I absolutely love watching this man's videos. I'm taking up the challenge and trying to prove some of the things wrong. I'm finding that Dr. Missler is very truthful in what he says. I anticipate more videos to cross-reference and see what else I might be able to learn, or prove wrong (when/if that happens).
gracelandtm do you believe in the Trinity? There is three in one. Why is God so single minded that he can’t write/inspire one book with different styles???? We should not try to put God in a box. Any technology advancement is given by God. In fact all wisdom comes from Him so leaning on your own understanding is a problem as the proverb says.
Hypothetically, if there were 3 authors, it becomes way more "magical" as there are equidistant letter sequence codes and macro codes that span the entire book. So how did the 3rd author make his codes present in the first two authors' sections? Did he alter the first two sections? If so, then there's only one author (the 3rd writer!).
Why should we believe the guy who wrote the book of revelation and walked with Jesus when we have computers. Alas, it is utterly incomprehensible and an absolute fallacy of the mind to even embark on a conjecture that would allow the slightest possibility of an author to take hold of his instrument and utilize varying degrees of craftsmanship within his penmanship. Dudes, thats, like, totally not possible man!!! I need like my ipod to tell me how to think and stuff, bra...because i cant get this stuff dude. Because there is like no way in hell man that a dude could write two different ways man
Ask the smartest computer on the planet the following question: "if it takes 3 hours to dry 4 towels in the sun, then how long does it take 8 towels to dry in the sun?". You'll quickly learn that computers aren't as smart as you thought.
Never mind the fact it can be proven simply by common sense. Proto-Isaiah's prophecies are extremely vague and mystical. Then when he gets into specifics he fails miserably (Isaiah 19 for example. He gives a 7-8th Century BC time frame and nothing he said came to pass). He won't even name the Pharaoh of Isaiah 19. But now all of a sudden in Deutero-Isaiah he knows all about King Cyrus. Funny enough, he (2 Isaiah) even gets the details about King Cyrus wrong despite living in his era.
And I know why people want to believe Isaiah wrote the same thing. But do you really think Isaiah, son of Amoz, who couldn't name the Pharaoh of Isaiah 19 (Despite giving a very clear time frame) could have had the power to see King Cyrus? And write his name exactly without the typical prophetical vagueness? It just seems to me there were two authors, and we have too much evidence to say otherwise. Both internal & external evidence.
This is interesting. I’m taking an Old Testament class right now and we learned about deutero Isaiah and even maybe third Isaiah. I like Chuck Missler, but maybe he is missing the point. There is a potential problem where if he is saying this and he is not right he sets up a tension which says that to even look at whether there are two Isaiahs means that folks who think there are two are saying the Bible is inerrant. When there is no reason that should be the case. There are other reasons to think about this. It is important to simply think about how it is different. What is the reason for that? Was one a prophetic text written for a certain audience that was added later. Was it one big book written before the exile? It can be composite and by the same sources. The point is that we think about canonicity and how even if redaction happened that doesn’t mean that was not guided by the Holy Spirit I will look into Missler’s claims and I will bring this video to my professor. I was a little scared by this video until i read the comments. I’d like so read specific sources here too.
The issue that you're talking about is called hermeneutics. Chuck told you to do your own homework and don't take his word for it, by the way. But, to cut to the chase, if the Bible is wrong about the authorship of a book in the Bible, then it can be wrong about salvation, the Messiah, and everything else that is the foundation of your faith. And you're free to go that way, but don't claim that you're living by faith anymore if you aren't! However, if you *do* have faith in the Bible, you'll be willing to test that faith by considering other views, which if done earnestly will lead you back to the authenticity of the Bible! No one said don't look into it, in fact the opposite!!! You might think the authorship of a book is "inconsequential", but then where do you draw the line? Is Jesus' words inconsequential? Are the promises of God inconsequential? The teachings on sin? Your eternal security? The Mosaic covenant? And if you're going to draw the line, by what authority? Your own *best judgment*? Is that how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted? (Of course not! No scripture is subject to private interpretation!). If "through John" and "John saw" in Revelation means "through John" and "John saw", then "through Isaiah" and "Isaiah saw" means "through Isaiah" and "Isaiah saw" in Isaiah! Otherwise, you're forced to use your own judgment to decide when what means what, and that's NOT how it works (even ask your professor! Remind him of 2 Peter 1:20). And again, NO ONE is telling you *not* to check this stuff out for yourself!!! The opposite!!!!
If you'd really like to get into it deep with your professor, read and then show him the first few verses of Revelation chapter 1. The basic idea of the deutero Isaiah theory is that the prophecy itself comes from Isaiah but the writers were other anonymous people. But when we compare that to revelation, in which that is the case in the sense that John is the writer and the prophecy comes from Jesus christ, we see that the scripture clearly says that the Revelation is of and from Jesus Christ but was seen by John and came through John. If Isaiah were the prophecy from Isaiah that came through another writer, then it would say that, as in Revelation. If John saw and through John means that it came through John and John himself saw the things and wrote them, then Isaiah saying that Isaiah saw and the prophecy comes through Isaiah means that Isaiah saw it and he's the one that wrote it! It's really that simple, I would suggest. In fact, if you press this, you might find out that your professor doesn't even believe in the accuracy of the bible... If that's the case, you should question whether or not you should be learning the Bible from him/her. Just my opinion, though! You should look into all this and come to your own conclusions. My faith is in the text over the teachings of others, and I've never been let down by this strategy . Best to you and Godspeed as you run the race for Him! God bless you
Wait, so proof of one Isaiah is from the book of John? First, John was not speaking from a scholarly perspective. He was in possession of the exact same book of Isaiah we have today. He wrote Hundreds of years after Isaiah was written and hundreds of years after it would have been combined into one book. Second, you cannot use the bible to prove the bible, that is not how evidence works.
But the use of words changing so dramatically is rather fishy, and the fact that computerized statistical-Linguistic test showed two authors pretty much confirms it to me. And how much evidence do you need? We have a 2nd Century Jew called Moses Ben Samuel that stated there were multiple authors. What reason would he have to say this?
To rely on only one first century person while there are hundreds who say otherwise is not much evidence. The only evidence I would accept is when scroll dated b.c. would be found containing only Proto- or Deutero- or Trito-Isaia. But since no such sroll was ever found there is no evidence. The Qumran Isaia has no paragraph after ch. 39 but after ch. 33 indicating a stylistic division not a different authorship.
There should have been hundreds of pieces of literature statistical tested and proven to have been written by one or more authors to make such tests reliable. Computer tests also show hidden codes but I guess you thinkk those were accidental. I can show you by such methods that Goethe coudn´t have written certain poems or letters because they are so different in style to other works, they must have been written by multiple authors. By the way the real author of Isa was the Holy Spirit!
The assumption that no single Author is able to use different styles on purpose is ridiculous. A Kings scribe probably knew how to use stylistic devices and Isaiah was most likely not written in a row but over decades --> developement of style is even more likely. And you simply can´t judge ancient Near Eastern literature by a 19./20. century western mindset. And yes their are some valid arguments for multiple authors but there is not a shred archaeological evidence!
Interestingly, the arguments for different writers really does come down to denying prophecy (even though deutero Isaiah proponents deny it). There are stylistic differences between Peter's language in the Gospels and the Epistles yet no one claims two Peter's! Pro deutero Isaiah proponents say the main crux of the argument is the setting context (different parts seem to speak in the present tense about different time periods); however, the prophecy of Ezekiel 38 is written in the present tense, yet no one claims that Ezekiel didn't write chapter 38!
5:00 What is Chuck's proof that only one author wrote Isiah? Well, an anonymous author, who calls him / herself "the Disciple whom Jesus Loved", said so. How do we know the Bible is perfect? Why you fool, the Bible itself tells you it is!
