Biblical contradictions.

If this is the way you yield the sword, ws, you're more danger to yourself than others. I like your rant about the UN, though I fail to see how it has any relevance to the issues in hand - either the statistics or the topics. I thought the line "I see you think highly of an organization etc" a particularly fine example of your approach to issues. How do you deduce my support for the UN from my use of its statistics? After all, I quoted some figures from the WorldBank - an organization I can assure you I despise.I like your idea of America "taking care of business" in Iraq - by "business" I assume you are referring to the years in which the US poured military, technological and financial aid into Saddam's open hands. Perhaps you even support Saddam? I am sure he has very similar views on human freedom and human rights to you, and Christians are prominent in his cabinet.[B][QUOTE]Now you publish figures that damage the picture you were trying to present. The GNP (=GNI) of the Christian nation is, according to your data, twice that of the Muslim nation.[/B][/QUOTE]I don't follow you. The figures in my last post showed a GNI for Mali 1.24 time higher than in Malawi. And you should note that the picture I am trying to present is not one of statistical perfection, which is why I am happy to share your figures, but simply that there is "no necessary correlation between Christianity and wealth."[B][QUOTE] .... typical right wing rant here ... [/B][/QUOTE]It's a wonderful life ws, and its a shame to see you wasting yours on this unsubstantiated drivel. Let's face it, you cannot possibly cancel out all the variants from all the possible scenarios of history and say "it is only Christianity that makes the difference." However, if it gives you comfort, take comfort from it.[B][QUOTE]As far as the gospel and prosperity is concerned docrinally, there is no contradiction.[/B][/QUOTE]That is, of course, exactly what one would expect to hear from a soi disant Christian from one of the richest nations on earth. [B][QUOTE]should a person make an idol out of money, loving it, personifying money and its power (termed "Mammon").[/B][/QUOTE]You're a bit confused here, but its a common mistake. The text in Luke personifies Mammon, but the sin is not in personifying wealth. Let me explain the difference ... If I were to say to someone who went dancing every Sabbath instead of going to Church, "You cannot serve God and Terpsichore" I need not mean that he actually worshipped dance, or regarded dance as in any way personified, merely that he cannot indulge himself in dance and serve God at the same time. The usage is called a "figure of speech" and I realize they are often difficult for fundamentalists to deal with, but there you have it.[B][QUOTE]The rich hoard the wealth, building castles and waging terrorism, oppressing their own, and their neighbors.[/B][/QUOTE]Gee, they sound just like the Christians who ruled Europe for 1900 years.[B][QUOTE]The government of the Christians was and is upon the shoulders of Christ. Those were TRUE Christians, made aliens in their own land, commanded to submit to the laws of men, rulers. [/B][/QUOTE]Ah they were TRUE Christians were they? How silly of me not to realize. And of course, you have some special knowledge of who TRUE Christians are? Let me guess - are you one? And the others who think like you? And those other ones - the ones who believe in evolution, for example, or are Foreign Ministers of Iraq - they are not? And the ones who waged genocidal war against the Native Americans and the ones who enslaved countless Africans, and those who ruled South Africa through the years of Apartheid - they were what kind exactly?[B][QUOTE]I believe what God instructed in the Bible. In it there is no condemnation of slavery. God allows Satan to employ slavery as a tool to ultimately deal with people to suit God's plan for them. [/B][/QUOTE]Well that's very tolerant of him. I hope Satan never finds out or he might ban slavery! Obviously those Christians who fought and died, and still fight and die to end slavery aren't TRUE Christians.
[B][QUOTE]In ealry American history the Dutch traders discovered how African tribes often warred against each other, taking captives as slaves.[/B][/QUOTE]That was very enterprising of them - I wonder why they didn't just ask the Portuguese who had been trading slaves for centuries through North Africa? The first shipment of slaves direct from the African coast to Portugal was in 1411. I do hope (but don't expect) that your biblical scholarship is slightly better than your history.[B][QUOTE]It was the tribal chieftans who offered those slaves for sale to the Dutchmen. I think that was ultimately better for those slaves than becoming meals for theie enemies, or suffering untold miseries the balance of their lives in some distant African village, shamed and abused.[/B][/QUOTE]I love the cannibalism bit! But of course, it must have been better for them to suffer untold miseries in a far distant country where they had no hope whatsoever of return to their native land and peoples. I'm sure a Caribbean plantation or an American cotton field was much preferable to them.
[B][QUOTE]At least in America they had monetary value, and usually were treated well, never cannibalized, rarely tortured for the sake of vengeful hatred.[/B][/QUOTE]Well damn their ungrateful hides, those that tried to escape! Makes you wonder why they ever risked life and limb to free doesn't it? They were so ungrateful! If only they had known valuable they were, they might have found some comfort in that.Can you, just for one moment, summon up the slightest shred of human sympathy and try to put yourself in their position. Probably not. But of course, this has nothing to do with human feeling or dignity or freedom - it's God's great plan for TRUE Christians.Really, I love this stuff. It's one of the best things about these boards. Scratch a creationist and all this bile and hatred just spills out. Dembski and Behe and the others spend so long trying to make the whole movement respectable - you do us such a favour by undermining that work. This sort of thing reveals the "wedge of truth" as just one side of the splitting maul of right-wing conservatism writhing in its own self-disgust. You are a star, ws! [B][QUOTE]Prophesied: Isaiah 44:28
"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."Fulfilled: 2 Chron. 36:23
"Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up."[/B][/QUOTE]Thus saith Pamboli , I will be involved in a fender bender on the I-405 in July of 2001.Thus saith Pamboli sometime later: it happened. Gee, I'm a prophet.You don't fancy finding an unambiguous prophecy, whose fulfillment is unambiguously verified by different sources do you? Presumably you have hundreds to choose from one. Just one probably wouldn't be enough though: after all, there are thousands of completing claims from Spey-wives and fortune tellers all over the globe. Come on - give us a good one and let's see, anyway.

Prophesied: Isaiah 44:28 "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

Isaiah chapters 40-66 are dated later than Cyrus's freeing of the Jews taken hostage by Nebuchadnezzar.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Isaiah chapters 40-66 are dated later than Cyrus's freeing of the Jews taken hostage by Nebuchadnezzar.

​

--Percy

---

Isaiah predicts the coming captivity of Israel in 586 B.C. if they continued to rebel. So did Jeremiah. If you think along with some modern critics there were two Isaiahs, think again, for it is easily proved there was one, and that all of Isaiah was written 792-722 B.C.. The Hebrew Bible, the Septuagent, and other texts testify to the fact the prophecies preceeded the captivity to Babylon. Josephus verified the facts. If you want the entire argument, I'll gladly forward a large post already sent off to another group doing exactly that.Keep in mind that B.C. reckoning has it that the smaller the year number, the closer to the birth of Christ one comes (+/- 4 years between calendars. Perhaps you are thinking the 586 is an older period.

Wordswordsman writes: Isaiah predicts the coming captivity of Israel in 586 B.C. if they continued to rebel. So did Jeremiah. If you think along with some modern critics there were two Isaiahs, think again, for it is easily proved there was one, and that all of Isaiah was written 792-722 B.C.. The Hebrew Bible, the Septuagent, and other texts testify to the fact the prophecies preceeded the captivity to Babylon. Josephus verified the facts. If you want the entire argument, I'll gladly forward a large post already sent off to another group doing exactly that.

Please don't forward any lengthy material to the board (we're at 97% used disk space) or to my mailbox (same disk space). Your own discussion accompanying a link to this material on a webpage would be fine.The modern scholarship you're referring to is summarized in this quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

According to 6:1, Isaiah received his call 'in the year that King Uzziah died' (742 BC), and his latest recorded activity is dated in 701 BC. Only chapters 1-39, however can be assigned to this period. Chapters 40-66 are much later in origin and therefore known as Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah)...Deutero-Isaiah (40-55), consisting of a collection of oracles, songs, and discourses, dates from the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC).

--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
If this is the way you yield the sword, ws, you're more danger to yourself than others.

​

I like your rant about the UN, though I fail to see how it has any relevance to the issues in hand - either the statistics or the topics. I thought the line "I see you think highly of an organization etc" a particularly fine example of your approach to issues. How do you deduce my support for the UN from my use of its statistics? After all, I quoted some figures from the WorldBank - an organization I can assure you I despise.

---

You pointed out your source as authoritative, using those figures to support your own theory that Christianity didn't "necessarily" mean prosperity. I think the facts actually prove you wrong nation by nation, regardless the other factors that really should be factored in. Even in nations where Christianity is claimed but not freely practiced, there is at least some difference in favor of saying Christianity is a stand-alone indicator of relative prosperity, especially if the other factors are similar.

​

My data was claimed by you to be outdated. I proved that incorrect. The CIA data is based on the latest Census. You can go to the Census online and verify all that. The UN, howver, is way behind, chosing to apparently ignore the facts about America.

​

Now I would ask of you, what DID you have in mind bringing that data up in relation to the topic? I only came to correct your basis for your faulty conclusion.

quote:

---

I like your idea of America "taking care of business" in Iraq - by "business" I assume you are referring to the years in which the US poured military, technological and financial aid into Saddam's open hands. Perhaps you even support Saddam? I am sure he has very similar views on human freedom and human rights to you, and Christians are prominent in his cabinet.

---

So you believe Saddam has Christians on his cabinet? He kills Christians. He is Muslim. Your conclusions are very faulty, based on no facts whatsoever. Is this indicative of future posts from you?
You apparently have no idea what even opposing administrations and each Congress majority continued to support, that of regulating events in Asia through taking sides of least aggressive governments to prevent wars from getting out of control. At the time Iran was on the verge of disrupting all Asia. Supporting the Saddam that was then made sense then and still makes sense, considering the alternatives we faced. This is very much off topic. I won't comment any more on this. It is a matter of documented fact.

quote:

---

That is, of course, exactly what one would expect to hear from a soi disant Christian from one of the richest nations on earth.

---

quote:

---

WS:should a person make an idol out of money, loving it, personifying money and its power (termed "Mammon").

---

quote:

---

You're a bit confused here, but its a common mistake. The text in Luke personifies Mammon, but the sin is not in personifying wealth. Let me explain the difference ... If I were to say to someone who went dancing every Sabbath instead of going to Church, "You cannot serve God and Terpsichore" I need not mean that he actually worshipped dance, or regarded dance as in any way personified, merely that he cannot indulge himself in dance and serve God at the same time. The usage is called a "figure of speech" and I realize they are often difficult for fundamentalists to deal with, but there you have it.The rich hoard the wealth, building castles and waging terrorism, oppressing their own, and their neighbors.

---

Virtually every Bible commentary disagrees with your concept. I have yet to find any that supports that explanation. Here's the context:
Luke 16:9-13
"And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. [10] He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. [11] If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? [12] And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
[13] No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."Prior to that was the parable of the unjust steward who feared being fired from his job, so he made friends of his employers debtors. The actions of that man were clearly illegal, immoral, but in the kosmos way, was the wise action. "The point of the parable is that worldly men in their sphere to scheme and provide for themselves are wiser than Christians in their sphere. It is the far-seeing wisdom of the steward that is commended, not the right or wrong of the act; the object he had in view, not the means used to attain that end." (notes from a Berean course).
Mammon is riches, contrasted here with true riches. It is called here "unrighteous riches" because they deceive and lead to false security damning the soul if they are permitted to rob one of eternal life. The idea is always clearly presented in terms of trusting in such things, instead of trusting in God and righteous acts. Now please don't insinuate that riches gained by unjust means are sanctioned by Christ, or that they gain one a passport to heaven if they are sanctified to God, as that is an old perversion of the words of Christ. This is contrary to Luke 16:10-13 and all other scriptures which teach that riches gained unjustly must be restored to the rightful owners. Restitution is taught in both testaments. No person can trust in and serve unrigteous riches while serving God. There is no general condemnation of having wealth. Selfishness is condemned. Money is a good thing, to be desired, but not at the expense of eternal security.

​

Matthew 19:24
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

​

That is not saying a rich man CAN'T be saved. It only warns of dangers. A Jewish proverb commonly used to express great difficulty or impossibility. In the large gates in the city walls were small narrow ones, each called the needle's eye, through which a camel might enter kneeling down if he were unloaded. A rich young ruler came to Jesus bragging about his righteousness. When asked to be willing to sell all his goods and give their value to the poor, then follow Jesus, he declined. He would not bow. Luke 18:22
"Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

​

He meant for him to sell his stuff that hinders him. Jesus never asked for him to give up the money, but only to distribute the money from the sale of his stuff. One doesn't sell money, but goods. He couldn't part with the stuff or the money. That isn't the deal with many people who have done just that, going into missionary work.

quote:

---

WS:The government of the Christians was and is upon the shoulders of Christ. Those were TRUE Christians, made aliens in their own land, commanded to submit to the laws of men, rulers.

---

quote:

---

Ah they were TRUE Christians were they? How silly of me not to realize. And of course, you have some special knowledge of who TRUE Christians are? Let me guess - are you one? And the others who think like you? And those other ones - the ones who believe in evolution, for example, or are Foreign Ministers of Iraq - they are not? And the ones who waged genocidal war against the Native Americans and the ones who enslaved countless Africans, and those who ruled South Africa through the years of Apartheid - they were what kind exactly?

---

The first Church described in Acts is regarded by practically all Bible scholars as the model of the true Church after which all Christian fellowships should follow. Few actually do, inventing new versions weekly it seems. The standard by which that is judged is the Bible. If a church body does those things in Acts, they are true. If they don't, they preach another gospel.

​

Foreign ministers of Iraq are MUSLIMS. They have no part in the Bible or Christianity.

​

Note that the people travelling across the wild West were met with arrows, not tolerance. The native Indians resisted the pioneers, requiring warfare to protect the setlers moving West. Also keep in mind that problem began even in earlier and later times, when the enemies of America enlisted the help of native Americans otherwise at peace.

​

Odd you would cite Apartheid as negative now, seeing the chaos in its absence. The S. Africans have destroyed the reaources built from that relationship, now requiring international help to keep them alive. Under Apartheid there were no such shortages. Of course the natives disliked Apartheid, but obviously that was the system that worked there. Self rule is resulting in anarchy and starvation. THAT is another reason why slavery or at least indentured slavery is beneficial. It preserves people alive until they can improve themselves. What kind? Who says Christians were in charge under the Apartheid system? Is being Dutch equated with being Christian?

quote:

---

WS:I believe what God instructed in the Bible. In it there is no condemnation of slavery. God allows Satan to employ slavery as a tool to ultimately deal with people to suit God's plan for them.

---

quote:

---

Well that's very tolerant of him. I hope Satan never finds out or he might ban slavery! Obviously those Christians who fought and died, and still fight and die to end slavery aren't TRUE Christians.

---

I don't think we will see God revising His Word. It's eternal, you know. Set in stone. Satan already knows what God thinks about slavery. True Christians are not called to fight and die to end slavery. They are called to bring good news to men. That gospel of Christ brings liberty to the heart. When a people repent and follow God, as did many slaves in America, God moves on the hearts of Christians or even heathen captors to seek their betterment.

quote:

---

WS:In ealry American history the Dutch traders discovered how African tribes often warred against each other, taking captives as slaves.

---

quote:

---

That was very enterprising of them - I wonder why they didn't just ask the Portuguese who had been trading slaves for centuries through North Africa? The first shipment of slaves direct from the African coast to Portugal was in 1411. I do hope (but don't expect) that your biblical scholarship is slightly better than your history.

---

It was the Dutch who seized on the opportunity to trade with the British at British colonies. The Dutch had the trade monopoly, not the Portugese. Both the English and the Dutch eclipsed the Portugese traders in every endeavor the Portugese attempted. There is no strong presence of Portugese shipping to the American colonies. It was the English East India Company that shaped commerce in America even after Independence, competing with the Dutch. You'll find much more Spanish and Portugese involvement in the lower lattitudes of the world far from New England.

quote:

---

WS:It was the tribal chieftans who offered those slaves for sale to the Dutchmen. I think that was ultimately better for those slaves than becoming meals for theie enemies, or suffering untold miseries the balance of their lives in some distant African village, shamed and abused.

---

quote:

---

I love the cannibalism bit! But of course, it must have been better for them to suffer untold miseries in a far distant country where they had no hope whatsoever of return to their native land and peoples. I'm sure a Caribbean plantation or an American cotton field was much preferable to them.

---

The slaves really had no idea where they were being taken, but found themselves beneficiary of a far more advanced civilization, even though only on plantations in the middle of it. Maybe there is some truth in what you say, but the test has always been in how many of them returned to Africa when given the chance. Many have found the wealth requird to travel there. Why do you suppose they stay here? Some Americans have offered to ship them over the years, but few if any took them up on it. They CHOOSE to come HERE, not GO to Africa. I saw a Newsweek (or simnilar mag) article not long ago that was about a poll that asked blacks that very question. The percentage who indicated willingness to return was less than 1%. The article also dealt with the historical attitude. Former slaves and their offspring have consistently chosen to remain Americans, never wanting to return. Return to what? Chaos? Want? Rampant disease and starvation? What they have always wanted is MORE of the American dream. That comes from education and effort with opportunity seized.

quote:

---

WS:At least in America they had monetary value, and usually were treated well, never cannibalized, rarely tortured for the sake of vengeful hatred.

---

quote:

---

Well damn their ungrateful hides, those that tried to escape! Makes you wonder why they ever risked life and limb to free doesn't it? They were so ungrateful! If only they had known valuable they were, they might have found some comfort in that.

​

Can you, just for one moment, summon up the slightest shred of human sympathy and try to put yourself in their position. Probably not. But of course, this has nothing to do with human feeling or dignity or freedom - it's God's great plan for TRUE Christians.

---

The stories I've read about slaves in Amrica who attempted escape were the exception to the rule. A few were severely abused, of course. Naturally they would try to escape, only to be captured somewhere and re-entered into slavery. It was not a matter of Christians doing those things. It was simply part of the economic system. Slaves who did find themselves free perished, unable to make their way in the free market. No Christian or anyone else would, i ntheir right mind, think slavery was a good situation. All slaves would initially hate their predicament, but many gre to depend on it for their subsistence. Even after the Civil War former slaves remained voluntarily on those plantations that survived. My family had part in that in Helena, AR, seeing their slaves return from finding their new-found freedom wasn't all that great. They were given property and resources to build homes, paid the going wages, but not finding any better lifestyle, for they knew only one way, that of their forebears. Those tiny settlements are still there, all-black communities, deeply stagnant in poverty.

quote:

---

Really, I love this stuff. It's one of the best things about these boards. Scratch a creationist and all this bile and hatred just spills out. Dembski and Behe and the others spend so long trying to make the whole movement respectable - you do us such a favour by undermining that work. This sort of thing reveals the "wedge of truth" as just one side of the splitting maul of right-wing conservatism writhing in its own self-disgust. You are a star, ws!

---

Speaking of bile and hatred! Hoy! I think most discerning readers have us sorted out by now. Don't be too quick to boast of your self-righteousness by denigrating another.

Providing a little more detail than the Britannica quote, here are some excerpts from The Books of the Old Testament by Robert H. Pheiffer:

Page 238: 1. Authorship and Date of Is. 40-66 ​ These chapters are no longer attributes to Isaiah, active in 740-700 B.C. The historical situation, the theological thought, and the peculiarities of style and diction manifestly place the composition of those chapters after 586. It is generally admitted that the Second Isaiah wrote chs. 40-48 shortly before the armies of Cyrus of Persia took Babylon in 538, and chs. 49-55 soon after.

Page 240: 2. The Style of Is. 40-66 ​ The differences in style, diction, and thought between the writings of Isaiah and Is. 40-66 are obvious. The conciseness, variety, and concreteness of Isaiah's poetry contrast sharply with the eloquent verbosity, repetitiousness, and vagueness of Is. 40-66. Isaiah belongs to the golden age of Hebrew literature, Is. 40-66 to its silver age. The difference is that between naive, unconscious art and deliberate striving for majestic eloquence by means of rhetorical devices.

--Percy

[B][QUOTE]You pointed out your source as authoritative, using those figures to support your own theory that Christianity didn't "necessarily" mean prosperity.[/B][/QUOTE]As I remember it I didn't source the figures, never mind claim them as authoritative. In fact I regard international economic statistics as fundamentally flawed because they are based almost entirely on western european economic values which do not apply easily in third world countires, so I could regard no such figures as authoritative. I was merely illustrating that no direct correlation exists between Christianity and propsperity.
[B][QUOTE]I think the facts actually prove you wrong nation by nation, regardless the other factors that really should be factored in.[/B][/QUOTE]You may think it, but you would need to demonstrate it. I was faced with a glib assertion and demonstrated that, in fact, the situation was considerably more complex. You are confirming this.
[B][QUOTE]My data was claimed by you to be outdated. I proved that incorrect. The CIA data is based on the latest Census.[/B][/QUOTE]You proved beyond doubt that the data is out of date - you did explain why it had not been updated, but it remains the fact the CIA is quoting figures that have not been updated for over 20 years. The fact that they see no reason to update is neither here nor there - the data is old data.
[B][QUOTE]So you believe Saddam has Christians on his cabinet? He kills Christians. He is Muslim.[/B][/QUOTE]He kills Muslims too. Most Muslims I know despise him and regard his Islamic stance as a mere pose - they consider him an atheist. Tariq Aziz, the Foreign Minister and close confidant of Saddam is a Roman Catholic and Abdul Munim Ahmed Saleh, another senior cabinet member is a Chaldean christian. Christians form about 5% of the Iraqi population but are over-represented at government level.[B][QUOTE]You apparently have no idea what even opposing administrations and each Congress majority continued to support, that of regulating events in Asia through taking sides of least aggressive governments to prevent wars from getting out of control.[/B][/QUOTE]SO you regard the Iraqi invasion of Iran, Iraq's first use of chemical weapons and ballistic weapons as the actions of the "least aggresive" government? I guess it suits your point of view.
[B][QUOTE]Virtually every Bible commentary disagrees with your concept. I have yet to find any that supports that explanation ... [/B][/QUOTE]It took me less than 30 seconds to find this ...In Luke, xvi, 9 and 11 Mammon is personified, hence the prevalent notion, emphasized by Milton, that Mammon was a deity. Nothing definite can be adduced from the Fathers in support of this; most of their expressions which seem to favour it may be easily explained by the personification in Luke; e.g. "Didascalia", "Do solo Mammona cogitant, quorum Deus est sacculus"; similarly St. Augustine, "Lucrum Punice Mammon dicitur" (Serm. on Mt., ii); St. Jerome in one place goes near to such an identification when (Dial. cum Lucif., 5) he quotes the words: "No man can serve two masters", and then adds, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" But in his "Commentary on Matt," and in Ep. xxii, 31, he lends no countenance to it: "'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.' Riches, that is; for in the heathen tongue of the Syrians riches are called Mammon." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mammon [B][QUOTE]There is no general condemnation of having wealth.[/B][/QUOTE]Indeed there is not, but there is recognition that what it takes to be wealthy is compatible with the immediacy of Christ's imperative. If we must not give thought to the morrow, must not even pause to bury our dead, must give all we ahve to the poor - how can we acquire and retain material wealth while still fully living in accord with Christ's imperative.
[B][QUOTE]A Jewish proverb commonly used to express great difficulty or impossibility. In the large gates in the city walls were small narrow ones, each called the needle's eye, through which a camel might enter kneeling down if he were unloaded.[/B][/QUOTE]This is a medieval fiction.
[B][QUOTE]Note that the people travelling across the wild West were met with arrows, not tolerance. The native Indians resisted the pioneers, requiring warfare to protect the setlers moving West. Also keep in mind that problem began even in earlier and later times, when the enemies of America enlisted the help of native Americans otherwise at peace.Odd you would cite Apartheid as negative now, seeing the chaos in its absence. The S. Africans have destroyed the reaources built from that relationship, now requiring international help to keep them alive. Under Apartheid there were no such shortages. Of course the natives disliked Apartheid, but obviously that was the system that worked there. Self rule is resulting in anarchy and starvation. THAT is another reason why slavery or at least indentured slavery is beneficial. It preserves people alive until they can improve themselves. [/B][/QUOTE]I will keep this as a treasure of the kind of socio-political thought that is indivisible from creationism. I can only thank you for it - had I tried to explain this to others, they almost certainly would have thought I lied or exaggerated.
[B][QUOTE]The slaves really had no idea where they were being taken, but found themselves beneficiary of a far more advanced civilization, even though only on plantations in the middle of it. Maybe there is some truth in what you say, but the test has always been in how many of them returned to Africa when given the chance. Many have found the wealth requird to travel there. Why do you suppose they stay here? Some Americans have offered to ship them over the years, but few if any took them up on it. They CHOOSE to come HERE, not GO to Africa. I saw a Newsweek (or simnilar mag) article not long ago that was about a poll that asked blacks that very question. The percentage who indicated willingness to return was less than 1%. The article also dealt with the historical attitude. Former slaves and their offspring have consistently chosen to remain Americans, never wanting to return. Return to what? Chaos? Want? Rampant disease and starvation? What they have always wanted is MORE of the American dream. That comes from education and effort with opportunity seized. [/B][/QUOTE]In the name of God, have you no concept of human suffering or human need? Are you totally divorced from any sense of fellow-feeling or sympathy for the suffering of others, or totally lacking in any concept of what might cause them suffering. You think after generations people would still want to return - to a land that is entirely foreign to them after generations in this land? [B][QUOTE]Speaking of bile and hatred! Hoy! I think most discerning readers have us sorted out by now. Don't be too quick to boast of your self-righteousness by denigrating another.[/B][/QUOTE]You are right of course - I hate your views with a intensity I find distasteful even to myself. But here is the difference - what I hate is your callousness, your utter disregard for human misery and your apparent high regard for those who oppress, torture, imprison and harm so long as they do so while misusing the name of Christ.You will find few people on this board more unworthy than me to stand up for what is right, but sometimes one just has to. The undiluted evil of your distortion of Christianity demands to be confronted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
The modern scholarship you're referring to is summarized in this quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

​

According to 6:1, Isaiah received his call 'in the year that King Uzziah died' (742 BC), and his latest recorded activity is dated in 701 BC. Only chapters 1-39, however can be assigned to this period. Chapters 40-66 are much later in origin and therefore known as Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah)...Deutero-Isaiah (40-55), consisting of a collection of oracles, songs, and discourses, dates from the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC).

---

An encyclopedia is not a suitable source for studying the Bible. They are wrong on the outset with their comment on 6:1, proven below. I'll quote from a Bible college course on the prophets first. Bible scholars have done far better capturing the facts of it. Chapters 1-39 of Isaiah contain many predictions of the coming captivities to Babylon, but Isaiah 40-66 contain predictions which look beyond them. Many prophecies in Isaiah 1-39 also look beyond the captivities, but no prophecy in Isaiah 40-66 just looks forward to them. A few refer to deliverance from Babylon (Isaiah 44:26-45:4,13; Isaiah 46:1-2; Isaiah 48:14-15) and a few, now fulfilled, refer to the first advent (Isaiah 40:3; Isaiah 42:1-3,6-7; Isaiah 49:1-5; Isaiah 50:2-11; Isaiah 52:14; Isaiah 53:1-12; Isaiah 61:1-2), but otherwise every prophecy in this section is unfulfilled and has to do with the regathering of Israel in the last days, the future tribulation, the second coming of Christ, the Millennium, and the New Earth.

​

As to when Isaiah began his prophecy, we begin with 1:1, not 6:1.
Isaiah 1:1
"The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

​

Isaiah was written in the days of four kingsUzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1). Many things in the book will automatically clear up if we understand the historical background of these kings and the times of Isaiah. Their whole reign covered a period of 113 years. It was in the year that Uzziah (the first king) died that Isaiah saw the vision of Isaiah 6, so we can safely conclude that he was not a prophet very long before this. Estimates of his office run from 48 to 70 years. The kingdom of Israel had become great during the reigns of David and Solomon, but since then had become divided and weakened through civil wars and conflicts with other nations over a period of 240 to 250 years before Isaiah began his ministry. In about the fifth year of Hezekiah's reign the 10-tribe (northern) kingdom of Israel was destroyed and the people were taken captive to Assyria (2 Kings 17; 1 Chron. 5:26; Amos 1:5). Very few references are made in Isaiah to this kingdom and then only regarding the time when they fought with Judah and Jerusalem, which are the subjects of the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 1:1; Isaiah 2:1). For a more detailed history of these kings and the times of Isaiah read 2 Kings 15-20; 2 Chron. 26-32.

​

As to there being only one man writing all of Isaiah as one book of unity, there can be no real dispute. If assuming that because the messages of the two sections are different theremust have been two authors, we could also prove the book of Ezekiel was written by two persons (1-30/40-48). The same could be said of the book of Romans. But such differences in subject matter is no proof of disunity or more than one author.
The undisputd place the unity of the book held for over 2600 years proves there is ground for a modern-day declaration of dual authorship. Jewish historians, especially Josephus, confirmed Isaiah wrote both sections. The historian told of how Cyrus was moved to send the Jews back to rebuild their temple, from reading the prophecies of Isaiah regarding himself which had been written 200 years before his time. Those prophecies are in the back half, in 41:2, 25; 44:28-45:5, 13; 46:11. The Septuagent or any other ancient version doesn't mention a dual authorship. There in no mention of it isn the Hebrew Bible or by any Hebrew scholar, people who would have known such detail as dual authorship. No Christian scholar or Church Father from the earliest ages until recent years ever mentioned it. Traditions from all sources are unanimous in favor of the unity and single authorship of the book. The literary stle of the book differs widely from that of every other OT prophet, yet is the same style in both parts of the book. Over 300 words and expressions used in both sections are not used by other prophets of the post-exilic period; this proves beyond doubt that the book of Isaiah is a unity with single authorship. Christ and the apostles believed and confirmed their faith in one Isaiah and the unity of the book, never once indicating two authors. In the NT there are 32 quotations and allusions to the first section, 36 to the second section, all acsribed to Isaiah, one author.

​

Each one of those points leads to a page(s) of discussion with great detail. An encyclopedia won't look that closely. It contradicted itself anyway, discrediting any further information offered.

​

If you want all the other sources, fine, but to post them I'll have to open many favorites, then copy/paste the URLs. Will you pursue them?

Wordswordsman writes: An encyclopedia is not a suitable source for studying the Bible.

It was you who mentioned modern scholarship. I was only providing the Britannica's summary of the views of modern scholarship on Isaiah to fill out the discussion.You talk about the Britannica as if it were a separate and independent source, but Britannica contracts out the articles to Biblical scholars. It isn't really the Britannica you disagree with but the entire field of modern Biblical scholarship.Anyway, I anticipated your reply and already posted an answer above in Message 294.--Percy

quote:

---

wordwordsman An encyclopedia is not a suitable source for studying the Bible. They are wrong ... Bible scholars have done far better capturing the facts of it.

---

Whom do you think writes those scholarly articles? Bible scholars, of course! Wake up and smell the burning flesh. Bible scholars do not always agree among themselves.

quote:

---

I'll quote from a Bible college course on the prophets first.

---

How will that help? Bible Colleges are necessarily biased. Their priority is to affirm of their own sectarian prejudice.

quote:

---

wwm As to when Isaiah began his prophecy, we begin with 1:1, not 6:1. Isaiah 1:1 "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

---

This does nothing for your argument but does show that you excell at nitpicking.

quote:

---

wwm I'll have to ... copy/paste

---

Like you have been doing?

quote:

---

wwm Will you pursue them?

---

I won't.db------------------
Creationism Evolves!

In this post I'll address material in your post not already addressed in Message 294.

Wordswordsman writes: ...and a few, now fulfilled, refer to the first advent (Isaiah 40:3; Isaiah 42:1-3,6-7; Isaiah 49:1-5; Isaiah 50:2-11; Isaiah 52:14; Isaiah 53:1-12; Isaiah 61:1-2),

It was Christians who decided these ambiguous Isaiah passages were prophecies of the Advent. There are two key qualities of successful prophecy: they're either very vague, or they only predict events that have already happened.

The undisputd place the unity of the book held for over 2600 years proves there is ground for a modern-day declaration of dual authorship.

The key point to keep in mind is that the prophet Isaiah did not write the book Isaiah. Isaiah was carried down through oral tradition. Once in Babylon the Jews felt it important to preserve their culture in writing and took full advantage of the advanced scribal technology possessed by their captors, and it was in Babylon that Isaiah first took written form. As Babylon was beset of Cyrus more chapters were added to Isaiah, and more again after Babylon fell to Cyrus.

Jewish historians, especially Josephus, confirmed Isaiah wrote both sections. The historian told of how Cyrus was moved to send the Jews back to rebuild their temple, from reading the prophecies of Isaiah regarding himself which had been written 200 years before his time.

Josephus lived nearly 8 centuries after Isaiah the prophet, and nearly 6½ centuries after the return to Jerusalem. He is silent on Isaiah authorship. His Antiquities of the Jews is a history of the Jews, not a history of the Isaiah scroll. Isaiah was just another source for Josephus.

The Septuagent or any other ancient version doesn't mention a dual authorship.

The Septuagint is a translation of the Torah performed 300 years after the return to Jerusalem. It is not a research work on OT origins.

There in no mention of it in the Hebrew Bible or by any Hebrew scholar, people who would have known such detail as dual authorship. No Christian scholar or Church Father from the earliest ages until recent years ever mentioned it. Traditions from all sources are unanimous in favor of the unity and single authorship of the book.

The details of origin of all the books of the OT is unknown. Whatever was known and by whom did not pass down to us in history.

The literary stle of the book differs widely from that of every other OT prophet, yet is the same style in both parts of the book. Over 300 words and expressions used in both sections are not used by other prophets of the post-exilic period; this proves beyond doubt that the book of Isaiah is a unity with single authorship.

Mining the Internet, I see. Amazing similarity of expression with this website:

http://www.geocities.com/jimbo48.geo/Isaiah/Isa1.html: There are more than 300 words and expressions which are common to both the alleged "former" and "latter" portions of Isaiah's prophecy; and which do not occur at all in the latter prophecies of Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi...The Structure, above, declares the unity of the Book...

He also mentions that he illustrates this amply in the notes under their occurrences, but his webpage doesn't render well for me and I'm not going to look them up. Perhaps you'd be interested in undertaking the task?

Christ and the apostles believed and confirmed their faith in one Isaiah and the unity of the book, never once indicating two authors. In the NT there are 32 quotations and allusions to the first section, 36 to the second section, all acsribed to Isaiah, one author.

This indicates that they valued the prophecies in Isaiah, particularly because he made so many that could be interpreted as prophecies of Jesus, but it says nothing about the origins of the book of Isaiah.

If you want all the other sources, fine, but to post them I'll have to open many favorites, then copy/paste the URLs. Will you pursue them?

I'm into discussion, not following links. I'd prefer you present your views and supporting evidence here. Too many times links are fishing expeditions.--Percy

doctrbill writes: quote: wwm As to when Isaiah began his prophecy, we begin with 1:1, not 6:1. Isaiah 1:1 "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah." ​ This does nothing for your argument but does show that you excell at nitpicking.

I decided not to respond to this little piece of silliness, but it's nice to see I'm not the only one who noticed.--Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by doctrbill:

quote:

---

WS:An encyclopedia is not a suitable source for studying the Bible. They are wrong ... Bible scholars have done far better capturing the facts of it.

---

quote:

---

Whom do you think writes those scholarly articles? Bible scholars, of course! Wake up and smell the burning flesh. Bible scholars do not always agree among themselves.

---

Legitimate scholars form the greater body of believers who stick to what is already known and accepted. Encyclopedia articles are obviously biased, often negative toward Christianity. Their articles about Christ, for instance, are not in conformity to actual Bible reference, but include biased information from errant scholars, included in "fairness" to all perspectives which often use the term "Christ allegedly healed...". But when they depart from describing the Bible record, they obviously err by stating its claims are alleged. Inclusion of various perspectives is not truthful journalism when it concerns the Bible. What the Bible says is sealed. Spend a little time browsing the online versions to see what I mean.

quote:

---

I'll quote from a Bible college course on the prophets first.

---

quote:

---

How will that help? Bible Colleges are necessarily biased. Their priority is to affirm of their own sectarian prejudice.

---

When I took the courses, much reading of universally employed, widely respected textbooks was required, workbooks filled out, papers written summarizing what we read, and of course concentrate on the portions the instructors require. When I visit ministers of other denominations, I find they used the same volumes. Fancy that! The sources are universal throughout seminaries. The only differences are particular textbooks written by authors of particular denominations featured on the reading list. The bias is in some of the application of what is read. Historical record can't be used in a biased way, except to omit the information. History can't be changed without tracking down every issue of every text. This issue of Isaiah is well documented, already argued among the scholars, settled, not accepting the modern heresy. I still have the volumes, especially those now rare of Dr. Patrick Fairbairn, Tenney, and many others which are difficult to go pick through to extract what is in the workbooks. I have many such books covering an entire wall, including the most widely respected works of all time including modern scholars. Most are consistent with the works of previous scholars, some are obviously variant, easily recognized as such. Bible college teaches a person to recognize the appearance of discongruity from the norm, especially when information contradicts what is plainly stated in the Bible. They teach you how to recognize authors who attempt to re-write the Bible, an ongoing task. But rather than try to type out the original text, I will scan and try to post that way. I don't have time to do it manually. I thought you would appreciate notes instead.

quote:

---

WS:As to when Isaiah began his prophecy, we begin with 1:1, not 6:1. Isaiah 1:1 "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

---

quote:

---

This does nothing for your argument but does show that you excell at nitpicking.

---

It did wonders for my argument. That nitpicking is required to uncover lies. The modern effort to shove section two of Isaiah to a later time is deliberate, necessary to alter the NT message concerning the Messiah (Gr. Christ). I used that information to demonstrate that the encyclopedia article is wrong, having missed the direct statement of Scripture, or ignored the information. It is flawed, untrustworthy. I've been aware of such articles obviously written by Bible skeptics, mostly liberal "Christians" attempting to dilute the impact of Jesus Christ's credibility. Some are offended over the strict teachings of the NT, especially concerning homosexuality beginning in the OT, seeking prominence as a scholar to influence modern beliefs about certain sins and other doctrines. It is well known.

quote:

---

WS:Will you pursue them?

---

quote:

---

I won't.

---

I appreciate the honesty. Since you accept the testimony of encyclopedias, I'll post part of this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia at CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Isaias:"The "Second Isaias" gives rise to other more critical and less important problems. With the exception of one or two passages, the point of view throughout this section is that of the Babylonian Captivity; there is an unmistakable difference between the style of these twentyseven chapters and that of the "First Isaias"; moreover, the theological ideas of xl-lxvi show a decided advance on those found in the first thirtynine chapters. If this be true, does it not follow that xl-lxvi are not by the same author as the prophecies of the first collection, and may there not be good grounds for attributing the authorship of these chapters to a "second Isaias" living towards the close of the Babylonian Captivity? Such is the contention of most of the modern nonCatholic scholars.This is hardly the place for a discussion of so intricate a question. We therefore limit ourselves to stating the position of Catholic scholarship on this point. This is clearly set out in the decision issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 28 June, 1908. (1) Admitting the existence of true prophecy; (2) There is no reason why "Isaias and the other Prophets should utter prophecies concerning only those things which were about to take place immediately or after a short space of time" and not "things that should be fulfilled after many ages". (3) Nor does anything postulate that the Prophets should "always address as their hearers, not those who belonged to the future, but only those who were present and contemporary, so that they could be understood by them". Therefore it cannot be asserted that "the second part of the Book of Isaias (xl-lxvi), in which the Prophet addresses as one living amongst them, not the Jews who were the contemporaries of Isaias, but the Jews mourning in the Exile of Babylon, cannot have for its author Isaias himself, who was dead long before, but must be attributed to some unknown Prophet living among the exiles". In other words, although the author of Isaias xl-lxvi does speak from the point of view of the Babylonian Captivity, yet this is no proof that he must have lived and written in those times. (4) "The philological argument from language and style against the identity of the author of the Book of Isaias is not to be considered weighty enough to compel a man of judgment, familiar with Hebrew and criticism, to acknowledge in the same book a plurality of authors". Differences of language and style between the parts of the book are neither denied nor underrated; it is asserted only that such as they appear, they do not compel one to admit the plurality of authors. (5) "There are no solid arguments to the fore, even taken cumulatively, to prove that the book of Isaias is to be attributed not to Isaias himself alone, but to two or rather to many authors"."There would be no point in attaching an eye-witness account to the captivity event to an otherwise clear prophecy looking forward to that captivity. If that had been the case, it would have been stated in the book. There was no hint of that in Isaiah. It offends some people that a prophet could so accurately predict a coming event. The fear among Bible skeptics is that, if Isaiah could so accuraely forsee the events around the captivity, then there must be truth in the section about the coming King of Kings and His great kingdom upon this earth, which will exclude those in rebellion now, who don't repent and believe, facing fierce Judgment. The distinct effort underway is to mitigate that subject to comfort rebels.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Providing a little more detail than the Britannica quote, here are some excerpts from The Books of the Old Testament by Robert H. Pheiffer:

---

If you wish, we can discuss the agenda of that author and why most scholars disagree with him, especially Hebrew scholars. Pfeiffer is of the school that Israel is not included in the eternal dynasty of the Davidic kingdom, leaving Israel with no promise of continued occupation of the promised land. It is fiercely contested, with no end in argument, but I'm willing to engage here. The fellow is considered wrong on much of his thinking.

Wordswordsman writes: If you wish, we can discuss the agenda of that author and why most scholars disagree with him, especially Hebrew scholars. Pfeiffer is of the school that Israel is not included in the eternal dynasty of the Davidic kingdom, leaving Israel with no promise of continued occupation of the promised land. It is fiercely contested, with no end in argument, but I'm willing to engage here. The fellow is considered wrong on much of his thinking.

Keeping things simple, you can divide Biblical scholarship into two schools: liberals and conservatives. Pfeiffer's views are representative of the liberal school. When you say things like "most scholars disagree with him" you should make clear that you're referring primarily to conservative scholars. His views are mainstream in liberal circles.I'm not really interested in arguing whether the modern state of Israel is included in God's covenant. I joined the thread because of the focus on prophecy.--Percy