On 7/13/2012 4:06 PM, RogerN wrote:
"anorton" wrote in message
m...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
snip
But for you "critical thinkers": How is it that "critical thinkers"
think they know more about something that happened in history than the
first hand eye witnesses that were there? You claim the stories handed
down through the ages are wrong, how did those stories get believed by
the people of the day? In the future you will be right, many things that
are taught today in the liberal education system will be known to be
wrong, if fact people are already writing about the lies:

snip

RogerN



So, assuming you are correct in your summary, does pushing back the date
of authorship completely disprove the theory that the book was written by
several people at different times? Or is more likely that the original
estimate of when various sections were written was incorrect?

The problem is that if Isaiah wasn't written at different times, it would
mean the liberals are likely wrong about some of their other beliefs.
Basically the liberal way is "truth be damned" and rearrange the truth to
fit their world view. Something that doesn't fit in their beliefs simply
can't be true, so they make up all and any kind of idea to make what was
written fit their beliefs. Since parts of Isaiah so accurately foretold
events that happened later, the liberals decided those prophecies in Isaiah
must have been written after it happened, in other words they fabricated
lies that fit their unbelief. But then book of Isaiah was found that dated
before the time that the prophecies were fulfilled, so the liberals had to
fabricate new lies, no problem for them.

I am not a biblical scholar and I do not ever intend to be one. But I just
googled this issue and it seems many (if not most) biblical scholars
believe it was written by many people at different times. They must have
their reasons. A critical thinker who was interested in the subject would
evaluate those reasons trying to see if they are valid or flawed, and
whether they are stronger or weaker than the evidence pointing in the
opposite direction. Your diatribe against those scholars makes me think
that is not the approach you took. I suspect you instead latch onto one
shred of evidence that points to what you want to believe. One of your
lines above is very telling. You say, "How is it that "critical thinkers"
think they know more about something that happened in history than the
first hand eye witnesses that were there?" That argument assumes the
conclusion as its premise. Hopefully, that is the kind of fallacy they
would teach you to watch for in a class on logic or critical thinking.

So why do they believe it was written at different times?

It could have been written by Jack after climbing his magic bean stalk, but
why believe that about it?

So there are religious writings (the original book of Isaiah) protected by
religious people, why or how would someone get new writings to be included
and why would they even want to? To me it doesn't matter if it was written
by Kermit the frog, what matters is what is written and when it was written.
Liberals try to confuse by making unfounded claims, only foundation for
their claims is their unbelief.

Here's another example with American History. (thanks to Gunner)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

After Gunner posted this, the liberals on the group attacked David Barton,
etc. Not a one of them could refute that the Bible was printed by U.S.
Congress in 1782 for use in our schools. Not one of them could deny the
paintings on the wall that contradict their beliefs. Not one of them could
deny that Thomas Jefferson (the one who wrote "separation of church and
state") went to church for 8 years in the US Capitol building. They could
only make unfounded accusations and attacks on the messenger. Don't like
the true message, attack the messenger, that's what they did. I'm a logic
programmer and know bad logic when I see it, liberalism is very bad logic.

The funny thing is that you can't recognize bad logic when it comes from
a conservative source. I know logic when I see it and conservatives are
not logical, ever. How come you only see people on one political side as
illogical? Could it be because you are so biased yourself? Actually, we
know you are totally biased against all liberal ideas so we know how
biased you are.

By the way, that's why you can't see anything wrong with the logic of
conservatives. Or from religion. For someone as religious as you to
think they are logical is laughable. You aren't logical. You have a
technical job that has the word logic in it but logical you aren't.
You're a programmer. You believe in religion not because of the logic of
proof, facts, and evidence. You believe in religion because you have
chosen to. Logic has nothing to do with it. You want to believe.

Hawke