Deutro-Isaiah. Credible or Incredible...?

[_Drifting]

Frank, with the greatest of respect, what on earth are you talking about?

Here are some examples of what might happen.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130907.htm
http://www.brighthub.com/science/geneti ... 41675.aspx

Ten Top Australian Scientists Predict Major Medical Advances


ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2006) — Within a decade Australians will be able to find out how good their genes are at fighting disease, which environmental risks they are susceptible to and steps they should take to prevent the onset of ill-health. And by the turn of the century it will be commonplace to have a bad combination of genes repaired to avoid disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Also:

Health & Medicine
•Diseases and Conditions
•Chronic Illness
•Cancer
•Diabetes
•Breast Cancer
•Skin Cancer

Reference
•Blood sugar
•Embryonic stem cell
•List of medical topics
•Stem cell treatments


'Then, Now...Imagine', a new report compiled by Research Australia in consultation with 10 of the country's leading health and medical researchers including two Nobel Prize winners and four Australians of the Year, predicts individual gene profiling from blood samples will revolutionise healthcare within ten years.

What's your problem with this?

[_Franktalk]

What's your problem with this?

You have no vision. There are always unintended consequences from any major advance. Right now there is a tendency to get government involved in health care. The cost of care will be a driving issue even more than it is today. Can you not see that that DNA sorting and manipulation will be common place in the future? All in the name of health and cost. Eugenics in different clothing. Hitler will take a back seat to science in the attempt to FIX the human race. Science has provided ever better weapons for us to kill each other. We no longer kill face to face we sit at a computer and fly a remote drone that blows people to pieces. In time people will be designed for work or for killing. Have you seen the movie Gattaca?

It is predicted in the Bible that there will be something like a man but not a man in end times.

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

It is the "they" I worry about.

[_Morley]

What's your problem with this?

You have no vision. There are always unintended consequences from any major advance. Right now there is a tendency to get government involved in health care. The cost of care will be a driving issue even more than it is today. Can you not see that that DNA sorting and manipulation will be common place in the future? All in the name of health and cost. Eugenics in different clothing. Hitler will take a back seat to science in the attempt to FIX the human race. Science has provided ever better weapons for us to kill each other. We no longer kill face to face we sit at a computer and fly a remote drone that blows people to pieces. In time people will be designed for work or for killing. Have you seen the movie Gattaca?

It is predicted in the Bible that there will be something like a man but not a man in end times.

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

It is the "they" I worry about.

My goodness.

[_Runtu]

My goodness.

Maybe my bishop was right: it is not good to take Mormonism too seriously.

[_Themis]

No one here is saying that the Book of Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah is fictional. Quite the opposite--we know there were two authors because of the facts included in the book, which postdate one of its authors. Nor is anyone here saying that it is fraudulent. There are many ways for faithful Christians to acknowledge that the Book of Isaiah, including Deutero-Isaiah, was divinely inspired, and not fraudulent.

I may be wrong on this, but one of the reasons they think there are more then one author is due to specific information being listed that one would not have known about. This makes sense even from a religious POV since prophecy is always vague, and does not give this kind of information, but even more importantly, I believe they think the writing style suggests a different author. THis of cousre is not a pr4oblem for many Christians. I am not sure why some think Jesus would have known. The New Testament suggests he was learning things the same way we did, and that his knowledge would have been very limited on knowing everything(assuming he really is the SoG).

[_Tobin]

No one here is saying that the Book of Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah is fictional. Quite the opposite--we know there were two authors because of the facts included in the book, which postdate one of its authors. Nor is anyone here saying that it is fraudulent. There are many ways for faithful Christians to acknowledge that the Book of Isaiah, including Deutero-Isaiah, was divinely inspired, and not fraudulent.

I may be wrong on this, but one of the reasons they think there are more then one author is due to specific information being listed that one would not have known about. This makes sense even from a religious POV since prophecy is always vague, and does not give this kind of information, but even more importantly, I believe they think the writing style suggests a different author. THis of cousre is not a pr4oblem for many Christians. I am not sure why some think Jesus would have known. The New Testament suggests he was learning things the same way we did, and that his knowledge would have been very limited on knowing everything(assuming he really is the SoG).

This still doesn't address my real concerns with the theory:
1) Who says prophecy can not be specific? I don't understand why assuming prophecy must be non-specific or ambiguous to be prophecy is a correct assumption.
2) If there is a 2nd or 3rd author to Isaiah, why couldn't they have been honest and state who they were? Why feel the need to pretend to be another prophet entirely? If you are called of God to do such inspired work, wouldn't you come to expect a certain level of being forthright, courageous, and standing up for the truth? At the very least state who you are. I find the deceit of having to pretend to be someone else hardly inspired.
3) Jesus Christ = God, unless you claim God can be fooled by deceit. I also don't buy the Jesus had limited knowledge argument. Jesus was very intelligent (ie God) and very familiar with Isaiah. Certainly he should have been able to notice all the differences in Isaiah that modern Bible scholars (I assume they are still mortal men/and women) that postulate the Deutro-Isaiah theory do and declared it a hoax - or at least pointed out that Isaiah didn't write it and it was written by so-and-so.

[_Themis]

This still doesn't address my real concerns with the theory:
1) Who says prophecy can not be specific? I don't understand why assuming prophecy must be non-specific or ambiguous to be prophecy is a correct assumption.

No one says it can't be specific, but reality is that it is always vague and open to interpretation. I would love to see it be specific, but of course that might not be good in the fact that it would be easier to say one got it wrong.

2) If there is a 2nd or 3rd author to Isaiah, why couldn't they have been honest and state who they were? Why feel the need to pretend to be another prophet entirely? If you are called of God to do such inspired work, wouldn't you come to expect a certain level of being forthright, courageous, and standing up for the truth? At the very least state who you are. I find the deceit of having to pretend to be someone else hardly inspired.

You might not want to read the Bible, Book of Mormon, or church history then.

3) Jesus Christ = God, unless you claim God can be fooled by deceit. I also don't buy the Jesus had limited knowledge argument.

LDS belief is that he would not have been all knowing while he was living on the earth.

Jesus was very intelligent (ie God) and very familiar with Isaiah. Certainly he should have been able to notice all the differences in Isaiah that modern Bible scholars (I assume they are still mortal men/and women) that postulate the Deutro-Isaiah theory do and declared it a hoax - or at least pointed out that Isaiah didn't write it and it was written by so-and-so.

Assuming he is the SoG, I am not sure why we should assume everything you say above. You seem to view things very black and white.

[_Buffalo]

2) If there is a 2nd or 3rd author to Isaiah, why couldn't they have been honest and state who they were? Why feel the need to pretend to be another prophet entirely? If you are called of God to do such inspired work, wouldn't you come to expect a certain level of being forthright, courageous, and standing up for the truth? At the very least state who you are. I find the deceit of having to pretend to be someone else hardly inspired.

I hate to use the MAD get out of jail free card, but presentism. They wouldn't have considered it dishonest. It was a different culture. 21st century American values aren't bronze age Hebrew values.

[_Runtu]

I hate to use the MAD get out of jail free card, but presentism. They wouldn't have considered it dishonest. It was a different culture. 21st century American values aren't bronze age Hebrew values.

Wait, I thought it was only critics who were "black and white thinkers" and "rigid fundamentalists." I wonder what Wade Englund would have to say about Tobin.