Question From 1 Nephi 22

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes indeed, I do see that. But the record of the Jews from the beginning, down to the reign of Zedekiah, means the brass plates contained the big fat history which in our modern bible is broken up into six books: 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles. And that history commences (aside from the bare genealogies) with the penultimate judge, Eli, about a hundred years after Joshua entered the Holy Land. So it could not contain the record of the theophany at Horeb/Sinai, which the incident in question.

Since Chronicles comes from the Post-Exilic period dominated by Ezra & Nehemiah, it seems hardly likely that it would be included in the Brass Plates.

[zerinus]

Unfortunately, the more you emphasize the additions to the text, the more it moves from a translation to a devotional paraphrase, and you don't want the latter.

Not so. The more it suggests a restoration of lost or missing text. See Moses 1:40-42.

[Robert F. Smith]

It would interest me if an LDS here admitted that maybe JS did resort to the KJV for some parts of the BoM, but if they dig in their heels that is also interesting.

In fact, many prominent LDS scholars have convincingly argued that Joseph Smith utilized a copy of the King James Bible whenever he came to lengthy biblical parallel passages. Among them B. H. Roberts, Sidney B. Sperry, Daniel H. Ludlow, and Royal Skousen. Seems the logical and practical thing to do.

[CV75]

In fact, many prominent LDS scholars have convincingly argued that Joseph Smith utilized a copy of the King James Bible whenever he came to lengthy biblical parallel passages. Among them B. H. Roberts, Sidney B. Sperry, Daniel H. Ludlow, and Royal Skousen. Seems the logical and practical thing to do.

I believe this to be the case myself, but not in lieu of translating (or knowing what to substitute from the Bible) by the gift and power of God, which is why i responded as I did. While it is more likely that uninspired things ocurr in a fallen worl, the redemption reverses such a likelihood for those that have faith in Christ.

[SamIam]

In this case I'm getting the anachronism problem out of the way so I won't have to come back. It would be very boring for everyone involved if I jumped to the book of Ether and asked about the parts where Moroni lifted the "By faith so and so did this and that" litany straight from Hebrews. I won't go there. Besides, it's a dry hole. A Mormon apologist could say that the Bible and the Book of Mormon were both dictated to the authors from the same God so of course they're the same. But in this case, there's a problem that goes beyond mere style, there's three missing verses, so it's a structural issue. It would interest me if an LDS here admitted that maybe JS did resort to the KJV for some parts of the BoM, but if they dig in their heels that is also interesting.

Well, pretty direct, but you could have been more clear in that you are only here for the attack on Mormons and you feel intellectually superior. You are well versed and obviously very well read but so far from a perspective of scriptural interpretation you have erred on multiple accounts.

In which case, the opportunity you present is one to endlessly debate and discuss a subject of which you have already made up your mind.

I engaged you on what I perceived as your exceptionally poor grasp of scripture usage and concept understanding at this link here:

http://www.mormondia...to-be-deceived/

You chose to avoid the discussion…and I don’t blame you - while I can be exceedingly tedious it is at the end of the day apparent that you have misunderstood God and probably will continue to do so.

We have several on this board better equipped and more than capable of handling you from an intellectual exchange perspective than myself. We will let them have at you.

So as you are very fond of scriptures and such I will share one I am sure you are well aware of concerning a principle the LDS consider fulfilled in the Book of Mormon, I'm sure you are familiar.

(Isaiah 29:12-21.)

12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

Most forget the next part but…

(Isaiah 29:12-21.)

18 ¶ And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:

21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

We have several on this board better equipped and more than capable of handling you from an intellectual *** for tat exchange perspective than myself. We will let them have at you.

For me, the purpose of scripture is to educate and bring one closer to Christ- not to spawn endless debates. I personally consider it a huge waste of time to spend excessive time wrestling with the theories of origin and hermeneutics. There is a place for some of this but too much distances the spirit. Scripture however is invaluable for doctrine and reproof – one of its stated purposes:

(2 Timothy 3:16-17.)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The scriptures are excellent for dispelling religious theory, such as trinity, modes of baptism or mistaken notions of the resurrection etc. However, even though a useful tool for such there are constraints in using it to propagate strife and vain babblings:

(2 Timothy 2:14-16.)

14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

So one has to be careful there or the spirit will flee the effort of using the scriptures against the principles of heaven - of love and charitable concerns. However, in the end The Book of Mormon is one of the tools that the gatekeeper will use as a tool of reproof. The symbolism for us then is that you do not fight the Book of Mormon or the church but you fight the gatekeeper. You can beat it up and chew it around any way you wish and you may win a battle or two amongst a few of the equivocators. Hopefully though your efforts here will be met with the strengthening of a few other testimonies who can detect a condescending approach no matter how sophistic the tone. If you would simply analyze the verses concerning the stick (record if you prefer) of Judah and the stick of Ephraim you would note that from a purely interpretive point of view the LDS church, the Book of Mormon, fulfills the context of the story line in multiple ways: I like the way my Tanach states it as recorded by the Record of Judah itself :

Ezekiel 38:18-23

“Now when the children of your people say to you saying, ‘Will you not tell us what these things are to you,’ say to them: Thus said the Lord HaShem: Behold, I am taking the wood of Joseph which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his comrades, and I am placing them and him together with the wood of Judah; and I will make them into one piece of wood, and they will become one in My hand.

“The pieces of wood upon which you will write shall be in your hand, before their eyes. Say to them, Thus says the Lord, Hashem: Behold, I am taking the Children of Israel from among the nations to which they have gone; I will gather them from all around and I will bring them to their soil; I will make them into one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king will be a king for them all; they will no longer be two nations, and they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms, ever again. They will no longer be contaminated with their idols and with their abhorrent things and with all their sin.

No other church's divine mandate even comes close to actually illustrating the physical act of gathering the House of Israel as does the LDS church. You don't have to believe how we interpret this mandate but no one else can even illustrate that as an organization they have even considered it as a legitimate function of latter performance prior to the Second Coming. Do you even have a means in your theology of identifying a member of the tribe of Dan, or of Ephraim, or Zebulon so that you could at least point to that illustrating you understand these and other related verses and their implications? Most likely not, you simply have to alter your interpretation of them so that they have no implications of requirement in your theology.

I suppose The only hope for the path of discussion you hope to entertain is the one the scriptures themselves use when the children of God encounter the flattering detractors, gifted with words of deception and it is by bearing down in pure testimony.

To that ends will be any effort I might engage in. In consideration of the thin ice upon which you risk in laying snares, watching for iniquity and scorning truth I invite you to embrace the Book of Mormon as it is true; as a second witness of Christ, you would do well to receive it and end the obvious hours and well rehearsed efforts at fighting its message.

Edited June 25, 2012 by SamIam

[cdowis]

For #1 I would say that the record of Joseph could not have covered the events at Mt. Horeb, because he was being carried around in a casket at the time. The Brass Plates contained the five books of Moses, and for that I will give YOU a reference.

1 Nephi 5:10-11 And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

So the Brass Plates did not contain the book of Isaiah. A sad comment on your knowledge of the BOM text.

To be frank, there is a difference between a "cut and paste" answer and an knowledgeable answer from a study of the BOM. May I suggest that you actually read the BOM, the whole book, many times.

For number 2 I humbly request a third party claim there is such a thing as a "Record of Judah" and it can even be an LDS site.

This is getting tiresome. This is pretty basic stuff, nothing fancy (like asking which BOM prophet was a polygamist).

May I suggest that you actually read the BOM. Hint: 2 Ne 3

For number 3, however, I formally request references that indicate that the Torah was altered to make the account in Deuteronomy 18 resemble its current form, and why the Jews would do so.

I repeat what I said above. Do your homework. In this case, it involves reading what JS had to say.

Edited June 25, 2012 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, pretty direct, but you could have been more clear in that you are only here for the attack on Mormons and you feel intellectually superior. You are well versed and obviously very well read but so far from a perspective of scriptural interpretation you have erred on multiple accounts.

In which case, the opportunity you present is one to endlessly debate and discuss a subject of which you have already made up your mind.

I engaged you on what I perceived as your exceptionally poor grasp of scripture usage and concept understanding at this link here:

http://www.mormondia...to-be-deceived/

You chose to avoid the discussion…and I don’t blame you - while I can be exceedingly tedious it is at the end of the day apparent that you have misunderstood God and probably will continue to do so.

For me, the purpose of scripture is to educate and bring one closer to Christ- not to spawn endless debates. I personally consider it a huge waste of time to spend excessive time wrestling with the theories of origin and hermeneutics. There is a place for some of this but too much distances the spirit. Scripture however is invaluable for doctrine and reproof – one of its stated purposes:

You can beat it up and chew it around any way you wish and you may win a battle or two amongst a few of the equivocators. Hopefully though your efforts here will be met with the strengthening of a few other testimonies who can detect a condescending approach no matter how sophistic the tone. If you would simply analyze the verses concerning the stick (record if you prefer) of Judah and the stick of Ephraim you would note that from a purely interpretive point of view the LDS church, the Book of Mormon, fulfills the context of the story line in multiple ways: I like the way my Tanach states it as recorded by the Record of Judah itself :

To that ends will be any effort I might engage in. In consideration of the thin ice upon which you risk in laying snares, watching for iniquity and scorning truth I invite you to embrace the Book of Mormon as it is true; as a second witness of Christ, you would do well to receive it and end the obvious hours and well rehearsed efforts at fighting its message.

Samlam,

Be nice. Please.

[Aliwe]

So the Brass Plates did not contain the book of Isaiah. A sad comment on your knowledge of the BOM text.

I did NOT say the Brass Plates did not contain the book of Isaiah. I said the record of Joseph did not contain anything after Joseph died. We ARE talking about Joseph the minister of agriculture in Egypt, right?

To be frank, there is a difference between a "cut and paste" answer and an knowledgeable answer from a study of the BOM. May I suggest that you actually read the BOM, the whole book, many times.

Oh, we're going to have MUCH fun.

Considering your answers above, I will merely point out your lack of knowledge regarding the scriptures. I have no interest in teaching you the basics if you are not willing to do the work yourself.

SO much fun.

[cdowis]

OK, so Joseph died before Isaiah wrote his book.

You win. I give up.

[Aliwe]

For me, the purpose of scripture is to educate and bring one closer to Christ- not to spawn endless debates. I personally consider it a huge waste of time to spend excessive time wrestling with the theories of origin and hermeneutics. There is a place for some of this but too much distances the spirit.

I don't follow you. The name of this site is "Mormon Dialogue Dot Org" right? Takes two to tango. And here I be. I realize I made a lot of posts but I don't think I have been disrespectful to Mormons or Joseph Smith Jr. or the BoM in any way, unless you take unbelief to be inherently disrespectful, but I can't help you there.

To that ends will be any effort I might engage in. In consideration of the thin ice upon which you risk in laying snares, watching for iniquity and scorning truth I invite you to embrace the Book of Mormon as it is true; as a second witness of Christ, you would do well to receive it and end the obvious hours and well rehearsed efforts at fighting its message.

Uh, okay SamIAm. Sorry that you feel that way. For my part, I will help you and make sure that in the future you don't slip in your vow not to engage with me.

[Aliwe]

OK, so Joseph died before Isaiah wrote his book.

You win. I give up.

Record of Joseph? Is that a secret insider LDS code word for Book of Mormon? Gosh, I didn't know.

[Aliwe]

In fact, many prominent LDS scholars have convincingly argued that Joseph Smith utilized a copy of the King James Bible whenever he came to lengthy biblical parallel passages. Among them B. H. Roberts, Sidney B. Sperry, Daniel H. Ludlow, and Royal Skousen. Seems the logical and practical thing to do.

Thank you very much, Robert. I'd like to preserve your informative reply.

[Aliwe]

Since Chronicles comes from the Post-Exilic period dominated by Ezra & Nehemiah, it seems hardly likely that it would be included in the Brass Plates.

The book of Mormon itself indicates the history on the brass plates only extends to Zedekiah's ascension to the throne. Obviously there would be nothing about Zedekiah hacking off Nebuchadnezzar and getting Nebuchadnezzar and his whole army advancing against Jerusalem to lay siege to it, nor Zedekiah's attempt to escape the city, his capture in 587 BCE, nor the part where the sons of Zedekiah were slain before his eyes, and then Zedekiah was blinded, bound in chains, and taken to Babylon. But the Zarahemlans might have filled in some of these details from their oral history.

[Aliwe]

We do not in fact know the composition of the 5 books of Moses on the Brass Plates, but it is certain that they could not have contained Deuteronomy as we know it today (from the Massoretic tradition and copies at Qumran), since it was put together at a very late date.

The contents of what would later be the book of Deuteronomy were "found" in the temple by Hilkiah during the reign of Josiah long before Lehi departed for Yemen. Josiah used the occasion of the "finding" of the book to call the people to renew their covenant to God. And Josiah commanded all the religious items made for Baal, Asherah, and other gods to be burned outside the city. He tore down the apartments of the prostitutes in the cult of Asherah. He also destroyed the altar to the golden calf built in Beth-El by King Rehoboam.

[Aliwe]

Peter is not paraphrasing Deut 18:18-19. His quotation is embedded in a book authored by Luke, and you can be sure that Luke checked his copy of the LXX before circulating his book.

Indeed, but think of it in practical terms, as a kind of courtroom record of what Peter said. Peter was preaching just inside the temple (Beautiful Gate, where the lame were situated) without recourse to a scroll. He would have strung together the highlights of the incident in Deuteronomy from memory, without stating the full text verbatim. So what he said was indeed a paraphrase, and even if Luke used the Septuagint to jog his memory, he would have also remembered that Peter streamlined things just a bit.

[Aliwe]

So why can't Nephi be paraphrasing Deuteronomy? Nephi would not need the missing versus because of the audience to whom he was speaking. Acts does the same thing, omitting the missing verses because they were directed at a different audience. Acts only references the important versus to the message being taught.

Yes, it is true that Nephi and Peter could have made precisely the same choices of material, as well as the same linguistic style, and transformation of "I will require it of him" to "cut off from among his people" but to my non-LDS mind it is just FAR more likely that Joseph Smith used the NT version.

[Aliwe]

Joseph certainly follows the KJV style of Acts 3:22-23 in his translation of I Nephi 22:20. However, in so doing, we should note that the NT Greek typically follows the Septuagint Greek version (LXX), as here, rather than the Massoretic Hebrew text. This accounts for the different KJV translation committees coming up with somewhat different translations. Joseph as translator is to be permitted to follow whichever tradition he prefers, providing that the substance of the Vorlage on the Small Plates of Nephi is followed.

The Douay-Rheims version is a translation of the Vulgate, which itself is a translation of the LXX. In that version, Deuteronomy 18:19 says, "And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger."

[Robert F. Smith]

The Douay-Rheims version is a translation of the Vulgate, which itself is a translation of the LXX. In that version, Deuteronomy 18:19 says, "And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger."

So?

[Aliwe]

So?

Consider me gone.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, it is true that Nephi and Peter could have made precisely the same choices of material, as well as the same linguistic style, and transformation of "I will require it of him" to "cut off from among his people" but to my non-LDS mind it is just FAR more likely that Joseph Smith used the NT version.

The point, gentille Alouette, is that at I Nephi 22:20c, Joseph Smith used the same phrase as Leviticus 23:29b "he shall be cut off from among his people," rather than either Deut 18:19b "I will require it of him," or Acts 3:23b "shall be destroyed from among the people," leaving your NT source theory here in shambles.

As J. K. Elliott has stated in his Preface to his translation of the New Testament Apocrypha (Oxford Univ. Press/ Clarendon Press, 1993), xv,

Allusions to a Biblical text are not noted: the nature of many of these apocryphal documents is such that their authors were so steeped in Biblical or liturgical language that many echoes of scriptural passages occur throughout the writings without being conscious quotations.

[Robert F. Smith]

The contents of what would later be the book of Deuteronomy were "found" in the temple by Hilkiah during the reign of Josiah long before Lehi departed for Yemen. Josiah used the occasion of the "finding" of the book to call the people to renew their covenant to God. And Josiah commanded all the religious items made for Baal, Asherah, and other gods to be burned outside the city. He tore down the apartments of the prostitutes in the cult of Asherah. He also destroyed the altar to the golden calf built in Beth-El by King Rehoboam.

What you say is generally true about the finding of a book of the law or covenant in the temple archives, and the consequent reforms of King Josiah -- including the formal reading of that document before the people, who then renewed their covenant, etc. Scholars do believe that this document formed the core of the future book of Deuteronomy (which comes into existence in Post-Exilic times), but they also connect this future book with the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian -- who conducts a major revision of the biblical canon. We simply do not know the contents of the core of that D-work.

What is truly remarkable about the D-work is that it systematically excludes mention of Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. The Bible as we have received it does not speak with one voice, but is an anthology of competing traditions: Priestly, Prophetic, Poetic/liturgical, Wisdom, etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

The book of Mormon itself indicates the history on the brass plates only extends to Zedekiah's ascension to the throne. Obviously there would be nothing about Zedekiah hacking off Nebuchadnezzar and getting Nebuchadnezzar and his whole army advancing against Jerusalem to lay siege to it, nor Zedekiah's attempt to escape the city, his capture in 587 BCE, nor the part where the sons of Zedekiah were slain before his eyes, and then Zedekiah was blinded, bound in chains, and taken to Babylon. But the Zarahemlans might have filled in some of these details from their oral history.

Yes, Alouette,

Lehi & clan left Jerusalem ca. 597-596 B.C., so that any further details would have to be filled in by the descendants of Mulek, the son of Zedekiah who survived the slaughter you describe. I place that latter event in concrete historical context at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 , demonstrating that Joseph Smith could not have known of such surprisingly accurate circumstances in his day. Only relatively recent archeology has enabled us to take the measure of the Book of Mormon text, and to show time and again that the facts fit ancient history. It is far easier to believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document than to believe that it is fiction -- by your own standards.

[zerinus]

In fact, many prominent LDS scholars have convincingly argued that Joseph Smith utilized a copy of the King James Bible whenever he came to lengthy biblical parallel passages. Among them B. H. Roberts, Sidney B. Sperry, Daniel H. Ludlow, and Royal Skousen. Seems the logical and practical thing to do.

Thank you very much, Robert. I'd like to preserve your informative reply.

And of course, they were all wrong!

[volgadon]

And of course, they were all wrong!

Quoting for posterity, sort of. Really a classic response.

[SamIam]

Quoting for posterity, sort of. Really a classic response.

Volgadon,

I noted that as of the posting you are at 7777 total posts. Surely 4 - 7's has some significance.