I'm reading Matt Perman's book [What's Best Next](http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Best-Next-Gospel-Transforms-ebook/dp/B006FP4PVY/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1394128758&sr=1-1&keywords=perman+what%27s+best+next) and found this interesting: >5. Knowing how to get things done enables us to fulfill God’s call to make plans for the good of others. This is one of the most exciting reasons to me. The biblical call on our lives is not to do good randomly and haphazardly. Rather, God calls us to be proactive in doing good — even to the point of making plans for the good of others. For example, Isaiah 32: 8 says that “he who is noble plans noble things, and on noble things he stands.” We often think of doing good simply as something we are to do when it crosses our path. But Isaiah shows us that we are also to take initiative to conceive, plan, and then execute endeavors for the good of others and the world. (And this requires, of course, actually knowing how to plan and actually make our plans happen!) >Perman, Matthew Aaron (2014-03-04). What's Best Next: How the Gospel Transforms the Way You Get Things Done (p. 23). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. In reading through Isaiah 32, there seems to be a kingdom of righteousness being described that sounds really good - but then it is almost immediately followed by a warning of destruction. Not really knowing Isaiah as well as I should, I'm trying to understand the context from which Perman is making this leap. Is this inference from Perman (that we should be actively planning noble things) directly drawn from the prophetic nature of what Isaiah is preaching here, or is there an eisegesis that is required to make the point?

**1 Chronicles 25:1-5 makes a point of identifying Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun as prophets/seers.** This suggests that some of the psalms in Psalms are prophetic, anticipating future events. Several of these psalms are recognized as messianic, but largely because the NT treats them as such. But what about non-messianic psalms? **Has anyone developed a candidate list of (non-messianic) psalms which should be approached as prophetic, anticipating--at the time they were published--events which were yet future?** **Perhaps Psalm 137 is one of these?** It is commonly claimed that this psalm is exilic or even post-exilic, due to the initial reference to Babylon, remembrance of Zion, remembrance of the treatment of their captors, etc.1 Yet 137:5 is concerned that one might forget Jerusalem, which seems to exclude a post-exilic situation, unless the concern is that they might forget Jerusalem's former glory; but that goes beyond what is said. Further, 137:8 indicates that Babylon had not yet been destroyed. In some ways this psalm offers parallels to Isaiah 40-66 (esp. Isa 47) which, on the premise that there was a singular writer of Isaiah, prophetically speaks from a perspective of those already in exile. 1 Examples are Kidner and Belcher: "This psalm needs no title to announce that its provenance was the Babylonian exile." Derek Kidner, *Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary*, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 495. "Psalm 137 arises out of the experience of the community in exile in Babylon following the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 587 BC. Although the author may be looking back on that experience the memory is fresh and the historical situation is still unsettled." Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 76.

### Isaiah 7 Background Isaiah 7:14 is famously quoted by the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 1:23) as a prophecy about Jesus’s birth: > She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “**Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel**,” which means, “God is with us.” - Matthew 1:22-23 (NRSV) Many Christian apologists recognize that the events of Isaiah 7 and the prophecy of the birth of the child had an application in the time of Isaiah during the Syro-Ephraimite war , with the maturation of the child marking the victory of Judah over Syria: > Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. **For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted**. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” - Isaiah 7:14-17 (NRSV) Those who believe that there was an immediate context and fulfillment of this prophecy believe that it was later re-fulfilled in the birth of Jesus as a “dual-fulfillment ”, such as Dr. Michael Brown . ### Two Virgin Births? Do Christians who believe in a dual-fulfillment of Isaiah 7 believe that there were two virgin births? If so, do they believe that the first virgin born child was some kind of divine figure like Jesus? If there were not two virgin births, how was this prophecy fulfilled twice?

> "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." - Isaiah 43:10 (KJV) In King Follett Sermon, Joseph Smith teaches that members of the LDS church may too become gods one day: **Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ (King Follett Sermon)** > The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me. Moreover; we are aware that the Church of Latter Day Saints believes that the Godhead (Father Son & Holy Ghost) are three separate gods sharing the same will. > Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct > roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united > in bringing to pass Heavenly Father's divine plan of salvation. > > [Godhead (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)](https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead) Also; **Abraham 4** teaches creation was committed by multiple gods. > 1. And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. With this in mind; How does the Church of Latter Day Saints interpret Isaiah 43:10? Bonus points if the verse is kept in context.

In providing this answer with respect to recognizing the Trinity in the Old Testament, I noticed that Jesus is called the Father which could be confusing when trying to understand the Trinity. **In what sense is Jesus the Father but certainly not the Father?** >For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, **Everlasting Father**, Prince of Peace. (NIV Isaiah 9:6) **Please do not answer unless your answers uphold the doctrine of the Trinity**. I do not want the debate about the trinity to confuse the question. The answer must assume the Trinity is true, that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal yet different persons that share the same single divine nature and therefore are called the One and true God.

> In short, open theism posits that since God and humans are free, > God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. Whereas > several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the > future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a > plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming > settled as time moves forward. Thus, the future, as well as God's > knowledge of it, is open. Open Theism states that, while God knows everything that can be known, the future free-will choices made by individual persons do not fall in the knowable category. In Isaiah 46 we find the following: > Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; 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: (vs. 9-10) There are no explicit or implicit limitations on God's foreknowledge contained in this passage: He declares (and therefore must know in advance) the end from the beginning. Open Theism declares that human, free-will choices are unknowable in advance by God. However it appears that, since the inception of any future circumstance is laden with, and even produced by, a myriad of human choices, declaring from ancient times the things that are not yet done would necessitate intimate knowledge of future human choices. On what basis does Open Theism limit God's possible foreknowledge? Of interest is this peer-reviewed article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (entitled Foreknowledge and Free Will) arguing against the assumption that perfect foreknowledge eradicates free will.

Joshua 10:12–14 describes that >the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. Victor Warkulwiz, *Universe without Space and Time* , ch. 2 claims >Joshua’s long day was observed around the world, as indicated in the folklore of various nations. With Hezekiah’s sign (Isaiah 38:7–8 , 4 Kgs 20:8-11 , 2 Par 32:24 ), the sun momentarily went backwards. What non-biblical historical evidence is there of "Joshua's long day" and "Hezekiah's sign"?

I am currently in the process of understanding various religions and studying them.
While studying the Quran's English translation, I came across this footnote about this verse > 96:5 عَلَّمَ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ ٥ > > taught humanity what they knew not.[1]   — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The > Clear Quran > > [1]  Verses 1-5 are known to be the first ever revealed of the Quran. > The Prophet (ﷺ) was retreating at a cave in the outskirts of Mecca > when the angel Gabriel appeared to him, squeezing him tightly and > ordering him to read. Since the Prophet (ﷺ) was unlettered, he > responded, “I cannot read.” Ultimately, Gabriel taught him: “Read in > the Name of your Lord …” Some scholars believe that this encounter is > the fulfilment of Isaiah 29:12, which states, “Then the book will be > given to the one who is illiterate, saying, ‘Read this.’ And he will > say, ‘I cannot read.’” Here's the link to this footnote. I explored Isaiah 29:12 but couldn't understand it much because maybe I could not get the right/clear translation for this verse. Please help me understand Isaiah 29:12. Does it really mean that a holy book will be given by God to someone illiterate in the future? Sorry for any mistakes as this is my first question on this forum! Thanks in advance!

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's only direct creation, and that it was Jesus who created all other things: > Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) **Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself.** ([Who Is Jesus Christ? on wol.jw.org](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681)) We see this most clearly in the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of Colossians 1:15-16: > Colossians 1:15-16 (NWT) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. **All other things have been created through him and for him.** But Isaiah 44:24 says that it was Jehovah who created all things by himself: note the last line of Isaiah 44:24 which says that no one else was with Jehovah, probably speaking primarily about humans, but also angels and other spiritual beings, which would seem to preclude God co-creating with Jesus. > Isaiah 44:24 (NWT): This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, Who formed you since you were in the womb: “**I am Jehovah, who made everything.** I stretched out the heavens **by myself**, And I spread out the earth. **Who was with me?** How do the Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with their belief that Jesus is the only direct creation of God and it was Jesus who created all other things? Question based on various revisions of [this now deleted question by Mr. Bond](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/75286/6071) .

Cyrus the Great reigned about 550-530BC per Wikipedia. Isaiah died in the 7th century BC per the same source. Isaiah was used by God to state intent to give Cyrus a surname, which I assume would be "the Great". Did Isaiah predict Cyrus? >...Who says of Cyrus, "He is My shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, 'Let it be rebuilt.' And of the Temple, 'Let its foundation be laid.' "
This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus whose right hand I take hold to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor... (Isaiah 44:28-45:1) >In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25, seventy years exile), the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing... (Ezra 1:1)

> Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of host; **I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.**" But Jesus Christ makes the same claim in Revelation: > Revelation 1:8: I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. > Revelation 1:17-18: And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "**Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last.** I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death." >Revelation 21:5-6: And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold I am making all things new." And He said to me, "It is done I am the Alpha and Omega." The point or the scope of my question has to do with the "eternality" of Jesus Christ. And since He is eternal according to John 1:1-3 He is also the one who will make all things new. According to Jehovah's Witnesses, how and why does Jesus make these statements, when according to their teaching he is not one being with God the Father?

> 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. When is this verse supposed to be fulfilled? I would guess not today (or even tomorrow.) Furthermore, if in heaven, we are to be like angels, to neither marry nor be given in marriage, where are the children to come from?

Why does Revelation 21:1 talks about the new heavens and new earth after the millennial reign described in Revelation 20 while Isaiah 65 seems to indicate that the new heavens and earth come first before the millennial reign because there is still death on Earth (vs20) at that point? The end of Revelation indicates that death is gone seemingly after the millennial reign when the new heavens and earth are created. > Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. (Revelation 21:1 NKJV) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. “No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the Lord, And their offspring with them. “It shall come to pass That before they call, I will answer; And while they are still speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox, And dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” Says the Lord. (Isaiah 65:17‭, ‬20‭-‬25 NKJV)

I have never read in the bible whether eating of unclean meat as described in the Old Testament where it is allowed to eat "unclean meat" or unclean meat is now clean meat. Except for one vision from Peter where the vision orders him to "eat unclean meat" however, this is clearly not literal as the context is for Peter to preach unto the Gentiles: > Acts 10: > > (17) While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men > sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the > gate. (18) They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was > staying there. > > (22) The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is > a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish > people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that > he could hear what you have to say.” (23) Then Peter invited the men > into the house to be his guests. Other verses in the bible tells "all foods are clean" however we should take note that it says nothing about "all meats are clean", food is totally different word from meat. **Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?** **UPDATE:** And what could be it's relation to Isaiah 66:17 which states: > Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the > gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the > abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. (NKJV) Which by deduction *swine flesh* as described in this verse refers to unclean meat, and the verse says, those who eat these *Shall be consumed together* which by deduction again means, AFAIK, refers to the end of the world. So in other words, those who consume unclean meat shall perish together in the end of the world, which basically puts the interpretation of Acts 10:17-118, 22-23 in question: "It's okay to eat unclean meat as interpreted in the vision but doing so will cause you perish in the end" -- a questionable argument. **So I have two concrete questions here:** 1. Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally? 2. *Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally* and eating unclean meat is okay as it is already clean when there is verse in Isaiah 66:17 which conflicts with the interpretation? Answers in the views of [protestantism] would be appreciated.

> In the year of King Uzzah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted with the train of His robe filling the temple. Vs2, Seraphim stood above Him and at vs3 one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory. > > Vs5, "Then I said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in Isaiah 6:1 is (ra'ah). it refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposed to, for example, "machazeh", which is the act or event of an ecstatic "vision)" This event is backed up by the Apostle John at John 12:41. "These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him." John, in referring to this event uses the Greek word (eidon)--also a verb referring to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense.

There are many people who see Isaiah 49 as Messianc, mainly because it mentions the servant as being a light for the gentiles, Isaiah 49:6(ESV) > he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant > to raise up the tribes of Jacob > and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, > that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” But in the verse before it states that, the servant was formed from the womb. Isaiah 49:5(ESV) > And now the Lord says, > he who **formed** me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; > and that Israel might be gathered to him— for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, > and my God has become my strength— This seems like it is being stated that the servant was formed in the sense of creation in the womb. So what is going on here?

From this question , and the comments, I am under the impression that Isaiah 44:6-8 >6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. > >7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. > >8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. **Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.** implies to many Christians that an omniscience God knows of no other gods because there are no other gods. >He is the only God ... He also says that He knows of no other God >there is only one God, period, He just said so Psalm 82 seems to indicate otherwise >1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; **he judgeth among the gods.** > >2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. > >3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. > >4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. > >5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. > >6 I have said, **Ye are gods;** and all of you are children of the most High. > >7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. > >8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. This Psalm is quoted/referenced later by Jesus in John 10:33-36 . Other scriptures that seem to indicate multiple gods is 1 Cor 8:5-6 How do non-LDS Christians (the other question was focused on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understanding of the Isaiah verse), interpret these scriptures together? Or am I misunderstanding other Christian's interpretation of Isaiah 44?

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) has taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings . Thus, there currently are at least three separate and distinct beings to whom the term *God* applies within the context of our world and within the sphere of our knowledge. Additionally, in the future there will be an as yet unspecified number of Gods when certain individuals achieve exaltation and become equally divine. Another official LDS teaching is that God knows all things , i.e. God is omniscient. The Book of Mormon teaches: > 20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it. (2 Nephi 9:20) Of the many times in the book of Isaiah alone where God declares Himself to be the only God there is one particular passage where, in addition to the claim that He is the only God and that He declares the future, He also says that He knows of no other God: > **Thus saith the LORD** the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and **beside me there is no God**. And **who, as I**, shall call, and **shall declare** it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and **the things that are coming, and shall come**, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. **Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any**. - Isaiah 44:6-8 According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, why doesn't omniscient God, *who declares things that are and that will be* (future does not limit His omniscience), know about the existence of any other Gods? ____________________________________________________________________________ *A point of clarification*: This question is not about God's declarations of singularity and how LDS interprets them--that has already been addressed here , here , and here . This question asks why omniscient God does not know of the other Gods that LDS claims exist. *In defense of non-duplication*: Here is an extended explanation detailing why this question is not a duplicate and why answers given thus far to this question and other related question do not answer this question.

As Isaiah 66:15-24 contains a prophecy for the end times does Isaiah 66:17 (ESV): > “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, > following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and > mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord. Does this mean that eating pork is **still** banned? or does this mean that those who pretend to uphold the law yet still break it are going to be punished?

I was doing my morning prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours and this passage appeared: > “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭7‬:‭14‬-‭16‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Now I’m particularly confused about how trinitarians read this passage, as it’s commonly used as a citation for Jesus’ incarnation, but this bit about him coming to **know** (implied by before he knows) seems to be problematic for an incarnate deity. What is the trinitarian interpretation of this passage?