Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Esquilax]

it's not circular reasoning it's how the Hebrew society worked, they will not listen to prophecy unless it came from a proven prophet, to state that some unnamed schmoe wrote Isaiah is just absurd, it would have never been accepted as scripture if that was the case.

First of all, I can't wait to see you write a paper on that argument and try getting it accepted by the relevant scholars. That should be a fun time.

Second, given that there are no prophets, it's evident that Hebrew society's credulity for this stuff, even if we were to take your argument seriously, is sufficiently low that slipping this stuff by would be relatively easy. But then, we're avoiding the obvious problem with your argument, namely that it relies on an assertion about hebrew society that you haven't bothered at all to justify.

I'm doing no such thing, FaF made a claim which for which I asked him to back up.

I don't think rejecting the positive claim that you made counts as a claim on its own.

[FatAndFaithless]

And I did. You're claiming that a book is written by someone "because it wouldn't have been accepted otherwise"? The fact that you consider that an argument of any substance at all is rather distressing.

What would you says to the huge number of Christian Bible scholars who say you're totally wrong?

No, what you posted was an opinion, you need to name a specific source so we can view its material, wiki is too vague.

So take a peek at the referenced articles at the bottom. The sources are there Huggy, I'm not going to do the investigation for you.

[Huggy Bear]

First of all, I can't wait to see you write a paper on that argument and try getting it accepted by the relevant scholars. That should be a fun time.

Second, given that there are no prophets, it's evident that Hebrew society's credulity for this stuff, even if we were to take your argument seriously, is sufficiently low that slipping this stuff by would be relatively easy. But then, we're avoiding the obvious problem with your argument, namely that it relies on an assertion about hebrew society that you haven't bothered at all to justify.

before Israel had a monarchy they were the only nation led by a religious figure...a Prophet.

I don't think rejecting the positive claim that you made counts as a claim on its own.

what positive claim am I making here exactly?

It always seems that as it relates to the Bible, the guy who's name is on a particular book, never actually wrote it. why is this? This is never said about Plato, or Herodotus... strange.

Because it's true.

---

No, what you posted was an opinion, you need to name a specific source so we can view its material, wiki is too vague.

So take a peek at the referenced articles at the bottom. The sources are there Huggy, I'm not going to do the investigation for you.

Yes you do, that's how a debate works.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yes you do, that's how a debate works.

Nope. I'm providing you with sources that support my claim, and you're simply refusing to look into them. That's not a debate, thats a tantrum.

[pocaracas]

before Israel had a monarchy they were the only nation led by a religious figure...a Prophet.

Err..... wrong...
Technically, the Egyptians seem to hold the "FIRST" status at the "nation led by a religious figure"... in this case, the pharaoh.
And, as far as I remember, pharaohs were still around in the times of the OT.

[Esquilax]

before Israel had a monarchy they were the only nation led by a religious figure...a Prophet.

You can't cover for one assertion with another assertion.

what positive claim am I making here exactly?

That Isaiah wrote Isaiah. Any other extremely relevant parts of the conversation you want to forget?

[Huggy Bear]

what positive claim am I making here exactly?

That Isaiah wrote Isaiah. Any other extremely relevant parts of the conversation you want to forget?

It always seems that as it relates to the Bible, the guy who's name is on a particular book, never actually wrote it. why is this? This is never said about Plato, or Herodotus... strange.

That's not a claim, it's an observation, there's a difference.

[FatAndFaithless]

That Isaiah wrote Isaiah. Any other extremely relevant parts of the conversation you want to forget?

That's not a claim, it's an observation, there's a difference.

Hah, no. You're making an assertion that something is true about the book of Isaiah, which needs to be justified. An observation might be "This book is called the book of Isaiah in the Bible".

[Huggy Bear]

That's not a claim, it's an observation, there's a difference.

Hah, no. You're making an assertion that something is true about the book of Isaiah, which needs to be justified. An observation might be "This book is called the book of Isaiah in the Bible".

Smh,

It always seems that as it relates to the Bible, the guy who's name is on a particular book, never actually wrote it. why is this? This is never said about Plato, or Herodotus... strange.

no, this is an observation, and apparently I need to explain.

i was observing that when it came to other works of antiquity, whether it be Plato, Herodotus or Homer, the author is never questioned, not so with the Bible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your observation would be incorrect. Much time has been spent mulling over what went into these antiquities. Whether the author was as claimed, or was an amalgam, the possibility of outright fraud or honest misattribution - or, indeed...whether the claimed authors even existed. Did you know that the Havamal was, supposedly, - penned by Odin himself (or so the narrative would have us believe...but you and I don't believe that, now do we.....)?