Always interesting with these "the Bible is always right" approaches, because the author really disregards what has been the common opinion among critical scholars that Isaiah 24-27 -- "the little apocalypse" -- Is probably one of the latest texts in the Old Testament, perhaps not older than Daniel, i.e. from the 2nd century B.C.E.
The article simply does not make sense because it shows very little regard for critical biblical scholarship. That the archaeological argument is tenuous to say it least is another matter.
Always interesting with these "the Bible is always right" approaches, because the author really disregards what has been the common opinion among critical scholars that Isaiah 24-27 -- "the little apocalypse" -- Is probably one of the latest texts in the Old Testament, perhaps not older than Daniel, i.e. from the 2nd century B.C.E.
The article simply does not make sense because it shows very little regard for critical biblical scholarship. That the archaeological argument is tenuous to say it least is another matter.