Proof The Book of Mormon is fraudulent...?

[_stemelbow]

We can certainly date them to long after the time of the real Isaiah. Isaiah was an 8th century prophet and Cyrus was a 6th century historical figure.

But Buffalo, this is just evidence that there was this Duetero Isaiah. I mean, I agree that much of Isaiah, well I don't know how much, but some of Isaiah is from after Isaiah's time, but it can also be true that the ideas, the teachings found in Deutero Isaiah came from a record via Isaiah's hand, but was re-written, edited, yet in essence copied from Isaiah. I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm just syaing there are possibilities, and that we can't date things quite like we can with more modern things, like the song you mention. We're having to rely on experts who see what they can and then make conclusions based on their established patterns. That doesn't mean they are 100% right. It doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means we can't conclusively prove some of their ideas--like Deutero Isaiah.

[Guest]

We can certainly date them to long after the time of the real Isaiah. Isaiah was an 8th century prophet and Cyrus was a 6th century historical figure.

But Buffalo, this is just evidence that there was this Duetero Isaiah. I mean, I agree that much of Isaiah, well I don't know how much, but some of Isaiah is from after Isaiah's time, but it can also be true that the ideas, the teachings found in Deutero Isaiah came from a record via Isaiah's hand, but was re-written, edited, yet in essence copied from Isaiah. I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm just syaing there are possibilities, and that we can't date things quite like we can with more modern things, like the song you mention. We're having to rely on experts who see what they can and then make conclusions based on their established patterns. That doesn't mean they are 100% right. It doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means we can't conclusively prove some of their ideas--like Deutero Isaiah.

Where's your evidence?

You could also claim that Adam Smith copied all of his ideas from a secret, unpublished work by Isaiah, and that Smith just put them into his own words. But without any evidence to that effect, such speculation is meaningless.

Not to mention, Deutero-Isaiah is all about the issues of the 6th century.

[_The Nehor]

We can certainly date them to long after the time of the real Isaiah. Isaiah was an 8th century prophet and Cyrus was a 6th century historical figure.

Which assumes that there is no such thing as prophecy. I disagree. I suspect Isaiah would too.

[_stemelbow]

Where's your evidence?

I've already offered my assessment, Buffalo. I agree that from what we know and understand, there was a Duetero Isaiah who came after Isaiah and that is where the second part of Isaiah comes from. But there is nothing ocnclusive on this.

[_The Nehor]

Where's your evidence?

Where is yours? Can you produce an incomplete portion of Isaiah before the second half was written dated to the appropriate time?

[_Buffalo]

We can certainly date them to long after the time of the real Isaiah. Isaiah was an 8th century prophet and Cyrus was a 6th century historical figure.

Which assumes that there is no such thing as prophecy. I disagree. I suspect Isaiah would too.

The text isn't a prophesy, it's addressed to a contemporary person. Did you read it? It's in the same language as the revelations in D&C given to people like John C. Bennet and Emma Smith. It's not prophesying that there will be this guy Cyrus. It's a message to Cyrus from Yahweh saying basically, "Yo, Cyrus, you're my boy. You take care of this Babylon issue for me, and I'm going hit you up with some serious dough."

[_Buffalo]

Where's your evidence?

Where is yours? Can you produce an incomplete portion of Isaiah before the second half was written dated to the appropriate time?

My evidence has already been presented. ALL of the evidence points toward what I've been saying. That's also the scholarly consensus.

So again, where is your evidence?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I don't see what's so silly. Is it unreasonable to think that there ever were records kept on metal plates? Not really...its been shown that things have been written on metal plates. Is it unreasonable to think that people have reformed ancient Egyptian? Not really. Its been shown to have happened.

Do you have a reference on people having reformed ancient Egyptian? Or are you using the Book of Mormon itself to show that it happened?

If the Isaiah matter were the only problem with the Book of Mormon, anyone would be justified to overlook it as something with a logical explanation somewhere. But as one of hundreds of problems, it's another nail in the coffin. Admit it, the Book of Mormon coffin has more nails than wood at this point. It is proven false to any objective reasonable person (or maybe that should be rephrased something like: a person who is capable of being objective and reasonable about some matters, but not his faith in Mormonism).

[_Themis]

I don't see what's so silly.

Well I realise many who want to believe something may not see just how silly it is. Usually because they have not given it a lot of critical thought.

Is it unreasonable to think that there ever were records kept on metal plates? Not really...its been shown that things have been written on metal plates.

Yes it is very unreasonable. Can you provide evidence of writing on metal plates. After you do maybe you will see some of the reasons why it is so unreasonable.

Is it unreasonable to think that people have reformed ancient Egyptian? Not really. Its been shown to have happened.

Language is always changing so calling it reformed egyptain or english, etc can certainly be used. What I don't see is any evidence that any new language which would probbaly not be that different from the original can convey information in significantly less space which would be needed to make metal plates feasible for recording large amounts of information or text. Joseph incorrectly thought egyptain conveyed much more information then it really did.

How is it that silly? I mean I would kinda get the whole Joseph Smith was shown them by an angel thing being called silly because, hey, I've thought some stories silly wen it comes to claims of seeing and dealing with angels. but the rest of it doesn't seem silly, really. Maybe a little far-fetched?

More then far fetched. Show any ancient metal records that show large amounts of information. There is a reason you cannot, and it's not a lack of desire , but feasibilty. Nephi could never have hefted the brass plates, just as Joseph would not have been able to with actual Golds plates containing the equivalent of over 1500 words of english text.

[_The Nehor]

The text isn't a prophesy, it's addressed to a contemporary person.

I disagree.

Did you read it?

Many times. Probably more then you have.

It's in the same language as the revelations in D&C given to people like John C. Bennet and Emma Smith.

And the same way Nephi and Mormon and Moroni talk to us.

It's not prophesying that there will be this guy Cyrus. It's a message to Cyrus from Yahweh saying basically, "Yo, Cyrus, you're my boy. You take care of this Babylon issue for me, and I'm going hit you up with some serious dough."

It can be both but nice try.