Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rob Bowman

Isaiah 53 and the dependence of the Book of Mormon on the KJV

Recommended Posts

Rob,

Thanks for the example. That's a good one--though it seems like quite a jump to go from this single instance (or even multiple similar instances) of rendering a verse "as it should be" (note that he didn't say, "as it originally was") to claiming that the entire work of translation was a restoration of the original text. I'm not trying to be stubborn with this, and I did ask for a quote, and you provided a reasonably good one, and it is off topic. So, I'll be happy to drop this side discussion.

Here's an example:

]I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors

Share this post


Link to post

It has always been the official church position that JS restored the original text, although he may not have finished his restorations.

Mortal Man,

Thanks for responding to my question, though I'm still not convinced. I told Rob I'd drop this with him, but I'll add at least one more comment to you. From the little I've read about it, it seems that many people view the changes within the JST to be more than simply a restoration of the original text. Expressions like, "prophetic commentary" and "clarification" come to mind when I try to recall people's description of the JST. After reviewing the limited church produced resources I have at my disposal, I couldn't find anything that said it was supposed to be a restoration of the original text. Again, if anyone has a solid statement that the JST is considered a restoration of the original text better than what has been produced so far, I'd be interested in seeing it. Since this is off topic, I'll leave it alone now.

Share this post


Link to post
phaedrus ut    214

What a interesting thread. I wished I had enough interest to come to this site and participate in these more often.

One thing I couldn't pick up through his criticism in the tread is if Rob himself believes in the unity of Isaiah or if he believes in Deutero and/or Trito Isaiah. Hopefully he's still following and can respond.

Phaedrus

Share this post


Link to post
Vance    964

What a interesting thread. I wished I had enough interest to come to this site and participate in these more often.

One thing I couldn't pick up through his criticism in the tread is if Rob himself believes in the unity of Isaiah or if he believes in Deutero and/or Trito Isaiah. Hopefully he's still following and can respond.

Phaedrus

Bowman can answer for himself, BUT, he has made it clear that he subscribes to the false and indefensible doctrine of inerrancy.

As such, I suspect that he rejects "Deutero and/or Trito Isaiah".

Share this post


Link to post
zerinus    301

Bowman can answer for himself, BUT, he has made it clear that he subscribes to the false and indefensible doctrine of inerrancy.

As such, I suspect that he rejects "Deutero and/or Trito Isaiah".

Well, he is not the only one who rejects that (assuming that he does!); so do I! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Rob Bowman    182

phaedrus,

Hi there. You wrote:

One thing I couldn't pick up through his criticism in the tread is if Rob himself believes in the unity of Isaiah or if he believes in Deutero and/or Trito Isaiah. Hopefully he's still following and can respond.

I accept the entire book of Isaiah as written by Isaiah the prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×