Though some have pointed to the book’s change of style from chapter 40 onward as indicating a different writer, or "Second Isaiah," the change in subject matter should be sufficient to explain this.
I forgot to add that simplicity is the hallmark of cults
There is much evidence that Isaiah wrote the entire book that bears his name. For example, the oneness of the book is indicated by the expression, "the Holy One of Israel," which appears 12 times in chapters 1 to 39, and 13 times in chapters 40 to 66, a total of 25 times; whereas it appears only 6 times throughout the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I guess they count each instance of "The Holy One of Israel" as individual evidence . Note that the (literary) "Oneness" of the book is something different than it having "one author". I'm sure the author of Deutero-Isaiah knew the first part of Isaiah quite well and took the expression from it. That's a basic literary strategy. But it is far more difficult to copy the "tone" of someone's writing, and (hebrew) grammar changes in time. Both of these are different in Deutero-Isaiah, arguing for a second author, yet the watchtower does not address these more important issues. Of course they can now depend on the dubs not being allowed to know Hebrew (as per the september km :)
The apostle Paul also testifies to the unity of the book by quoting from all parts of the prophecy and crediting the whole work to one writer, Isaiah.—Compare Romans 10:16, 20; 15:12 with Isaiah 53:1; 65:1; 11:1.
Based on the premise that what Paul says is true, ergo that all scripture is inspired. For the authorship of the Paul's writings, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles . Ah, the irony :)
Interestingly, starting in the year 1947, some ancient documents were brought out of the darkness of caves not far from Khirbet Qumran, near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. These were the Dead Sea Scrolls, which included the prophecy of Isaiah. This is beautifully written in well-preserved pre-Masoretic Hebrew and is some 2,000 years old, from the end of the second century B.C.E. Its text is thus about a thousand years older than the oldest existing manuscript of the Masoretic text, on which modern translations of the Hebrew Scriptures are based. There are some minor variations of spelling and some differences in grammatical construction, but it does not vary doctrinally from the Masoretic text. Here is convincing proof that our Bibles today contain the original inspired message of Isaiah.
correct premise 1 The Dead Sea Scroll Isaiah (second century bc) is ca 1000 years older than the oldest existing manuscript (Leningrad Codex, 1010 ce)
correct premise 2: These manuscripts don't differ much
conclusion: This proofs that Isaiah (and the rest of the Tenach) is inspired and that there is only one author for the book of Isaiah.
Can anyone tell me why the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises?
Moreover, these ancient scrolls refute the critics’ claims of two "Isaiahs," since chapter 40 begins on the last line of the column of writing containing chapter 39, the opening sentence being completed in the next column. Thus, the copyist was obviously unaware of any supposed change in writer or of any division in the book at this point.
correct premise 1: There is no division betwee chapter 39 and 40 in the dead sea scroll Isaiah
probably correct inference: the copyist was unaware of any supposed change in writer
conclusion: so, the book of Isaiah had only one author.
Either I am very bad at following logic, or the watchtower is very bad in constructing valid and sound arguments. You may decide.
Kind regards,
Deus Mauzzim