youkrst wrote:Quote:
They proceed on the assumption that they must be postdated because they have remarkably fulfilled historic events in them.
i've not yet seen a bible prophecy fulfilled in the sense that i can say, well that's a slam dunk, only a God could know that in advance.
every prophecy i've looked at has been a question of iffy interpretation.
but i'm happy to look at more.
if you could lay out a scenario where
Bible says X and X happened as predicted i'd be impressed.
but usually i get bible says X, but then X and some events later than X are interpreted as a retrofit.
I think there are clear prophecies that were historically fulfilled, Youkrst.
The critics recognizing this,don't dispute the historical events themselves such as Cyrus being the ruler and the Medo Persians taking of Babylon, but claim postdating by the authors.
You will find differences among interpreters on some prophecies, but others are so clear there is unanimous agreement on them by scholars.
The debate then is largely on dating these books.
Here's Daniel chapter 11 first.
www.biblehub.com/nasb/daniel/11.htm
And here are examples of historical fulfillment from Daniel ch.11 .
http://www.ukapologetics.net/11/daniel11meaning.htm
The so called higher critics then argued that Daniel was written centuries later at the time of the Maccabees. As I said, the dead sea scroll finds strongly suggest it must have been earlier than this.
Certain arguments are presented by critics against the date and historical setting in Babylon given in the book itself.
And here's how they are answered.
http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/daniel.html
Isaiah was divided into three on the same assumption of divine predictive prophecy being impossible. They try to use literary critical methods to bolster this.
When it is shown that there is considerable evidence for unity,literary and thematic similarity throughout the book they than say that the supposed second writer merely used material and literary style, from the earlier parts to give this impression.
So the very thing that sinks their critical literary argument is rejected on a conspiracy theory that amounts to fraud, and
everyone implausibly buying this and recognizing it as authentic scripture and prophecy while knowing it to be postdated fraud.
There are psychological arguments against this. The whole point of Isaiah 45 is to show that God alone knows the future and is in control of history.
It would be extraordinary that a postdated document would be accepted by the Jews in Babylon as authentic prophecy and scripture, knowing it was postdated and the argument a complete sham.
Here are some examples of literary,stylistic and thematic unity in Isaiah.
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-dif ... of-isaiah/
What is beyond all dispute is that both Isaiah and Daniel predate the time of Christ and prophesy his killing and this as atonement. I might add that his resurrection can also be found in Isaiah ch.53
This in itself is a remarkable prophecy to make concerning the messiah, and is not really what would be imagined to happen to God's promised messiah.
I think it is quite clear that the higher critics treated these books in accordance with their own naturalistic prior assumptions.
Such as the outdated "documentary source hypothesis" are rightly rejected by many contemporary scholars in the light of archaeological discoveries,and the accumulated much greater knowledge now,of these languages and times.
Here's why their arguments against Isaiah's authorship and unity are untenable.
http://www.academia.edu/7928184/The_Uni ... _of_Isaiah
