Isaiah 47 and Babylonian Exceptionalism

 Many Christians in the United States embrace the notion of American Exceptionalism - the notion that the nation due to its unique historical position and role is above common judgments. As it is the representative of liberal democracy and freedom and the focus of good in the world, it cannot be judged by the same standards as other nations. At times it must tackle tough and nigh on impossible tasks resulting in situations that would cause other nations to fall under severe judgment. The US must be exempt from such charges and condemnations. It cannot be held to the same standard.

Dancing Around Paul's Imperative for Women to be Silent in the Church

https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-that-women-should-remain-quiet-in-church-1-timothy-2/

Burk misses the flow of Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2. He is an apostle charged with bringing salvation to all mankind. On that basis he exhorts men and women - targeting (as it were) certain points or characteristics which he (and the Holy Spirit of course) deemed universal.

Men are to lift holy hands eschewing the male tendency toward wrath and doubt and we could spend a fair bit of time exploring these characteristics, how men are more given to pride and anger and are less naturally given (we might say) toward faith which is something quite different from the normal Evangelical definition of faith as simple knowledge and assent.

The Prophets and Christ

Theological Modernists and the academy argue that Isaiah was written by two different authors. Chapters 1-39 were written by Isaiah ben-Amos - the Isaiah we all know. Chapters 40-66 were written by another prophet in the exile (the so-called Deutero-Isaiah) who often tries to mimic the style of Isaiah and yet due to the seeming predictive prophecy in those chapters, it could not be the same person - or so it is argued. The naming of Cyrus in chapters 44-45 comes into play as the idea that Isaiah ben-Amos in the 8th century BC could name a future king of the 6th century is deemed impossible. Therefore they argue the second portion of the book was composed by a prophet in the exile period who knew Cyrus by name. And yet because he pretended to place himself in the past and predict the name of the king, he would in fact be a liar. This is not an issue for modernist theologians. This is because these theologians and scholars are unbelievers who reject the notion of revelation. The Bible for them is a series of moral tales and traditions. God may speak through the words but there is nothing unique about the Scriptures. For them, God is just as likely to speak through the writings of another religion or through inspirational figures of our own day.