Whether or not you accept the validity of Deutero-Isaiah, it does provide a challenge to BoM historicity.
Well, it is whether a dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog sort of thing.
Whether you like it or not, the BOM text provides a powerful challenge to the Deutero-Isaiah theory, since the Isaiah text was written within a short time after Isaiah wrote his manuscript. It is the closest we have to the original manuscript, and provides an excellent test for that theory.
I prefer that the dog (an ancient text) wags the tail (modern scholastic speculation and theory).
How about toning down your arrogance and unnecessary hostility toward everyone?
"Hostility towards everyone?" I gave him the answer he deserved. It was neither arrogant nor hostile. I think the arrogance is coming from you.
Quote
You asked me to comment on the line itself. So, I did.
LOL! I asked you to comment on what the line meant. He didn’t draw a line with a ruler. He said something and meant something by it. It is obvious that you are giving irrational replies to my posts without having bothered to read the conversation that ensued it. That is pretty ignorant behaviour if you don’t mind me saying so.
Quote
Probably because you dismiss anything you don’t like as “secular” or “humanist” and regard those who do accept it as “lacking testimony.” You’ve dismissed it as nonsense and rubbish without being familiar with any of the biblical scholarship on the matter. Your approach offers little to understanding the Book of Mormon as an ancient text and is at the most self-serving.
I think that is a very arrogant statement to make. It is the Book of Mormon that utterly destroys and confines to the eternal dustbin the “Deutero-Isaiah” garbage. “Deutero-Isaiah” presents no challenge to the Book of Mormon whatsoever. A Latter-day Saint who does not recognize that is living beneath his privileges (to put it mildly). No great “scholarship” is needed to recognize that.
Well, it is whether a dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog sort of thing.
Whether you like it or not, the BOM text provides a powerful challenge to the Deutero-Isaiah theory, . . .
Thank you, I agree. I think it presents it with more than a "powerful challenge;" it completely destroys it—if you believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon that is.
Quote
. . . since the IsaiahBook of Mormon text was written within a short time after Isaiah wrote his manuscript. It is the closest we have to the original manuscript, and provides an excellent test for that theory.
I prefer that the dog (an ancient text) wags the tail (modern scholastic speculation and theory).
I think you meant to say the Book of Mormon text! I agree! The only way anyone could think that the Deutero-Isaiah garbage presents a "challenge" to the Book of Mormon is if they didn't believe in originality of the Book of Mormon as true history, and a revealed and inspired text; and frankly, I don't think that these people do. Now I can understand non-LDS scholars and historians thinking that way, because they don't have a spiritual witness of the book, and one does not expect them to have one; but for someone claiming to be a Latter-day Saint to do so is an utter disgrace.
I think that is a very arrogant statement to make. It is the Book of Mormon that utterly destroys and confines to the eternal dustbin the “Deutero-Isaiah” garbage. “Deutero-Isaiah” presents no challenge to the Book of Mormon whatsoever. A Latter-day Saint who does not recognize that is living beneath his privileges (to put it mildly). No great “scholarship” is needed to recognize that.
There are believers who hold a spiritual witness of the BofM as scripture that believe that the Deutero-Isaiah "garbage" must be factored into a serious consideration of the Book of Mormon's claims. Some believers in the work as scripture maintain that it is an inspired 19th century book. Others believe that perhaps Joseph was inspired to add to his translation of an ancient source. Still others maintain that the book of Isaiah was produce in sections over a lengthy period of time and that the chapters quoted in the Book of Mormon were produced shortly before Lehi's family left Jerusalem.
Either way, I don't agree with your approach which amounts to closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, while repeating over and over again, "I'm an analytical thinker! I'm an analytical thinker."
The Book of Mormon presents a serious claim and must therefore submit to human criticism. Compare your approach to the one advocated by Elder B.H. Roberts, a true analytical thinker who very much held a testimony of the BofM:
"Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it [i.e. Zerinus] to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." Improvement Era, 435-436.
Edited by David Bokovoy, 11 April 2011 - 03:07 AM.
There are believers who hold a spiritual witness of the BofM as scripture that believe that the Deutero-Isaiah "garbage" must be factored into a serious consideration of the Book of Mormon's claims. Some believers in the work as scripture maintain that it is an inspired 19th century book. Others believe that perhaps Joseph was inspired to add to his translation of an ancient source. Still others maintain that the book of Isaiah was produce in sections over a lengthy period of time and that the chapters quoted in the Book of Mormon were produced shortly before Lehi's family left Jerusalem.
Either way, I don't agree with your approach which amounts to closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, while repeating over and over again, "I'm an analytical thinker! I'm an analytical thinker."
The Book of Mormon presents a serious claim and must therefore submit to human criticism. Compare your approach to the one advocated by Elder B.H. Roberts, a true analytical thinker who very much held a testimony of the BofM:
"Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe [i.e. Zerinius] it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." Improvement Era, 435-436.
I have nothing against putting the Book of Mormon through any kind of a test; what I am against is when a Mormon "scholar" accepts an academic theory that undermines the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a revealed and true history that it claims to be, and presents that idea as an acceptable proposition for Latter-day Saints. And why am I against that? Because I know that it is false, and I am on the side of the truth. Deutero-Isaiah and the Book of Mormon cannot both be true. If one of them is true, the other one must be false. And I happen to know that the Book of Mormon is true. That puts paid to the Deutero-Isaiah theory.
I have nothing against putting the Book of Mormon through any kind of a test; what I am against is when a Mormon "scholar" accepts an academic theory that undermines the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a revealed and true history that it claims to be, and presents that idea as an acceptable proposition for Latter-day Saints. And why am I against that? Because I know that it is false, and I am on the side of the truth. Deutero-Isaiah and the Book of Mormon cannot both be true. If one of them is true, the other one must be false. And I happen to know that the Book of Mormon is true. That puts paid to the Deutero-Isaiah theory.
I don't know why one must take such an extreme and immovable position. My own view is that the BoM provides a control on what portions of what we now have as Isaiah predate the Captivity. Everything else, and I do mean everything, is up for grabs as to date of first production. Just because something is presently grouped with materials which have been arbitrarily titled "Second Isaiah" doesn't mean that we must accept that it shares authorship or date of production with the remaining Second Isaiah elements.
So put me in the group David says thinks the preserved Second Isaiah elements in 2 Nephi, etc., were composed shortly before the Captivity. What harm does such a position do to the BoM's authenticity claims, zerinus? Such a position allows the possibility that at least 2 and possibly more people were involved in producing the documents later synthesized into Isaiah, but takes no firm position on the subject.
Why should we as Mormons object to the possibility that many authors may have been involved in producing any book? Plainly the Bible has many authors, and, probably, many editors involved over a long time. Same with the Book of Mormon itself. Mormon's fingerprints and, to a lesser extent, Moroni's, are all over every page. The difference between the BoM and Isaiah, however, is that we know exactly who the great compiler and redactor and editor was for the BoM. There is no such transparency with the Bible or specifically Isaiah, however.
Remember: Not that long ago GBH allowed the possibility that Genesis was another book that went through a similar process to the BoM, where later compilers, redactors and editors synthesized then existing texts to produce what we now love so much. Are any of us likelier to be clear on such issues than he?
In the immortal words of? Socrates...I DRANK WHAT???!!!
. . . My own view is that the BoM provides a control on what portions of what we now have as Isaiah predate the Captivity. Everything else, and I do mean everything, is up for grabs as to date of first production. Just because something is presently grouped with materials which have been arbitrarily titled "Second Isaiah" doesn't mean that we must accept that it shares authorship or date of production with the remaining Second Isaiah elements.
So put me in the group David says thinks the preserved Second Isaiah elements in 2 Nephi, etc., were composed shortly before the Captivity.
Ditto.
Edited by Vance, 11 April 2011 - 02:28 AM.
"Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant." Stephen Colbert
"Because some people need to be dealt with reality, they have been coddled their whole lives, and when they're morons I have the guts and the compassion to let them know that they're morons." Mark Levin.
"Vance is truly the devil's right hand man and his multiplicity of sins testifies to that." & "Your heart is truly filled with evil, a true thistle through and through." Echo of the "truth in love ministry".
Lurks in shadows unlit by the fiery gaze of the SCMC
Banned
2,098 posts
Posted 11 April 2011 - 04:39 AM
cdowis, on 10 April 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:
Well, it is whether a dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog sort of thing.
Whether you like it or not, the BOM text provides a powerful challenge to the Deutero-Isaiah theory, since the Isaiah text was written within a short time after Isaiah wrote his manuscript. It is the closest we have to the original manuscript, and provides an excellent test for that theory.
I prefer that the dog (an ancient text) wags the tail (modern scholastic speculation and theory).
So you claim that 2 Nephi 27 is the closest we have to the original manuscript of Isaiah 29? (I wish they would fix the question mark bug.)
I applaud you for being the only apologist to actually stand up for church doctrine on this issue.
I invite you to defend this claim; you'd be the first to do so. I've invited many before but all have declined.
Fame and glory await.
What they don't teach in Sunday school "We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything - - solitude, hardship, exhaustion, death. We're proud of ourselves. But when you think about it, our enthusiasm's a sham. We don't want other worlds; we want mirrors." -- Gibarian
Allow me to clarify: hostility towards everyone who disagrees with you.
Quote
I gave him the answer he deserved.
But of course. Surely you can do no wrong.
Quote
It was neither arrogant nor hostile.
You told him that he didn't have a testimony because he doesn't view it the way you do. That isn't hostile or arrogant?
Quote
I think the arrogance is coming from you.
I'm sure that is it...
Quote
LOL! I asked you to comment on what the line meant.
Actually, what you said was,
Quote
"So I take it that you agree with him that "The true challenges for Mormonism come from humanists." Is that so? Would you like to explain?"
I agree with that. And I explained why.
Quote
He didn’t draw a line with a ruler. He said something and meant something by it.
Considering David thanked both Volgadon and I for helping him clarify, I'm pretty sure I got the gist of what he meant.
Quote
It is obvious that you are giving irrational replies to my posts without having bothered to read the conversation that ensued it. That is pretty ignorant behaviour if you don’t mind me saying so.
See above.
Quote
I think that is a very arrogant statement to make.
Do you not label those who disagree with you "secularists" and "humanists" who "lack testimony?"
Quote
It is the Book of Mormon that utterly destroys and confines to the eternal dustbin the “Deutero-Isaiah” garbage.
Not necessarily. David has offered some pretty good theories on how Deutero-Isaiah can still work in a Book of Mormon context.
Quote
“Deutero-Isaiah” presents no challenge to the Book of Mormon whatsoever.
As it relates to critical biblical scholarship, it does. Or it at least challenges certain paradigms regarding Book of Mormon. That might be a better way of putting it.
Quote
A Latter-day Saint who does not recognize that is living beneath his privileges (to put it mildly).
How exactly? I know you are all about moral self-aggrandizement, but you have yet to make a coherent argument for your position.
Quote
No great “scholarship” is needed to recognize that.
http://theslowhunch.blogspot.com/ "We must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us." - Socrates "Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I'm amazed how many people devote themselves to that task." - Thomas Sowell "I'll readily admit that it is much easier to hold firm opinions on something you know little about." - Brant Gardner
"Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it [i.e. Zerinus] to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." Improvement Era, 435-436.
http://theslowhunch.blogspot.com/ "We must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us." - Socrates "Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I'm amazed how many people devote themselves to that task." - Thomas Sowell "I'll readily admit that it is much easier to hold firm opinions on something you know little about." - Brant Gardner
I have nothing against putting the Book of Mormon through any kind of a test; what I am against is when a Mormon "scholar" accepts an academic theory that undermines the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a revealed and true history that it claims to be, and presents that idea as an acceptable proposition for Latter-day Saints. And why am I against that? Because I know that it is false, and I am on the side of the truth. Deutero-Isaiah and the Book of Mormon cannot both be true. If one of them is true, the other one must be false. And I happen to know that the Book of Mormon is true. That puts paid to the Deutero-Isaiah theory.
"Lofty air of superiority" indeed.
http://theslowhunch.blogspot.com/ "We must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us." - Socrates "Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I'm amazed how many people devote themselves to that task." - Thomas Sowell "I'll readily admit that it is much easier to hold firm opinions on something you know little about." - Brant Gardner
I don't know why one must take such an extreme and immovable position. My own view is that the BoM provides a control on what portions of what we now have as Isaiah predate the Captivity. Everything else, and I do mean everything, is up for grabs as to date of first production. Just because something is presently grouped with materials which have been arbitrarily titled "Second Isaiah" doesn't mean that we must accept that it shares authorship or date of production with the remaining Second Isaiah elements.
So put me in the group David says thinks the preserved Second Isaiah elements in 2 Nephi, etc., were composed shortly before the Captivity. What harm does such a position do to the BoM's authenticity claims, zerinus? Such a position allows the possibility that at least 2 and possibly more people were involved in producing the documents later synthesized into Isaiah, but takes no firm position on the subject.
Why should we as Mormons object to the possibility that many authors may have been involved in producing any book? Plainly the Bible has many authors, and, probably, many editors involved over a long time. Same with the Book of Mormon itself. Mormon's fingerprints and, to a lesser extent, Moroni's, are all over every page. The difference between the BoM and Isaiah, however, is that we know exactly who the great compiler and redactor and editor was for the BoM. There is no such transparency with the Bible or specifically Isaiah, however.
Remember: Not that long ago GBH allowed the possibility that Genesis was another book that went through a similar process to the BoM, where later compilers, redactors and editors synthesized then existing texts to produce what we now love so much. Are any of us likelier to be clear on such issues than he?
I reject that because the whole of the Deutro- and Trito-Isaiah theory is a sceptic’s theory. It is based on the denial of the spirit of prophecy and revelation. It is a new theory invented by the 19th century sceptic scholars who couldn’t stomach the idea of a prophet being able to foretell future events; and that is the only real justification for inventing it. Here is an extract form a Wikipedia article on Isaiah explaining that fact:
Jewish and Christian tradition held that the entire book is by the 8th century BCE prophet Isaiah, but scholars have held since the late 19th century that it cannot be by a single author. The observations which have led to this conclusion are as follows:
Prophecies → Passages of Isaiah 40-66 refer to events that did not occur in Isaiah's own lifetime, such as the rise of Babylon as the world power, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the rise of Cyrus the Great. (R. N. Whybray notes that Deutero-Isaiah's prediction that Cyrus would destroy Babylon - in fact he made it more splendid than ever - further pinpoints the time in which the author wrote.)
Anonymity → Isaiah’s name suddenly stops being used after chapter 39.
Style → There is a sudden change in style and theology after chapter 40; numerous key words and phrases found in one section are not found in the other.
Historical Situation → The historical situation goes through three stages: in chapters 1-39 the prophet speaks of a judgment which will befall the wicked Israelites; in chapters 40-55 the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (587 BCE) is treated as an accomplished fact and the fall of Babylon as an imminent threat; and in chapters 56-66 the fall of Babylon is already in the past.
Scholars therefore divide the book into three parts:
Chapters 1 to 39 (First Isaiah, Proto-Isaiah or Original Isaiah): the work of the original prophet Isaiah, who worked in Jerusalem between 740 and 687 BCE.
Chapters 40 to 55 (Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah): by an anonymous author who lived in Babylon near the end of the Babylonian captivity.
Chapters 56 to 66 (Third Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah): the work of anonymous disciples committed to continuing Isaiah's work in the years immediately after the return from Babylon. This section includes visions of new heavens and new earth. (Other scholars suggest that chapters 55-66 were written by Deutero-Isaiah after the fall of Babylon.)
This implied sequence of pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic material is somewhat misleading, as significant editing has clearly taken place in all three parts. There is some uncertainty as to how Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah came to be attached to the original Isaiah: the two competing theories are either that Deutero-Isaiah was written as a continuation of Proto-Isaiah, or that it was written separately and became attached to the famous Isaiah later. Source.
That is the explanation for it. The main idea behind it is that Isaiah could not have foretold future events, therefore those portions couldn’t have been written by the pre-exilic prophet. The rest of the explanations are just window-dressing added to it to make main idea look more plausible. But the primary reason behind it is the denial of the spirit of prophecy. The Book of Mormon trashes that theory by containing pre-exilic material that quotes both parts of Isaiah. Now you are trying to tell me that I can keep the Book of Mormon and its trashing of Deutero-Isaiah, but “everything else” (i.e. the bits not quoted in the BOM, such as the Trito-Isaiah) is still “up for grabs”. Why? What is the basis of that? Trito-Isaiah theory is as false as the Deutero-Isaiah theory because it is derived from the same thought—disbelief in prophecy. What reason do I have for accepting any portion of a failed and flawed theory?
But the sceptics nowadays go a lot further than that. Soon after the Deutro- and Trito-Isaiah theories were first invented (Deutro- came first, followed by Trito-), it soon ran into trouble, because those respective portions of Isaiah contain material which do not fit into that theory. So in order to circumvent that they had to chop up Isaiah into a thousand bits assigning each an arbitrary date of composition! So now we have an Isaiah that is not just divided into three portions, but blown into a thousand pieces, each arbitrarily assigned to a different time period. I have absolutely no justification to accept such an absurd theory, even if I wasn’t a Mormon; but with the knowledge revealed in the Book of Mormon, it makes it an impossible theory to accept by anyone who has the remotest testimony of the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Isaiah is great poetry. It is fantastic poetry. The whole of it is, not just parts of it. Since when was great poetry written by multiple authors, especially separated over several centuries? It takes a genius like Shakespeare to produce Shakespeare; a genius like Dante to produce the Inferno; a genius like Homer to produce the Illiad and The Oddysey; a genius like Milton to produce Pradise Lost and Paradise Regained; a genius like Molavi (Runi) to produce the Mathnavi. Such geniuses turn up once in a thousand years in a culture or civilization. Isaiah was one of those. He was the Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Homer, or Molavi of Hebrew literature. It is the most ridiculous thing on earth to blow up his magnificent poem into a thousand pieces and assign each to a different author at a different time. I pity the intellectually bereft LDS “scholars” who cannot see beyond the length of their nose.
—Deny not the spirit of revelation, nor the spirit of prophecy, for wo unto him that denieth these things (D&C 11:25)
Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before
Contributor
4,663 posts
Posted 11 April 2011 - 06:56 AM
All,
I appreciate the feedback. I think some of the criticisms that have been made here against my opening post may have some merit, and I will work through the issues and post whatever clarifications or corrections I think are appropriate. However, I won't be doing this immediately, because Mortal Man has asked me to respond to his thread on "The Easter Story," and I think that is a more important use of my time at the moment. I will return to this thread as soon as I can.
I reject that because the whole of the Deutro- and Trito-Isaiah theory is a sceptic’s theory. It is based on the denial of the spirit of prophecy and revelation.
This puzzles me. Mormon takes a score or more of documents, many engraved on plates, synthesizes them according to a sophisticated plan in order to bring a persuasive document to a particular audience. The only evidence we have that he was inspired to do so is his own word, which is both self-serving and presents us with a circular argument in support of his work's divine inspiration.
YET we Mormon types accept Mormon's work of choosing, compiling, editing, and presenting this persuasive piece of literature as G-d's word.
But if the theory of a BoM editor named Mormon had not been presented by a man of faith, you would reject it because of WHO presented it to the world.
Me no unnerstan
In the immortal words of? Socrates...I DRANK WHAT???!!!
This puzzles me. Mormon takes a score or more of documents, many engraved on plates, synthesizes them according to a sophisticated plan in order to bring a persuasive document to a particular audience. The only evidence we have that he was inspired to do so is his own word, which is both self-serving and presents us with a circular argument in support of his work's divine inspiration.
YET we Mormon types accept Mormon's work of choosing, compiling, editing, and presenting this persuasive piece of literature as G-d's word.
But if the theory of a BoM editor named Mormon had not been presented by a man of faith, you would reject it because of WHO presented it to the world.
Me no unnerstan
Me too. That makes two of us!
I find your comments puzzling, and frankly I don’t understand it. Are you suggesting that just because the Book of Mormon is a compilation of material written by different authors, that the book of Isaiah must also be the same? Why? What is the logical basis of that assumption? Some books are compilations, and some are the works of single authors. (Most books are the works of single authors.) So, just because some books are compilations, all books must be compilations? Or just because some books are the works of a single author, all books must be the works of single authors? Why?
We have the passover lamb as a type and shadow of Christ, LONG BEFORE Lehi left Jerusalem.
Ex 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
. . .
11 ¶ And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord’s passover.
. . .
21 ¶ Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.
. . .
43 ¶ And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
. . .
46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.
47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
Lev. 14:10 And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.
Lev. 23:18 And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the Lord, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the Lord.
Ezek. 46:4 And the burnt offering that the prince shall offer unto the Lord in the sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish.
We have the fulfillment of the ULTIMATE passover sacrifice.
John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
Heb. 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
1 Pet 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
And we have statements that this sacrifice was "from the foundation of the world" by Peter, John and the author of Hebrews.
And then we are supposed to have a problem with Christ being called "the Lamb of God" prior to the New Testament?
AND let us not forget this gem!
Isa. 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
So, is anyone beside Bowman shocked that Jesus was referred to as "the Lamb of God" prior to NT times?
"Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant." Stephen Colbert
"Because some people need to be dealt with reality, they have been coddled their whole lives, and when they're morons I have the guts and the compassion to let them know that they're morons." Mark Levin.
"Vance is truly the devil's right hand man and his multiplicity of sins testifies to that." & "Your heart is truly filled with evil, a true thistle through and through." Echo of the "truth in love ministry".
So your great scholarship has been reduced to just launching tirades against zerinus! Be assured that I have no time for such folks. Have a nice day.
For one who has no problem making claims about the quality of others' testimonies, I think your victimization is over the top.
When you move beyond your witch-hunting and Wikipedia articles, someone might care about your opinion.
http://theslowhunch.blogspot.com/ "We must follow the argument wherever, like a wind, it may lead us." - Socrates "Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I'm amazed how many people devote themselves to that task." - Thomas Sowell "I'll readily admit that it is much easier to hold firm opinions on something you know little about." - Brant Gardner
0
This topic is locked
volgadon, on 10 April 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:
I gave him the answer he deserved. It was neither arrogant nor hostile. I think the arrogance is coming from you.
