The Isaiah Problem

[_stemelbow]

Hey guys. I guess I have a different take. The Church is very squeamish about taking some positions, particularly historical ones that seem to bring into question the traditional views. I'm not the biggest fan of the Church's efforts at disseminating information. It could do better. I'd prefer the church openly question some of the traditional views--like how the translation process occurred. I don't know if it all amounts to lying, per se. Its more along the lines of "well we'll stick with tradition until some of these issues are resolved more fully". As per the translation--I'm just offering my opinion which could vary widely from the Church's take.

Hope that helps. I'm not all that concerned about trying to catch the Church in a lie, as you guys are. I was just hoping to disucss the Isaiah problem.

[_Drifting]

I don't know if it all amounts to lying, per se.

No need to be unsure.
It does amount to lying as per the Church's expressed standard - see the quote provided by Willy.

[_sock puppet]

Hey guys. I guess I have a different take. The Church is very squeamish about taking some positions, particularly historical ones that seem to bring into question the traditional views. I'm not the biggest fan of the Church's efforts at disseminating information. It could do better. I'd prefer the church openly question some of the traditional views--like how the translation process occurred. I don't know if it all amounts to lying, per se. Its more along the lines of "well we'll stick with tradition until some of these issues are resolved more fully". As per the translation--I'm just offering my opinion which could vary widely from the Church's take.

Hope that helps. I'm not all that concerned about trying to catch the Church in a lie, as you guys are. I was just hoping to disucss the Isaiah problem.

Why is there an Isaiah problem unless perhaps the Church is lying when it maintains that JSJr drew those identical passages, errors and all, in the King's English circa 1500, from Moroni's gold plates rather than a copy of the KJV Bible? How can one discuss the Isaiah problem sans the possibility that JSJr has lied and/or the Church is lying?

[_stemelbow]

Why is there an Isaiah problem unless perhaps the Church is lying when it maintains that JSJr drew those identical passages, errors and all, in the King's English circa 1500, from Moroni's gold plates rather than a copy of the KJV Bible?

I don't see how the Church is lying.

How can one discuss the Isaiah problem sans the possibility that JSJr has lied and/or the Church is lying?

intelligently.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

Don't we also go back to as far as 200 BC and no indication of separate texts? And isn't Deutero-Isaiah an outgrowth of Doederlein's 19th century notion that Isaiah couldn't have predicted the fall of Jerusalem?

I bet you that BCSpace googled Deutero-Isaiah and found this page:

http://www.dyeager.org/post/2008/12/deu ... hypothesis

In spite of the lack of concrete evidence that any part of Isaiah ever existed without any other part as far back as the 200’s BC, the dogma of most scholarship today is that two or more individuals authored Isaiah. This perspective arose, most notably in the deistic[1] climate of 18th century Europe. J. C. Doederlein, one of the earliest to argue for a second author,[2] said explicitly that since Isaiah could not have forseen the fall of Jerusalem, the 70 year captivity, the return or Cyrus, Isaiah could not have written those chapters making such claims (e.g. chapters 40-66). Since this time, others have advanced arguments in support of dual or even multiple authorship.

You copied down the century wrong, BCSpace. Try to be more careful as you copy your googled information, or you won't seem as informed as you're trying to seem.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

Well, so far you have St. John quoting from both "halves" of Isaiah in the New Testament and attributing them to the same author (John 12:37–38 => Isaiah 53:1 and John 12:40–41 => Isaiah 6:9–10).

Yup. BCSpace definitely got all of his ideas from this page:

http://www.dyeager.org/post/2008/12/deu ... hypothesis

In the case of the Deutero-Isaiah hypothesis, it’s pure junk as the Gospel of John reveals.


But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him; That the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? (John 12:37–38 KJV)

A simple quote in John’s gospel. Almost every Bible (and many readers) recognize the quote as from Isaiah:


Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? (Isaiah 53:1 KJV)

Simple so far, but keep reading in John:


He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him. (John 12:40–41 KJV)

Not as many people recognize that quote, but it’s from Isaiah 6:


And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:9–10 KJV)

So we’ve got quotes from both “halves” of Isaiah — chapter six and fifty-three. But who wrote them? Should we return to the Deutero-Isaiah hypotheses and spend hours in boring research? Don’t fret over the authorship of Isaiah, as in between John 12:38 and John 12:40 is verse 39:


Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, (John 12:39 KJV)

Oops. John quotes from both “halves” of Isaiah, and attributes them to Isaiah. So who wrote Isaiah (all of it)? Isaiah. You don’t need to waste hours reading hundreds of pages of so-called “scholarship” — John just told you who wrote Isaiah. If you believe the inspiration of John as he wrote the authorship of Isaiah is settled (if you don’t believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of the Bible you’ve frankly got much bigger issues than the authorship of Isaiah).

It's rather sad that the author whose information BCSpace appropriates doesn't realize that John was likely operating under a faulty assumption that the text he was quoting was written by Isaiah. The author's argument, that since John thought that the text was written by Isaiah, that therefore it must have been, is idiotic. Does the author really believe that he has stumbled upon the golden nugget that confounds all of the PhDs who believe otherwise? Does the author believe that the PhDs haven't considered this and justifiably dismissed it? It's sad that BCSpace can't see this.

[_Willy Law]

It is difficult to argue when you can just claim that Joseph was "inspired" despite what could or could not have been on the plates.
The apologists are smart to begin to move away from the need of the plates, let's see if the church follows suit. Moroni will be the only one that will be truly irritated by their shift away from the plates. Poor dude had to lug them all over the continent, for what?

[_Drifting]

It is difficult to argue when you can just claim that Joseph was "inspired" despite what could or could not have been on the plates.
The apologists are smart to begin to move away from the need of the plates, let's see if the church follows suit. Moroni will be the only one that will be truly irritated by their shift away from the plates. Poor dude had to lug them all over the continent, for what?

The other thing that comes into play, with a shift away from the use of plates in the translation, is that it renders the slaying of Laban completely unnecessary.

[_Willy Law]

The other thing that comes into play, with a shift away from the use of plates in the translation, is that it renders the slaying of Laban completely unnecessary.

yes, he may find the present course a bit irritating as well

[_just me]

The other thing that comes into play, with a shift away from the use of plates in the translation, is that it renders the slaying of Laban completely unnecessary.

yes, he may find the present course a bit irritating as well

sucks to be him