for Farkel or other bible experts

by Realist 11 Replies latest jw friends

Realist

Hello Farkel or other bible WT experts,
i got an email from a JW who tries to prove to me that the isaiah and daniel prophecies were accurate.
since i never got over genesis maybe someone with more knowledge of bible "truth" can help me debunk that nonsense.
he sent the following email:
You know, I KNEW you were going to bring up
that tired old argument. Frankly, if you'd studied
the Bible to the point you claim to have studied it,
you would know better.
Now I'll reverse, the argument to you: PROVE that
this prophecy WASN'T written 200 years before the fall
of Babylon. I mean it... show me any data whatsoever
(except your argument that "It can't be prophecy")
that supports your theory. You need to provide
evidence other than just personal conjecture.

I've just spent more than a year in a study group
examining the book of Isaiah scripture by scripture
and I still have several chapters to go. Obviously we
don't have the time for me to teach you all about
Isaiah here. But if there were evidence that Isaiah
was written after the fact, don't you think I'd be
aware of that by now?

There is no such evidence-- and I've seen the best TRY
to present evidence. It all falls flat.

Do you see what you're doing to yourself? False
prophecy doesn't come true. True prophecy can't
exist, so therefore any prophecy that does come true
must be faked. That is what is known as circular
logic and no self-respecting scientist would allow
himself to be caught reasoning in such a matter. The
question isn't invalid, but you should give some
thought to it before asking such. Or do you think I
wouldnt'have have examined that option already? ;)

However, just to mention a couple of facts:

Isaiah is a historically established figure. The very
fact that the book of Isaiah portrays the Israelites
in a VERY NEGATIVE light in itself indicates that the
book was not written by Israelites after the fact.

Further, the prophecy regarding Babylon was just ONE
of many prophecies contained in the book of Isaiah.
He also prophecied extensively regarding Jesus Christ,
the progression of times, and even our future. And to
reiterate, there was the corroborative prophecies of
Jerimiah, who was born more than a century after
Isaiah, and nailed the time period of their captivity
to the year.

In addition, other Bible writers either refer to
Isaiah directly, or quoted from him throughout the
Bible, including Jesus and the apostles. Jesus Christ
himself quoted from the book of Isaiah in prophecies
regarding himself... something he would not have done
were Isaiah a fraud. And the nation of Israel,
despite the extremely negative viewpoint Isaiah gives
about the nation... recognizes Isaiah to this day as
an inspired, historical prophet.

Don't you realize that over these many centuries, the
writings of Isaiah and their authenticity would have
been examined with a fine-tooth comb and expertly
established in order for it to be cannonized in the
Bible? If there was any evidence whatsoever that the
writings were faked, the book would have been removed
by Jehovah's Witnesses long ago.

Again, you're using the argument: It can't be a
miracle because there are no miracles.

There is much more proof that the book of Isaiah is
legitimate, but I don't have the time to forward 300+
pages of proof information and I'm sure you wouldn't
want to read such. You have to accept some things as
established historical fact. Of course, if you want
to research more yourself, feel free. Just contact
Jehovah's Witnesses and ask them to provide you with
the TWO VOLUME study of the book of Isaiah. The first
part of the first book covers the authenticity of
Isaiah.

I don't have the time to establish with you the
historical authenticity of every book of the Bible.
And if you continue with the argument that any
prophecy that came true must have been written after
the fact (what, by 40 different men over 1,600 years?)
then this conversation is fruitless even before it
begins.

Let me tell you about a general train of thought that
automatcially brings great disrespect from Bible
scholars: "Oh, the Bible is just a con game, a fraud
written by men after the fact to build up their
religious ideas." The reason that argument is held
in such disrepute (forgive me for putting it this
way)is because it immediately reveals the ignorance of
the person who says it. Those who study the Bible and
Bible history extensively have an immediate aversion
to even wasting time with someone who thinks like
this, because it shows a total lack of actual research
and examination on that person's part.

Remember the DEAD SEA SCROLLS? Prior to their
discovery, one of the chief arguments of Bible critics
was that "The Bible was likely written centuries after
the time of Christ". Well, when the Dead Sea Scrolls
were discovered, that put a really, really big hole in
that argument. In addition, copies of the NT were
discovered to have been written within 100 years of
the birth of Jesus. So such "post-fact" arguments
fell flat and were revealed to be nothing more than
the arrogant claims of men.

As one scholar put it: "To imagine that men could
create, out of their imagination, such a powerful and
intricate character as Jesus Christ, who has
influenced our society more than any other man in the
history of mankind, would in itself be a miracle far
greater than any mentioned in the Bible."

Now, if I may: Stop looking for loopholes and start
listening. Some of this stuff is going to get pretty
involved.

here's a brief quote from one of our Watchtower
articles (it was available immediately at hand):
One point the critics worked overtime was Daniel’s
mention of Belshazzar as king of Babylon. Secular
history indicated that Nabonidus was the last king of
Babylon, and it knew nothing of any Belshazzar. So the
higher critics claimed this as further proof that the
book of Daniel was written centuries after Daniel’s
time, and that that explains how the writer made this
terrible blunder of listing a mythical character as
the last king of Babylon. They thought another slip
was made when the writer spoke of Daniel’s being
raised to “third ruler in the kingdom”, for one made
prime minister was usually second in the kingdom.
(Dan. 5:1, 29, 30) But now these criticisms are heard
no more, for inscriptions by Nabonidus himself relate
his prayers for his eldest son, Belshazzar. One
Babylonian cuneiform text says concerning
Nabonidus: “He entrusted a camp to his eldest,
first-born son; the troops of the land he sent with
him. He freed his hand; he entrusted the kingship to
him.”

King Nabonidus was often away from the city of
Babylon, and in his absence his son Belshazzar acted
as king. Belshazzar made Daniel third in power instead
of second because he was second in power, first place
being held by his father Nabonidus.

“Come now, and let us reason together” on some of the
evidence that Daniel wrote the book in the sixth
century B.C., and not some faker four centuries later.
(Isa. 1:18) No secular history before Christ preserved
any record of Belshazzar’s existence. How would a
forger of 165 B.C. know it, when everyone else,
including the historians, were oblivious to it? The
vaunted Herodotus did not even record it, and he wrote
three centuries earlier. Or, how would a
second-century-B.C. impostor know Nebuchadnezzar was
the one who had conducted the extensive building
operations in Babylon? (Dan. 4:30) Secular history had
not handed down that fact, and archaeologists have
unearthed the evidence only in comparatively recent
times. One higher critic lamely alibied: “We shall
presumably never know.” But the writer of the book
knew, for it was Daniel, and he lived during the
reigns of both Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar! And did
not Christ Jesus say Daniel wrote the book? (Matt.
24:15) So of what weight are the idle vaporings of the
higher critics?

The Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the book
existed before the time of Artaxerxes (probably
Artaxerxes III, who began reigning about 474 B.C.). He
claims some of the prophecies of Daniel were pointed
out to Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem
in 332 B.C. The book of Daniel is found in the
original copies of the Septuagint, which was
translated from Hebrew into Greek during the third and
second centuries B.C. A fragment of the book of Daniel
was found with the recently discovered Dead Sea Scroll
of Isaiah, which the radiocarbon clock has allowed
Biblical scholars to date in the second century B.C.
So the book of Daniel existed during that second
century, it had been copied, it was well known enough
to be accepted into the Bible canon, it had been
translated as a part of the famous original
Septuagint, and was associated with the venerated
scroll of Isaiah. It could not have been a recent
writing by an impostor of that second century, known
by everyone as a book that was a stupid hoax. Also,
the first book of Maccabees, which is almost
contemporary with the events of the second century
related in it, not only presupposes the existence of
the book of Daniel but actually betrays acquaintance
with it. (Compare 1 Maccabees 2:59, 60 with Daniel
3:26, 27; 6:22.) This proves Daniel must have been
written long before, and had become established as an
authentic record. In all the above the evidence is
overwhelming. Just as Daniel was delivered from the
lions’ den, so the book of Daniel has been delivered
from the liars’ den!
many regards,
Realist
logansrun

I didn't read all that fundamentalist propaganda because I simply do not have the time or desire. I guess all of the scholars who feel Isaiah was written by two, possibly three, people are just plain stupid. All those years of studying and PhD thesis are just a big conspiracy theory meant to bring the Bible down!
There is a change of style and format in the latter half of Isaiah indicating a change in authorship, for one. My recommendation is to look at the Anchor Bible Commentaries on Isaiah -- they are even seperated into first, second and third Isaiah! There is a lot of circumstantial evidence which indicates that your friend is wrong, which leads me to another point...
No one scholar or scientist can actually PROVE anything -- they give probabilities. It is highly probable that Isaiah had more than one author, but it is impossible to prove such. Unlike non-emotional and detached scholarship, fundamentalists and JWs use the logical fallacy of trying to prove something that should be stated that it is just highly probable in their opinion.
B
City Fan

So in his email he says:
The Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the book
existed before the time of Artaxerxes (probably
Artaxerxes III, who began reigning about 474 B.C.).
This is yet another JW chronological error. Artaxerses I began ruling in 464 B.C. and his name is also in the Egyptian Kinglists in the Twenty Seventh Dynasty as ruling Egypt from 464 - 424 B.C. The JW's choose 474 B.C. to fit their 70 weeks of years prophetic interpretation and there is no historical evidence for this date.
A bit like them choosing 625 B.C. as the year Nebuchadnezzar's became King of babylon and not 604 B.C. as supported by absolute chronology.
Rather than study Isaiah and Daniel verse by verse, they should start with a study of the actual history of the Chaldean and Achaemenid Dynasties of the Near East. Then they may get a proper application of some of these verses.
City.
rem

Realist,
Any decent study bible (particularly Catholic study Bibles: New Jerusalem or New American) will have information and commentary on the multiple and late authorship of parts of Isaiah and Daniel. The real issue is that this person is demanding proof that the books were written after the prophecy when the burden of proof is really on him.
Making the positive claim that a prophecy was written before its fulfillment is an extraordinary one. To believe such a claim there must be sufficient evidence (extraordinary evidence, even). The default state is non-belief for such extraordinary claims. Unfortunately nobody can absolutely prove that the writings were recorded prior to their fulfillment, there is no extraordinary evidence to back this positive claim. It is not your responsibility to disprove it since there is no (extraordinary) positive evidence.
But just to be thorough, there is some evidence of late authorship that is discussed in the study bibles and other sources. There is no requirement that this evidence be extraordinary because it is not an extraordinary claim to say that there was no fortelling of the future.
rem
Farkel

Well, we can start with this statement:
: PROVE that
this prophecy WASN'T written 200 years before the fall
of Babylon. I mean it... show me any data whatsoever
(except your argument that "It can't be prophecy")
that supports your theory. You need to provide
evidence other than just personal conjecture.
One cannot disprove a negative. Tell your friend to PROVE that invisible orange-striped elephants don't exist, to let his ridiculous statement sink in. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the assertions.
I'll look at the rest of his "arguments" later on today as I have time.
Farkel
Abaddon

Do you see what you're doing to yourself? False
prophecy doesn't come true. True prophecy can't
exist, so therefore any prophecy that does come true
must be faked. That is what is known as circular
logic and no self-respecting scientist would allow
himself to be caught reasoning in such a matter.
A 'self-respecting' scientist would not argue that an assertation is true unless proved false, as Farkel points out.
There are loads of other books that provide a set of beliefs, and they all hold together when viewed soley on the basis of internal logic. Of course the Bible is God's word... is says so in Timothy. Doh!
It is ONLY when things are viewed from as external a viewpoint as possible, as objectively as possible, where assertations are to be proved before they are accepted, rather than accepted unless proved false, that you should even allowed to be used the word 'truth' in polite company, and even then, with caution.
DanTheMan

Isaiah is a historically established figure. The very
fact that the book of Isaiah portrays the Israelites
in a VERY NEGATIVE light in itself indicates that the
book was not written by Israelites after the fact.
huh? I don't get this line of reasoning at all.
Actually, many JW's seem to be ignorant of the fact that they are far from being the only religious group that believes in "biblical inerrancy". They just interpret a few things differently, to give themselves brand differentiation. As a matter of fact, I think the Blow-ciety borrows much from fundy sources when producing their literature. So I guess I don't know what your friend is trying to prove except that he has a third grade education in biblical inerrancy.
Also, I love the mild tempered & deeply respectful spirit that permeates his email LOL.
AlanF

Hi Realist,

Here are some comments that you might use:

: You know, I KNEW you were going to bring up
that tired old argument. Frankly, if you'd studied
the Bible to the point you claim to have studied it,
you would know better.
Now I'll reverse, the argument to you: PROVE that
this prophecy WASN'T written 200 years before the fall
of Babylon. I mean it... show me any data whatsoever
(except your argument that "It can't be prophecy")
that supports your theory. You need to provide
evidence other than just personal conjecture.

Proving a negative is impossible. It is YOU are making an extraordinary claim, and it is up to YOU to prove it.
Many scholars are sure that Isaiah was not written by the same person, and that chapters 1-39 and 40-66 show different writers due to many factors. However, other scholars have used linguistic analysis to try to show that Isaiah really was written by the same person, so the conclusions of scholars are not definitive.
How do you KNOW that the entire book of Isaiah was not written after 539 A.D.? How do you know that it was not written around the time of, say, Ezra, in the 5th century B.C.? Can you PROVE it was not? Of course not. All you have are claims by people who would like to be able to say that the so-called prophecies contained in Isaiah were written beforehand.

: I've just spent more than a year in a study group
examining the book of Isaiah scripture by scripture
and I still have several chapters to go. Obviously we
don't have the time for me to teach you all about
Isaiah here. But if there were evidence that Isaiah
was written after the fact, don't you think I'd be
aware of that by now?

Of course not. JWs NEVER provide the full range of evidence necessary to examine all sides of issues like this.

: There is no such evidence-- and I've seen the best TRY
to present evidence. It all falls flat.

Young-earth creationists say the same thing about evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Do you think they make good arguments?

: Do you see what you're doing to yourself? False
prophecy doesn't come true. True prophecy can't
exist, so therefore any prophecy that does come true
must be faked. That is what is known as circular
logic and no self-respecting scientist would allow
himself to be caught reasoning in such a matter. The
question isn't invalid, but you should give some
thought to it before asking such. Or do you think I
wouldnt'have have examined that option already? ;)

No, it is YOU who are making a circular argument: Bible books contain prophecies; therefore they must have been written in advance of the fulfillments. But you cannot present a single, SOLID piece of evidence in favor of that.

: However, just to mention a couple of facts:

: Isaiah is a historically established figure. The very
fact that the book of Isaiah portrays the Israelites
in a VERY NEGATIVE light in itself indicates that the
book was not written by Israelites after the fact.

Nonsense. Negative self-portrayals have absolutely nothing to do with the time of writing of a book. If I write a book about myself that lists my faults, does that prove, or even give the slightest indication, that I was inspired to write? Of course not.

: Further, the prophecy regarding Babylon was just ONE
of many prophecies contained in the book of Isaiah.
He also prophecied extensively regarding Jesus Christ,
the progression of times, and even our future.

Come on now. At least 80% of the so-called Messianic prophecies have absolutely no connection with Jesus, or with events beyond what the ancient writer was concerned with. Take, for example, the famous example of Isaiah 7:14, which Christians claim was a prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin. However, a careful examination of the context of Isaiah 7 proves that this is nonsense. The story is about Judah under king Ahaz being attacked by two rival kings. Ahaz is given a prophecy that a sign will be given that these kings will fail to conquer Judah. It says that the sign will be that a MAIDEN -- a young girl, not a virgin (check the New World Translation's rendering; don't you think that if there were any way to render the word as "virgin" here the NWT Committee would have done so?) -- would give birth to a child who would be called Immanuel. Ahaz is told by the prophet:

"For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."--Isaiah 7:16; NASB
So CONTEXT ALONE proves that this has nothing to do with a Messiah that would come hundreds of years after Ahaz and company were dead. Furthermore, if the prophecy really were a Messianic prophecy and the word "maiden" really were supposed to mean "virgin", then the prophecy contains the seeds of its own refutation since Jesus is supposed to have been the ONLY person every born of a virgin, and yet the prophecy given to Ahaz explicitly states that Ahaz himself would see the birth of this child named Immanuel. Further yet, there is no evidence, in the book of Isaiah or otherwise, that Ahaz ever saw the birth of this child.

: And to
reiterate, there was the corroborative prophecies of
Jerimiah, who was born more than a century after
Isaiah, and nailed the time period of their captivity
to the year.

The book of Jeremiah was written after the events it "prophesied", just as Isaiah was. Do you think these ancient writers were so stupid as to get their "prophecies" inconsistent with one another?

: In addition, other Bible writers either refer to
Isaiah directly, or quoted from him throughout the
Bible, including Jesus and the apostles.

So what? They had an agenda -- to prove to their audience that Jesus was foretold to be the Messiah. That's why they pulled so greatly at straws, like with Isaiah 7:14, to make it appear to naive listeners that they had ancient prophecies on their side.

: Jesus Christ
himself quoted from the book of Isaiah in prophecies
regarding himself... something he would not have done
were Isaiah a fraud.

Really. And how do we know this? Because several Bible writers CLAIMED that Jesus did this.

: And the nation of Israel,
despite the extremely negative viewpoint Isaiah gives
about the nation... recognizes Isaiah to this day as
an inspired, historical prophet.

A typical JW misrepresentation by oversimplification. Most Jews don't believe that their culture's writings are inspired at all. A small fraction, including the Hasidim and related orthodox Jews, do believe it. So what? Do you put stock in Hasidic and orthodox Jewish teachings generally?

: Don't you realize that over these many centuries, the
writings of Isaiah and their authenticity would have
been examined with a fine-tooth comb and expertly
established in order for it to be cannonized in the
Bible?

Oh yes! The Jews of the first century, and later the Catholic Church, certainly had a great deal of astuteness in determining just what books made it into the Bible Canon!

: If there was any evidence whatsoever that the
writings were faked, the book would have been removed
by Jehovah's Witnesses long ago.

Oh please. The notion that Jehovah's Witnesses are objective Bible scholars is akin to the notion that they are cannibals.

: Again, you're using the argument: It can't be a
miracle because there are no miracles.

No, you are using the argument that there must be miracles because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired, we know, because the Bible says so. These are completely circular arguments. How is it that you claim to recognize a circular argument given by others but you can't see one you yourself are using?

There is much more proof that the book of Isaiah is
legitimate, but I don't have the time to forward 300+
pages of proof information and I'm sure you wouldn't
want to read such. You have to accept some things as
established historical fact.

A careful study of this material would surely result in the same sort of debunking that resuls when Isaiah 7:14 is looked at without prejudice.

: Of course, if you want
to research more yourself, feel free. Just contact
Jehovah's Witnesses and ask them to provide you with
the TWO VOLUME study of the book of Isaiah. The first
part of the first book covers the authenticity of
Isaiah.

Right, and these books surely contain the same sort of non-objective, misrepresentative arguments as does the book Life--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? published by JWs in 1985.

: I don't have the time to establish with you the
historical authenticity of every book of the Bible.
And if you continue with the argument that any
prophecy that came true must have been written after
the fact (what, by 40 different men over 1,600 years?)
then this conversation is fruitless even before it
begins.

What's the point of this discussion at all? Your arguments are based on faith, and somewhat on marshalling poor arguments that are easily debunked by non-religious arguments.

: Let me tell you about a general train of thought that
automatcially brings great disrespect from Bible
scholars: "Oh, the Bible is just a con game, a fraud
written by men after the fact to build up their
religious ideas." The reason that argument is held
in such disrepute (forgive me for putting it this
way)is because it immediately reveals the ignorance of
the person who says it. Those who study the Bible and
Bible history extensively have an immediate aversion
to even wasting time with someone who thinks like
this, because it shows a total lack of actual research
and examination on that person's part.

This statement of yours shows exactly the same massive ignorance and prejudice that you decry on the part of skeptics. Do you really think that all skeptics are as stupid and ignorant as your leaders have led you to believe?
The fact is that those who study the Bible with an advance view that all facts must be bent to support the claim that it is inspired have been proved to often be thoroughly dishonest, and to ignore solid facts of history, and to misrepresent negative evidence to their readers. They pretend that negative evidence doesn't even exist.

: Remember the DEAD SEA SCROLLS? Prior to their
discovery, one of the chief arguments of Bible critics
was that "The Bible was likely written centuries after
the time of Christ".

A typical strawman argument. A few critics may have said this, but the bulk of critics have long been well aware that the Old Testament was completed before the time of Christ. Such critics have long claimed that the book of Daniel, for example, was written some time in the 2nd century B.C.

: Well, when the Dead Sea Scrolls
were discovered, that put a really, really big hole in
that argument. In addition, copies of the NT were
discovered to have been written within 100 years of
the birth of Jesus.

What's that supposed to prove?

: So such "post-fact" arguments
fell flat and were revealed to be nothing more than
the arrogant claims of men.

As has your strawman argument here.

As one scholar put it: "To imagine that men could
create, out of their imagination, such a powerful and
intricate character as Jesus Christ, who has
influenced our society more than any other man in the
history of mankind, would in itself be a miracle far
greater than any mentioned in the Bible."

This is rank nonsense. As a JW, I'm sure you're completely ignorant of the fact that the lives of Jesus, the Bhudda and Krishna have much in common in terms of the miracles claimed. For example, Bhudda and Jesus were claimed to have been born of virgins. The recent book The Jesus Mysteries documents a good deal of these correspondences.

: Now, if I may: Stop looking for loopholes and start
listening. Some of this stuff is going to get pretty
involved.

I have to wonder how prepared you are to get involved in looking at critical scholarly material such as the book I mentioned.

: here's a brief quote from one of our Watchtower
articles (it was available immediately at hand):
One point the critics worked overtime was Daniel’s
mention of Belshazzar as king of Babylon. Secular
history indicated that Nabonidus was the last king of
Babylon, and it knew nothing of any Belshazzar. So the
higher critics claimed this as further proof that the
book of Daniel was written centuries after Daniel’s
time, and that that explains how the writer made this
terrible blunder of listing a mythical character as
the last king of Babylon. They thought another slip
was made when the writer spoke of Daniel’s being
raised to “third ruler in the kingdom”, for one made
prime minister was usually second in the kingdom.
(Dan. 5:1, 29, 30)

I'm sure you had no idea that these criticisms were last made about 1850.

: But now these criticisms are heard
no more, for inscriptions by Nabonidus himself relate
his prayers for his eldest son, Belshazzar. One
Babylonian cuneiform text says concerning
Nabonidus: “He entrusted a camp to his eldest,
first-born son; the troops of the land he sent with
him. He freed his hand; he entrusted the kingship to
him.”

The Bible certainly contains solid historical material. That doesn't prove anything more than that it contains solid historical material.

: King Nabonidus was often away from the city of
Babylon, and in his absence his son Belshazzar acted
as king. Belshazzar made Daniel third in power instead
of second because he was second in power, first place
being held by his father Nabonidus.

: “Come now, and let us reason together” on some of the
evidence that Daniel wrote the book in the sixth
century B.C., and not some faker four centuries later.
(Isa. 1:18) No secular history before Christ preserved
any record of Belshazzar’s existence.

How do you know that? Are you not aware that almost all historical records were destroyed over the centuries? It's obvious that many first century writers, for example, had access to a great deal of historical writings that have disappeared. Reference is often made to such writings in the writings of the few ancient writers that have survived. The Bible itself refers to such no-longer-extant Jewish writings as "The book of the was of the kings of Judah".

: How would a
forger of 165 B.C. know it, when everyone else,
including the historians, were oblivious to it?

Having been unable to anwer the above questions, you should now be able to see why this question is misplaced.

: The
vaunted Herodotus did not even record it, and he wrote
three centuries earlier.

So what? Nabonidus was the king, and Belshazzar was the 2nd-in-command. The Babylonians normally only recorded the main doings of the king, not of high officials.

: Or, how would a
second-century-B.C. impostor know Nebuchadnezzar was
the one who had conducted the extensive building
operations in Babylon? (Dan. 4:30)

Um, through secular records that no longer exist?

: Secular history had
not handed down that fact, and archaeologists have
unearthed the evidence only in comparatively recent
times. One higher critic lamely alibied: “We shall
presumably never know.”

Can you give me a reference other than to the usual lame JW books you like to rely on?

: But the writer of the book
knew, for it was Daniel, and he lived during the
reigns of both Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar! And did
not Christ Jesus say Daniel wrote the book? (Matt.
24:15) So of what weight are the idle vaporings of the
higher critics?

This is yet another case of the classic circular argument given by Christians: Jesus said it, and therefore it is historically true! Thus history proves our beliefs correct!

The Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the book
existed before the time of Artaxerxes (probably
Artaxerxes III, who began reigning about 474 B.C.).

Josephus largely relied on the Old Testament itself. So referring to him about things like this is not a good way to generate a feeling of objectivity.

: He
claims some of the prophecies of Daniel were pointed
out to Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem
in 332 B.C.

What were his source references?

: The book of Daniel is found in the
original copies of the Septuagint, which was
translated from Hebrew into Greek during the third and
second centuries B.C.

There are no "original copies" of the Septuagint. There are a few fragments from before the 1st century, but not many. I'll bet you figured out this bit of misinformation by relying on JW writings!

: A fragment of the book of Daniel
was found with the recently discovered Dead Sea Scroll
of Isaiah, which the radiocarbon clock has allowed
Biblical scholars to date in the second century B.C.
So the book of Daniel existed during that second
century, it had been copied, it was well known enough
to be accepted into the Bible canon, it had been
translated as a part of the famous original
Septuagint, and was associated with the venerated
scroll of Isaiah.

Very good! In other words, there is no solid evidence that the book of Daniel was written before the 2nd century B.C. You're probably not even aware that the last part of Jeremiah was not written by Jeremiah, but by some later hand.

: It could not have been a recent
writing by an impostor of that second century, known
by everyone as a book that was a stupid hoax. Also,
the first book of Maccabees, which is almost
contemporary with the events of the second century
related in it, not only presupposes the existence of
the book of Daniel but actually betrays acquaintance
with it. (Compare 1 Maccabees 2:59, 60 with Daniel
3:26, 27; 6:22.) This proves Daniel must have been
written long before, and had become established as an
authentic record.

Here is what 1 Maccabees says:

"59 Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. 60 Daniel, because of his innocence, was delivered from the mouth of the lions." (http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/1MA/1MA2.HTM )
Great! We now have a 2nd witness to the story of Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego, and the story of Daniel in the lion's den. But we still have no evidence that the book of Daniel was not a compilation of material over several centuries, ending sometime in the 2nd century B.C.

: In all the above the evidence is
overwhelming. Just as Daniel was delivered from the
lions’ den, so the book of Daniel has been delivered
from the liars’ den!

Hardly. The sort of evidence you've given would hardly pass muster in a 3rd grade history class.
AlanF
Farkel

Good job, Alan.
I find it fascinating to see the mind of a dub at work. Oh, the cognitive dissonance! Our little dubbie screams "circular logic" and yet look at what it says:
: In addition, other Bible writers either refer to
Isaiah directly, or quoted from him throughout the
Bible, including Jesus and the apostles.
So what? They had an agenda -- to prove to their audience that Jesus was foretold to be the Messiah. That's why they pulled so greatly at straws, like with Isaiah 7:14, to make it appear to naive listeners that they had ancient prophecies on their side.
: Jesus Christ
himself quoted from the book of Isaiah in prophecies
regarding himself... something he would not have done
were Isaiah a fraud.
This is classic example of the textbook circular argument: Isaiah is mentioned only in the Bible. Jesus is mentioned only in the Bible (except for one erroneous reference by Josephus). The Bible says it is inspired. The Bible says Jesus was inspired. Jesus said Isaiah was a true prophet.
Therefore, it MUST be true that Isaiah was a true prophet! Utterly childish circular reasoning!
Here we have another logical fallacy:
: And the nation of Israel,
despite the extremely negative viewpoint Isaiah gives
about the nation... recognizes Isaiah to this day as
an inspired, historical prophet.
Argumentum ad Populem. "If fifty million people believe something is true, it must be true."
: Don't you realize that over these many centuries, the
writings of Isaiah and their authenticity would have
been examined with a fine-tooth comb and expertly
established in order for it to be cannonized in the
Bible?
They have. Most subjective scholars believe Isaiah was the work of at least two different people and that it was written after-the-fact. Hebrew scholars have pointed out the stylistic differences in two and even three sections of that book. How many Hebrew scholars does the Watchtower Society have now? Rolf Furoli? While dubs think he's a Hebrew scholar, he's not recognized as one by other Hebrew scholars.
While you might say that Josephus stated that Cyrus freed the Jews (thus agreeing with what Isaiah said), you should note that Josephus got that information from the book of Isaiah itself!
The earliest known scroll of the book of Isaiah (unless there is a newer discovery that I'm not aware of) is from the Qumran Dead Sea scrolls. It is dated in the first century B.C. That gives a full six to seven HUNDRED years for religionist to doctor Biblical history!
In the 12th Century AD, a Jewish scholar in Spain, Abraham Ibn Ezra, remarked that Isaiah's name at the title of the book was no more guarantee of authorship than Samuel's name at the title of the two books that bear his name.
The problem with crackpot cults like the Watchtower, is that they ONLY quote from "scholars" who agree with their point of view and never present all views to their members. Even when virtually ALL scholars disagree with their 607 BC date, the Watchtower blithely fluffs that off and states things like "just because no evidence has yet been discovered to justify our date, that doesn't mean in the future their won't be any."
Ezekiel prophesied that Tyre would be utterly destroyed and never rebuilt (Eze. 26 & 27). Isaiah said Tyre would only be desolate for 70 years and that God would then "visit" the city and restore it. Who was right? If Exekiel was right, Isaiah was a false prophet and vice versa.
Religionists like to point to Isaiah 40 to "prove" Isaiah was inspired when it talks about the "circle of the earth." Nevermind the fact that a circle and a sphere are two entirely different things. Nevermind the fact that the Hebrew languages has separate and distinct words for both, if that verse "proves" that Isaiah was divinely inspired: how do you explain him saying there were "four corners" to the earth in chapter 11 of his book? Was the "circle" statement literal and the "four corners" statement metaphorical, were they both metaphorical, or is it possible that the writer of Isaiah was simply clueless?
The Bible says it is "impossible for God to lie," but Isaiah 37 said God in fact was a liar.
I doubt any of this will reach your arrogant, hard-headed and self-righteous friend, but hope springs eternal.
Farkel
gsx1138

Anytime someone brings up Jesus I have to bust out this site. Someone else posted it in the Biblical section but I think more people should really read this site.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html

for Farkel or other bible experts

Share this