DISPUTE AND CHANGE DATES TO DESTROY PROPHECY, DISPUTE THE AUTHOR TO DESTROY REVELATION. THUS THEY DESTROY THE BIBLE. BEWARE OF FALSE LATER DATES PRESCRIBED BY THE HIGHER CRITIC LIBERALS. The theories of authorship and dating are not as securely based as is often claimed. The assured results of criticism are not as sure and reliable as they are projected and publicized. Most of the higher critic theories of later dating rest on purely hypothetical assumptions and presuppositions and deductions from deductions, rather than facts. If you question some of the inbuilt assumptions of the higher criticism and the entire edifice of anti-Biblical ideology fall on the ground. But no scholar in the world can ever conclusively prove the dates of each and every book in the Bible from the study of their style. Nobody should think that only those who oppose the bible are scholars. Because of this trend many fools have started opposing the Bible in the hope of being recognized as a scholar. Not all scholarship is on the evil side.

LIBERALS MISREPRESENT THE TIME FACTOR AND FALSELY CONCLUDE EVERYTHING LATEST IS BEST, AND THE ANCIENT IS IRRELEVANT. They believe that since we live in a time different from that of the Biblical times, we need to live, think and act in accordance with the contemporary trends of the times, not in accordance with the antiquated Biblical norms. Those who are totally dependent on and controlled by the Biblical truth are considered as pre-modern and primitive. The liberals think that biblical principles have become irrelevant with the passage of time. They think that Gospel is inadequate to deal with the problems of the contemporary world. Hence they try to modernize the principles and the message of the Bible with the help of the science and various other methodologies, and end up with false conclusions. The act of denying the truth of the Bible, by arguing that they are relevant only to the first century believers, is nothing but STEALING THE MEANING OF THE WORD OF GOD.

DATING TRICK OF LIBERALS - GOOD JEWS AND CHRISTIANS WANT TO DATE THE BOOKS CLOSE TO THE EVENTS. BUT HIGHER CRITICS AND WANT TO DATE THEM AS FAR AWAY FROM THE EVENTS, TO DESTROY BIBLE. THE MOST SENSITIVE ASPECT OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM IS THE DATING OF THE BIBLICAL TEXTS AND THE ASSESSMENT OF THEIR HISTORICITY. THE DATING MAKES A CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THEM. So Christians to want to date the gospels as close as possible to the life of Christ, for then there is less chance of distortion and corruption creeping in. We can be more confident of the accuracy of the gospels if they were written around AD 50 than if they were written around AD 90. BECAUSE OF THIS REASON LIBERALS WILL TRY THEIR BEST TO CARRY THE DATE FORWARD BY A FEW CENTURIES, THEREBY EXPECTING THAT SOMEHOW THE CREDIBILITY OF THE BIBLE CAN BE DESTROYED IN THE MINDS OF THE READERS. For example, if the books of Daniel and Revelation are dated after AD 70 or so, then all the predictions in the books which have a bearing on the events up until that time, will be interpreted and understood as historical narrations, not as prophecies. And such is the case with many other books in the Bible. The whole project is to eliminate its prophetic element of the books of the Bible. Similarly the Synoptic Gospels are dated after the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, expecting that Jesus’ predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem can be made less significant. In general, the miraculous is explained away by attributing it to later sources or later editors.

The German skeptics, wanted to prove that Daniel was a forgery. Because, Daniel foretells events which have occurred in history. But the higher critics wanted to prove that the predictions must have been written after the events. Modern objections to the Book of Daniel were started by German scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural. If the words of Daniel had been written after the death of Jesus and the fall of Jerusalem, the name of Jesus must have been indicated. But if it was written in the exile, it is then supernatural prediction. But the supernatural is not impossible, nor is it improbable. The presence of the almighty and all-knowing God makes prediction quite possible. Moreover an event so marvelous like the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ should be predicted. Moreover correct predictions proved that the prophet was a true prophet. The German critics who were theological professors were not necessarily Christians. But many in the theological institutions have mistaken the German theories as proven facts, have spread an opinion that the Book of Daniel is not true.

AUTHORSHIP DISPUTE – THE ISAIAH CASE

For about twenty-five centuries no one dreamt of doubting that Isaiah the son of Amoz was the author of every part of the book that goes under his name. But about a century ago, a few German scholars arose, and questioned the unity of this book. To them, Isaiah was written by a number of authors, the first part chapters 1 to 40 by Isaiah and the second by a Deutero-Isaiah and other anonymous authors. ANTI-SUPERNATURAL AND ANTI-PROPHETICAL PREJUDICE AND PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE CRITICS COMPEL THEM TO DISPUTE THE AUTHORSHIP OF PROPHETICAL BOOKS LIKE ISAIAH, IN THE HOPE OF DESTROYING THE SUPERNATURAL AND PROPHETICAL ELEMENT IN THE BOOKS. The fundamental axiom of criticism is that a prophet always spoke out of a definite historical situation to the present needs of the people among whom he lived, and that a definite historical situation shall be pointed out for each prophecy. But it is impossible to trace each separate section of prophecy, independently of its context, to a definite historical situation. Moreover it is not necessarily the greatest event in a nation’s history or the event about which, we know the most, that may have sparked a particular prophecy. The prophets often spoke directly to the needs of their own generation. They also spoke to the generations yet to come. BUT THIS PREDICTIVE SIDE OF PROPHECY IS CLEARLY SUPERNATURAL, AND ANTI-SUPERNATURAL CRITICS WILL TRY ALL GYMNASTICS TO GET AWAY WITH IT.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE BOOK OF ISAIAH IS ONE BOOK WRITTEN BY ONE AUTHOR ISAIAH. THE CIRCLE OF IDEAS AND LITERARY STYLE ARE STRIKINGLY THE SAME THROUGHOUT THE BOOK. Expressions such as the Holy One of Israel, highway, remnant, Zion pangs of a woman in travail etc, stamp the book with an individuality which cannot be accounted for, if it is broken up into various sections and distributed over many centuries. The clause, “for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it”, is found three times in the Book of Isaiah, spread throughout the book, 1:20; 40:5; 58:14, and nowhere else in the Old Testament. So is the use of the Divine title, “the Mighty One of Israel,” should occur three times in Isaiah and nowhere else in the Old Testament. 1:24; 49:26; 60:16. Also the phrase, “streams of water,” should occur twice in Isaiah and nowhere else. Cf. 30:25; 44:4. And most peculiar tendency on the part of the author to emphatic reduplication is spread throughout the book. Cf. 2:7,8; 6:3; 8:9; 24:16,19; 40:1; 43:11,25; 48:15; 51:12; 57:19; 62:10.

PROPHET’S CONSTANT HISTORICAL REFERENCE TO JUDAH AND JERUSALEM THROUGHOUT THE BOOK, 1:7-9; 3:8; 5:13; 24:19; 25:2; 40:2,9; 62:4. Also, to the temple and its ritual of worship, and sacrifice. THE PREDICTIVE ELEMENT IS THE STRONGEST PROOF OF THE UNITY OF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. Prediction is the very essence of prophecy. Isaiah was pre-eminently a prophet of the future. Isaiah spoke to his own age, but he also addressed himself to the ages to come.

CRITICS DON’T WANT CYRUS TO BE PREDICTED BY ISAIAH – SO THEY TRY TO DESTROY ISAIAH

The one outstanding differentiating Characteristic of Israel’s religion is predictive prophecy. Only the Hebrews ever predicted the coming of the Messiah of the kingdom of God. Accordingly, to predict the coming of a Cyrus as the human agent of Israel’s salvation is but the reverse side of the same prophet’s picture of the Divine agent, the obedient, suffering Servant of Jehovah, who would redeem Israel from their sin. Deny to Isaiah the son of Amoz the predictions concerning Cyrus, and the prophecy is robbed of its essential character and unique perspective; emasculate these latter chapters of Isaiah of their predictive feature, and they are reduced to mere NARRATIONS AFTER THE EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED whereby their religious value is largely lost. In Isaiah 44:7,8,27,28: “Who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it? The things that are coming and that shall come to pass, let them (the idols) declare. Have not I declared unto thee of old and showed it? And ye are My witnesses. . . That saith of Cyrus, He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, she shall be built; and of the temple, thy foundation shall be laid.” In Isaiah 45:1-4,11,21: “It is I Jehovah, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. . . I have called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee though thou hast not known Me. . . Ask of Me the things that are to come. I have raised him (Cyrus) up in righteousness, and he shall build My city, and he shall let My exiles go free.” In Isaiah 46:10,11: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; calling a ravenous bird (Cyrus) from the east, the man of My counsel. . . Yea, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass.”

CRITICS ATTACK DEUTERONOMY TO CHANGE ITS DATE

We can find hundreds of academic books subtly discussing the criticism side key books such as Deuteronomy, its date, authorship, sources and so on. But we will find only very few books focusing on its Biblical theology. The chief concern of Deuteronomy, is 'Hear O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD, and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.' When the academic studies of the Scripture divert us from loving God with all our heart, soul and strength, it should be marked as a deviation. In 1Kings 22 we have the history of the finding of the book of the law in the temple, which was being repaired. Now the higher critics present this finding, not as the discovery of an ancient document, but as the finding of an entirely new document, which had been concealed in the temple in order that it might be found, so that it might be accepted as the production of Moses, and might produce an effect by its assumed authorship. According to the theory, this was an instance of pious fraud. And the fraud must have been prepared deliberately. And those who believed it also become victims of the fraud. The higher criticism runs counter here to the statement of the book itself that Moses was its author. It runs counter to the judgment of all the intelligent men of the time who learned of the discovery. They judged the book to have come down from the Mosaic age, and to be from the pen of Moses. We hear of no dissent whatever. BUT TO THE HIGHER CRITIC FRAUDS EVERYONE ELSE IS FRAUD.

BUT JESUS APPROVED AND QUOTED FROM DEUTERONOMY, DANIEL AND ISAIAH. Our Lord draws from the Book of Deuteronomy all the three texts with which He foils the tempter, Mathew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-14. A Christian cannot believe that Jesus was quoting from a fraudulent book. Jesus affirmed Isaiah’s authorship by quoting from both sections of the book. Jesus attributed the book to Isaiah. Jesus also quoted from the book of Daniel and attributed it to Daniel. The affirmation of Jesus is enough for true Christians to believe with confidence.