DiscussMormonism.com

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written after Lehi & Co left the old world, in and of itself completely debunk the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document?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

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written after Lehi & Co left the old world, in and of itself completely debunk the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document?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

Mr. Buffalo,

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?

Regards,

Spider.

Spider-to-the-Fly 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written after Lehi & Co left the old world, in and of itself completely debunk the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document?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

Mr. Buffalo,

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?

Regards,

Spider.

Good point.

Mr. Buffalo,

That language being both in the King James Version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon should be the verifier for Mormons that the King James Version has been translated correctly--without the need for hedging 'as far as translated correctly'.

So, in hijack of your thread, I ask Mormons, why the need for the KJV hedge given that outstanding endorsement of it via the Book of Mormon (which itself has had corrections, so ought to have the caveat 'as far as translated correctly' too)?

Regards,

Spider.

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written after Lehi & Co left the old world, in and of itself completely debunk the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document?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

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

Simon Belmont 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

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

Yes, it authentically exists. It's a book. But it's not a historical document. It was written in the 19th century, and the inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah, which could not have been on the brass plates, confirms it.

Buffalo wrote:Yes, it authentically exists. It's a book. But it's not a historical document. It was written in the 19th century, and the inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah, which could not have been on the brass plates, confirms it.

Since it is well known that Joseph Smith did not even look at the plates when he was translating, what evidence do we have to prove or disprove that the portions of duetero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon were even on the plates? Do we know that everything contained within the Book of Mormon was on the plates? If, as part of the 'translation' process more information was added to the Book of Mormon than is contained within the plates, does that invalidate the Book of Mormon?


By the wayI think it is a 19th century document.

Fence Sitter wrote:
Since it is well known that Joseph Smith did not even look at the plates when he was translating, what evidence do we have to prove or disprove that the portions of duetero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon were even on the plates? Do we know that everything contained within the Book of Mormon was on the plates? If, as part of the 'translation' process more information was added to the Book of Mormon than is contained within the plates, does that invalidate the Book of Mormon?


By the wayI think it is a 19th century document.

Since Nephi claimed to have taken scriptures with him written on the brass plates, and since this was supposed to have happened at about 600 BC, that gives us a concrete time line and a concrete set of texts by which to compare. Nephi quotes passages from Deutero-Isaiah which supposedly were found on the brass plates. Only they couldn't have been, because they hadn't been written yet. It's the mopologist's worst nightmare: falsifiability.

Book of Mormon:

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

The inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah passages is extremely problematic, and I haven't seen a decent response yet.

Aren't there some New Testament passages, too...yes there are.

Anyway, God revealed the same exact thing to the Nephites. The End.