Isaiah 43:10-11

Isaiah 43:10 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.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Seve argues that "no....neither" are two negatives that demand a postive and the positive is according to Seve that the LORD Himself was actually "formed" meaning the readers of Isaiah actually saw his visible form and thus can testify YHVH is a visible God.

Furthermore, he argues that there were actual witnesses that he was "formed" as he argues that the character of a witness is one who can personally attest to something.

However, is there any truth to Seve's interpetation of Isaiah 43:10-11. I believe it is a complete perversion of the text for several reasons.

1. What they are witnesses of is what they also are said to "know....believe....and understand" and that is his Word to them that denies the existence of any God at any time but JHVH.

This is repeated again immediately following verses 10-11:

12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God

and again,

Isa. 44:8 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.

The phrase "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" in Isaiah 43:10 is equal to the phrase here "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God, I know not any."

This assertion by YHVH is what they heard, know and understand and therefore are witnesses to - no God exists but YHVH.


2. The "LORD" (YHVH) denies that he knows of any "God" (Elohim) except "me".

Seve's interpretation has two problems here. First, YHVH denies knowledge of any "God" (Elohim) except for himself. If YHVH was the product of the Father then for Seve's position to be true than the Father cannot be called "YHVH" or "Elohim." However, the Father is called "Elohim" and "YHVH" both.



3. Isaiah 44:6 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.

There are TWO who are speaking here and both claim the name "The LORD" (YHVH).

The absolute undeniable grammatical evidence that there are TWO different jointly speaking is the pronominal phrase "HIS redeemer" who is defined as "The LORD (JHVH) of hosts.

This proves that the name "JHVH" is applied equally at least to TWO different divine personages.


CONCLUSION: What they are "witnesses" of is YHVH's testimony to them that no other God exists except Himself and this YHVH is one "God" (Elohim) or a plural of divine personages equally sharing the same divine substance that makes God to be God.

 

I am still awaiting a "legitimate" response to the above contextual evidence that condemns Seve's interpretation of this text. By "legitimate" I mean a response that provides contextual substance to demonstrate the evidence I presented is faulty rather than merely resposting his original assertions