10 Amazing Facts About The Bible That Will BLOW Your Mind!

[Elora]

I don't agree that the KJV is most accurate but the rest, yes...some interesting facts...

 

[Omega Man]

I don't agree that the KJV is most accurate but the rest, yes...some interesting facts...

I had to stop listening once the speaker claimed an anachronism written about Babylon during the Exilic period, was claimed to have been "written" (and thus "prophecy fulfilled") during the Assyrian period a couple centuries earlier.


OM

 

[Elora]

I had to stop listening once the speaker claimed an anachronism written about Babylon during the Exilic period, was claimed to have been "written" (and thus "prophecy fulfilled") during the Assyrian period a couple centuries earlier.


OM

What do you disagree with?

 

[zyzygy]

I had to stop listening once the speaker claimed an anachronism written about Babylon during the Exilic period, was claimed to have been "written" (and thus "prophecy fulfilled") during the Assyrian period a couple centuries earlier.


OM

The video is laughable. My mind is far from blown. The inane believer comments were the best thing about the link.

 

[Omega Man]

What do you disagree with?

The quote about Cyrus was written by Deutero-Isaiah during the Exilic period, whereas the speaker intentionally attributes the passage as somehow being written by Proto-Isaiah a couple centuries earlier during the Assyrian period. That was intellectually dishonest, so I figured the rest wasn't worth listening to.


OM

 

[Elora]

The quote about Cyrus was written by Deutero-Isaiah during the Exilic period, whereas the speaker intentionally attributes the passage as somehow being written by Proto-Isaiah a couple centuries earlier during the Assyrian period. That was intellectually dishonest, so I figured the rest wasn't worth listening to.


OM

Even if true, and I am not convinced it is, the destruction itself was prophesied in Isaiah 13th and 14th chapters...

 

[Elora]

Was the Book of Isaiah written by three authors or one? Did Daniel preach during the Babylonian Exile or is the book written in his name a pious forgery authored less than 2,200 years ago? In this eye-opening broadcast, Rabbi Singer responds to academic scholars who argue against the traditional Jewish authorship of these holy books.

 

[Logicman]

The quote about Cyrus was written by Deutero-Isaiah during the Exilic period, whereas the speaker intentionally attributes the passage as somehow being written by Proto-Isaiah a couple centuries earlier during the Assyrian period. That was intellectually dishonest, so I figured the rest wasn't worth listening to.

That's more liberal hogwash. Liberals critics don't believe in the supernatural so they late-date the prophecy. That's also why they try to break up Isaiah into 2 or 3 separate authors.

To refute:

"...as an interesting sidelight, we note that Josephus, the Jewish historian, stated that the Jews in Babylonian captivity showed Cyrus the prophecies of the Old Testament Scriptures which contain his name and described his role in the scheme of God. The historian says that it was this circumstance that motivated the ruler “to fulfill what was written” (Antiquities of the Jews 11.1.2), and thus to issue his edict permitting Israel’s return to her homeland."

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/264-cyrus-the-great-in-biblical-prophecy

Antiquities / Josephus: https://textcritical.net/work/antiquities-of-the-jews/11/1/2

You haven't done your homework.

 

[Elora]

That's more liberal hogwash. Liberals critics don't believe in the supernatural so they late-date the prophecy. That's also why they try to break up Isaiah into 2 or 3 separate authors.

To refute:

"...as an interesting sidelight, we note that Josephus, the Jewish historian, stated that the Jews in Babylonian captivity showed Cyrus the prophecies of the Old Testament Scriptures which contain his name and described his role in the scheme of God. The historian says that it was this circumstance that motivated the ruler “to fulfill what was written” (Antiquities of the Jews 11.1.2), and thus to issue his edict permitting Israel’s return to her homeland."

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/264-cyrus-the-great-in-biblical-prophecy

You haven't done your homework.

Unfortunately, many scholars and professors believe the same, as pointed out in the video I posted from the Rabbi...his quote..."the academic world is a godless world"...

 

[RAMOSS]

That's more liberal hogwash. Liberals critics don't believe in the supernatural so they late-date the prophecy. That's also why they try to break up Isaiah into 2 or 3 separate authors.

To refute:

"...as an interesting sidelight, we note that Josephus, the Jewish historian, stated that the Jews in Babylonian captivity showed Cyrus the prophecies of the Old Testament Scriptures which contain his name and described his role in the scheme of God. The historian says that it was this circumstance that motivated the ruler “to fulfill what was written” (Antiquities of the Jews 11.1.2), and thus to issue his edict permitting Israel’s return to her homeland."

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/264-cyrus-the-great-in-biblical-prophecy

Antiquities / Josephus: https://textcritical.net/work/antiquities-of-the-jews/11/1/2

You haven't done your homework.

Wayne Jackson, being the con man he was, is making the invalid assumption about the dates of when thing were written. He is neither a learned or valid resource.

 

[Logicman]

Wayne Jackson, being the con man he was, is making the invalid assumption about the dates of when thing were written. He is neither a learned or valid resource.

Nobody with any learning in Biblical theology is buying your Dr. No routine, Ramoss.

 

[RAMOSS]

Nobody with any learning in Biblical theology is buying your Dr. No routine, Ramoss.

Somehow, your declarations don't impress other people.

 

[iguanaman]

The quote about Cyrus was written by Deutero-Isaiah during the Exilic period, whereas the speaker intentionally attributes the passage as somehow being written by Proto-Isaiah a couple centuries earlier during the Assyrian period. That was intellectually dishonest, so I figured the rest wasn't worth listening to.


OM

How dare you interject real history into a fairy tale. :lol: It's purely entertainment for the faithful. When you are selling something so far-fetched as living forever you need to keep the pump primed.

 

[Logicman]

The quote about Cyrus was written by Deutero-Isaiah during the Exilic period, whereas the speaker intentionally attributes the passage as somehow being written by Proto-Isaiah a couple centuries earlier during the Assyrian period. That was intellectually dishonest, so I figured the rest wasn't worth listening to.

The "Deutero- Isaiah" and "Proto-Isaiah" concepts (two separate authors of Isaiah in two different time periods 150-200 years apart) have a lot of problems. To wit:

"Most conservative Bible scholars are in agreement that Isaiah was the sole author of the book that bears his name. However, there are some liberal scholars who are skeptical about anything that points to supernatural inspiration of the Bible. In fact, they go so far as to explain the fulfilled prophecies in these books by re-dating them to after the events occurred! The theory of multiple Isaiahs is one example of skepticism from those who want to call into question the Bible as God’s inspired Word. This theory of “Deutero-Isaiah” (or second Isaiah) came about near the end of the eighteenth century. Supposedly, Isaiah himself wrote only the first 39 chapters, leaving one of his students to write the second part (chapters 40–66) sometime after the Babylonian captivity started (after 586 BC). This later date would explain explicit mentions of “Cyrus, King of Persia” in Isaiah 44:28–45:1 without requiring predictive prophecy."

"Again, most reputable Bible scholars reject the “Deutero-Isaiah” theory. Their conclusions include the similarity of writing styles in both sections, the consistent use of the same words throughout, and the familiarity of the author with Israel, but not Babylon. Furthermore, Jewish tradition uniformly ascribes the entire book to Isaiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a complete scroll of Isaiah dated from the second century BC. The book is one unit with the end of chapter 39 and the beginning of chapter 40 in one continuous column of text. This demonstrates that the scribes who copied this scroll never doubted the singular unity of the book. Neither did the New Testament authors, nor the early church, as quotations from both sections are attributed only to Isaiah."

https://www.gotquestions.org/Deutero-Isaiah.html

In addition, "Furthermore, both the apostles and Jesus Himself frequently quote from both sections of Isaiah, always attributing them to Isaiah with no suggestion that they were referring to two different men. For example, Jesus attributes His quote of Isaiah 40:3 to “the prophet Esaias” (Matthew 3:3) and His quote of Isaiah 6:9-10 to “Esaias the prophet” (John 12:40-41)." - ICR.org

 

[RAMOSS]

The "Deutero- Isaiah" and "Proto-Isaiah" concepts (two separate authors of Isaiah in two different time periods 150-200 years apart) have a lot of problems. To wit:

"Most conservative Bible scholars are in agreement that Isaiah was the sole author of the book that bears his name. However, there are some liberal scholars who are skeptical about anything that points to supernatural inspiration of the Bible. In fact, they go so far as to explain the fulfilled prophecies in these books by re-dating them to after the events occurred! The theory of multiple Isaiahs is one example of skepticism from those who want to call into question the Bible as God’s inspired Word. This theory of “Deutero-Isaiah” (or second Isaiah) came about near the end of the eighteenth century. Supposedly, Isaiah himself wrote only the first 39 chapters, leaving one of his students to write the second part (chapters 40–66) sometime after the Babylonian captivity started (after 586 BC). This later date would explain explicit mentions of “Cyrus, King of Persia” in Isaiah 44:28–45:1 without requiring predictive prophecy."

"Again, most reputable Bible scholars reject the “Deutero-Isaiah” theory. Their conclusions include the similarity of writing styles in both sections, the consistent use of the same words throughout, and the familiarity of the author with Israel, but not Babylon. Furthermore, Jewish tradition uniformly ascribes the entire book to Isaiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a complete scroll of Isaiah dated from the second century BC. The book is one unit with the end of chapter 39 and the beginning of chapter 40 in one continuous column of text. This demonstrates that the scribes who copied this scroll never doubted the singular unity of the book. Neither did the New Testament authors, nor the early church, as quotations from both sections are attributed only to Isaiah."

https://www.gotquestions.org/Deutero-Isaiah.html

In addition, "Furthermore, both the apostles and Jesus Himself frequently quote from both sections of Isaiah, always attributing them to Isaiah with no suggestion that they were referring to two different men. For example, Jesus attributes His quote of Isaiah 40:3 to “the prophet Esaias” (Matthew 3:3) and His quote of Isaiah 6:9-10 to “Esaias the prophet” (John 12:40-41)." - ICR.org

That's a horribly written article. I will also point out the definition of 'reputable' from gotquestions is' Those that agree with me', rather than mainstream or majority.

 

[Logicman]

That's a horribly written article. I will also point out the definition of 'reputable' from gotquestions is' Those that agree with me', rather than mainstream or majority.

That's about what I've come to expect from your lack of any formal theological education.

 

[zyzygy]

Somehow, your declarations don't impress other people.

Logicman has a theological degree from the University of Made Uppery.

 

[holbritter]

Unfortunately, many scholars and professors believe the same, as pointed out in the video I posted from the Rabbi...his quote..."the academic world is a godless world"...

I don't understand. Are scholars and professors not part of the academic world? What about bible scholars?

 

[Elora]

I don't understand. Are scholars and professors not part of the academic world? What about bible scholars?

That was the point of the comment...yes...

 

[ashurbanipal]

Most conservative Bible scholars are in agreement...

...most reputable Bible scholars reject the “Deutero-Isaiah” theory.

I love how we go from "conservative" Bible scholars to "reputable" Bible scholars, without any real argument about why. Kinda underhanded; it's the kind of move that only convinces people who are already convinced by the article's conclusions.

That said, I would agree that it's circular reasoning to date the prophecy in question to the exilic period on the basis of the claim that prophecies don't ever pan out. If there are other reasons to date it later, the argument has to stand or fall on those alone.

 

[zyzygy]

I don't understand. Are scholars and professors not part of the academic world? What about bible scholars?

Isn't bible scholars a contradiction in terms?

 

[Mike Peters]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing this video!