OLAADEGBU:

Why should I get angry since I have kissed the Son, have you?

I don't know whose son you're kissing but let me warn you that there is a global alert now on the issue of Paedophilia so I advise you to be very careful.

Sarassin:

I am happy to concede that I was wrong. Jesus did indeed attribute your highlighted quote directly to the Prophet Isaiah. The attribution is a standalone and not witnessed by either Mark or Luke, but no matter. Interestingly the quote Jesus attributes to Isaiah is taken from Isaiah Chapter 6, an early chapter in the first part of the trilogy that separates the actual writings of Isaiah from that of deutero-Isaiah. There is no doubting that Isaiah wrote the first part of the book, at least the first 36 chapters or so.

This is why you should grasp the true meaning of the inspiration of God (God breathed) of the Holy Scriptures.

Sarassin:

There are no other attributions by Jesus explicitly to Isaiah. Why? Clearly Jesus most have known a thing or two about the authorship of the book of Isaiah, in John 6:45 he is very careful to make the attribution to vague and unspecified “Prophets”. So availing myself of your curious logic, Jesus knowing full well that Isaiah did not write the errant (Isa 54:13) verse, as well as the others, declined to attribute the verses directly to Isaiah as author. Wouldn’t you agree?

You are wrong again. Let's see another "God breathed" reference in the gospel according to Dr. Luke:

"And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up: and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered to Him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And He closed the book, and He gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him. And He began to say to them. This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare Him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?" (Luke 4:16-22)

Our Lord Jesus was here identifying Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah's Messianic prophecy, quoting from Isaiah 61:1. And if you are an observant student of the Bible you will discover that our Lord Jesus stopped His quoting from Isaiah 61:2 just before "the day of vengeance of our God" knowing that that part would not be fulfilled until His 2nd Advent.

Sarassin:

This is a nonsense. The verses have nothing to do with the NT other than the fact that early NT biblical writers quoted from it falsely ascribing it to Jesus.

You are entitled to believe what you want.

Sarassin:

Yes, but you refuse to answer a very simple question. If the prophecy about Cyrus was revealed to Isaiah by God and came to fruition as you say 175 years later, how come Isaiah was around to give us witness accounts of events ?

You are begging the question here. The onus is on you to prove what you are assuming to be true.

Sarassin:

The bolded is a meaningless statement.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the "two Isaiahs" were written by different men.

Sarassin:

I have shown you that majority of the Jews and Christians probably knew no better. Jesus who clearly did, declined to name Isaiah as author beyond chapter 6. Your argument that the authorship of the Book of Isaiah is validated by Jesus and the Apostles because he/they quoted from both sections of the book is worth about a hill of beans at the moment.

The bolded in your quote is wrong again. Let me give you another quote beyond chapter 6 of Isaiah:

"You hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophecy of you, saying, This people draws near to me with their mouth, and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me" (Matthew 15:7-8.)

Study your Bible before you come out to the public forum to make spurious claims. The words of our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles may not be worth than a hill of beans to you but it means everything to ardent seekers of the truth.

From the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Inerrancy According To Christ

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).

Here is the commentary of the Lord Jesus on the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration. Not only were the words of the Bible divinely inspired, but even the very letters!

The “jot” was the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (jod, the tenth letter). The “tittle” was a small horn-like appendage which transformed one Hebrew letter into another. Thus, a stronger statement of absolute verbal inspiration than this could hardly be imagined.

Further, the phrase “in no wise” is actually a double negative in Greek. In New Testament Greek it was used for strong emphasis. According to none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, every word—even every letter—of the “law” must be fulfilled. This certainly includes the books of the Pentateuch—including even the often-maligned and distorted opening chapters of Genesis!

He applied the same principle to other parts of Scripture as well. “The Scripture cannot be broken,” He said (John 10:35) in the course of an exposition of Psalm 82:6, based on one single word used in the verse, supporting the vital doctrine of His own deity.

It is clear that Christ taught the doctrine of full, verbal, inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. It is sad and inexcusable that so many today, who call themselves Christians, repudiate this vital teaching of the Lord Jesus by rejecting, diluting, or “interpreting” the plain statements of the word of God. And, lest anyone equivocate by suggesting that, since the original writings have all been lost, we no longer can know what the divinely given words may have been, we should remember Christ’s promise: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). HMM

For more . . . .

OLAADEGBU:

This is why you should grasp the true meaning of the inspiration of God (God breathed) of the Holy Scriptures.



You are wrong again. Let's see another "God breathed" reference in the gospel according to Dr. Luke:

"And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up: and, and as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And He closed the book, and He gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him. And He began to say to them. This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bear Him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?" (Luke 4:16-22)

Our Lord Jesus was here identifying Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah's Messianic prophecy, quoting from Isaiah 61:1. And if you are an observant student of the Bible you will discover that our Lord Jesus stopped His quoting from Isaiah 61:2 just before the day of vengeance of our God" knowing that that part would not be fulfilled until His 2nd Advent.



You are entitled to believe what you want.



You are begging the question here. The onus is on you to prove what you are assuming to be true.



There is no evidence whatsoever that the two Isaiahs were written by different men.



The bolded in your quote is wrong again. Let me give you another quote beyond chapter 6 of Isaiah:

"You hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophecy of you, saying, This people draws near to me with their mouth, and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me" (Matthew 15:7-8.)

Study your Bible before you come out to the public to make spurious claims. The words of our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles may not be worth than a hill of beans to you but it means everything to true seekers of the truth.

Good response bro.

Bidam:

Good response bro.

Hi Bidam! How you dey?

OLAADEGBU:

Hi Bidam! How you dey?

I am good bro.You are a blessing.Keep up the good work.

Bidam:

I am good bro.You are a blessing.Keep up the good work.

May God richly bless you. Let's keep on fighting the good fight of faith, the devil knows that his time is short.

Bidam: I am good bro.You are a blessing.Keep up the good work.

Brother, let brotherly love continue na. You just abandon us with NL earthquake.

Image123:

Brother, let brotherly love continue na. You just abandon us with NL earthquake.

My fellow soldier in the Lord. You are welcome back to the battlefield.

PastorAIO:

I don't know whose son you're kissing but let me warn you that there is a global alert now on the issue of Paedophilia so I advise you to be very careful.

I am almost certain that you have not read that in your Bible before. You definitely need Blessed Instruction Bringing Life Eternal (BIBLE). This is where the phrase is taken from:

"Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him" (Psalm 2:12).

Let me give you a little life lesson on God's wrath. In 1969, 24 people decided to ignore warnings that Hurricane Camille was heading for Mississippi. They instead made up their minds that they were going to ride it out. Only one of them survived the hurricane.

The Cross of Christ is a warning of the fierce hurricane of God's wrath, which no one will "ride out" on Judgment Day. The only way to flee the coming wrath is to "kiss the Son". I hope that you can see that it has nothing to do with Paedophilia as you have wrongly assumed, but to yield to the Lordship of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Those who put their trust in Him are blessed with forgiveness and eternal life.

PastorAIO:

Your topic is the doctrine of infallibility of the bible. You have based your doctrine on a verse in the bible (a spurious move in itself) which however has no bearing on the matter of infallibility. I've tried to show you by analogy that saying something is profitable does not mean that it is infallible, but quite miraculously you have become too stoopid to grasp the point.

The topic is how the translation process impacted the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. Get your facts right. If you are looking for more verses I can oblige you one more.

PastorAIO:

The above does not automatically mean inerrancy.

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

What it means here is that just as the wind controls the sails of a boat, so also the breath of God controlled the writers of the Bible. The end result was inerrancy just as God intended it to be.

PastorAIO:

You haven't answered my question. What are the criteria for including or excluding books? For instance the Book of Enoch. Please why isn't it in your bible since it was quoted in Jude and in 2Peter? What is your opinion of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church? Is their bible also the inerrant word of God or is it only the KJV?

If you were an observant student you would have caught the hint I gave in my penultimate response to you.

PastorAIO:

Etymology is a study independent of born again status. I can see that you are confused enough to start challenging etymology in favour of your made up Acronyms.

That's why you are still confused. You think secular writers can answer all your objections. That is why you need to be illuminated with the Bible acronyms I'm dishing out at random.

Beneficial
Instrument
Building
Lasting
Edifice

(Acts 20:32; Proverbs 14:1; Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 3:10-17; Jude 1:20-21; 2 Peter 2:5-8; Colossians 1:2:6; Romans 8:37).

PastorAIO:

This is so flawed in so many ways.

If I say Vitamin C is profitable for a strong immune system and the warding off of colds ... does that mean that I said that it is impossible to have a strong immune system without chewing Vit C tablets. Or would you say I claimed that anyone that chews Vit C will never fall ill.


Saying that something is profitable for a cause simply means that it is helpful. It doesn't mean Inerrancy or any such spurious claim.

I read the bible and I can affirm that it is indeed profitable for all those things which the verse claims. That doesn't mean that the bible is hundred percent accurate. I also read How To Find Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie and I will admit that it is a profitable book for getting on well with society. But I would not advice anyone to believe everything in the book hook line and sinker.

The Science of Medicine is profitable for a healthy population. that doesn't mean that the science of Medicine is foolproof, or inerrant.



Then there is the other point about what is referred to as scriptures because at the time of that writing the bible didn't even exist. yeah certain parts of the bible existed. Furthermore there are other books that were considered scripture at the time that didn't make it into the bible.

This attempt to deify the bible is so wrong I cannot rail enough against it.

If you state that some parts of the bible are wrong, you are saying that God is an authur of falsehood to some extent, not so? or are you saying that God didnt guide the pening of everything written there?

The bible need not be deified. It isn't a talisman either. But the bible is infallible.

What we may view as error in the bible is not from its authur, Jehovah, but from we humans and other things I cant just itemize for now.

That the bible is infallible does not mean that other secular books are wrong in whatever they say, but none of them that contradicts God's word of truth is correct.

Sarassin:

There is nothing logical rational or reasonable about the article you have posted. It does not deal with the issues. The fact that Jesus quoted from a scripture written a minimum of 500 years before he lived does not validate its authorship. By the way, do you actually have opinions of your own or are you simply a fully paid up member of the well-funded Christian apologetic movement?

Nobody disputes that Isaiah gave prophecies, in verse, but you conveniently forget the book also contains prose. Interestingly after chapter 39, of the book, the name Isaiah never appears again. Of what use is the pseudo-numerology comparison between the book of Isaiah and the NT…also, Isaiah 53 is not the subject of this discussion….just a red herring !

Context is required, we know that Deutero-Isaiah wrote mainly to the Jews in exile, offering them comfort and the hope of a return (in prose) not prophecy, so the author is writing –after the fall—of Jerusalem from roughly 586BCE, the author extolls the virtues of Cyrus the Great and predicts the “imminent” fall of Babylon which Cyrus duly conquered in 539BCE, therefore that prophecy was dated no later than 539BCE.

We know also that by 510BCE Jerusalem had been liberated and a lot of the Jewish exiles had returned home and rebuilt the temple, however the exiles found themselves in disagreement with those who had remained behind and were now landlords, there were also issues with the types of Government to be formed, the later part of the book of Isaiah deals with these issues, therefore it is clear the author is writing post-exilic,(at this time) for instance Isaiah 61:4.

The point of the above is to illustrate to you that Isaiah ben Amoz, 8th century Prophet of Israel would have had to have lived a minimum of 250 years to complete the book. Now you tell me….

No, that was a prophesy sir.

Sarassin:

There are problems with this verse. As PastorAIO indicated, the scriptures Paul would have been familiar with in his lifetime would have comprised of the Pentateuch, the Deutero-Canonicals and the Prophetic writings, and as you have pointed out ceaselessly, even Jesus quoted the “scriptures”. Most importantly the scriptures were never in doubt. Why would Paul record such a verse?

Another possibility exists, the author did indeed have access to NT scriptures, at the very earliest, this would be the Muratorian canons, compiled in the late second century around 170CE ( we know this because the canons reference Pius I Bishop of Rome as being on chair). The Muratorian canon is the earliest known compilation of the NT.

Therefore if the author of that verse was indeed referring to “scriptures” comprising the NT canon and "his" work then the author could not have been Paul. This is one of the reasons why the Pastoral epistles are considered pseudonymous writings. The forger, probably an admirer of Paul inserted that verse to give his work added authenticity.

In the final analysis, in what manner does the verse allude to the infallibility or inerrancy of the bible?

It is very possible that Paul's words at 2Tim3:16 refers to the writings called the "NT".
Peter also identified Paul's writings as part of the scriptures. 2Pet. 3:16. There is no need to think that Paul wouldn't view all the writings of other disciples as not being scripture.

OLAADEGBU:

My fellow soldier in the Lord. You are welcome back to the battlefield.

Yes bro. Thanks.

JMAN05:

It is very possible that Paul's words at 2Tim3:16 refers to the writings called the "NT".
Peter also identified Paul's writings as part of the scriptures. 2Pet. 3:16. There is no need to think that Paul wouldn't view all the writings of other disciples as not being scripture.

True.

@ OLAADEGBU

For you, the main issue is one of predictive prophecy. For me, it is the integrity of the book. Your defence of the single authorship of Isaiah is rooted in the fear that to concede the book was multiply authored over a period of time would eliminate the perceived accurate predictive element of prophecy within the book.

According to you, since Isaiah wrote the entire book, it could only have been through God’s direct revelation to him, thereby providing proof of the supernatural origins of the book. Further you have expanded this to claim total inerrancy and historical infallibility of the biblical texts. Your primary agenda is to link predictive prophecy to your ill-conceived and erroneous notion that Isaiah’s predictions leads to Christ.

However, your arguments against a multiply-authored Isaiah and a time frame outside the life-span of Isaiah are not based on evidence from the book itself. Rather, you make assumptions about the nature of the scripture and prophecy co-opting theories of inspiration, and your beliefs about how God works in human history and then you conclude that this must be a single work by Isaiah, for instance,-- Jesus and the Apostles quoted Isaiah, therefore Isaiah must have been the author--- Your evidence is presented within your already decided conclusion based on considerations irrelevant to the text itself.

It amounts to an apologetic for predictive prophecy.

What we know about the historicity of the biblical texts points us all in the direction that Isaiah could not have written the entire book.

Instances;

Historically, the traditional title of a biblical book says nothing about authorship of the book. Just because the book carries the title "Isaiah" does not imply anything one way or the other about who wrote the entire book. For example, the book of Jonah is not a book written by Jonah, but about him. Similarly, Job, Esther, Ruth, are likewise not titles of authorship but of content.

There are clear examples in scripture where book titles were applied to collections of material by various authors. For example, the book of Jeremiah contains narrative sections describing from a third person perspective actions that Jeremiah took (37-44). There are references within the book to Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, writing for Jeremiah 36:4-8.

Isaiah 36-39 is largely duplicated in 2 Kings 18:13-20:19. Also, Isaiah 2:2-4 is repeated in Micah 4:1-3. This suggests that the biblical text is not quite as exacting as you are trying to portray, and that biblical books can be composite from various time periods from various authors without specifically stating that they are so.

I would also point out that NT references to Isaiah refer to the book as part of the tradition of sacred writings by traditional titles and do not intend to present arguments about authorship.

Finally nowhere in Scripture is there any claim that Isaiah is the author of the entire book of Isaiah.

JMAN05:

It is very possible that Paul's words at 2Tim3:16 refers to the writings called the "NT".
Peter also identified Paul's writings as part of the scriptures. 2Pet. 3:16. There is no need to think that Paul wouldn't view all the writings of other disciples as not being scripture.

It is very possible that the author had access to the NT canons but it could not have been Paul.

Also it should be quite obvious that Simon "the Rock" Peter had no hand in writing 2 Peter 3;16. First he was barely literate
Second, Historically, Paul's writing started to be considered as "Scripture" only by second and third generation Christians, mid-second century. Clearly the author who wrote 2 Peter lived late enough that he recorded Paul's writings as "Scripture".

JMAN05:

No, that was a prophesy sir.

Really ?

Perhaps I should explain. Isaiah did give prophecy but the Book of Isaiah is not just filled with prophecy, it is also clear the book has contemporary accounts, i.e a living witness who wrote about events...for instance Isaiah writes in part about the restoration of Jerusalem and the return of the exiles....in a "past" tense.

It should be obvious to anyone who reads the book with an open mind that the author was contemporaneous.

Image123:

Brother, let brotherly love continue na. You just abandon us with NL earthquake.

No be so my brother, i was just bored with the same old argument of tithe...Hope you are good sir!

Sarassin:

Really ?

Perhaps I should explain. Isaiah did give prophecy but the Book of Isaiah is not just filled with prophecy, it is also clear the book has contemporary accounts, i.e a living witness who wrote about events...for instance Isaiah writes in part about the restoration of Jerusalem and the return of the exiles....in a "past" tense.

It should be obvious to anyone who reads the book with an open mind that the author was contemporaneous.

I do not think that the fact that it was written in the past shows that there may have been another Isaiah. God knowing the certainty of his words to his prophets say things as if they have already occurred. Read Isaiah 13:19, there Babylon is described as a prevailing world power, when it is not as of then. Will we now put the date of that portion of the scripture in the future?

Sarassin:

It is very possible that the author had access to the NT canons but it could not have been Paul.

How do you say it could not have been Paul, when he identified himself as such? 2Tim. 1:1.

Also it should be quite obvious that Simon "the Rock" Peter had no hand in writing 2 Peter 3;16. First he was barely literate
Second, Historically, Paul's writing started to be considered as "Scripture" only by second and third generation Christians, mid-second century. Clearly the author who wrote 2 Peter lived late enough that he recorded Paul's writings as "Scripture".

The writer identified himself (2Pet 1:1). He stated he had written an initial letter (2Pet 3:1).

If not Peter, who is it that witnessed Christ's magnificence? 2Pet. 1:16.

That an account was accepted latter as inspired didn't mean it became inspired that time. It only means the inspiration of it was noted later.

The book was not written when its inspiration became accepted by many.

@Sarassin, this is another article that punches holes into your misconstrued objections.

The Lord And King Cyrus

"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid" (Isaiah 44:28).

This is a remarkable prophecy, one of the main stumbling blocks of liberals who use it as an excuse for their completely wrong notion of a “second Isaiah.” Long before Jerusalem was invaded and its temple destroyed by the armies of Babylon, Isaiah was already prophesying its rebuilding!

Furthermore, the great Persian emperor, Cyrus (whose nation would eventually conquer Babylon), was here named by God about 150 years before he was born and 175 years before he would fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy by giving Ezra authority to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1,2).

Since liberal scholars do not want to believe in miracles and fulfilled prophecy, they have decided that this prophecy could not have been written by the original Isaiah, but by some later writer living after Cyrus. The truth is, however, that God controls the future and can reveal it if He chooses, using this very fact as proof that He will keep His other promises. “Thus saith the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, . . . I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou has not known me” (Isaiah 45:1,4).

God had also named King Josiah before he was born (1 Kings 13:2; 2 Kings 23:15,16), with the specific prophecy concerning him waiting to be fulfilled for over 300 years after it was first spoken.

It may take a long time, but God will surely do all He has said. “I am God, and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isaiah 46:9,10). HMM

For more . . . .

OLAADEGBU:

I am almost certain that you have not read that in your Bible before. You definitely need Blessed Instruction Bringing Life Eternal (BIBLE). This is where the phrase is taken from:

"Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him" (Psalm 2:12).

Let me give you a little life lesson on God's wrath.

Are we competing on who knows more bible verses than who? I think I totally misconstrued what this is all about.

Is your lesson of God's wrath based on your experience? When were you a victim of God's wrath, pray tell?

OLAADEGBU:
The topic is how the translation process impacted the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. Get your facts right. If you are looking for more verses I can oblige you one more.

and how does the verse you quoted relate to how translation impacts the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility? Are you saying that meaning cannot be lost in translation?

OLAADEGBU: If you are looking for more verses I can oblige you one more.
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).
What it means here is that just as the wind controls the sails of a boat, so also the breath of God controlled the writers of the Bible. The end result was inerrancy just as God intended it to be.

So the Prophecy is now another name for the Bible. Because when you read the bible you read nothing but prophecies. Are you sure that the verse is not referring to certain prophecies found within the scriptures.

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If you were an observant student you would have caught the hint I gave in my penultimate response to you.

By the grace of God I am not, and I will never be, your student. Tufiaaaa!!! the very thought is an abomination. Please don't hint be talking straight. If you have anything to say say it straight. If you don't have anything to say then shut up, but don't hide behind 'hints' or whatever.

PastorAIO:

Are we competing on who knows more bible verses than who? I think I totally misconstrued what this is all about.

You missed the point long ago. Remember that it was you who misconstrued the meaning of kissing the Son when you insinuated paedophilia.

PastorAIO:

Is your lesson of God's wrath based on your experience? When were you a victim of God's wrath, pray tell?

It was based on the experience of 23 obstinate folks who didn't live to learn from their own experiences. The wise however, will learn from it and avoid the wrath of God.

PastorAIO:

and how does the verse you quoted relate to how translation impacts the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility? Are you saying that meaning cannot be lost in translation?

Translations are not inspired the written Word of God is.

PastorAIO:

So the Prophecy is now another name for the Bible. Because when you read the bible you read nothing but prophecies. Are you sure that the verse is not referring to certain prophecies found within the scriptures.



20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Prophecies doesn't necessarily mean predictions of the future, it can also mean words inspired by the Holy Spirit. We have "the book of this prophecy", "the book of life" and "this book" all referring to the Holy Scriptures. They all mean books divinely written or divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit (Rev.22:19).

PastorAIO:

By the grace of God I am not, and I will never be, your student. Tufiaaaa!!! the very thought is an abomination. Please don't hint be talking straight. If you have anything to say say it straight. If you don't have anything to say then shut up, but don't hide behind 'hints' or whatever.

You missed the point again. You should rather endeavour to be a student of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. And what's wrong in giving hints or clues? Didn't our Lord Jesus Christ speak in parables? If I shut up the rocks will cry out.

Bible exposition on the second part of the book of Isaiah is enlightening and illuminating for true bible scholars.

For Our Transgressions

"But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5).

The 53rd chapter of Isaiah (actually the chapter should begin at Isaiah 52:13) contains the clearest and fullest exposition of the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for our sins to be found in all the Bible. Our text verse is the central verse of this chapter, which, in turn, is the central chapter of Isaiah’s second division, chapters 40–66.

Although the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible were not part of the original inspired text, it almost seems that some of them (notably here in Isaiah) were somehow providentially guided. Part I of Isaiah contains 39 chapters and part II, 27 chapters, just as the Old and New Testaments have 39 and 27 books, respectively. Likewise, the major themes of the two Testaments—law and judgment in the Old, grace and salvation in the New—respectively dominate the two divisions of Isaiah. Many other correlations can be discerned—for example, the second division begins with the prophecy of John the Baptist and ends with the prophecy of the new heavens and the new Earth, just as the New Testament does.

Be that as it may, this central verse of the central chapter of Isaiah’s salvation division surely displays the very heart of the gospel. Christ was “wounded” (literally “thrust through,” as with great spikes) and “bruised” (literally “crushed to death”) for our sins.

On the other hand, we receive “peace” with God because He was chastised (i.e., “disciplined”) in our place, and we are forever “healed” of our lethal sin-sickness because He received the “stripes” (i.e., great welts caused by severe blows) that should have been ours. What wondrous love is this! HMM

For more . . . .

Comfort ye (Isaiah 40:1-3)

The Overture:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSoyH9l5bas.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GApTA7Ex2Mo

A rendition of part 2 of the book of Isaiah as composed by Handel but modified and updated to the 21st century:

"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD's hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

-- Isaiah 40:1-5

OLAADEGBU: Comfort ye (Isaiah 40:1-3)

The Overture:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSoyH9l5bas.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GApTA7Ex2Mo

A rendition of part 2 of the book of Isaiah as composed by Handel but modified and updated to the 21st century:

"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD's hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

-- Isaiah 40:1-5

"Comfort Ye My People!" - Wayne Watson.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tDSuJOsGV8

"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: . . . . The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

-- Isaiah 40:1-3

"Every Valley."

Larnelle Harris, a soloist, renders this Modern Version of 'Every Valley' from Handel's Messiah.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k38KbHqiTdQ

-- Isaiah 40:4

" Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain." -- Isaiah 40:4

JMAN05:

I do not think that the fact that it was written in the past shows that there may have been another Isaiah. God knowing the certainty of his words to his prophets say things as if they have already occurred. Read Isaiah 13:19, there Babylon is described as a prevailing world power, when it is not as of then. Will we now put the date of that portion of the scripture in the future?

Yes, we see the use of that mechanism by the Prophet Isaiah, i.e referring to future events as past events, however, predictive text (that is what it is) is very clear and narrative text is also very clear and there is a huge difference. The authors of "Deutero" and possibly a "Trito" Isaiah must have been contemporary to what they wrote, the narratives and use of language which they tried very hard to place in the lifetime of Isaiah bears this out. Later priests following in the tradition of Isaiah simply copied his methods.

That's the problem. When people read the narrative text that is obviously referring to contemporary events and cannot accept that so they say it is a prophecy and try to back date it even though the narrator is speaking in the present tense. Once people allow themselves to to breach all rigour in their analysis like this then we can end up anywhere when we read the text. You can even say that since God is eternal and not confined to Time and he is the writer of the bible then it follows that the proper use of tenses will not concern him. He can talk of the future as if it is the present or the past and the past as if it were the future.

PastorAIO: That's the problem. When people read the narrative text that is obviously referring to contemporary events and cannot accept that so they say it is a prophecy and try to back date it even though the narrator is speaking in the present tense. Once people allow themselves to to breach all rigour in their analysis like this then we can end up anywhere when we read the text. You can even say that since God is eternal and not confined to Time and he is the writer of the bible then it follows that the proper use of tenses will not concern him. He can talk of the future as if it is the present or the past and the past as if it were the future.

Precisely.