What is the meaning of these scriptures?

[little stream]

Isaiah 24:14 They shall lift up their voice,they shall sing for the majesty of the Lord,they shall cry aloud from the sea.
15 Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires,even the name of the LORD GOD of Israel in the isles of the sea.
16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs,even glory to the righteous...

 

[jacksknight]

Isaiah 24:14 They shall lift up their voice,they shall sing for the majesty of the Lord,they shall cry aloud from the sea.
15 Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires,even the name of the LORD GOD of Israel in the isles of the sea.
16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs,even glory to the righteous...

Short answer is you need to read the whole chapter to get an idea. Basically it's saying the good will inherit good things and the evil will inherit evil things. The good are rejoicing because they have received good things from God. This chapter is talking about the end of the world. Think Revelations when you read it.

 

[little stream]

Short answer is you need to read the whole chapter to get an idea. Basically it's saying the good will inherit good things and the evil will inherit evil things. The good are rejoicing because they have received good things from God. This chapter is talking about the end of the world. Think Revelations when you read it.

But what's the meaning of "in the isles of sea"and "from the uttermost part of the earth",where are they?

 

[jacksknight]

But what's the meaning of "in the isles of sea"and "from the uttermost part of the earth",where are they?

Isles of the sea are islands, just descriptive words for an area. It could be any islands, probably some near Israel that would have been known to the writer. Uttermost parts of the earth just means all over the earth no matter how far.

 

[little stream]

Isles of the sea are islands, just descriptive words for an area. It could be any islands, probably some near Israel that would have been known to the writer. Uttermost parts of the earth just means all over the earth no matter how far.

Ok,thanks ,God bless you!

 

[jacksknight]

Ok,thanks ,God bless you!

Glad to help any time! God bless!

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Isaiah 24:14 They shall lift up their voice,they shall sing for the majesty of the Lord,they shall cry aloud from the sea.
15 Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires,even the name of the LORD GOD of Israel in the isles of the sea.
16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs,even glory to the righteous...

I believe Isaiah 24 may be telling of the beginning of the Creation, the everlasting/first day. There is but one interpretation in the KJV Bible, 2 Peter 1:20, and that is the interpretation of days, originating in Genesis one.

 

[keltoi]

I believe Isaiah 24 may be telling of the beginning of the Creation, the everlasting/first day.

Actually it appears to be the exact opposite. God is scattering people and laying waste to the land. It is, in effect, a reference to the last days.

There is but one interpretation in the KJV Bible, 2 Peter 1:20, and that is the interpretation of days, originating in Genesis one.

You are correct there is only 1 interpretation of the Bible, and that is God's, truth but the verse you use, out of context, as evidence doesn't say anything about "interpretation of days".

 

[NJA]

Isaiah 24:14 They shall lift up their voice,they shall sing for the majesty of the Lord,they shall cry aloud from the sea.
15 Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires,even the name of the LORD GOD of Israel in the isles of the sea.
16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs,even glory to the righteous...

"Fires" is lights ... I take it as a prophecy that the gospel would spread even to Iceland, Scotland & Scandanavia (The Northern Lights - Aurorae Borealis)

They were known isn Isaiah's time as Phonecian/Israelite mariners were trading far and wide thanks to Solomon's involvement.

 

[keltoi]

"Fires" is lights ... I take it as a prophecy that the gospel would spread even to Iceland, Scotland & Scandanavia (The Northern Lights - Aurorae Borealis)

Why Scotland and not Ireland?

They were known isn Isaiah's time as Phonecian/Israelite mariners were trading far and wide thanks to Solomon's involvement.

They were known to have sailed in the Mediterranean but there is no evidence they went further. Phoenician artefacts could have quite easily made there way to many places simply through on trading. Most ancient cultures did this (e.g. Roman artifacts have been found in Ireland yet Rome never got there.

That video clip become a joke when they flipped a couple of constellations and transposed them over the European coastlines and made it look like navigation routes.

 

[NJA]

Why Scotland and not Ireland?

They were known to have sailed in the Mediterranean but there is no evidence they went further. Phoenician artefacts could have quite easily made there way to many places simply through on trading. Most ancient cultures did this (e.g. Roman artifacts have been found in Ireland yet Rome never got there.

That video clip become a joke when they flipped a couple of constellations and transposed them over the European coastlines and made it look like navigation routes.

Makes me laugh when people say "there is no evidence", what they mean is, they are ignorant of any (even though it's been published for decades and around for longer for those who look in the right places).

I'll start you off with the documentary evidence of Barry Fell's "America B.C.", written in the 1970s.

 

[keltoi]

Makes me laugh when people say "there is no evidence", what they mean is, they are ignorant of any (even though it's been published for decades and around for longer for those who look in the right places).

I'm starting to get tired of people saying people who disagree with themare ignorant. If you can't reply politely don't reply at all.

I'll start you off with the documentary evidence of Barry Fell's "America B.C.", written in the 1970s.

If it's anything like the last clip you put up it'll be nothing but conjecture

 

[Catherineanne]

But what's the meaning of "in the isles of sea"and "from the uttermost part of the earth",where are they?

Find an atlas and then find the isles in the sea at the uttermost part of the earth from Israel.

That is your answer.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

I believe Isaiah 24 may be telling of the beginning of the Creation, the everlasting/first day. There is but one interpretation in the KJV Bible, 2 Peter 1:20, and that is the interpretation of days, originating in Genesis one.

Because it is the, "LORD God," behind our first doublet of days, beginning Genesis 2:4.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Actually it appears to be the exact opposite. God is scattering people and laying waste to the land. It is, in effect, a reference to the last days.
You are correct there is only 1 interpretation of the Bible, and that is God's, truth but the verse you use, out of context, as evidence doesn't say anything about "interpretation of days".

If you will take notice of the doublets and grasp the logical format of the KJV Bible; you will believe that today must be the fourth day of the seven days of the Creation, and that scripture was spoken from the beginning, and third day of the Creation.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

If you will take notice of the doublets and grasp the logical format of the KJV Bible; you will believe that today must be the fourth day of the seven days of the Creation, and that scripture was spoken from the beginning, and third day of the Creation.

Remember, 2 Peter 1:20 KJV-Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. And since Genesis one is about the days of the Creation, all the KJV Bible is about the days of the Creation.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

You are correct there is only 1 interpretation of the Bible, and that is God's, truth but the verse you use, out of context, as evidence doesn't say anything about "interpretation of days".

Please tell me, what is "God's" interpretation?
What verse?

 

[keltoi]

If you will take notice of the doublets and grasp the logical format of the KJV Bible; you will believe that today must be the fourth day of the seven days of the Creation, and that scripture was spoken from the beginning, and third day of the Creation.

Kenneth the KJV is not the original version of the Bible and in fact it is a sanitised version, just like most others are. Please go and study the original languages and see what the Bible says instead of going off into this "doublet" construct. If today was the 4th day of Creation we wouldn't have been created yet.

Remember, 2 Peter 1:20 KJV-Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. And since Genesis one is about the days of the Creation, all the KJV Bible is about the days of the Creation.

Again we have the KJV. There are 66 books in the Bible and you are choosing to ignore everything except for Genesis.

Please tell me, what is "God's" interpretation?
What verse?

You're kidding right? God's interpretation is the truth. It is not contained in 1 verse it is contained in the entire Bible.

You had your opportunity to "enlighten" me to your thoughts, you decided not to take it instead you said something like "we don't have enough in common". I don't have time to play your game, real life is out there and with God's blessing I intend to live it for him.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Kenneth the KJV is not the original version of the Bible and in fact it is a sanitised version, just like most others are. Please go and study the original languages and see what the Bible says instead of going off into this "doublet" construct. If today was the 4th day of Creation we wouldn't have been created yet.
Again we have the KJV. There are 66 books in the Bible and you are choosing to ignore everything except for Genesis.
You're kidding right? God's interpretation is the truth. It is not contained in 1 verse it is contained in the entire Bible.

I believe the written Word of God was not complete until it was written in English, and Greek, and Hebrew.
We were created from the beginning, else; how could Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, be, "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Hebrews 7:3
Please tell me exactly, what is God's interpretation.

 

[keltoi]

I believe the written Word of God was not complete until it was written in English, and Greek, and Hebrew.

So the Bible wasn't complete until it was written in English, well that must mean God is an Englishman then.