Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical contradictions.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 289 of 329 (20211)
10-18-2002 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Wordswordsman
10-18-2002 4:46 PM


Prophesied: Isaiah 44:28
"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."
Isaiah chapters 40-66 are dated later than Cyrus's freeing of the Jews taken hostage by Nebuchadnezzar.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-18-2002 4:46 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-19-2002 12:05 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 292 of 329 (20273)
10-19-2002 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Wordswordsman
10-19-2002 12:05 PM


Wordswordsman writes:
Isaiah predicts the coming captivity of Israel in 586 B.C. if they continued to rebel. So did Jeremiah. If you think along with some modern critics there were two Isaiahs, think again, for it is easily proved there was one, and that all of Isaiah was written 792-722 B.C.. The Hebrew Bible, the Septuagent, and other texts testify to the fact the prophecies preceeded the captivity to Babylon. Josephus verified the facts. If you want the entire argument, I'll gladly forward a large post already sent off to another group doing exactly that.
Please don't forward any lengthy material to the board (we're at 97% used disk space) or to my mailbox (same disk space). Your own discussion accompanying a link to this material on a webpage would be fine.
The modern scholarship you're referring to is summarized in this quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
According to 6:1, Isaiah received his call 'in the year that King Uzziah died' (742 BC), and his latest recorded activity is dated in 701 BC. Only chapters 1-39, however can be assigned to this period. Chapters 40-66 are much later in origin and therefore known as Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah)...Deutero-Isaiah (40-55), consisting of a collection of oracles, songs, and discourses, dates from the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-19-2002 12:05 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-19-2002 8:55 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 294 of 329 (20278)
10-19-2002 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Wordswordsman
10-19-2002 12:05 PM


Providing a little more detail than the Britannica quote, here are some excerpts from The Books of the Old Testament by Robert H. Pheiffer:
Page 238:
1. Authorship and Date of Is. 40-66
These chapters are no longer attributes to Isaiah, active in 740-700 B.C. The historical situation, the theological thought, and the peculiarities of style and diction manifestly place the composition of those chapters after 586. It is generally admitted that the Second Isaiah wrote chs. 40-48 shortly before the armies of Cyrus of Persia took Babylon in 538, and chs. 49-55 soon after.
Page 240:
2. The Style of Is. 40-66
The differences in style, diction, and thought between the writings of Isaiah and Is. 40-66 are obvious. The conciseness, variety, and concreteness of Isaiah's poetry contrast sharply with the eloquent verbosity, repetitiousness, and vagueness of Is. 40-66. Isaiah belongs to the golden age of Hebrew literature, Is. 40-66 to its silver age. The difference is that between naive, unconscious art and deliberate striving for majestic eloquence by means of rhetorical devices.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-19-2002 12:05 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 8:47 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 297 of 329 (20290)
10-19-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Wordswordsman
10-19-2002 8:55 PM


Wordswordsman writes:
An encyclopedia is not a suitable source for studying the Bible.
It was you who mentioned modern scholarship. I was only providing the Britannica's summary of the views of modern scholarship on Isaiah to fill out the discussion.
You talk about the Britannica as if it were a separate and independent source, but Britannica contracts out the articles to Biblical scholars. It isn't really the Britannica you disagree with but the entire field of modern Biblical scholarship.
Anyway, I anticipated your reply and already posted an answer above in Message 294.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-19-2002 8:55 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 299 of 329 (20295)
10-19-2002 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Wordswordsman
10-19-2002 8:55 PM


In this post I'll address material in your post not already addressed in Message 294.
Wordswordsman writes:
...and a few, now fulfilled, refer to the first advent (Isaiah 40:3; Isaiah 42:1-3,6-7; Isaiah 49:1-5; Isaiah 50:2-11; Isaiah 52:14; Isaiah 53:1-12; Isaiah 61:1-2),
It was Christians who decided these ambiguous Isaiah passages were prophecies of the Advent. There are two key qualities of successful prophecy: they're either very vague, or they only predict events that have already happened.
The undisputd place the unity of the book held for over 2600 years proves there is ground for a modern-day declaration of dual authorship.
The key point to keep in mind is that the prophet Isaiah did not write the book Isaiah. Isaiah was carried down through oral tradition. Once in Babylon the Jews felt it important to preserve their culture in writing and took full advantage of the advanced scribal technology possessed by their captors, and it was in Babylon that Isaiah first took written form. As Babylon was beset of Cyrus more chapters were added to Isaiah, and more again after Babylon fell to Cyrus.
Jewish historians, especially Josephus, confirmed Isaiah wrote both sections. The historian told of how Cyrus was moved to send the Jews back to rebuild their temple, from reading the prophecies of Isaiah regarding himself which had been written 200 years before his time.
Josephus lived nearly 8 centuries after Isaiah the prophet, and nearly 6½ centuries after the return to Jerusalem. He is silent on Isaiah authorship. His Antiquities of the Jews is a history of the Jews, not a history of the Isaiah scroll. Isaiah was just another source for Josephus.
The Septuagent or any other ancient version doesn't mention a dual authorship.
The Septuagint is a translation of the Torah performed 300 years after the return to Jerusalem. It is not a research work on OT origins.
There in no mention of it in the Hebrew Bible or by any Hebrew scholar, people who would have known such detail as dual authorship. No Christian scholar or Church Father from the earliest ages until recent years ever mentioned it. Traditions from all sources are unanimous in favor of the unity and single authorship of the book.
The details of origin of all the books of the OT is unknown. Whatever was known and by whom did not pass down to us in history.
The literary stle of the book differs widely from that of every other OT prophet, yet is the same style in both parts of the book. Over 300 words and expressions used in both sections are not used by other prophets of the post-exilic period; this proves beyond doubt that the book of Isaiah is a unity with single authorship.
Mining the Internet, I see. Amazing similarity of expression with this website:
http://www.geocities.com/jimbo48.geo/Isaiah/Isa1.html:
There are more than 300 words and expressions which are common to both the alleged "former" and "latter" portions of Isaiah's prophecy; and which do not occur at all in the latter prophecies of Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi...The Structure, above, declares the unity of the Book...
He also mentions that he illustrates this amply in the notes under their occurrences, but his webpage doesn't render well for me and I'm not going to look them up. Perhaps you'd be interested in undertaking the task?
Christ and the apostles believed and confirmed their faith in one Isaiah and the unity of the book, never once indicating two authors. In the NT there are 32 quotations and allusions to the first section, 36 to the second section, all acsribed to Isaiah, one author.
This indicates that they valued the prophecies in Isaiah, particularly because he made so many that could be interpreted as prophecies of Jesus, but it says nothing about the origins of the book of Isaiah.
If you want all the other sources, fine, but to post them I'll have to open many favorites, then copy/paste the URLs. Will you pursue them?
I'm into discussion, not following links. I'd prefer you present your views and supporting evidence here. Too many times links are fishing expeditions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-19-2002 8:55 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 7:09 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 300 of 329 (20296)
10-19-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by doctrbill
10-19-2002 9:40 PM


doctrbill writes:
quote:
wwm As to when Isaiah began his prophecy, we begin with 1:1, not 6:1. Isaiah 1:1 "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."
This does nothing for your argument but does show that you excell at nitpicking.
I decided not to respond to this little piece of silliness, but it's nice to see I'm not the only one who noticed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by doctrbill, posted 10-19-2002 9:40 PM doctrbill has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 303 of 329 (20310)
10-20-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 8:47 AM


Wordswordsman writes:
If you wish, we can discuss the agenda of that author and why most scholars disagree with him, especially Hebrew scholars. Pfeiffer is of the school that Israel is not included in the eternal dynasty of the Davidic kingdom, leaving Israel with no promise of continued occupation of the promised land. It is fiercely contested, with no end in argument, but I'm willing to engage here. The fellow is considered wrong on much of his thinking.
Keeping things simple, you can divide Biblical scholarship into two schools: liberals and conservatives. Pfeiffer's views are representative of the liberal school. When you say things like "most scholars disagree with him" you should make clear that you're referring primarily to conservative scholars. His views are mainstream in liberal circles.
I'm not really interested in arguing whether the modern state of Israel is included in God's covenant. I joined the thread because of the focus on prophecy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 8:47 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 304 of 329 (20313)
10-20-2002 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 8:28 AM


Wordswordsman writes:
quote:
WS:As to when Isaiah began his prophecy, we begin with 1:1, not 6:1. Isaiah 1:1 "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."
quote:
This does nothing for your argument but does show that you excell at nitpicking.
It did wonders for my argument. That nitpicking is required to uncover lies.
What lies? All Britannica said was, "According to 6:1, Isaiah received his call 'in the year that King Uzziah died' (742 BC)." Read the rest of Isaiah 6 and you'll see that this is exactly what it says, that Isaiah received his call to prophecy (God says to Isaiah, "Go and tell the people") the year King Uzziah died. If your interpretation includes a different chronology then go ahead and argue it. Unlike you, we won't call views we disagree with "lies".
Doctrbill and I called this silly nitpicking because precisely when Isaiah began prophesizing has nothing to do with the issues under discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 8:28 AM Wordswordsman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 308 of 329 (20346)
10-20-2002 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Wordswordsman
10-20-2002 7:09 PM


Wordswordsman writes:
The disagreement was over whether Jesus was he Messiah. Christians recognized the truth the Hebrews missed.
You're half right. Both the Hebrews and the Christians missed the truth.
Josephus cited Cyrus' reading of Isaiah and the prophecies of himself before that idea was birthed.
As I already said in Message 299, Isaiah 1-39 was written in Babylon before Cyrus, 40-48 shortly before Cyrus conquered Babylon, and 49-55 shortly after. So obviously Isaiah 1-48 was available for Cyrus to read.
Now just who are those liberals that agree with Pfeiffer? The RCC disagrees with that. Their scholars have been found quite accurate, though biased against Luther and Protestantism. Otherwise their commentaries are quite good, none disproven. WHO are they? Mormons? Jehovah Witness? Who?
After raising the issue of modern Biblical scholarship yourself, you now deny it even exists, there's just this one weird guy Pfeiffer and maybe a few cohorts? Go figure. Anyway, Pfeiffer's views are representative of liberal Biblical scholarship, a rather large and well-populated field. Other names in the field that I can think of are Crossan, Funk, Hoover, Golb, Eisenman, Wise, Armstrong, Friedman and Spong. Some of the most well known religious denominations are modernist in outlook, like the Methodists, the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians.
I won't listen to you about such things again.
Are you here to debate or lecture? To this point you've chosen to cast aspersions instead of addressing the specifics of the views of the modern school.
Percy wrote:
Mining the Internet, I see. Amazing similarity of expression with this website:
Wordswordsman replied:
I'm mostly using posts in archives on other groups, sometimes the copies on my hard drive and on floppies......
Yes, yes, don't worry, we believe you.
The excerpt I cited from Pfeiffer mentioned stylistic differences between Isaiah 1-39 and Deutero-Isaiah. You replied that, "Over 300 words and expressions used in both sections are not used by other prophets of the post-exilic period." But Isaiah was not written in the post-exilic period. It wasn't even written in Israel but in Babylon. You need to address the stylistic differences between Isaiah 1-39 and Deutero-Isaiah noted by the modern school. For instance, I quoted Pfeiffer saying, "The conciseness, variety, and concreteness of Isaiah's poetry contrast sharply with the eloquent verbosity, repetitiousness, and vagueness of Is. 40-66. Isaiah belongs to the golden age of Hebrew literature, Is. 40-66 to its silver age. The difference is that between naive, unconscious art and deliberate striving for majestic eloquence by means of rhetorical devices." Why not address this in some concrete way?
When one adds text to holy writ one does not advertise that fact - it diminishes the impact. The discovery of the multiple authorship of Isaiah only dates back a century or two because that's when the modern analytical techniques of high criticism began to be developed. Earlier scholars had no such techniques available and limited themselves to interpreting the meaning.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-20-2002 7:09 PM Wordswordsman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024