I don't believe the Bible is Inspired of god - Why do you / don't you? (page 14)

cofty

Mebaqqer - Thank you, very interesting post.

Edited to add - I also learned Sui generis and veridical.

Knowsnothing

I'm of the same opinions Canteave, ...now if only that little niggle of prophecy would go away too I'd be a lot happier about it. -Witness My Fury

Let's start with the prophesy of Cyrus. Isaiah 44:24,27,28; 45:1-4.

If you guys wanna look at bible prophecy claims being fulfilled, take a look at the Reasoning with the Scriptures Book under 'Bible', and refute it for me. This is something upon which I have nagging doubts on, along with texts like Isaiah 40:22 and Leviticus 11:6 which argue that the bible is 'scientificallly accurate'.

I would quote directly, but I have the WT CD in Spanish.

cofty

Let's start with the prophesy of Cyrus. Isaiah 44:24,27,28; 45:1-4

If you do some research the answer is very compelling. Use the search phrase "deutero Isaiah"

N.drew

This sounds like evil wibble.

In spite of the lack of concrete evidence that any part of Isaiah ever existed without any other part as far back as the 200’s BC, the dogma of most scholarship today is that two or more individuals authored Isaiah . This perspective arose, most notably in the deistic[1] climate of 18th century Europe. J. C. Doederlein, one of the earliest to argue for a second author,[2] said explicitly that since Isaiah could not have forseen the fall of Jerusalem, the 70 year captivity, the return or Cyrus, Isaiah could not have written those chapters making such claims (e.g. chapters 40-66) . Since this time, others have advanced arguments in support of dual or even multiple authorship.

OMG it's too yes freekin complicated. I shall take my leave.

Knowsnothing

Well on wiki, the first argument is that Deutero-Isaiah couldn't have possibly been written by Isaiah himself because it contains events that happened after he existed! Besides the arguement of different writting styles, which could have another explanation, it is telling that the first objection is to prophecy.

Here is the full wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

cofty

Knowsnothing I didn't suggest you should click on the first google search result and form an opinion, I suggested you should do some research. It could take weeks or months.

Knowsnothing

Well, you're right, this isn't an easy subject. I was just hoping for some miracle answer. I'm intellectually lazy at times.

transhuman68

Oh Lordy… if you read the published Dead Sea scrolls, you will see there is nothing unique about the Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls are like another New Testament, with a treasure map, plans for a temple bigger than the whole city of Jerusalem, rules and prophecies etc. The Dead Sea community believed that the Old Testament was full of prophecies that were being fulfilled in their time- just before the 1 st century: but it was a futile belief, and it continues to be futile belief even now.

Terry

You know what is interesting to me?

A number of years back I came on to this Discussion Group (in its old incarnation) and posted some Topics that asked people to examine

the historical facts and evidence about Bible transmission and provenance and--guess what? The MAJORITY of people on the list who responded

were upset by it.

And now--I'd say the majority has reversed!

People have moved on and are thinking for themselves and asking honest questions. They are doing the heavy lifting on pursuing facts where they lead

and making the hard choices.

I must say--I think this commendable.

Hip hip HOORAAAAAY.

still thinking

oooh..this looks interesting...coming back to read this thread later...thanks

I don't believe the Bible is Inspired of god - Why do you / don't you?

Share this