the dialog

based on the grammar and content of the book isaia we can identify a dialog of multi-opinioned culture.
we begin with the question did you notice?
the grammar style in ezekiel differs from the tsyle in isaia
we were born into a world which prints these in an order where isaia is printed first and then ezekiel while the grammar style indicates the opposite.
exekiel was in exile away from jerusalem and called on the people to resist the local calendar of names and used numbers for months.
he also resisted the influence of removing the form of verb "future+w" as used in the book joshua which was before the exile and before the event in era of solomon of gezer because joshua and i mean the l;ater altered and corrupt joshua which is the only one not lost was completed before the event in the later book of kings so counting back afer the last king around 500 bc, abook of kings was written about the kings and the event described in the later book abput the era of solomon follows the writing of the later version of josjua with gezer story "until this day".
using the ancient grammar of book joshua ezekiel resisted the influence of tigris culture on the janguage
later the cyrus allowed the jews to return. and the following dialog took place between to competing sects of jews.
now if we consider the order "which we are taught by people" it is odd that we are to believe that first moses taught kill animals for blood and later isaia said in the past-verb "i did not want" blood that content indicates that the order we are taught by people is a lie. instead isaia or his students "dared"  to write god said i "didnot want blood" in past-verb indicating that at that time when they resisted the cult to kill animals the "bloods' or pro-blood, there was not yet a book of moses to say otherwise and write it in the LATER grammar influenced by tigris region not ezekiel grammar and as i explain in the following dialog  based on the grammar style draws a picture.
the dialog
cyrus allowed the exiled jews to return to jeruslame
zacarya wrote "between" the return of god and the building of house to build a houise apparently to be the dweelling for "the returned " god as described in zacarya one.
at that time two sects of jews argued how to use the house one sect said house is for dwelling
like "house". the word house in zacarya.
the other groups said we should kill animals there=pro-blood.
in response the later jews using "post exile grammar" the way they spoka at that post-exile time,  wrote isaia claiming "god will not take sacrifice from your hands and adding also "in past time the blood i did not desire" in the past either with a past-verb. they "dared to write this in "concurrent" indicating that there was no book that said otherwise.
the bloods or pro-blood replied by writing a book using ezekiel old grammar claiming moses said to kill animals writing in response to isaia by using old grammar of ezekiel. but the other sect knew that this was a forgery noi such biook had been written yet so...
so the "house" cult replied with jeremia [who perhaps was a true prophet bringing a true denial from god, as religious would describe the book]  a demial "i did not command" so they would know the book claimed to be from moses was a lie and a forgery which had not existed before isaia which as mentioned isaia was written using the later grammar post exile to teach even when there was a temple good in the past-verb "i did not want blood" past verb.
the dialog is now revealed based on the grammar style and content. so the leaders wanted to unite the multi-opinion or multi-faith sects of one family by including BOTH groups books in one unifying "set" of book series so that the multi-faith group of one family would be united with a series of books which contained the important faithe\s of both groups.
in light of the grammar and content the "series" of books included both sides of the dialog to unite the two groups  which includes both opinions. and each group was happy that their ioidea was represented in the series.