is.29:13, Luke 4:17 quotes 53:1, Lk.18 quotes Is.61:1, John 1:23 quotes Is.40:3, Acts 8:28 quotes Is.53:7-8, Rom. 10:16 quotes Is.53:1, Rom. 10:20 quotes Is.65:1...
- The Pontifical Commission on the Bible states that the "critic" has not given enough reasons to deny Prophet Isaiah as the author of the whole Book (June 28, 1908).

2- A Great Prophet Forgotten?:
A most formidable difficulty is presented to the Deutero-Isaiah theory by the fact that the author's name was not preserved. It is quite inconceivable that his name should have been forgotten had he been some individual other than the eighth-century Isaiah himself. By the admission of the critics themselves, no sublimer passages of prophecy are to be found in the entire Old Testament than are contained in Isaiah II. It is commonly conceded that the author of these passages must be regarded as the greatest of all the Old Testament prophets. How could it have come about that such a preeminent genius should have diminished so rapidly in stature that by the third century B.C. when the Septuagint was translated, his name should have been completely forgotten? (Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 356).

3- The Wrong title, Deutero-Isaiah:
The title Deutero-Isaiah is wrong, erroneous, and like an insult to the great Book of Isaiah.
It is wrong, because "Deutero-books" are those not approved in the first canon of the church, but in a second canon, like Baruch or Ecclesiasticus or Wisdom... and the Book of Isaiah was approved in the first canon of the church in its entirety in all Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Bibles. Christian Scriptures... Deutero-canonical and Apocrypha

4- The rationalistic critical approach:
In the rationalistic critical approach of the ninetieth century the "prediction" of the coming of Cyrus, by name, in Isaiah 44-45 became the crux of the issue for the multiple authorship theory. Either one believed this was accurately predicted by Isaiah of Jerusalem 200 years before it happened or one didn't believe any of the Bible. However, this is really arguing an idea of what the Bible ought to be rather than looking at the text on its own terms. Unfortunately, this is still preached from some pulpits, even though it simply is not true. Many people hold the Bible in high regard as the authoritative word of God and cherish it as the basic source for the faith and practice of the church, and yet do not believe that these chapters were written by Isaiah of Jerusalem in 700 BC.
If Isaiah 40-66 was written by someone after the exile, then most of it is not prophecy, but cheap history.
The fact the Isaiah names king Cyrus by name 100 years before he was born is a great prophecy... as it was the prophecy of "virgin birth" in 7:14 and the description of the Baptist in chapter 40, 700 years before they were born... and the description of Calvary in Is.53...

5- Unity of the Book:
The "critic" claims there is no unity of the Book. However, there is great unity of theme and structure to the book which supports a single author under Isaiah. For example, Isaiah uses the phrase “Holy One of Israel�? 26 times and 14 of them are in the latter chapters. It is only used outside of Isaiah 5 times. This strongly supports the unity of a single author.
The entire book appears to have been written from a Palestinian perspective. For example, 40-66 chapters are rocky, mountainous and full of Palestinian flora/fauna, yet Babylon is alluvial.

6- The style of writing:
The "critics" claim the style of writing is different in Isaiah 1-39 than Isaiah 40-66. However, the writing of Isaiah 40-66 is a pure form of Hebrew and Jewish writings from Babylon during the Exile, such as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, show evidence of Babylonian words mixed with the Hebrew and Aramaic influence.
Of course, the stile and theology may differ in different sections of the Book. For example, 1-40 is mostly a mostly of judgment or condemnation, and 40-66 is a mostly od consolation. But both of them are of salvation.

7- Assyrian and Babylonian background:
The "critics" claim that chapters 1-39 have an Assyrian and chapters 40-66 a Babylonian one. However, the fact is that Babylon is mentioned twice the times in 1-39 than in 40-66.

8- Messiah the King and the Servant:
The "critics" claim that 1-39 presents a Messiah-King and 40-66 a Messiah-Servant. Of course, it is not true. Both sections present a Messiah who is a Servant and a King.

Jenn6162 · 07-30-2005, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blui

These prophecies dont seem credible.

For me, a prophecy fulfillment is only valid IF

1.It can be reliably concluded that it was written before the 'prophecised' event.

2.The author of the prophecy had no knowledge that could have influenced his prophetic outcome, he/she would basically be totally external to the prophecy in every way.

3.The propheciy contains enough 'detail' to make the prophecised event very improbably to come about, thus when it does come about it is more believable as a true prophecy.
One key detail which i believe all prophecies must contain is a timeframe such that it is unlikely the prophecy would come true in it.

All bible prophecies fail this.

Many of the most detailed prophecies have not come to pass yet. If the Gog-Magog war were to take place this year with the alliance exactly as it were out of Ezekiel - Chapter 38 would that make you believe? If not, why?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2005, 11:24 PM	#177
Blui Banned Join Date: May 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 3,381	These prophecies dont seem credible. For me, a prophecy fulfillment is only valid IF 1.It can be reliably concluded that it was written before the 'prophecised' event. 2.The author of the prophecy had no knowledge that could have influenced his prophetic outcome, he/she would basically be totally external to the prophecy in every way. 3.The propheciy contains enough 'detail' to make the prophecised event very improbably to come about, thus when it does come about it is more believable as a true prophecy. One key detail which i believe all prophecies must contain is a timeframe such that it is unlikely the prophecy would come true in it. All bible prophecies fail this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.