Because prophecies aren't true, the book must have been written after the events described. Therefore the prophecies contained in the book aren't true."
Yes, so isn't it a good thing that nobody here made that argument? Now what do we call fabricating arguments so that you can dismiss them?
Oh but that HAS been said here, maybe on another thread. [ABE: As a matter of fact, arachnophilia is saying that, which is what lokiare responded to. /ABE] Also, kbertsche mentioned it somewhere, and so did I, that the dates often accepted for various books these days were assigned by people who didn't believe in prophecy and even said that's why they assigned them. Bruce Metzger, famous Bible scholar, said that in so many words.
ABE: Oh yes, Pressie made the argument that the books were written after the events prophesied. Other thread I guess.
I was just floundering around trying to remember where someone had argued a late date against a prophecy, wasn't sure who did but I knew it had come up somewhere so I put out all the clues I had, I think it was only Pressie now. In that quote lokiare put up of arach it did seem he was making that argument, but apparently he wasn't -- or let's say I really don't know what he was saying.
As quoted in the New Testament, Luke 4, Jesus read from the book of Isaiah when He was in the synagogue at Nazareth, showing that they had a copy there too. That was a hundred years later than the Dead Sea scroll but you can be sure that if they had a copy of that book in Nazareth they had a copy of it in every synagogue in the whole scattered Hellenistic world, and there were a LOT of synagogues there, as you can find out by reading the book of Acts, as Paul took the gospel to them on his missionary journeys. You can be sure they didn't get their copies of the scroll from the Qumran community.
That's evidence that the scroll was well known and well distributed in Jesus' time, which suggests something a lot older than a couple hundred years, and fully recognized as the word of God, part of the standard Jewish canon.
And besides that, He is reading from a portion of that book that prophesies of the coming of the Messiah. He reads the section and then He tells them He Himself is the fulfillment of that prophecy:
Luke 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
So even if you absurdly prefer to date the book far more recently than either the ancient Jews or the Christian Church dated it, you can't date it after Jesus' announces the fulfillment of its prophecy in His time.
And again, it's absurd in the extreme to think you can date any of the scriptures from the last extant copy known.
That's a fallacy in itself, wish I knew a name for it. It's quite possible that a true history could be written reporting on a prophecy AND its fulfillment over time and by calling it circular reasoning you'd accomplish nothing but ensuring that you personally would never know that it was true.
In any case, what same book? The Bible is a collection of books, not one book. If you have a collection of essays or short stories by many authors in one book it would be only physically one book. Same with the Bible. There was no New Testament in Jesus' time, only the Old Testament. He read from it. The part He read from was a separate book unto itself, about seven hundred years old. His reading from it got written down along with reports of other things in His life. The writings about Jesus and the other writings of the apostles were copied and read separately in thousands of churches over hundreds of years before all the separate books got bound together in one.
Using bad logic to discredit the truth is a VERY bad policy.
ABE: Have you ever read the Bible, Pressie? If you have you should know that many of the books date themselves by reference to historical events reported in other books. Isaiah starts out telling us he is reporting on the period of certain kings of Judah, and names them: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. In chapter 39 he is referring to King Hezekiah. If you read the other books with their chronologies of the kings and events in Israel and Judah it becomes possible to put a date on many of the writings. OLD dates in the case of these kings. It would take a conspiratorial imagination beyond the ability of normal human beings to make all that up years later. Not to mention you're calling him a liar to think that of him.