I have to confess, it seems like an awful lot of interventional effort was expended by God in the direction of the Israelites, and their seemingly petty (on the scale of the history of the world) politics. The rest of the world seemed to exist perfectly well, developing their own moral and legal systems, co-operative farming techniques, civilisations and cultures, without the necessity for God to intervene. And they did this more freely, by definition of the fact that there was no influence from external agencies, from God / Jesus / the Holy Spirit.
It's a bold statement to say that God did not intervene in any of the rest of the world outside of Israel during antiquity. How would you know that? God plainly says He is in control of everything - not just with what concerns Israel. A simple example: God claims that Cyrus is his agent centuries before Cyrus is even born.
Cyrus was the emperor of the Persian Empire who ended the 70 year exile of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem and the first Temple in 586 BC. Isaiah was written in the 8th Century BC.
I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty.” - Isaiah 45:13
Another Example:
5 “Look at the nations and watch—Habakkuk 1:5-11
and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
that you would not believe,
even if you were told.
6 I am raising up the Babylonians,[a]
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwellings not their own.
7 They are a feared and dreaded people;
they are a law to themselves
and promote their own honor.
8 Their horses are swifter than leopards,
fiercer than wolves at dusk.
Their cavalry gallops headlong;
their horsemen come from afar.
They fly like an eagle swooping to devour;
9 they all come intent on violence.
Their hordes[b] advance like a desert wind
and gather prisoners like sand.
10 They mock kings
and scoff at rulers.
They laugh at all fortified cities;
by building earthen ramps they capture them.
11 Then they sweep past like the wind and go on—
guilty people, whose own strength is their god.”
And here is one of my favorite:
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’And another one love:
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”- Acts 17: 24-31
34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever.
His dominion is an eternal dominion;
his kingdom endures from generation to generation.
35 All the peoples of the earth
are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: “What have you done?”
36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble. - Daniel 4:34-37
Yeah, I know what the objection is: "You can't prove the Bible is true by quoting the Bible". I'm not. I'm demonstrating that the Bible does not make the claim Pearce is making. The other thing that truly require a facepalm is one of the comments!
God giving humans free will then disavowing responsibility is like one of us giving a child dynamite to play with, waiting for him to blow himself up, then saying, "It isn't my fault! I didn't light the match!"
As coherent as I'm sure it is, it won't convince any fundies. The Arminians (if there are any left) will refuse to accept it, while the Calvinists (which is most of them) will just assume that physiology is one of the methods God uses to program us either to accept or reject him. - Cypher.
Why? If most Christians on the planet are Catholic (as so many atheists love to point out) then there is no way that most Christians are Calvinists. Most Protestants are not even Calvinists!!!! I'd like to know who this guy talks to. suggested that Pearce get in contact and debate Matt Slick and James White. That I would like to see!!! Pearce being in the UK is not a problem!!! Anyone can use Skype (for free) to call Dr. White's web cast Tuesdays and Thursdays 10 am and 3 pm PST respectively!!! I know he'd be more than happy to dialogue on this subject! Matt Slick also. I'll be looking forward to that!
Debunking Christianity: Jonathan Pearce's New Book on Free Will
Two points on Isaiah, 1) since the earliest manuscript of Isaiah is from the 1st century BCE, that "prophecy" is less than amazing... and 2) we have three different Isaiah authors, one for 1-39, another for 40-55 and another for 56-66. You can't use the date for chapters 1-39 for the other sections and claim "prophecy".
ReplyDeleteOnly two? Ryan, the earliest complete copy of Isaiah is from the 1st century BC. There is a difference. Not all scholars agree that there are 3 sections (theory only goes back only 100 yrs); some would say there were only 2 authors; other say only one. The only reason why one would need to have a multi-author hypothesis is to validate presuppositions that the historical events, spoken of in the future tense, were not prophetic but added after the fact. What proof is there of that? According to some scholars - None!
ReplyDeleteAll that aside, this post is not about prophecy it's stating the fact that the Bible does not tell us that God cares only about Israel.
Point one is more than enough to rule out "prophecy".
ReplyDelete(theory only goes back only 100 yrs)
Sure, the Trito-Isaiah theory may be 100 years old, but the Deutero-Isaiah theory goes back 800 years though, and for the purpose of debunking prophetic claims, the 800 year old theory works just fine.
The only reason why one would need to have a multi-author hypothesis is to validate presuppositions that the historical events, spoken of in the future tense, were not prophetic but added after the fact.
No, the reason a multi-author hypothesis is needed is to validate the sudden changes in style, theology, word usage, authors self identification, etc...
Point one works for you if there was not complete text before that and you don't know that. Arguing from silence should be beneath you.
ReplyDeleteFor the majority of the text's existence (way more than 800 years) it was understood to have a single author. And even those who hold that there were two authors because of style, word usage, and other factors - don't lump Isaiah 45 with the alleged second author.
I would take great issue with the contention of a shift in the Book of Isaiah in theology and author self-identification. Why? It's not there.
Maybe you need to learn to read and think for yourself, Ryan.
And even those who hold that there were two authors because of style, word usage, and other factors - don't lump Isaiah 45 with the alleged second author.
ReplyDeleteWrong. The original Deutero-Isaiah theory has the second author writing chapters 40-66, which of course includes 45.
Ryan, not everyone divides it up that way. You must know that. And I was not referring to just the Deutero-Isaiah theory or the Trito-Isaiah theory. I reject both.
ReplyDeleteRyan, not everyone divides it up that way. You must know that.
ReplyDeleteOf course, most do however.
I reject both.
Of course you do. You have to. But I would be curious on what grounds you reject these very mainstream theories.
In order to maintain your "understanding" of the Bible and prophecy you have to hope that the newer critical theories are correct - although you can't prove any one of them. You have to take these theories to to support your own presuppositions.
ReplyDeleteOK, so you don't have any grounds for rejecting these very mainstream theories.
ReplyDeleteUm, I didn't say that. I know why I see the book of Isaiah as being from a single author. I'm preparing a post about that. It'll be up in a few days. Why don't you write up why you think there are multiple authors and then we can see what makes the most sense.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you write up why you think there are multiple authors...
ReplyDeleteSee my comment from 3:26am. This is one of those things that is even obvious to lay readers (like the Genesis 2:4a and b). I'll pull some examples tonight.
If you are going to make an effective argument, you’ll want to address the arguments of Herbert May and Bruce Metzger in their “The New Oxford Annotated Bible” as well as the work of HGM Williamson’s “The Book Called Isaiah” and the chapter entitled “The Book of Isaiah(s)” in James Kugel’s “How to Read the Bible”. Don’t forget Niels P. Lemche’s “The Old Testament between theology and history: a critical survey”.
I'll look forward to watching you demolish a centuries old majority position. Should be entertaining.
First of all, Marcus, you have linked me to a football commentator. Well done. Second, "facepalm is inevitable when atheists attempt to discuss such things. They have no point of reference. They deny that God intervenes in people's lives and history period because they deny the reality of his existence. They can't know that."
ReplyDeletehas nothing to do with whether free will exists, philosophically. People of every religious persuasion and none have been debating this for literally thousands of years.
What a properly silly thing to say.
Though the book does include sections on, omniscience, prophecy, omnibenevolence and so on, it is actually primarily about free will with regards to causality, intentionality, volition, psychology, genetics, interactionism, so on and so forth.
As for Isaiah, Ryan is clearly right. It is consensus biblical scholarship, and rationally so, that dictates that Isaiah has multiple authors. Only the most nutjob of conservative scholars special plead otherwise.
As Christian scholar Roger Whybray states, “In general, uncertainty about date and authorship is one of the greatest problems attending the study of of the prophetical books. Almost every book contains material composed at a variety of times and added to an original body of prophecy in order to elaborate, modify or reinterpret its message… recent study of this book suggest that its redactional history may be more complex than that of any other prophetical book in the Old Testament.” (The Second Isaiah).
Only Chapters 40-55 show any consistency of thought, and even they are deemed to have been redacted (as per RP Merendino in Der Erste Und Der Letzte: Eine Untersuchung Von Jes 40-48).
Perhaps you might need to do more reading on the matter.
you have linked me to a football commentator. Well done.
ReplyDeleteThanks for point out that I linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. Are you even famous enough to have a real wikipedia page?
Big surprise you disagree with me, but you haven't made a single comment explaining why my view is wrong.
Only the most nutjob of conservative scholars special plead otherwise.
I wonder what makes you less of a "nutjob" than those scholars who think that Isaiah has a single author? Are you even a scholar? Why should your opinion hold any more weight than anyone else's?