I'm bothered by the fact that the Old Testament uses Cyrus' name before he was born. Pure anachronism.
I have wondered about this subject before. As I understand some modern thought concerning when the Bible was written, suggests many of the books where actually written much later than originally proposed. Some for instance written during the exile were purported to be of an earlier period. Anyway, my question is how all this affects the Book of Mormon?
I'd say it doesn't affect the Book of Mormon at all.
Even assuming that the Book of Mormon is true, the book explicitly and repeatedly states that Mormon abridged everything from Words of Mormon onward many centuries after the events supposedly took place.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Dr. Shades wrote:I'd say it doesn't affect the Book of Mormon at all.
Even assuming that the Book of Mormon is true, the book explicitly and repeatedly states that Mormon abridged everything from Words of Mormon onward many centuries after the events supposedly took place.
And, for that reason for example, there is little to no reference to the Mosaic ordinances. Not necessary to discuss them after the fact.
Dr. Shades wrote:I'd say it doesn't affect the Book of Mormon at all.
Even assuming that the Book of Mormon is true, the book explicitly and repeatedly states that Mormon abridged everything from Words of Mormon onward many centuries after the events supposedly took place.
The specific issue brought up in the first post is that this section of Isaiah is generally thought to have been written after the Nephites left Jerusalem.
I'm bothered by the fact that the Old Testament uses Cyrus' name before he was born. Pure anachronism.
I have wondered about this subject before. As I understand some modern thought concerning when the Bible was written, suggests many of the books where actually written much later than originally proposed. Some for instance written during the exile were purported to be of an earlier period. Anyway, my question is how all this affects the Book of Mormon?
I suspect that later scholars entered the name Cyrus to replace something previously there.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
THere are many anachronisms in the Bible, because as you say it was written centuries after the supposed events took place. The Age of Reason is a good book on the subject. One of the most famous ones, If I recall correctly, is Moses writing about his own funeral.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
It has meaning if the Documentary Hypothesis is correct.
Have you read "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliott Friedman? His contention is Ezra redacted the Bible in much the same role as Mormon in the Book of Mormon. He also describes the authors of portions of the Bible as essentially writing a history for political expediency, following the "pious fraud" model.
I think the inclusion of the name Cyrus may have been a gloss as well, Nehor. What I find interesting is the use of names that have several meanings and what could be read as an immediate, relatively speaking, fulfillment and a Messianic fulfillment. In the case of Cyrus, the relatively short-term fulfillment is seen in Cyrus, and the longer-term Messianic fulfillment in Jesus "delivering from captivity."
Another example is almah, the "virgin" or "young maiden" of Isaiah 7:14. I think the immediate fulfillment can be seen as the "young maiden" giving birth to Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8, and of course the Messianic fulfillment of the virgin giving birth to Jesus.