Proof The Book of Mormon is fraudulent...?

[_jon]

The following is a post from elsewhere, not my words but I thought it interesting:


The Book of Mormon loves Isaiah. As those of us who grew up trying to make it through the Isaiah chapters know, it quotes extensively from Isaiah. The following list shows just how much Isaiah is referred to (or outright copied word for word) in the Book or Mormon:

Isaiah 2-14 =2 Nephi 12-24
29 = 2 Nephi 27;
48, 49 = 1 Nephi 20, 21
50, 51 = 2 Nephi 7, 8
52 = 3 Nephi 20
53 = Mosiah 14
54 = 3 Nephi 22
55 =2 Nephi 26:25

According to the book’s narrative, this plagiarism was made possible by Nephi’s beheading of Laban and subsequent theft of the brass plates – which contained Isaiah’s writings – prior to Nephi and his family leaving Jerusalem. This seems like a reasonable premise since Isaiah was supposed to have lived in the 8th century BC and Nephi and his family didn’t depart Jerusalem until after 600 BC.

Before we go any further, I think it’s fair to say there are only two possible historical options regarding the Book of Mormon:

1) It was written by prophets beginning in 600 BC through 400+ AD or
2) It was written by one or more people in the 1800s.

If 1) can be proven to be 100% impossible then 2) has to be true and vice-versa. So, let’s look at a scenario where 1) would be 100% impossible.

DEUTERO-ISAIAH
It turns out that many Biblical scholars believe that more than one person wrote what is known today as the Book of Isaiah. This second author, who is thought to have started writing beginning with chapter 40, is referred to as “Deutero-Isaiah” (and possibly even a third author has been mentioned, known as “Trito-Isaiah”). There are a couple of key reasons supporters cite for this belief: 1) beginning in chapter 40 the writing style changes and 2) after chapter 40, things are referred to that hadn’t happened when the Book of Isaiah was supposed to have been written.

THE PROBLEM FOR THE Book of Mormon
Why does this pose a problem for the Book of Mormon? Because “Deutero-Isaiah” would have written his portion AFTER Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC, which also happens to be AFTER Nephi and his family left with the brass plates.

Obviously, if the Deutero-Isaiah theory is accurate, then Nephi would be quoting from plates that he COULDN’T possibly have had when he left Jerusalem since they didn’t exist yet. Premise 1) would be 100% impossible!

Oops.

WHAT DO Mormon APOLOGISTS SAY?
On the Shields website, the response by Dr. Sidney Sperry is essentially the same as what I remember reading 10 years ago when I first became aware of this issue.

“Unless criticism can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Isaiah is not a unity, Latter-day Saints are justified in assuming that the traditional views held in the Book of Mormon with respect to its authorship are on the whole correct.”

And later, after citing 14 reasons why it could be that Isaiah was only written by one person, it then states:

“The internal evidence, therefore, is strongly in favor of the unity of Isaiah. Certain it is that the critics' arguments for the division of Isaiah are far from being compelling and conclusive. Lacking that, their case must be labeled "not proved." The most serious problem in connection with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon therefore disappears”

Basically, “not enough evidence exists to make multiple authorship conclusive.”

WELL, THE SMOKING GUN JUST GOT…SMOKIER
I already found this argument woefully weak, but now it just got blown to pieces. According to an AP release:

“Software developed by an Israeli team is giving intriguing new hints about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible.

"The new software analyzes style and word choices to distinguish parts of a single text written by different authors, and when applied to the Bible its algorithm teased out distinct writerly voices in the holy book.”

When it comes to Isaiah, here are its findings:

“…the book of Isaiah is largely thought to have been written by two distinct authors, with the second author taking over after Chapter 39. The software's results agreed that the book might have two authors, but suggested the second author's section actually began six chapters earlier, in Chapter 33.”

There you have it, extremely compelling evidence that Deutero-Isaiah exists, which means that parts of Isaiah were written after Nephi left Jerusalem, which means quoting those portions of Isaiah would have been 100% IMPOSSIBLE! Basically, it is absolute and complete evidence that the Book of Mormon was written in the 18th century – at least for anyone looking at it objectively. I’m sure apologists will figure some new angle on the whole thing, but their new argument will have to move even more to the fringe and therefore will be even more impotent than it already was.

Here’s the entire article – enjoy!

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-algorithm ... 28454.html

[_The Nehor]

There are a couple of key reasons supporters cite for this belief:
1) beginning in chapter 40 the writing style changes
2) after chapter 40, things are referred to that hadn’t happened when the Book of Isaiah was supposed to have been written.

1) As we know every author only has one style.
2) Well this should convince LDS who are convinced there is no such thing as prophecy.

Congratulations, we will begin dismantling the Church immediately due to this stunning discovery.

[_Simon Belmont]

Oh hey, this post again?

[_Runtu]

1) As we know every author only has one style.
2) Well this should convince LDS who are convinced there is no such thing as prophecy.

Congratulations, we will begin dismantling the Church immediately due to this stunning discovery.

Snarkiness aside, the presence of deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is a problem, as it's anachronistic. It clearly postdates the exile, and thus would not have been available on the brass plates.

Acknowledging valid issues is not the same as throwing in the towel on Mormonism.

[_The Nehor]

Snarkiness aside, the presence of deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is a problem, as it's anachronistic. It clearly postdates the exile, and thus would not have been available on the brass plates.

I disagree with the bolded section. I've read some of the literature and find it unconvincing. The hypothesis found favor in a climate where critics with scissors and paste went through almost every important ancient work and cut it to pieces and ascribed bits to various authors. Luckily the fad (mostly) died out except in scripture....sadly. To be honest I doubt the dating schemes of a lot (most?) of the biblical books.

This hung around with Isaiah because the critics didn't believe in prophecy. As an orthodox member of the LDS faith I believe we have a book compiled over a century and a half ago by a prophet specifically addressing our concerns today. I'm not going to strain at the gnat of Isaiah seeing a hundred years into the future to help his people survive a coming occupation and exile after swallowing that camel.

Acknowledging valid issues is not the same as throwing in the towel on Mormonism.

I'm pointing out to most LDS that it is not a valid issue. If you assume that there is no such thing as prophecy of course the Book of Mormon is fraudulent. However there is really no need to bring Isaiah in to show that. You can say the Book of Mormon is fraudulent because Lehi prophesies at length and there is no such thing as prophecy.

The only weirdness I find convincing is the presence of the name "Cyrus" which is a fascinating issue. Even that has a possible loophole. Cyrus's grandfather was also named Cyrus. Could have been a reference to the line.

In any case I don't find it convincing and jon's overblown conclusions (described in thread title) are inane. He suggests we 'throw in the towel' so I was pointing out (sarcastically) that we are not going to.

[Guest]

The Book of Mormon is fraudulent because, 1) god doesn't send angels to speak to one man on behalf of the many, 2) god doesn't "disappear" physical objects to test faith. God is so preoccupied watching the world kill itself in wars and exploit its bothers without lifting a finger, that the idea that god somehow does get involved with hiding metal plates or fretting about Joseph smith's sexual exploits is beyond ludicrous (except to a self-absorbed and narcissistic religious fanatic). 3)because I know it is fradulent with every fibre of my being. The latter being the most compelling of course.

[Guest]

Why is it that you only hear the phrase, "Oh, this topic again? [eye roll]" coming folks defending Mormon claims?

I wonder, if Simon et al posted a bunch on topics like "Why I love the Plan of Happiness" etc, if critics around here would start saying, "Oh brother, not this topic again.. [eye roll]".

?

[_Buffalo]

1) As we know every author only has one style.
2) Well this should convince LDS who are convinced there is no such thing as prophecy.

Congratulations, we will begin dismantling the Church immediately due to this stunning discovery.

Snarkiness aside, the presence of deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is a problem, as it's anachronistic. It clearly postdates the exile, and thus would not have been available on the brass plates.

Acknowledging valid issues is not the same as throwing in the towel on Mormonism.

Yes, there is no question that the Deutero-Isaiah was written post-exile. It was not written by the real Isaiah and it's inclusion in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism.

Shields' response is really dishonest. They pretend that there is a possibility that Isaiah is the sole author, and there isn't. You only have to read it to understand. The Deutero Isaiah author talks about the current events of his day - post-exile.

The only reason they make that untenable argument is because they have to in order to defend the Book of Mormon. But Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is the smoking gun

[Guest]

If you've read the case for deutro-Isaiah Nehor, you'd be aware that it is far more complicated and compelling than the mere fact that it later sections describe events in specific detail that occurred after first Isaiah was written. (Though that is evidence too.) Maybe you should have a conversation with Mak.

They pretend that there is a possibility that Isaiah is the sole author

There's always a possibility. It's also possible I'm an invisible pink unicorn typing from beyond the moon. The notion that something can be dismissed unless it is proven to deductive certainty is the main problem with that author's argument.

[_Buffalo]

I disagree with the bolded section. I've read some of the literature and find it unconvincing. The hypothesis found favor in a climate where critics with scissors and paste went through almost every important ancient work and cut it to pieces and ascribed bits to various authors. Luckily the fad (mostly) died out except in scripture....sadly. To be honest I doubt the dating schemes of a lot (most?) of the biblical books.

This hung around with Isaiah because the critics didn't believe in prophecy. As an orthodox member of the LDS faith I believe we have a book compiled over a century and a half ago by a prophet specifically addressing our concerns today. I'm not going to strain at the gnat of Isaiah seeing a hundred years into the future to help his people survive a coming occupation and exile after swallowing that camel.

Have you actually read it? Deutero Isaiah isn't prophesying about future events. Isaiah 45 is a message from Yahweh to Cyrus - you know, like the messages in D&C to various church members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

Isaiah 45

1Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

2I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:

3And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.