TOT's Heretical Beliefs

[Ambassador Pony]

Follow up question: Do you accept that it is possible that you are wrong, and the central deity in the bible is not real?

[Truth OT]

ahh so you think that all of the other millions of christians that claim they do, are lying and therefore false?

I can honestly say that I do not believe their claims, however, my belief in them has no bearing or whether their claims are true or not. I just believe their claims are unfounded and baseless, but hey, that just 1 man's opinion.

So what exactly is the difference between a gospel writer in the year 75 ad and today's christian that claims to talk to jesus?  You believe him because you think making shit up is a new phenomena?

Huge difference my friend. Those who wrote the gospels claim to have lived during the same period of time as Jesus. Some even claimed to be eyewitnesses of what they wrote. Though that doesn't prove their accounts to be true, it does make them a lot more viable, likely, and possible than any claims made after that generation.

Consider this. If the NT were written after the events of 70 AD, why do they all seem to omit the drastic happenings that took place at that time. Remember that virtually all of the alledged writers were Jews and the things described in those writings all took place in or around the Judean region, so the events would not necessity have been referred to in at least some of the writings were they written after 70 AD. Based on this, I believe that all of the NT was written and in circulation in that region in some manners before 70 AD.

[jaimehlers]

I read a short story once, "Behind the Sandrat Hoax", by Christopher Anvil.  Without going into too much detail, it beautifully detailed the problem of letting one's dogma determine what is true, instead of actually examining the evidence.  This is the problem most organized religions end up having; if something comes up that challenges their dogma, they end up attacking it instead of actually considering it (though it is not just religion that has that problem; anyone can if they allow their knee-jerk reflex to dictate how they react to something they disagree with).

[screwtape]

I gotta ask you; Are you from the Southside of the H-Town?

If H-town= hell, then no.  In fact, I do not recall ever living in any municipality that began with the letter H. 

And Tape is not my surname and so should not be capitalized.  Screwtape is a one word name, just like Bono, Plato or Teller.

Now, to answer your question. I do not and cannot know whether what I believe is true. I can only say I believe it to be true based on the info I have and data I have been presented with and how I understand it. I could be wrong, and were I to say that me being incorrect was not in the realm of possibility I would be both dishonest and incouragebly arrogant. New data can be presented that could prove me wrong or I could gain new knowledge of the existing data that would cause me to change my beliefs. Only fact and truth is set in stone, my opinions can be changed provided their is reasonable evidence to prompt such a change. They have changed before, who knows, maybe they'll change again.

bold mine.  My question was regarding a statement you made - that your assessment of the bible was superior to all thoses ever made by every clergyman and theologian who ever lived.  That is a pretty big claim.  So what I am looking for is what you mentioned in the bold part.  The data.  Show me the data. You say there is data and I am very interested in knowing the truth.  So quit bogarting the data.

You see, from my outside perspective[1] there are a lot of things in the bible that can have multiple interpretations and they are completely unverifiable.  So, how do you verify?  What are the tiebreakers?  How can you know your interpretation is the right one?  How do you know which parts are to be taken literally? 

Fair warning - if you say "faith", I will rip your head off[2].   It is a common non-answer from various theists (mainly xian) and it amounts to an admission that there is no basis whatsoever to believe what they say.  It is a forfeit of intellect, reason and the argument.

In my experience, there is no data and SPAG succinctly explains how interpretations are made.  If I were able to know a given theists well enough, I could accurately predict his or her beliefs about god.  Because there is no other way to know god.

1.	that is, the perspective of one who believes any religious claim is absurd
2.	metaphorically, of course.

[Truth OT]

by Screwtape

My question was regarding a statement you made - that your assessment of the bible was superior to all thoses ever made by every clergyman and theologian who ever lived.  That is a pretty big claim.  So what I am looking for is what you mentioned in the bold part.  The data.  Show me the data. You say there is data and I am very interested in knowing the truth.  So quit bogarting the data.

You drastically exagerrate what I said. I said that I believe I understand the Bible better than most theologians. Are there some theologians that are also well studied historians who do not let their preferred brand of christianity sway their interpretation; I'm sure there are, and it is those individuals I'd be more likely to tip a hat to. Looking at the evidence that is present in the religious world however, it appears that clergy people and to an extent theologians approach their studies with the view of their particular religious "box" in mind and rarely allow what they find or rarely recognize anything that would do damage to the "box" they live in.

I have no data that anyone else is not privy to regarding the Bible. The issue is not the data, but rather what's done with the available data and whether data that may go against one's religious preconceptions is shared with the masses or kept quite.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. In christianity there is a large and vocal crowd following the teachings of religious leaders and so called theologians that have been proclaiming that Jesus' second coming is soon. Books have been written, dates have been set and reset, and doctorate degrees have been earned by those putting forth such claims giving them credentials that are designed to lead the masses to believe that they are somehow credible and should be followed. In light of that, you or I can pick up the Bible, look at the words of Jesus and those who followed him and what we will see clearly revealed is that he said he would return in their generation, they expected him to return then, and told others of that day that he was coming soon. It doesn't take a theologian or a rocket science understand that soon and in this generation do not mean 2000 years later does it?
Another thing they say is that faith in Jesus saves from the fires of hell. To which I sratch my head and ask aloud, "have these "experts" even read the book they claim to be the definative explainers of?" I say this because again, a lay person can pick up the book and see that the salvation mentioned has nothing to do with being saved from a fiery hell, but rather being saved from perishing which is a result of the "wages of sin" that the books of the bible state over and over is death.

[screwtape]

You can get the link to my quote by clicking the "quote" link at the top right of the post.  It will automatically reference my name and link to the post whence it came.  You can then edit out the stuff that does not pertain to your point. You can also section it up to address one point at a time.  Click here for more info.

You drastically exagerrate what I said. I said that I believe I understand the Bible better than most theologians.

Alright, that is fair.  I did not accurately convey what you said, so I retract that part of my statement.   

<snip>

All your examples I have seen are rejections of dogma or scripture.  You essentially take a skeptic's, or dare I say, atheist's point of view.  That makes it difficult for me to say you are wrong, because I would say my interpretation of the bible is superior to theologians.  Of course, my interpretation is to trash the whole thing. 

I am having a very difficult time understanding why you believe in god. You understand a lot of scripture is hogwash.  You accept knowledge via science.  What is your basis for accepting anything from the bible?

[velkyn]

You drastically exagerrate what I said. I said that I believe I understand the Bible better than most theologians.

why?

Are there some theologians that are also well studied historians who do not let their preferred brand of christianity sway their interpretation; I'm sure there are, and it is those individuals I'd be more likely to tip a hat to.

Have you read any of them?  If not, I'm sure we can suggest many.
 

Looking at the evidence that is present in the religious world however, it appears that clergy people and to an extent theologians approach their studies with the view of their particular religious "box" in mind and rarely allow what they find or rarely recognize anything that would do damage to the "box" they live in.

Can you demonstrate that you do not do this?  You have created your own "box". How can we tell it is any better than those others?

[Truth OT]

Can you demonstrate that you do not do this?  You have created your own "box". How can we tell it is any better than those others?

I have been guilty of it myself quite often Velkyn. That is why I have had to at time apologize and eat crow. We all have a "box" that we see the world from, I realize that. That is why I TRY to be open-minded enough to seek info from outside of mind that could even knock down my walls. The search for truth can be a constant progression.

[Truth OT]

I am having a very difficult time understanding why you believe in god. You understand a lot of scripture is hogwash.  You accept knowledge via science.  What is your basis for accepting anything from the bible?

From a logical perspective I believe that in order for there to be existence, that a god entity must be real.
Logically I cannot, however say that the God of the Bible is that entity. To make that connection requires faith and as any honest person can admit, faith CAN be misplaced. My reasons for embracing and not trashing the Bible is two fold. One is logical and has historical backing while the other is because of my personal desire for what it says about man ultimately overcoming death to be true. The logical part of it is really tied to the amazing prophecy it contains and fulfillment of many of those prophecies (not even including the Messianic Ones).

[velkyn]

Can you demonstrate that you do not do this?  You have created your own "box". How can we tell it is any better than those others?

I have been guilty of it myself quite often Velkyn. That is why I have had to at time apologize and eat crow. We all have a "box" that we see the world from, I realize that. That is why I TRY to be open-minded enough to seek info from outside of mind that could even knock down my walls. The search for truth can be a constant progression.

or it can be pretty quick.  I'm also not asking if you did it. I'm asking why your version should be considered valid over others.  You must think it valid if you do indeed believe it.

I have a coupel more questions, in regards to your post to Screwtape.  What historical backing?  Can you show me one instance of where an essential event in teh bible has any historical backing?  And can you show me where any of these supposed prophecies were fulfilled where it is obvious, not a matter of creative "interpretation" or someone retconning the whole thing.

[Truth OT]

I have a coupel more questions, in regards to your post to Screwtape.  What historical backing?  Can you show me one instance of where an essential event in teh bible has any historical backing?  And can you show me where any of these supposed prophecies were fulfilled where it is obvious, not a matter of creative "interpretation" or someone retconning the whole thing.

Certain historical figures were written about before they were born.

1. Cyrus the Great written of in the book of Isaiah some 150 years prior to his birth.
2. The deeds of Antichus Epaphanies IV written of by Daniel before the even the time of Alexander the Great
3. Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

[screwtape]

Thanks for the reply.

My reasons for embracing and not trashing the Bible is two fold.

But you do trash portions of it.  Why some portions and not others?  It appears to me that you are a biblical literalist, except for the parts that are directly contradicted by knowledge gleaned from science.  Is that accurate to say? 

The logical part of it is really tied to the amazing prophecy it contains and fulfillment of many of those prophecies (not even including the Messianic Ones).

Can you give me an example of an amazing prophecy that was fulfilled?

wrt Cyrus - How do you know?

[RNS]

<snip>In doing so, a better understanding can be reached.

So to be honest and hopefully humble in my arrogance, I believe I undersatnd the message of scripture better than most theologians because I do not read it to defend or uphold a doctrine, my goal in studying it is simply to understand what it actually proclaims.

so far i have seen little to no evidence of this. why wouldn't you just come out and tell us "what it actually proclaims"? even in your later posts you don't seem to want to share any of your information/knowledge. why are you being so greedy? you have only told us about your beliefs, not what they actually are, and a little (vague) about how you believe you have come to your conclusions, but nothing of the conclusions themselves.

- "yeah i know what it's [the bible] all about. yeah sure, i understand it better than most/many, even 'experts' "
-> "why?"
" most people are wrong for the following reasons.."
->"so?"
   "we don't believe in the bible, the god of the bible, or find the bible to be a particularly useful piece of writing for the following reasons.."
- "i never said i believe in these things"
  "oh you want to know about what i've said i understand/believe as well? maybe, i don't know.. we'll see"

i'm finding reading this thread fairly frustrating. i don't understand what you're getting at. the only thing i've "learned" is that you think you have a better understanding than many, because of "data" and the "correct interpretation" of the "data"... that's it!
get to the bloody point!

[Graybeard]

Certain historical figures were written about before they were born.

1. Cyrus the Great written of in the book of Isaiah some 150 years prior to his birth.

No Cyrus (Bible)^Wiki

2. The deeds of Antichus Epaphanies IV written of by Daniel before the even the time of Alexander the Great

No Antiochus IV Epiphanes^Wiki

3. Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

No http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/Historical%20Problems%20for%20a%20First%20Century%20Fulfillment.pdf

I thought you said that you had a better knowledge of the Bible than most theologians and that you studied the Bible to understand it.

[velkyn]

I have a coupel more questions, in regards to your post to Screwtape.  What historical backing?  Can you show me one instance of where an essential event in teh bible has any historical backing?  And can you show me where any of these supposed prophecies were fulfilled where it is obvious, not a matter of creative "interpretation" or someone retconning the whole thing.

Certain historical figures were written about before they were born.

1. Cyrus the Great written of in the book of Isaiah some 150 years prior to his birth.
2. The deeds of Antichus Epaphanies IV written of by Daniel before the even the time of Alexander the Great
3. Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

GB beat me to it. I'll just add a bit:

1. You should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutero-Isaiah#Deutero-Isaiah_.28Isaiah_40-55.29

2.so, how did Antiochus Epiphanes IV (215 BC – 164 BC) stand up to the "princes of princes" when, assuming that JC was born around 1 AD?

and I'd still like to see your historical sources. 

[Truth OT]

But you do trash portions of it.  Why some portions and not others?  It appears to me that you are a biblical literalist, except for the parts that are directly contradicted by knowledge gleaned from science.  Is that accurate to say? 

Can you give me an example of an amazing prophecy that was fulfilled?

wrt Cyrus - How do you know?

My intent is not to trash any portions of it. I do not however believe that what we have as the Bible represents the complete and inerrant word of God for various reasons. Reason 1, there is no way to varify whether or not the Bible contains all of the writings that were "inspired" by God. Secondly, the Bible doesnt speak about itself. There's no way to identify from the Bible that the Bible was to be the collection of 66 books that we have today. #2 is tough to communicate, I hope it makes some kind of sense.
I believe the Bible to contain some, not all of, but again some of the inspired messages from God given to certain peoples through the course of history. As far as being a literalist, for the most part I am. I take it to be literal (even Jonah or the flood) unless there is internal evidence in the text that the language could be figurative or hyperbole. I try to let the text, its contents and context, as well as the audience to whom it was written's likely understandings of the language employed reveal whether or not it is not to be taken literally.

As far as Cyrus The Great goes, he is mentioned in the OT severl times. One of which is here:
Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whom he has taken by his right hand to subdue nations before him and strip the loins of kings, to force gateways before him that their gates be closed no more: I will go before you levelling the heights. I will shatter the bronze gateways, smash the iron bars. I will give you the hidden treasures, the secret hoards, that you may know that I am the Lord. (Isaiah 45:1-3)

This is of import because Isaiah is thought to be written over 100 years before Cyrus was born.
Here's what wiki has to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah#Biography. I used wiki because I did not want to use a christian or Jewish website that some would view as biased.
Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1), the kings of Judah. Uzziah reigned fifty-two years in the middle of the 8th century BC, and Isaiah must have begun his career a few years before Uzziah's death, probably in the 740s BC. Isaiah lived till the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (who died 698 BC), and may have been contemporary for some years with Manasseh. Thus Isaiah may have prophesied for the long period of at least sixty-four years.
 
Here's a link on Cyrus from wiki as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Legacy

[Truth OT]

Certain historical figures were written about before they were born.

1. Cyrus the Great written of in the book of Isaiah some 150 years prior to his birth.
2. The deeds of Antichus Epaphanies IV written of by Daniel before the even the time of Alexander the Great
3. Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

GB beat me to it. I'll just add a bit:

1. You should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutero-Isaiah#Deutero-Isaiah_.28Isaiah_40-55.29
2.so, how did Antiochus Epiphanes IV (215 BC – 164 BC) stand up to the "princes of princes" when, assuming that JC was born around 1 AD?

and I'd still like to see your historical sources.

I am familiar with the claim of most modern scholars that Isaiah was written by 2 to 3 differnt authors. I am also aware that no consensus exists between scholars that a deutero-Isaiah hypothesis is a fact for there little to no evidence for such a conclusion. The fact show that the earliest dated manuscripts of Isaiah do not show a break after what has become the 39th chapter.

As for Antichus Epaphanies IV and Daniel, in chapter 11 of the book starting at verse 20 it speaks of someone that ends up doing pretty much exactly what history tells us of Antichus.

As it pertains to Jesus' olivet disclosure chronicled in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are clearly prophesied and discussed. Read for yourself, it's obvious.

Mark 13
It was as he was leaving the Temple that one of his disciples said, 'Teacher; Look at these stones and these buildings!'
However, Jesus said to him, 'Do you see these great buildings? There won't be a stone left on top of a stone here that won't be thrown down.'
And as he was sitting in a quiet spot on the Mount of Olives (across from the Temple), Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked, 'Tell us; when will these things happen, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to end?'

[RNS]

the topic implies the whole point of this thread is for you to tell us your beliefs.
you're OP fails to address this. your later posts only give snippets after questions/issues have been raised.
are you going to tell us (the message of the bible/what the bible means/what it's all about/what you believe in.. etc), or do we have to keep guessing?

[velkyn]

As it pertains to Jesus' olivet disclosure chronicled in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are clearly prophesied and discussed. Read for yourself, it's obvious.

Mark 13
It was as he was leaving the Temple that one of his disciples said, 'Teacher; Look at these stones and these buildings!'
However, Jesus said to him, 'Do you see these great buildings? There won't be a stone left on top of a stone here that won't be thrown down.'
And as he was sitting in a quiet spot on the Mount of Olives (across from the Temple), Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked, 'Tell us; when will these things happen, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to end?'

I'm busy at work today but I'll ask you, how is this any more obvious that he fulfilled prophecy than it is that this could have very easily been retconned? 

[screwtape]

My intent is not to trash any portions of it.

By "trash" I mean, "reject" or "do not accept as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".  Intent is irrelevant.

I do not however believe that what we have as the Bible represents the complete and inerrant word of God for various reasons.

Me too.

Reason 1, there is no way to varify whether or not the Bible contains all of the writings that were "inspired" by God.

a) we have no way to verify if it has any writings inspired by yhwh
b) why do you put "inspired" in scare quotes? 

Secondly, the Bible doesnt speak about itself. There's no way to identify from the Bible that the Bible was to be the collection of 66 books that we have today.

I agree also.  However I go one step further and say, none of the authors - particularly authors of the NT - intended to be lumped in together.

I believe the Bible to contain some, not all of, but again some of the inspired messages from God given to certain peoples through the course of history.

Why do you think that? 

As far as being a literalist, for the most part I am. I take it to be literal (even Jonah or the flood) unless there is internal evidence in the text that the language could be figurative or hyperbole.

?  Jonah and the Flood?  Are you saying that a guy living inside a fish for three days isn't fabulous hyperbole?  Are you saying there is no preponderance of evidence that a massive global flood that wiped out all but two (or 14, depending which version) of every animal did not happen?  I don't want to make this into a flood thread, so no need to get into specifics.  That just sounds crazy, though.

As far as Cyrus The Great goes, he is mentioned in the OT severl times.
...
This is of import because Isaiah is thought to be written over 100 years before Cyrus was born.

Only by the credulous. 
According to wiki:

Tradition ascribes the book to Isaiah himself, but for over a hundred years scholars have divided it into three parts: Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1-39), containing the words of the 8th century BCE prophet and 7th century BCE expansions; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40-55), a 6th century BCE work by an author who wrote under the Babylonian captivity; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56-66), composed probably by multiple authors in Jerusalem shortly after the exile.

Bold mine for emphasis.  Read the rest of that entry.  I think it very clearly points to facts that make it obvious there was no prophecy - the section that deals with Cyrus also deals with the problems that would arise from exiles returning home.

Let me ask, do you also believe in the prophecies alleged of mohammed?  How about joseph smith?  Or how about any of the other prophets mentioned here?  If not, why not?

Here's a link on Cyrus from wiki as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Legacy

yeah, the jews loved him.  He did something unheard of in that time.  He sent them back to judah with monotheism, authority and some cash.  So why do you think prophecy is the more likely explanation when it can be easily explained by more worldly motivations, like, Cyrus had a hand in writing it, or they wanted to aggrandize someone to whom they owed much?

 

[gonegolfing]

I am having a very difficult time understanding why you believe in god. You understand a lot of scripture is hogwash.  You accept knowledge via science.  What is your basis for accepting anything from the bible?

From a logical perspective I believe that in order for there to be existence, that a god entity must be real.
Logically I cannot, however say that the God of the Bible is that entity. To make that connection requires faith and as any honest person can admit, faith CAN be misplaced. My reasons for embracing and not trashing the Bible is two fold. One is logical and has historical backing while the other is because of my personal desire for what it says about man ultimately overcoming death to be true. The logical part of it is really tied to the amazing prophecy it contains and fulfillment of many of those prophecies (not even including the Messianic Ones).

For you, the latter of the two is much much stronger and yet you use the former, the weakest of the two, to fulfill and support your lust and desire for the latter. Interesting.

I wish those who study the Bible whether it be to criticize it or to follow it would treat it like other works of literature that one studies by reading it without religious blinders as much as possible as well as by keeping things in the proper context historically and based on what the authors of the respective passages dictate. In doing so, a better understanding can be reached.

Indeed ! It should be treated as the piece of historical fiction that it is. A full understanding is accomplished when done so.

So to be honest and hopefully humble in my arrogance, I believe I undersatnd the message of scripture better than most theologians because I do not read it to defend or uphold a doctrine, my goal in studying it is simply to understand what it actually proclaims.

Yes. And to understand that it's merely a Hebrew proclamation meant for the most part, for Hebrews, is to be off to a good start with regards to understanding. The legend of Christ was of course the catalyst to what we see as the christian religion today. However, one must keep in mind that the entire book has a fictional element through and through, including the new testament. Any moral value taken from the stories of the book, which is little, does not necessarily mean that the events of that story were true or actually happened. (Casting demons into pigs)

You shouldn't let your desire for eternal life jade a proper perspective of what the book is actually saying, not saying, meaning and not meaning.

This personal ancient Hebrew diary and its amalgamation of faulty perceptions of what reality was, and the predictions of what it should be, shows very little relevance for us in the 21st. century.

Very little time should be wasted on it. 

[Hatter23]

I wish those who study the Bible whether it be to criticize it or to follow it would treat it like other works of literature that one studies by reading it without religious blinders as much as possible as well as by keeping things in the proper context historically and based on what the authors of the respective passages dictate. In doing so, a better understanding can be reached.

Yeah, and it look extactly like mythology mixed with some propaganda, some history by lots of different authors from different viewpoints and senses of moralities lumped into the text.

Because that is what it is. Unlike some of my fellow atheists, I don't call it "The Worst" of anything. It is just that, cobbled together stuff, primarily mythology. Look at the differing accounts of creation, or ways Judas died....looks like the multiple versions of folk tales gather by The Brother Grimm.

So to be honest and hopefully humble in my arrogance, I believe I undersatnd the message of scripture better than most theologians because I do not read it to defend or uphold a doctrine, my goal in studying it is simply to understand what it actually proclaims.

Oh some unlike all those other magical decoder rings, yours is the real one. (eyeroll)

Please show me how the Bible can be differentiated from the Illiad.

[velkyn]

I am familiar with the claim of most modern scholars that Isaiah was written by 2 to 3 differnt authors. I am also aware that no consensus exists between scholars that a deutero-Isaiah hypothesis is a fact for there little to no evidence for such a conclusion. The fact show that the earliest dated manuscripts of Isaiah do not show a break after what has become the 39th chapter.

  Let's see, you say that most modern scholars to agree that there were more than one author of Isaiah, and then you want to claim that there is "no consensus" that this hypothesis is a fact.  So, what do you consider a consensus, TOT?  Most?  All?  And what do you consider a "break"?  We have evidence, used by those "most modern scholars", that there is indeed a break, that the language changes, the tense changes, etc. 

As for Antichus Epaphanies IV and Daniel, in chapter 11 of the book starting at verse 20 it speaks of someone that ends up doing pretty much exactly what history tells us of Antichus.

Again, any evidence that no one could have possibly retconned this?  And how many of the claims in Daniel could be applied to any king?  It reads like an astrology prediction.  Oooh, a king will invade someone!  He'll collect taxes!  He'll be deceitful! He'll subjugate people!  My, I'm shocked on how "accurate" this is.   And this “He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him.”  This can’t even mention the name of this “foreign god” assumably the mysterious “god of fortresses” which history doesn’t mention either. Why not?  Can’t God give prophecies that actually ID someone?  One mention of this other god’s name would go along way to show this wasn’t just some vague claims, but of course we don’t get that.  And this “He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Cushites[e] in submission.”  when Antiochus never conquered all of Egypt, and left after trying again when Rome smacked him on the nose.  So much for “But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many.”  We do have AE having a vengeful fit in Jerusalem, but this was after Rome stopped him not anyone from the “north and east”.

[Truth OT]

So Velkyn, what makes those who believe the book was written by multiple individuals believe that just because there is a variance in literary styles here and there that the conclusion must be that they were written by different people? That is a might big conclusion tojump through with faith.
Although there are some differences in the literary style of chapters 1-39 and 40-66, this does not at all mean that the entire book could not have been written by one person. After all, if such standards were applied to the works of Shakespeare or Milton, we would have to deny that they wrote much of what is attributed to them. Clearly, the same author can make use of diverse literary forms. Now to be fair, the changes in styles could indicate different authors but does not necessitate that that is the case. So at most, were the critics of the long time accepted concept that single writer pinned the entire work, they would just put an asterik by it and list multiple writers as but a possibility. To claim that such a conclusion is a certainty is dishonest. 

[velkyn]

So Velkyn, what makes those who believe the book was written by multiple individuals believe that just because there is a variance in literary styles here and there that the conclusion must be that they were written by different people? That is a might big conclusion tojump through with faith.

Faith?  No, research.  You see those little numbers in the wiki article, that's their research and at the moment, I have no reason to disbelieve them.  Do you have a reason that you can give that I should? Other than you simply don’t like it, of course.

Although there are some differences in the literary style of chapters 1-39 and 40-66, this does not at all mean that the entire book could not have been written by one person.
 After all, if such standards were applied to the works of Shakespeare or Milton, we would have to deny that they wrote much of what is attributed to them.

wow, you don't know much about literary analysis do you?  We use that to figure out which is likely Shakespears' work and which isn't.  And modern scholars do argue about it, but the consensus (you remember that word? and the question I asked of you about it?  How many are a consensus, TOT) is that there are those works that are definitely Shakespear and those that are definitely not. 

oh yes, any my other question, And what do you consider a "break"?

Clearly, the same author can make use of diverse literary forms. Now to be fair, the changes in styles could indicate different authors but does not necessitate that that is the case. So at most, were the critics of the long time accepted concept that single writer pinned the entire work, they would just put an asterik by it and list multiple writers as but a possibility. To claim that such a conclusion is a certainty is dishonest.

Yep, but they usually don’t change tense mid stream. There is this and other reasons that these modern scholars think your claims are simple wrong.  You need this to not be true, this multitude of authors, to keep your delusions of prophecy.  As you well know, the opinions of people accepted over a “long time” can often be wrong.  Like those who accepted different books in the bible other than the ones you accept.  Were they right by dint of time accepted?  I would think you would disagree.  Hmmm, I don’t recall saying it was a “certainty” but I certainly think it is much more supported than your claim which has no support at all, other than “well, people used to think it was one author”.

[Graybeard]

So Velkyn, what makes those who believe the book was written by multiple individuals believe that just because there is a variance in literary styles here and there that the conclusion must be that they were written by different people? That is a might big conclusion to jump through with faith.

I point awarded for getting in a mention of "faith." Your "faith" obviously points you in another direction. Just goes to show how useful "faith is, doesn't it?
 
See the bolded above... I think this is akin to asking, "Apart from that Mr Lincoln, how was the concert?"

Although there are some differences in the literary style of chapters 1-39 and 40-66, this does not at all mean that the entire book could not have been written by one person.

No, but it's more likely than not, isn't it?

Next, we don't have the originals, so no one knows what was there by the original scribe or what was added. If it was not Isaiah who wrote it, how would we know that someone just added things?

Finally, if, in the case of Cyrus, it was a prophecy, did Cyrus have free will? OR was he and everyone who knew his ancestors, parents and him, God's bitches so that the prophecy might materialise?

[Truth OT]

I point awarded for getting in a mention of "faith." Your "faith" obviously points you in another direction. Just goes to show how useful "faith is, doesn't it?
 
See the bolded above... I think this is akin to asking, "Apart from that Mr Lincoln, how was the concert?"

Although there are some differences in the literary style of chapters 1-39 and 40-66, this does not at all mean that the entire book could not have been written by one person.

No, but it's more likely than not, isn't it?

Next, we don't have the originals, so no one knows what was there by the original scribe or what was added. If it was not Isaiah who wrote it, how would we know that someone just added things?

Finally, if, in the case of Cyrus, it was a prophecy, did Cyrus have free will? OR was he and everyone who knew his ancestors, parents and him, God's bitches so that the prophecy might materialise?

It is true that the beliefs (faith) a person brings into a discussion usually biases that person towards what they brought to the table. And oftentimes the stronger those beliefs are, the less rational the believer is when it comes to accepting things that challenge that belief system. it is indeed a task at times to allow the facts to get in the way of our opinions.

The Lincoln assasination comparison makes sense, but is of course not exactly an apples to apples comparison as it wasn't a mere footnote in the story that was up for speculation. The break or change in styles can be explained without concluding that multiple writer who lived over a century apart coauthored the work. It is quite possible that one author completed the writing over many years and circumstances within his own situation changed that prompted a change in style or perspective. The writer could have written a portion himself and then had a scribe complete the other parts. It is also possible that as you said, someone else could have added things to it later. If the later was true, would it not be likely that the Jews who lived during the time of and just before the additions would have spoken out and indicating what was original and what was a later addition. We have no account of that being the case and the oldest dated copy of the book, which I believe was found in Qumran, shows the full continuity.

[Truth OT]

1. God is not a trinity
2. Jesus was a man with no human sire that lived a sinless life who was anointed by God to reign as King in the Kingdom of Heaven.
*3. God's ultimate purpose for His creation is life and expects for His creations to be holy and blameless.*
4. The covenant between God and Israel began at Sinai and was ended with Jesus' murder. (The ending was ultimately culminated some 40 years later when Jerusalem and the Temple were decimated.)
5. The "last days" language in scripture is a reference to the (mid) 1st century times.
6. The penalty for sin is death, not hell.
7. With very few possible exceptions, ALL who have ever lived will eventually be raised from the dead. Some will be given life in the age while those who are unjust will be punished with destruction never to live in any way, shape, or form again.
8. A Heavenly reward was only promised to an elect number, not all believers.
9. The righteous will ultimately be rewarded with life (most likely on Earth, but maybe not limited to this planet) in an age of peace and righteousness where sin and death will be no more.
10. Ultimately Jesus will turn over the Kingdom back to the Father and God will then be all and in all.


What I do not believe the Bible teaches:
1. Man has an immortal soul
2. Lucifer is the name of a fallen anger that became the satan
3. Heaven or Hell is the ultimate destination of everyone who's ever lived.
4. Any part of a person continues to live after the person dies.
5. Jesus is God, the Son as opposed to being simply the only begotten son of God.
6. The modern church is the same as the Kingdom of Heaven.
7. A seven year tribulation will happen at the end of the world prior to or after the "rapture"
8. The Law had any bearing before Sinai or after Jesus fulfilled it

[JeffPT]

Is this all what you personally believe, or is this all what you believe scripture tells us?  There's a big difference.  From the subject line, it's hard to tell which it is.