Skip to comments.Did Archaeologists Just Prove the Existence of Prophet Isaiah?
Posted on 02/22/2018 5:54:14 AM PST by C19fan
If you asked people whom their favorite biblical prophet is, theres a strong chance they would answer Isaiah. Sure, Moses gets all the accolades, received the tablets, and is the most important; but Isaiah is the prophetic book most quoted by authors of the New Testament. For Christians, Isaiah predicts the coming of the Messiah, the death of Jesus and the Virgin Birth. So, it is particularly auspicious that in a stunning article published today in Biblical Archaeology Review archaeologists announced that they have stumbled upon the first physical evidence for the existence of the prophet Isaiah.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
No serious scholar ever doubted the existence of Isaih.
For many unbelievers, it will just be another piece of evidence that they will fail to consider or flat out ignore. For other unbelievers, they will just want more.
John 12:37: But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him.
Very well said!
That being said, I have always had a great deal of interest in the secular, political history surrounding these and other biblical times. I have read the writings of many contemporaneous histories like Josephus, or Pliny.
It is very interesting to see a secular author try from time to time to explain the divine. It is also interesting when the atheists claim “no proof”, to be able to corroborate things from time to time with extra biblical discoveries. The dead sea scrolls and the archaeological proof of the Hittite people are two such accounts.
Was Isaiah the prophet referred to as Isaiah the prophet in Isaiah’s day?
I don’t think any real Christian doubted the existance of Isaiah. One thing the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed - that the prophecies of Isaiah regarding Christ were written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Nobody can credibly take the position they were just created after the fact to support the Gospels.
If an unbeliever is trying to deny Isaih existed, they are not likely basing their opinions on evidence and reason anyway. As father Abraham said to the rich man who wanted to warn his brothers at the end of the parable: If they will not believe the prophets, neither would they believe even if one returned from the dead.
Yes. If he had not been seen as a prophet they would not have bothered to preserve his words. It was a major expense to do so.
Oh I see the point o your question now. He was identified as the prophet Isaih in the book of Isaih. So again yes, in writing anyway he was being called a prophet.
Incidentally, I am pretty sure that Isaiah is *already* better-documented than any other personage of the 8th century BC., such as the Greek artist Bularchus and the 23rd Dynasty Egyptians, whose existence is never flat-out denied as some ignoramuses deny biblical-histoical figures.
It is interesting that you say that. When I was 14, I was thrown off my bike a second before I would have been run over by a car; I would have been severely injured or even killed. There was no obstacles and I was paying complete attention to where I was riding. At the time, I knew I was saved by something supernatural. As time past and I fell into a life of sin; never thanked God for the bike accident, I dismissed this as just lucky break.
I think unbelievers would never think twice about such an event; that is until they come to Christ. After one of the times when Jesus fed thousands, the Pharisees told Jesus that they would only believe in him if he performed a heavenly miracle; as if feeding 5,000 was not impressive enough.
Mark 8:12 He sighed deeply and said, Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.
They claim that since the latter part of that book spoke about things known to have happened after Isaiah's death, it must have been written by someone who lived during that time.
So, the seminaries are actually helping to perpetuate the idea that some of the book is not actually prophetic at all, but were more like a commentary of current evens from pseudo-Isaiah’s perspective.
Most seminaries teach of there being two people as authors of the book of Isaiah. The first one is actually Isaiah, and the second one is called pseudo-Isaiah
Most (liberal) seminaries teach of there being two people as authors ...
Indeed, he had a clay seal maker, the "Twitter Blue Check" of it's day.
(didnt read the whole thing, yeah, I know) Its just seemed out of place to find a seal from a letter with the inscription Isaiah the prophet and attribute the seal to Isaiah’s time unless he was commonly known as that at that time.
Its still very early, here in my head.
“So, the seminaries are actually helping to perpetuate the idea that some of the book is not actually prophetic at all”
In the Book of Isaiah it seems he was mostly referred to as “Isaiah the son of Amoz”. But he was referred as Isaiah the Prophet twice.
Chapter 37:2 And he sent Eliakim, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz.
Chapter 39:3 Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.