If, as Dr. Bo Lim said, Isaiah is inspired by God, then why not take God at his word when he says the book is "the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz, which HE saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem". Taking the view of multiple authors is inconsistent. You can not say that Isaiah is without error and say that it has multiple authors because (as he says @4:05) all 66 chapters are attributed to Isaiah. So, either Isaiah was lying, or it is actually all written by Isaiah. The view of multiple authorship undermines the belief that the bible is God's inspired words. Nonetheless, I appreciate Dr. Bo Lim's clear presentation and his honesty in presenting opposing arguments @4:05.
I am not sure if you are examining the word "wrote" carefully. Isaiah was a prophet and he had disciples just like John Calvin, Martin Luther, and even Thomas Aquinas. While Martin Luther wrote some, Melanchthon was the one who actually organized and wrote much of what Luther taught, but we attribute this to Luther. These disciples of great teachers act as secretaries and scribes to them as well. Isaiah will speak prophetically (sermons) to both Israel and Judah, and his disciples wrote and organized them. During Isaiah's ministry that lasted 60 years, you think that he wrote just his 66 chapters? The word "wrote" is not just about physical writing by a specific person, but ultimate authorship and teachings as well. The New Testament is written by Apostles, but they are teachings of Jesus Christ. They were inspired by the Holy Spirt who is also referred to as the "Spirit of Christ". We can safely say that God wrote the bible and this is not a lie, but higher understanding of the ultimate authorship of the bible.
@@thomasc9036in John 12:38 - 40, John clearly attributes the actual words of the text to Isaiah (legó = said, logos = the word), not just the teaching. If you compare this to, for instance, the Book of Revelation where John gives the revelation OF Jesus Christ (which is to say the prophecy came from Jesus not John), you'll see that the word (logos) is not attributed to John, who is the writer, but to Jesus Christ, who is the deliverer of the message, which could support the theory that it was *just* the teaching of Isaiah... HOWEVER, if Isaiah says that the word of the Lord comes THROUGH Isaiah (which it *does*! In Isaiah 1:1!), then by using the scripture to interpret itself, we must conclude that the prophecy came *through* Isaiah and not through an anonymous writer. If another writer was delivering a message *from* Isaiah, then it would be stated at some point (as John himself states in Revelation chapter 1 that he, John, is the writer of the prophecy which came *from* Jesus!). If parts of Isaiah were simply "prophecies of Isaiah that were written down by others" then that's what the text would say. But that's not what it says! It clearly says at the beginning of the book "that Isaiah saw" (compare to Revelation, "that John saw"). Unless the Bible is inconsistent (we know it isn't), it must be that "Isaiah saw" is equivalent to "John saw"! Would you assert that John didn't write Revelation? Of course not! So, by what authority are you asserting that Isaiah didn't write Isaiah? Obviously not by the authority of the Bible! But what authority is higher than the Bible? NONE! Presuming or asserting another Isaiah is *literally* adding to the text, which we're EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from doing!!! If John wrote Revelation (we know he did) and the Bible is true (it is), then Isaiah wrote Isaiah. We don't have the authority to add to the text! God bless you!
Exactly! Compare to Revelation 1:1-3 ("John saw" "given through John"). If Isaiah was "the prophecy of Isaiah through another writer", then it would say so (just like in Revelation it says the revelation *from* Christ given to John, who testifies what HE saw!)
You cannot appreciate just how entertaining it is to hear uninspired, latter-day dilettantes explain the ancient texts in such a cursory way. Short on facts and long on opinion is the way to go, I feel. 🤣
The Bible explicitly says in John 12:38 - 40 that the same Isaiah wrote the beginning and ending chapters. If the Bible is wrong about the author, what authority does it have to claim to be accurate?
The Catholic view is that the Bible is free from doctrinal and moral error but not errors as to scientific or historical time line matters, and the Bible is not inerrant on inconsequential details.
If you don’t believe the inspired word of God says what it means and means what it says, you have bigger problems than who wrote Isaiah, but like i said before read John 12 it tells you who wrote the whole of isaiah, it shreds this ridiculous duetro Isaiah nonsense, God anticipated all these heresies
Thank you Dr. Lim for such an easy-to-understand lesson on Isaiah. I’m reading Isaiah right now and was struggling with the exact timeline issues you so succinctly yet thoroughly covered. And I do fall into the group of people you mentioned who believe that all scripture is inspired by God, but men had and have input also. I appreciate your help in my own personal bible study - again, thank you.
If, as Dr. Bo Lim said, Isaiah is inspired by God, then why not take God at his word when he says the book is "the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz, which HE saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem". Taking the view of multiple authors is inconsistent. You can not say that Isaiah is without error and say that it has multiple authors because (as he says @4:05) all 66 chapters are attributed to Isaiah.
So, either Isaiah was lying, or it is actually all written by Isaiah.
The view of multiple authorship undermines the belief that the bible is God's inspired words.
Nonetheless, I appreciate Dr. Bo Lim's clear presentation and his honesty in presenting opposing arguments @4:05.
I am not sure if you are examining the word "wrote" carefully. Isaiah was a prophet and he had disciples just like John Calvin, Martin Luther, and even Thomas Aquinas. While Martin Luther wrote some, Melanchthon was the one who actually organized and wrote much of what Luther taught, but we attribute this to Luther. These disciples of great teachers act as secretaries and scribes to them as well. Isaiah will speak prophetically (sermons) to both Israel and Judah, and his disciples wrote and organized them.
During Isaiah's ministry that lasted 60 years, you think that he wrote just his 66 chapters? The word "wrote" is not just about physical writing by a specific person, but ultimate authorship and teachings as well. The New Testament is written by Apostles, but they are teachings of Jesus Christ. They were inspired by the Holy Spirt who is also referred to as the "Spirit of Christ". We can safely say that God wrote the bible and this is not a lie, but higher understanding of the ultimate authorship of the bible.
@@thomasc9036in John 12:38 - 40, John clearly attributes the actual words of the text to Isaiah (legó = said, logos = the word), not just the teaching. If you compare this to, for instance, the Book of Revelation where John gives the revelation OF Jesus Christ (which is to say the prophecy came from Jesus not John), you'll see that the word (logos) is not attributed to John, who is the writer, but to Jesus Christ, who is the deliverer of the message, which could support the theory that it was *just* the teaching of Isaiah... HOWEVER, if Isaiah says that the word of the Lord comes THROUGH Isaiah (which it *does*! In Isaiah 1:1!), then by using the scripture to interpret itself, we must conclude that the prophecy came *through* Isaiah and not through an anonymous writer. If another writer was delivering a message *from* Isaiah, then it would be stated at some point (as John himself states in Revelation chapter 1 that he, John, is the writer of the prophecy which came *from* Jesus!). If parts of Isaiah were simply "prophecies of Isaiah that were written down by others" then that's what the text would say. But that's not what it says! It clearly says at the beginning of the book "that Isaiah saw" (compare to Revelation, "that John saw"). Unless the Bible is inconsistent (we know it isn't), it must be that "Isaiah saw" is equivalent to "John saw"! Would you assert that John didn't write Revelation? Of course not! So, by what authority are you asserting that Isaiah didn't write Isaiah? Obviously not by the authority of the Bible! But what authority is higher than the Bible? NONE!
Presuming or asserting another Isaiah is *literally* adding to the text, which we're EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from doing!!! If John wrote Revelation (we know he did) and the Bible is true (it is), then Isaiah wrote Isaiah.
We don't have the authority to add to the text! God bless you!
Exactly!
Compare to Revelation 1:1-3 ("John saw" "given through John"). If Isaiah was "the prophecy of Isaiah through another writer", then it would say so (just like in Revelation it says the revelation *from* Christ given to John, who testifies what HE saw!)
John 12- Isaiah had 1 author. How could you not bring that up?
Maybe he's just never read it before
I've listened to several podcasts, read several articles, and watched multiple videos in this subject. This was the best. Thank you!
Why is this one the best in your opinion?
I thought it was charitable to the different angles. The others were less open minded. But, also, I watched this 2 years ago.
Ezekiel chapter 38 speaks of the future in the present tense. Does that mean Ezekiel 38 was written by a different ezekiel?
theres 1 Isaiah, John 12:39
Isaiah also prophesy the end of the world too. Not the return from exile only.
You cannot appreciate just how entertaining it is to hear uninspired, latter-day dilettantes explain the ancient texts in such a cursory way.
Short on facts and long on opinion is the way to go, I feel. 🤣
Modern church: "it says whatever you want it to say!" 🤣
The Bible explicitly says in John 12:38 - 40 that the same Isaiah wrote the beginning and ending chapters. If the Bible is wrong about the author, what authority does it have to claim to be accurate?
The Catholic view is that the Bible is free from doctrinal and moral error but not errors as to scientific or historical time line matters, and the Bible is not inerrant on inconsequential details.
How do you determine what is an inconsequential detail? By your own judgment?
If you don’t believe the inspired word of God says what it means and means what it says, you have bigger problems than who wrote Isaiah, but like i said before read John 12 it tells you who wrote the whole of isaiah, it shreds this ridiculous duetro Isaiah nonsense, God anticipated all these heresies
Thank you Dr. Lim for such an easy-to-understand lesson on Isaiah. I’m reading Isaiah right now and was struggling with the exact timeline issues you so succinctly yet thoroughly covered. And I do fall into the group of people you mentioned who believe that all scripture is inspired by God, but men had and have input also. I appreciate your help in my own personal bible study - again, thank you.
So why do you study the Bible if it isn't accurate?
Excellent.