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.
Showing posts with label Old Testament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Old Testament. Show all posts
Sunday, February 9, 2025
Saturday, June 22, 2024
A Non-Christocentric Reading of Psalm 112
Recently I sat through a sermon on Psalm 112. It was a workshop in moralistic non-redemptive-historical preaching. It wasn't that the content was awful or the exhortations uninspiring, but the preacher missed the essential component of the passage and read it in a Judaized fashion. While disappointing it generated some great and edifying conversation for the drive home.
Saturday, July 29, 2023
2 Timothy 3.16 and its Reference to the Old Testament
By some estimates a problem exists in the utilization by certain persons of Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3.16. When it comes to making an argument for Sola Scriptura, they would argue Paul's words can only refer to the Old Testament and as such the passage does not support the larger doctrine which rests on assumptions rather than a specific teaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)