a reply to: Murgatroid
Hi. The translation quoted is from the British Museum,
Translation by Irving Finkel,
Assistant Keeper, Department of the Middle East
Click the link yourself if you doubt the translation.
I reached my own conclusions reading the translation above from Mr. Finkle, in combination with my own knowledge of Isaiah 45 being used in
fundamentalist brainwashing as a 'proof' of YHWH's omnipotence.
Fundamentalist teachers claim that Cyrus was called by name in Isaiah "before" that event happened. A lie is perpetuated among said believers, in
which Isaiah 45 is then said to be proof of YHWH's omnipotence by having foreknowledge of future events, namely Cyrus, in
. The intent of said claim is clear in context of Isaiah 45-46. The writers intended to
use a real historical event surrounding Cyrus, as "proof" of YHWH's existence.
However, with a few Google searches, and a small dash of common sense, it is not very hard to see through the confidence trick. As such, we can easily
conclude what really happened surrounding the writing of the Book of Isaiah critical
Here is my thought process to the matter. The writer's of Isaiah, wrote Isaiah 45 after Cyrus had came and went. They used his name, and tried to
associate their fictional god using appeal to authority
by claiming Cyrus, a venerable
hero for freeing Israel from captivity, was appointed by YHWH as a Messiah.
This was not the first time such deceit was used either. It is my opinion, Moses himself was probably a fictional character, modeled after a
real one here.
But I digress.
Basically, the scribes and religious leadership's wrote another set of scrolls about their fictional god to impress and oppress the masses. This
time, YHWH not only takes credit for Cyrus' accent to power, and actions, but claims he is YHWH''s messiah, and prophesied him in advance to boot.
What the writers (wait, isn't that YHWH God?) didn't know, was that Cyrus attributed his greatness to Marduk, multiple times all throughout the
Cylinder. Historically, for bonus points, Enlil
is known to be another name for YHWH. Ie,
the same God mentioned in the negative in Cyrus' Cylinder. Even more, Cyrus quite clearly states in the same Cylinder, that he is governor of the
universe (Also a God), a claim modern churches today say only belongs to the
It is amusing that in that same book of Isaiah, YHWH claims multiple times he will not share his glory with
The storytellers arrogance of attempting to promote YHWH above the local Canaanite pantheon, will ultimately facilitate his own
downfall into the realm of fiction and mythology. This process will only speed up, as more and more history is uncovered about the area's early
religions and fabrications.
In conclusion. The Book of Isaiah is fiction. Both accounts cannot be true, as the accounts differ and actions/statements by both parties and are NOT
in harmony with each other. YHWH and Cyrus are polar opposites. One account, is written in stone, the other, parchment. What is easier to change
and modify? Thought so.
Furthermore, the ruse was probably easy to pull off. The common people probably didn't know what his cylinder said. It was lost in antiquity until
the about the 1850s. We can argue, they never saw it. Even if they did, they might not have been able to read it. Contemporary readers of Isaiah
wouldn't know any better either. They just knew Cyrus by name. A name passed down through oral tribal folklore, knowing only that he freed them from
the Babylonian captivity. The Sanhedrin of the time, should also not be discredited for propaganda and promotion of fear by rejection of said
stories. Religion is good for business, especially oppressive ones. A few generations later? Fiction became fact.
Until the Cylinder was re-discovered.
This is 2014. Just comparing that translation of the Cylinder, and Isaiah 45 in the old testament, is evidence that the religious text of Isaiah is
a complete fabrication, undeserving of any more attention, or belief. It is no different than Greek mythology. To apply it as truth, is fraud.
By the way, I've never read any of Sitchen's works. I came up with my post, and conclusion, on the fly, at an airport last night. As you can see,
I'm not referencing any of his books or ideas in my argument, at all. I'm sticking to Isaiah and the translation above. I figured it out myself
using my brain, former fundamentalist teaching, and direct sources to the whole matter.
I did like the arguement from fallacy
you erroneously presented by guesswork as to my
translation source and my own conclusion though. As if only Sitchen could come up with that conclusion. Anyone can come up with that conclusion
using what I've outlined above.
Also, please be aware, I do recognize red herrings
and will point them out. You tried to
release a few of them in your post. It seems the majority of your post attempts to link my ideas to Sitchen, in order to discredit them. Why?
Lets stick to the British Museum translation, and Isaiah 45. K? We don't need anything else. Basic
comparing and contrasting
is between the two is sufficient.
You may need one of these.
edit on 22-9-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)