Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, contrary to your assumption, I have read all your post since you first posted on this thread/topic.
Prophecy is made by one Prophet in giving the message which is fulfilled later---and in this case---more that 700 years. Just because the BIBLE with its scriptural verses are contrary to your beliefs of "No GOD" and "Myths", doesn't change the way GOD expressed HIS Messages to mankind---at the time---Or years in the future.

The only "circular reason" is that which you continue to post and accuse others of "cherry-picking" and "bad scholarship".
There is nothing that says you have to accept any of the Bible( that is a choice you make). However, this is a debate forum, so why get offended that your conclusion are NOT accepted as valid by others?
I have gone over/responded to all the points you have listed---"again" and "again".

Those who differ in philosophy concerning Jesus, the Truth of the Scriptures, and the messages written within the Bible are the ones who try to "give Christians" a bad name.

I may not be Christian or Jew or everything in-between, but at least, I know how to read and study literature. Belief in god, or being a Christian, doesn't mean you understand what Isaiah 7 (as a whole) is saying, and clearly you don't. Understanding is not guarantee, simple because you were baptized, regularly pray or confess your sins.

Sure, I am not Christian or Jew, or theist, but I do understand what I am reading in Isaiah 7. And despite being non-believer (agnostic), which you accuse me of, my understanding is more aligned with the Jewish interpretation...at least, with regards to this topic.

I am not saying that all Christians don't have ability to examine what they read rationally. I have a lot of respect with many Christians, here @ RF. You, I don't have...certainly not here in this topic.

That you will choose to ignore all the other verses, 7:1-13 and 7:15-17, does demonstrate that you are cherry-picker, and a very ignorant one at that. A good scholar would not ignore all these verses. And a good scholar would not ignore the most important part of the sign (15-17).

As to this part of your reply:

Prophecy is made by one Prophet in giving the message which is fulfilled later---and in this case---more that 700 years. Just because the BIBLE with its scriptural verses are contrary to your beliefs of "No GOD" and "Myths", doesn't change the way GOD expressed HIS Messages to mankind---at the time---Or years in the future.

I see the sign has already being fulfilled in Isaiah 8 (in time of Ahaz and Pekah), and not 700 years later.

 

[Poisonshady313]

In Isa,7:14. that birth was not the one seen in 8:3 which fulfilled the conditions of 7:15-25.

That's just plain stupid.

 

[Poisonshady313]

That Virgin born Child would be the one who was prophesied by Isa.9 and 53+

This is entirely wrong for several reasons.

But that's for another thread.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
That Virgin born Child would be the one who was prophesied by Isa.9 and 53+

This is entirely wrong for several reasons.

But that's for another thread.

To the contrary, The child of Isa.7:14 is still the prophesied child which will be born in Matthew's and Luke's account. Isaiah is not finished with all that he will say concerning the Child which is the coming Messiah and initially introduced in Gen.3:15. There are many "concerning me" pieces "in the scriptures." And Isaiah introduced that child here and will address the "Messiah" in other chapters as he draws to close earth's history with the "Creation of a new heavens and a new earth."

 

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by sincerly
That Virgin born Child would be the one who was prophesied by Isa.9 and 53+




To the contrary, The child of Isa.7:14 is still the prophesied child which will be born in Matthew's and Luke's account. Isaiah is not finished with all that he will say concerning the Child which is the coming Messiah and initially introduced in Gen.3:15. There are many "concerning me" pieces "in the scriptures." And Isaiah introduced that child here and will address the "Messiah" in other chapters as he draws to close earth's history with the "Creation of a new heavens and a new earth."

Nope. All sorts of wrong.

 

[gnostic]

There seem to be contrasting definitions of cherry-picking passage or verse...and one of them is wrong.

Cherry-picking is fallacy.

An example of cherry-picking, where someone only pick only a part of fact or evidence, to support a view, but chose to ignore the rest of the evidence(s).

In the case of Matthew 1:23, the author selected and quoted a single verse (eg verse 14) from text of another book (Book of Isaiah, more specifically Isaiah 7). However, what Matthew quoted as being the sign (about Mary being the virgin, and Jesus being the son of that virgin), but this sign is INCOMPLETE.

The complete sign is Isaiah 7:14-17.

(I have posted these verses, so I am not going to post it up again. I have used both JPS from 1985 translation, and the NRSV).

And the sign is related to the event of Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram attacking Judah and besieging Jerusalem. Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah would be saved by Assyria, and the sign is not so much as a son being born to a woman, but the deliverance of Judah would come before the child know right from wrong (Isaiah 7:16-17) or before child can "mother" or "father" (Isaiah 8:3-4); although they are slightly different in these 2 chapters, there are more that are strikingly the same.

So Matthew (or whoever this author was) was cherry-picking.

And that's not the only problem with Matthew's quote and interpretation. Matthew was also cherry-picking the context of the Hebrew word almah. Despite Matthew being Jewish and all (as well as a Christian) chose the Greek word and translation of the Hebrew almah (young woman)- parthenos (virgin).

According to Christian doctrine and belief, Mary conceived Jesus and gave birth to Jesus, while still a virgin, hence her popular title the Virgin Mary.

But, almah means "young woman". It is quite possible "young woman" be virgin or not virgin, married or single, pregnant or not pregnant, tall or short, fat or skinny, blonde or brunette, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on with list. None of these matter, because almah only denoted her gender (hence "woman") and her age (hence "young").

In the Hebrew passage, her virginity status do not exist, because she was already pregnant:

Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and...

Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son.

Most English translations used the Masoretic Text for the Tanakh or the Old Testament Bible. However, some translations, selectively used the Septuagint for this particular verse, which used parthenos, like translation from KJV or NIV. If the Masoretic Text was available for Isaiah, then why used the Septuagint for just ONE VERSE?

That is inconsistent. Why did the translators used only selective verses in Greek, especially when they don't need to?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why did the translators used only selective verses in Greek, especially when they don't need to?

To which translators are you referring?

 

[sincerly]

Nope. All sorts of wrong.

Your wishful thinking, since 2000 years ago HE was rejected and the despised has continued to be a prominent belief. GOD wasn't wrong, but man's interpretation to suit an erroneous belief continues to be wrong.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Your wishful thinking, since 2000 years ago HE was rejected and the despised has continued to be a prominent belief. GOD wasn't wrong, but man's interpretation to suit an erroneous belief continues to be wrong.

"HE" wasn't God, and neither are you. You are a man and your erroneous belief continues to be wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., but man's interpretation to suit an erroneous belief continues to be wrong.

You resemble that remark.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hey Sincerly, I know we're all trying to show you that you're wrong. I didn't expect you to roll over and say, "Okay, you win. You're right." But seriously, to me, this is huge. The New Testament has to be the rock, the foundation. For me, it's shaky. Why back I asked,

Since Jesus didn't write it down himself. How do I know who Matthew and Luke are? It isn't the easiest thing to harmonize the two birth stories. How do I know they didn't get the stories from a bunch of oral traditions? But add to that, this is only one of the out of context quotes of Matthew, how can I trust him? Mt 2:15, Out of Egypt...? Mt 2:18, Rachel weeping...? Mt 2:23, called a Nazarene...? These are fulfilled prophecies?

All these seemed forced and taken out of context. Were these ever seen as prophecies of the coming messiah? Or, was it the gospel "compiler" finding things to embellish the story. I understand that he needed to prove the authority of Jesus. You say these are legitimate quotes, because they reflect the "real" meaning, the former was only a "shadow." Since we're going back and forth and going nowhere. I used the comparison of how Christians criticize other religions for taking Bible verses out of context, yet they do the same thing. You started to answer in post #384. So let me add a story. When I was a Baha'i I told Christians that Jesus said that when the "Spirit of truth" comes he will lead you into all truth. I told them that the "Spirit of Truth" is Baha'u'llah. Jesus himself foretold about him. I also told the Christians that every time the Bible says, "The Glory of God," it is saying "Baha'u'llah." I had never read the New Testament. I thought my Baha'i teachers were telling me the truth. I felt the power and love of God as a Baha'i. My life had a purpose--to spread the new Word of God. But, then a Christian took me to a Bible study. I saw that the "Spirit of Truth," in context, was the "Holy Spirit" coming at Pentecost. Lots of Baha'is know the true context, but they would rather believe the Baha'i interpretation. You are doing the same thing. You don't want the Jewish interpretation, because it would undermine your faith. But that is what I'm trying to do. Undermine your faith in the New Testament as being the only right way. I want there to be many paths. I want those paths to lead to a mountain, the mountain of God. When we all get there, the blinders will be removed and we will all see that we our all one. It's a very Baha'i inspired way of thinking. It could be wrong, but I want an inclusive, instead of an exclusive religion.There are so many "Christianities," too many versions of who and what Jesus is and did for me to have confidence in any one of them having it right. You always give honest and solid "Christian" answers, but those answers tend to push people away from Jesus. I've said it many times, they make all other people and religions wrong--completely wrong. Since Christianity came out of Judaism, I think it should be more consistent with Jewish teachings. It isn't. Why a virgin born Savior? Because we hopeless sinners? We need him to get our sins forgiven? That I don't understand. God told the Jews repent and he'll forgive them didn't he? The whole Christian myth builds on types and shadows from Judaism but makes a religion that seems to have been influenced by Greek and Persian religious ideas also. The god/man born of a virgin seems to me to be one of those pagan type of ideas.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It has nothing to do with Christian thought vs Jewish thought. It has to do with one's ability to read more than just one sentence in the 7th chapter of Isaiah.

Woah, Tiger. Matthew's not as old as Isaiah, but its quite old. We cannot discuss it accurately using a modern perspective, because the old perspective will reassert itself later making your conclusions useless both now and later.

Not so. Why is irrelevant. It might be interesting, but it does nothing for "whether". "Whether" is all about how. And we know how... by leaving out the context. And mistranslating the verse that it did use.

Suppose you find yourself robbing a store one day, and you get caught. The police take you in, but you cannot be convicted unless they know that you had a motive to rob. If you don't have a motive to rob it makes their case very weak, just as yours is very weak.

Or suppose that you get in a car crash and are killed. The ambulance will want to know whether you've died. The coroner will want to know how you died, and your family will want to know why you died. The police will want to know all three no matter how obvious it is that you died.

Except many woman are told that they're going to have birth miraculously... and none of them are virgins. The point wasn't about giving birth to the child. The point was the events regarding that child's life.

Yes, the point wasn't about giving birth to the child. That's what I'm trying to say, but it is the events relating to the child's life from a Christian perspective, Matthews perspective, not a modern perspective. I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with that perspective, except that you are talking about Matthew like you know something. The story of Jesus is the story of a child who is more than the sum of his parts, clearly not Isaiah's son. Supposedly Jezus's cousin John gets a dose of 'Holy spirit' just from their two moms standing next to each other while pregnant! How are you going to get that from a literal reading of Isaiah? Matthew's perspective matters, because he's probably aware of what you are talking about but is spinning it another way. If he's quoting Isaiah, don't you think he already knows what the literal interpretation is?

Sounds like a nicer way of saying "ripping passages wildly out of context and using them for their own purposes".

Sometimes taking scripture out of context is appropriate, such as when all are aware that it is out of context. It can be useful for teaching. You might use it ironically, for instance, to evoke a denial. You might also use it for meditation. Matthew was written long ago to an audience whom we do not know. We do know know (I mean doughnut no) whether his audience knew he was taking this verse out of context, meaning we don't know why he took it out of context. If we don't know why, then we don't know the thing that matters. When I say 'You're taking that out of context' its because sometimes its not appropriate to do that; but when its appropriate there's no point in correcting you.

Or maybe they just ripped passages wildly out of context and hoped people wouldn't notice.

Or perhaps Matthew had a way of talking about Bible passages that his audience understood but that you don't understand, because you don't care why he was taking them out of context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Woah, Tiger. Matthew's not as old as Isaiah, but its quite old. We cannot discuss it accurately using a modern perspective, because the old perspective will reassert itself later making your conclusions useless both now and later.

What a remarkably dumb sentence.

 

[CG Didymus]

Brickjectivity, you said something interesting:

Or perhaps Matthew had a way of talking about Bible passages that his audience understood but that you don't understand, because you don't care why he was taking them out of context. Last edited by Brickjectivity; Today at 03:48 PM.. Reason: mispelled "doughnut no" and wrote "know know" by mistake.

I think we all know why Matthew did it--to prove Jesus was the true messiah and not some ordinary wanna-be. When I was a Christian I never read or was told to read Isaiah. Actually, I was, but it was special Christ tinted glasses. I was spoon fed certain Scriptures that made me realize I was a hopeless sinner, that the Law couldn't save me, and that Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sin. They showed me verses that "proved" Jesus was God. But look at your edit. You make mistakes. I make mistakes. Did this guy Matthew take notes? Did he misspell words? Maybe, did he have an editor? How many drafts of his gospel did he make until he got it just right? After all, he wouldn't want to mislead people. He knew exactly what he wanted them to think, Jesus is Lord. I think we all care why he did it. You might think it was a good thing. But, if Christianity is filled with out of context quotes, and it is, then for the non-believer it looks like a made up, fabricated bunch of semi-historical events, alleged miracles, and forced prophecies to prop us a religious movement centered around a very interesting and charismatic, legendary character. I like to live by a lot of Christian rules of behavior, but I like just as many from other religions.

 

[gnostic]

To which translators are you referring?

JPS, NIV, NASB.

If they were directly translating the entire book of Isaiah from the Greek Septuagint Bible, I would understand that they would translate the Greek parthenos into English as "virgin" for this verse (7:14). But the main source was the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT).

But when they (the KJV translators, for instance) were translating Isaiah 7, all of it came from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, except for verse 14.

Why did they do this? Why only one verse, did they use the Greek verse instead of the Hebrew verse?

I believed it is mainly so they (again, the KJV translators/editors) can exactly match Matthew 1:23 with Isaiah 14.

NIV translators followed the same pattern as the KJV. They used the Greek parthenos instead of Hebrew almah, even though they have MT available, for Isaiah 7:14 verse.

NIV publication should have used "young woman" in their verse and "virgin" in the footnote, to denote the comparison with the Septuagint. But they (NIV) didn't; they did it the other way around.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What a remarkably dumb sentence.

What a ponderously fluffy angel food cake!

 

[gnostic]

Matthew's not as old as Isaiah, but its quite old. We cannot discuss it accurately using a modern perspective, because the old perspective will reassert itself later making your conclusions useless both now and later.

Why not?

Why shouldn't modern perspective.

Although, some modern translations are suspect, there are some great modern translations with excellent translators and scholars involved today. Surely, they are better at translating then those back in the time of the compiling the Septuagint, Vulgate Bible or the KJV.

What Christians called the Old Testament Bible, I preferred to used the 1985 translation from Jewish Publication Society (JPS-1985 or NJPS) - the Tanakh, The Jewish Bible. They did excellent job, and it is highly respected among academics, Jews and even among Christians. The translation is based mostly on the Masoretic Text (MT).

The other translation (which include OT and NT) which I preferred is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Unlike KJV and NIV, they did translation properly, by keeping the translations of Isaiah and the Gospel according to Matthew, completely separate.

For instance, with the translation of the Book of Isaiah, it relied solely on the MT instead of supplementing the translation of specific verse with the Septuagint (like the way KJV did). Like Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and...

Since we know that Matthew had used the Greek Septuagint with his quote in Matthew 1:23, then it would be understandable NRSV to use virgin" in Matthew 1:23, instead of "young woman", hence:

“Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,

Two different and two separate translations, each based on the source being used. KJV and NIV failed to do this.

Matthew's perspective matters, because he's probably aware of what you are talking about but is spinning it another way. If he's quoting Isaiah, don't you think he already knows what the literal interpretation is?

We know what exactly Matthew is spinning. That doesn't mean his quotation of Isaiah 7:14 to be correct.

He has taken Isaiah 7:14, completely out of context, and ignored the rest of the sign in Isaiah 7 (more specifically verse 15-17) which was vital in understanding what the sign mean.

If Jesus and Mary were really the identities of 7:14, then shouldn't the whole chapter be related to them as well?

 

[sincerly]

Hey Sincerly, I know we're all trying to show you that you're wrong. I didn't expect you to roll over and say, "Okay, you win. You're right." But seriously, to me, this is huge. The New Testament has to be the rock, the foundation. For me, it's shaky. Why back I asked,

Since Jesus didn't write it down himself. How do I know who Matthew and Luke are? It isn't the easiest thing to harmonize the two birth stories. How do I know they didn't get the stories from a bunch of oral traditions? But add to that, this is only one of the out of context quotes of Matthew, how can I trust him? Mt 2:15, Out of Egypt...? Mt 2:18, Rachel weeping...? Mt 2:23, called a Nazarene...? These are fulfilled prophecies?

All these seemed forced and taken out of context. Were these ever seen as prophecies of the coming messiah? Or, was it the gospel "compiler" finding things to embellish the story. I understand that he needed to prove the authority of Jesus.

Hi CG D, I have answered and lost this three times. I may answer in shorter bits.
Matthew tells why Jesus was in Egypt and why HIS parents settled where they did upon being told it was safe to return. If you choose to reject GOD'S intervention and call the report "forced" that is your prerogative.
God does have a way of turning earthly events to follow HIS WILL. Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the Empires attests to that fact. And Jesus was born "in the fullness of time" in that last world Empire and set up the kingdom of God which is to last to the end of time when all kingdoms will "become Christ's".

Rom.8:28 is my response to your initial comment/goal, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose". Possibly I was answering from a wrong perspective.

Matt.16:18, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." That ROCK is Jesus, the "Stone which the builders rejected." Jesus is the "Cornerstone". Those who, from Sinai, were to be the caretakers and light bearers for the sole/life saving messages failed in their mission by rejection of the ONE who came(Messiah) to "proclaim the glad tidings". (Matt.21:42-43), "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
And in Matt.23:37-38, Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."
Your statement, """"I understand that he needed to prove the authority of Jesus"""" is lacking understanding of the scriptures. The crowds of people Jesus taught for 3 1/2 years determined this.(Matt.7:29; Mark 1:22) this was in the Synagogue. "And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. "-----And then the elements obeyed HIS voice. Jesus did the proving---Others only recorded the actual events.
(To cont.)

 

[sincerly]

(cont.)

You don't want the Jewish interpretation, because it would undermine your faith. But that is what I'm trying to do. Undermine your faith in the New Testament as being the only right way. I want there to be many paths. I want those paths to lead to a mountain, the mountain of God. When we all get there, the blinders will be removed and we will all see that we our all one. It's a very Baha'i inspired way of thinking. It could be wrong, but I want an inclusive, instead of an exclusive religion.

Hi CG D, As I have said, all of my Beliefs are from the same principles GOD gave and wrote at that meeting at SINAI. The difference is with the multiple "back-slidings" they(Jews) finally rejected the promised Messiah as a nation. Individuals are still seeing the error of those of 2000 years ago and are believing the Fulfilled Prophecies and Scriptures.
Correct, to accept, an erroneous "interpretation" would be to reject the Creator GOD who LOVED me and the rest of Mankind enough to die so that I can have the eternal life which was intended for all Human Beings at Creation.
Isn't that the goal you are seeking?
The same "Redeemer" who Paid the "Sin-debt" at the Cross with HIS Life is NOT exclusionary, but seeking every person who has ever lived or will ever live.
The only conditions placed upon being included is subject to one's own choice.
Since ALL are SINNERS/DISOBEDIENT to the WILL of THE FATHER, one needs to acknowledge and confess one's Disobedience, Repent from continuing therein, and accept and be Submissive to the Father's Will.(It is NOT GOD'S Will that any perish.)

There are so many "Christianities," too many versions of who and what Jesus is and did for me to have confidence in any one of them having it right. You always give honest and solid "Christian" answers, but those answers tend to push people away from Jesus. I've said it many times, they make all other people and religions wrong--completely wrong. Since Christianity came out of Judaism, I think it should be more consistent with Jewish teachings. It isn't. Why a virgin born Savior? Because we hopeless sinners? We need him to get our sins forgiven? That I don't understand. God told the Jews repent and he'll forgive them didn't he? The whole Christian myth builds on types and shadows from Judaism but makes a religion that seems to have been influenced by Greek and Persian religious ideas also. The god/man born of a virgin seems to me to be one of those pagan type of ideas.

CG D, Is there any limit to the number of false beliefs that can be presented? What Being profits by more and more false and contrary beliefs to GOD'S---WAY, Truth, and Life(all singular)????
MUST GOD remain with a "delivery system" which rejected the very ""Seed of the Woman" who from the Beginning of rebellion was prophesied to be the one to eradicate evil from mankind and the universe???
Again, Man is only earthly elements which at death returns to "elemental dust"---without that promise of the Creator to "Redeem and Resurrect".
"Pagan ideas"?? NO! It was that very idea/truth promised to Adam and Eve in the "seed of a woman" which those initial Believers took with them as they scattered from the "Tower of Babel" and which those people corrupted and changed into the thoughts of their imagination.

A "hopeless sinner" is one who is defiant/arrogant---But GOD is "long-suffering for those who show the least amount of seeking for truth---and salvation comes to those who yield to the pleadings/wooing of the Holy Spirit.

CG D, We are all Sinner's and the penalty is death. When one dies, there is NO LIFE. Each sinner caused the death of the SON of GOD. There is nothing else which was sufficient to pay that death penalty other than the ONE who Created us in the first place. The Sin was ours and the Death was ours. But ,GOD the SON was willing before the "foundation of the earth" to exchange places with each disobedient person as the propitiation. A normal Birth(human) couldn't qualify, because all humans are condemned to Death. Therefore, the "virgin birth" as promised via the Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ lived the "human life" and "did not sin". AS the Son of GOD, Jesus Christ was able to blot out the sin record of mankind with HIS Death and set mankind free from guilt of sin/disobedience.
John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. "
And Jesus continued to say, "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
That Virgin born Child would be the one who was prophesied by Isa.9 and 53+

To the contrary, The child of Isa.7:14 is still the prophesied child which will be born in Matthew's and Luke's account. Isaiah is not finished with all that he will say concerning the Child which is the coming Messiah and initially introduced in Gen.3:15. There are many "concerning me" pieces "in the scriptures." And Isaiah introduced that child here and will address the "Messiah" in other chapters as he draws to close earth's history with the "Creation of a new heavens and a new earth."

Nope. All sorts of wrong.

Originally Posted by sincerly
Your wishful thinking, since 2000 years ago HE was rejected and the despised has continued to be a prominent belief. GOD wasn't wrong, but man's interpretation to suit an erroneous belief continues to be wrong.

"HE" wasn't God, and neither are you. You are a man and your erroneous belief continues to be wrong.

It is still your(i.e., Jewish man's) wishful thinking which more that one witness attest to facts different from your claims. Remember, It is written that more than two or three witnesses establish a thing." You and I were not alive, but those witnesses were.

Isaiah by word from GOD made many condemnations of the houses of Israel and Jacob for their abstinence as seen in (48:1-4). " Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, [but] not in truth, nor in righteousness. For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts [is] his name. I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did [them] suddenly, and they came to pass. Because I knew that thou [art] obstinate, and thy neck [is] an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;" -----All this didn't deter their abstinence and 70 years in Babylonian captivity resulted. then in Isa.54:1-17 in the future(from then)----one sees the Believing remnant which inherit the Gentiles.
And in (65:1-3---into the new earth) those prophecies extend to the new Earth in Chap.66,
Isaiah says declares it "all to be Right" according to the prophecies given to him from the Lord GOD.

As Deut.10:16, says, It is high time to "circumcise you heart and be no more stiffnecked."