DiscussMormonism.com

Buffalo wrote:Doesn't the anachronism of quoting Deutero-Isaiah, written after Lehi & Co left the old world, in and of itself completely debunk the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Multiple_authors_of_Isaiah

Not everyone accepts Deutero-Isaiah (let alone Trito-Isaiah); I remain skeptical. However, there are Mormons, like the seriously deluded Maklelan, who accept both Deutero-Isaiah and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon; Maklelan claims the Book of Mormon is "richly anaphoric" and somehow thinks that settles it.

Simon Belmont wrote:

The very existence of the Book of Mormon confirms its authenticity.

Crack is whack Simon.

Calculus Crusader wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Doesn't the anachronism of quoting Deutero-Isaiah, written after Lehi & Co left the old world, in and of itself completely debunk the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Multiple_authors_of_Isaiah

Not everyone accepts Deutero-Isaiah (let alone Trito-Isaiah); I remain skeptical. However, there are Mormons, like the seriously deluded Maklelan, who accept both Deutero-Isaiah and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon; Maklelan claims the Book of Mormon is "richly anaphoric" and somehow thinks that settles it.

I suspect (but don't know) that those who reject Deutero-Isaiah largely do so for religious objections rather than academic ones.

Maklelan claims the Book of Mormon is "richly anaphoric" and somehow thinks that settles it.

Oh-- that is where I got it. No-- that opens it up to further debate. I enjoy appropriating their arguments.

bcspace wrote:

If you can live with the idea that God speaks the stilted 17th Century English of the King James Version of the Bible, and that God is consistent in the verbiage with which He inspired those that prepared the King James Version of the Bible and those Book of Mormon prophets, then why is the Deutero-Isaiah matter troubling in the least?

Even more plausible is that the translator put the ancient text into the words he knew.

Mr. bcspace,

Are you implying that Joseph Smith spoke in that stilted 17th Century English found in the King James Version of the Bible, and only the duplicated provisions from Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon?

The letters he dictated to his scribes seem to suggest otherwise.

Was the 17th Century English an affectation that Joseph Smith attempted for only the purposes of the Deutero-Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon. Was he trying to make the Book of Mormon sound as important as the Bible?

If the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is to be preferred (Occam's Razor, for example), then since it is known that Joseph Smith Jr had access to a King James Version of the Bible in 1829 when producing the Book of Mormon and that the verbiage is nearly identical, then it is clear that Joseph Smith merely 'lifted' those portions of the Bible and put them into the Book of Mormon.

Regards,

Spider.