Cyrus THE GREAT

[HiddenChalice]

HD MOMENT TODAY! I knew Cyrus The Great played a HUGE ROLE in restoring Israel, BUT I just found out today that his name was mentioned in the bible concerning that restoration as a prophecy about two hundred years before he existed. WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN.

That is awesome. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome.


WOW. WOW.


DID ANY OF YOU KNOW THIS?!!! How the heck can athiests EVEN DENY THE BIBLE AND GOD as being truth if they actually confirm this in their secular athiest wikipedia? It doesn't MAKE SENSE!!!

lol

 

[branchofthevine]

The thing with Cyrus is that it may be true but it may not be. Because: Deutero-Isaiah. yes, the theory that there are two Isaiahs which were prophets at different times one living at the same time as Amos, Hosea, and Micah, while the other was a prophet supposedly in or around the exile period. The first Isaiah (by scholars) is said to have the first 39 chapters, and Deutero-Isaiah if I'm not Mistaken has chapters 40-55 because of Third Isaiah, but that one is a bit too farfetched.

maybe someone who is more academically minded than me can fill those holes more clear.

Sounds like a bummer right? But fret not, because there is someone else to be prophesied of.


turn to 1 Kings 13:2 and see this:
"Then he cried out against the altar by the word of the Lord, and said, “O altar, altar! Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, a child, Josiah by name, shall be born to the house of David; and on you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and men’s bones shall be burned on you.’”


The King Josiah is prophesied during Jeroboam's reign (prophesied that Josiah will be Rehoboam's descendent)

The line of kings goes like this (with the name of the king and the length of their reign)
Rehoboam -17
Abijam -3
Asa -41
Jehoshaphat -25
Jehoram -8
Ahaziah -1
Athaliah -6 (not a king, but a tyrant, niece of Jezebel, ruled for 6 years)
Joash -40
Amaziah -29
Uzziah -52
Jotham -16
Ahaz -16
Hezekiah -29
Manasseh -55
Amon -2
Josiah!!!!

Counting up all the dates would equal an estimate of 340 years between the prophecy of Josiah and his birth. Now of course that is a bit high because the prophecy did not happen most likely during the first year of Jeroboam's reign so say anywhere between 330-340 years is acceptable.

That is pretty crazy.

P.S. I took all those kings and their ruling dates from the books of 1 Kings and 2 Kings.

P.S.S. Sorry to sort of burst your bubble about Cyrus, hopefully Josiah is an acceptable replacement?

 

[SalvationAtYourFingertips]

Deutero-Isiaiah is a lie. People who are liberal refuse to believe that the Bible could have prophecies that come true.

 

[ebia]

Deutero-Isiaiah is a lie. People who are liberal refuse to believe that the Bible could have prophecies that come true.

The above is a lie - or, at least, highly misleading. Many of the scholars who support the multiple authorship of Isaiah do think biblical prophesies do come true.

 

[SalvationAtYourFingertips]

The scholars who believe in multiple Isiaiahs are not from God.

 

[ebia]

The scholars who believe in multiple Isiaiahs are not from God.

Did you have sugar on your porridge this morning?

 

[Santiago1975]

From what I understand, the multiple author theory behind Isaiah is quite subjective and did rise from liberal (theological, of course) German higher criticism. It does seem that one could believe either that there was one author or two and still be a Christian, but the origin of the multiple author theory is based on a denial of prophesy that can be that specific.

 

[ebia]

From what I understand, the multiple author theory behind Isaiah is quite subjective and did rise from liberal (theological, of course) German higher criticism. It does seem that one could believe either that there was one author or two and still be a Christian, but the origin of the multiple author theory is based on a denial of prophesy that can be that specific.

No, it's based on the idea that different bits seem to be addressed to:
A pre-exhilic audience warning them what will happen if they carry on
An exhilic audience comforting them in exile
A post exhilic audience.

 

[Santiago1975]

It is interesting that this theory was never brought forward until the 18th century (the rise of German liberal higher criticism). Supposedly, Isaiah only wrote the first 39 chapters. It is of interest that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself attributed both debated parts of the book of Isaiah to the prophet himself (compare Isaiah 29:13 with Mark 7:6-7; Isaiah 42:1-4 with Matthew 12:17; Isaiah 53:4 is also accredited to Isaiah in Matthew 8:16-17).

This approach is tied very closely to Friedrich Shleiermacher, the father of modern liberal theology. His philosophical system held that doctrine can be reshaped and reformed as society changes. In a society that had begun to embrace Darwinism and The Enlightenment, little room was left for miracle. Much modern theology comes from this school (e.g. Gerhard von Rad) and seeks to reinterpret not only Isaiah, but Genesis and other books as well. The common thread is the removal of the supernatural from the Bible. Considering its secular roots, this is not surprising. This movement had its ultimate expression, perhaps, in the Jesus Seminar- which completely reinterpreted the Person of Christ, stripped Him of His miracles, and removed much of the content of the Gospels.

 

[Santiago1975]

HiddenChalise,

You have every reason to be thrilled in regard to the prophesy of Cyrus. Welcome to the Body of Christ! Please note that the debate on this thread is among brothers in Christ and, ultimately, is not an essential of Christian belief leading to salvation. It's exciting to see that you are engaged in Bible study and are hopefully plugged into a study group and a doctrinally-sound church. I wish you the best and am praying for you today!

 

[ebia]

It is interesting that this theory was never brought forward until the 18th century (the rise of German liberal higher criticism). Supposedly, Isaiah only wrote the first 39 chapters. It is of interest that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself attributed both debated parts of the book of Isaiah to the prophet himself (compare Isaiah 29:13 with Mark 7:6-7; Isaiah 42:1-4 with Matthew 12:17; Isaiah 53:4 is also accredited to Isaiah in Matthew 8:16-17).

This approach is tied very closely to Friedrich Shleiermacher, the father of modern liberal theology. His philosophical system held that doctrine can be reshaped and reformed as society changes. In a society that had begun to embrace Darwinism and The Enlightenment, little room was left for miracle. Much modern theology comes from this school (e.g. Gerhard von Rad) and seeks to reinterpret not only Isaiah, but Genesis and other books as well. The common thread is the removal of the supernatural from the Bible. Considering its secular roots, this is not surprising. This movement had its ultimate expression, perhaps, in the Jesus Seminar- which completely reinterpreted the Person of Christ, stripped Him of His miracles, and removed much of the content of the Gospels.

Fallacy of guilt by association

 

[Santiago1975]

Ebia,

I'm curious how you believe the deutero-Isaiah theory arose? In my studies on higher criticism I've never come across your position before. Just a couple other questions to help me understand your position. Do you believe the book of Daniel was written by Daniel or someone else later in Judah's history? How about Genesis? Do you feel the J, E, and P text approach to Genesis is correct?

 

[ebia]

Ebia,

I'm curious how you believe the deutero-Isaiah theory arose?

I'm more interested in the theory itself than its history.

In my studies on higher criticism I've never come across your position before.

Maybe that's the problem with studying criticism as opposed to applying ideas to the text.

Just a couple other questions to help me understand your position. Do you believe the book of Daniel was written by Daniel or someone else later in Judah's history?

Why would someone in Daniel's time need that text? It makes a lot more sense as a text to a 2nd century audience than to a 6th century one.

How about Genesis? Do you feel the J, E, and P text approach to Genesis is correct?

In all its gory detail, it goes beyond what we can know for certain. That Genesis is redacted from a number of source texts is clear. Trying to put together exactly how, when and where creates as many questions as it answers and relies too much uncertain conjectures.

 

[Santiago1975]

Thanks, I now feel I understand where you are coming from- there really isn't a third position after all.

 

[ebia]

Thanks, I now feel I understand where you are coming from- there really isn't a third position after all.

A third conclusion? Possibly not. The issue is the fallacy of saying "those that conclude that only do so because they reject the possibility of genuinely predictive prophesy", or (as you put it) "removal of the supernatural".