7 "evidences" I Find Compelling

[Paul Ray]

It's fascinating that even when critics concede evidence, some people still don't think they're satisfied.

Yes, it is fascinating, isn't it.

Are you really satified with the evidence concerning Mulek being a son of Zedekiah which is in agreement with what Joseph Smith claimed to translate from the Book of Mormon?

... or not, really?

[John Williams]

In that case I agree, strongly in fact. My objection was solely against criticizing the mere use of the KJV. Interpretations based on misunderstanding the KJV are a genuine problem.

But unlikelihood isn't a very good argument if you are talking about a faith proposition.

No, but taken with all the other unlikelihoods about Mormonism, the evidence trends in that direction. For me to have faith in something, it ought to at least have something going for it.

Yes, it is fascinating, isn't it.

Are you really satified with the evidence concerning Mulek being a son of Zedekiah which is in agreement with what Joseph Smith claimed to translate from the Book of Mormon?

... or not, really?

I think it's an interesting parallel, and I agreed with Chris that it is a compelling piece of evidence. How much more satisfied do you want me to be?

[Paul Ray]

It seems unlikely that a New World prophet would take a particular phrase or cue from the KJV and then expound on it in ways that only make sense from an English translation of those phrases or cues. Textual dependency means a lot more than just using the same words. But, no, I don't "know" what happened. I just find it extremely unlikely that what you describe happened.

I'd like to know more about how you think what we think happened.

I don't think there is anyone who claims to know everything about how it happened, and I don't think all of us agree on what we think happened.

[Doctor Steuss]

How do you know the BoM prophets used the KJV? How do you know they weren't just inspired with the same words the the Old World prophets were, and were therefore translated into English in a way that matched?

This works with many passages; for example, the quoting of Malachi 3-4 in Nephi 24-25. Even though Malachi was written after Lehi left Jerusalem, Christ specifically dictates the passages to them and tells them to include them with their scripture (which is interesting if Joseph wrote the BoM to have the forethought to know that these passages wouldn't have been available in 600 BCE when Lehi left).

The problem with Deutero-Isaiah though is that there is no such directive. There is no such wiggle-room. Nephi is purportedly quoting directly from the Brass Plates (DI passages are quoted in 1 Nephi 20, 21, 2 Nephi 7, 8 and 2 Nephi 17:18-20). If the theory of Deutero-Isaiah is correct, then these particular passages shouldn't have been with the Brass Plates.

Some people such as Avraham Gileadi though believe that the mention of Cyrus and other little historical bits that point to a later authorship are prophecies of future events. From a belief perspective this works, but from a secular perspective it leaves one wanting. The finding of the Isaiah scrolls in the Dead Sea Scrolls helps put the date of a unified Isaiah to at least 200 BCE though.

IIRC, the Anchor Bible states that there isnâ??t sufficient evidence to definitively hold to the Deutero-Isaiah theory; but at the same time I donâ??t think thereâ??s sufficient evidence to completely debunk it either.

[John Williams]

I'd like to know more about how you think what we think happened.

He said that it was just prophets using the same words and phrases. I disagreed and explained why. What else am I supposed to say?

I don't think there is anyone who claims to know everything about how it happened, and I don't think all of us agree on what we think happened.

Do you agree with the idea that the prophets just used the same words and phrases because they were inspired by the same spirit? That's what we were talking about, not about who knows exactly what happened.

[Paul Ray]

I think it's an interesting parallel, and I agreed with Chris that it is a compelling piece of evidence. How much more satisfied do you want me to be?

Hmm. I don't know.

Maybe just more than Chris is.

Maybe just enough to believe it was God who told Joseph Smith about Mulek.

Maybe it's not the level of satisfaction that is the real issue here.

Maybe it's the issue of knowing how Joseph Smith knew what he knew.

[John Williams]

Hmm. I don't know.

Maybe just more than Chris is.

Maybe just enough to believe it was God who told Joseph Smith about Mulek.

Maybe it's not the level of satisfaction that is the real issue here.

Maybe it's the issue of knowing how Joseph Smith knew what he knew.

Although Joseph Smith might have gotten a few things right, he got a lot more wrong. I don't often share my personal spiritual experiences, but I've received answers from God that leave me at peace with my decisions. That they conflict with the answers you think I should have received is of no importance to me.

[Paul Ray]

He said that it was just prophets using the same words and phrases. I disagreed and explained why. What else am I supposed to say?

You're not "supposed" to say anything. You can say anything you want to say. Just be nice.

If you are interested in responding to what I am driving at, though, I'd like to understand:

Why you believe the why of what you believe.

Do you agree with the idea that the prophets just used the same words and phrases because they were inspired by the same spirit?

I think that's simply one of the many (at least possible) reasons of why they wrote what they wrote.

I do believe they were inspired by the same spirit, but that's not necessarily the only reason they wrote what they wrote.

Personally, I also think:

Prophets of God were and are free to use their own words to express their thoughts.

and

The thoughts of Joseph Smith involved thoughts in the King James language.

and

Moroni used his own language when translating the plates of Ether

and

Mormon used his own langauge when translating the plates of Nephi, and the brass plates

and

It's not so much about finding one reason, but in finding all of the reasons why people wrote what they actually wrote.

That's what we were talking about, not about who knows exactly what happened.

I think understanding what happened helps explain why it happened.

[soren]

Hmm. I don't know.

Maybe just more than Chris is.

Maybe just enough to believe it was God who told Joseph Smith about Mulek.

Maybe it's not the level of satisfaction that is the real issue here.

Maybe it's the issue of knowing how Joseph Smith knew what he knew.

But evidence isn't always the issue, certainly not for me. I became a Catholic upon very slight evidence: I read the Bible with the intent of debunking it, but converted when I read the Letter to the Hebrews. That's it; that's all it took.

Now I have faith that the Church if Christ, with all its authority, cannot be lost from the earth and therefore has not been. Since that is a demonstrable fact revelation, to even entertain the possibility of the contrary, I would have to first commit an act of unbelief. It is therefore not skepticism, but faith itself, that dictates my rejection of the Book of Mormon, a priori.

I am actually not a skeptic, as I belief in a lot of things that are way stranger than any Mormon teachings. It is much easier for a skeptic to believe in Zarahemla than the Trinity.

[John Williams]

You're not "supposed" to say anything. You can say anything you want to say. Just be nice.

I'm almost always nice.

If you are interested in responding to what I am driving at, though, I'd like to understand:

Why you believe the why of what you believe.

I think that's simply one of the many (at least possible) reasons of why they wrote what they wrote.

As I explained, the text of the Book of Mormon is clearly dependent on the New Testament in many ways. What this suggests to me is that the author(s) of the book were familiar with the English KJV and took that as a starting point in many of their doctrinal expositions. Why they did this is impossible to say. One might speculate that they meant to clarify the Biblical passages in favor of their 19th-century beliefs. Who knows?

I do believe they were inspired by the same spirit, but that's not necessarily the only reason they wrote what they wrote.

Personally, I also think:

Prophets of God were and are free to use their own words to express their own thoughts.

and

The thoughts of Joseph Smith involved thoughts in the King James languge.

and

Moroni used his own language when translating the plates of Ether

and

Mormon used his own langauge when translating the plates of Nephi, and the brass plates

and

It's not so much as finding one reason but in finding all of the reasons why people wrote what they actually wrote.

I think understanding what happened helps explain why it happened.

I think it's pretty clear what happened. Obviously you disagree.

[Anijen]

Of the 400+ Isaiah verses that are found in the Book of Mormon less than half read identical to the KJV

click here

here

and here

In many of these changes would make it it least plausible that the BoM writers had a copy of Old Testament writings.

Just some thoughts

[John Williams]

Of the 400+ Isaiah verses that are found in the Book of Mormon less than half read identical to the KJV

click here

here

and here

In many of these changes would make it it least plausible that the BoM writers had a copy of Old Testament writings.

Just some thoughts

So, I'm guessing you reject the idea of deutero-Isaiah.

[Paul Ray]

But evidence isn't always the issue, certainly not for me. I became a Catholic upon very slight evidence: I read the Bible with the intent of debunking it, but converted when I read the Letter to the Hebrews. That's it; that's all it took.

Are you saying your religious convictions come from your understanding and interpretation of a book?

That's what it sounds like to me.

My religious convictions come from a personal testimony from God to me, personally.

Now I have faith that the Church if Christ, with all its authority, cannot be lost from the earth and therefore has not been. Since that is a demonstrable fact revelation, to even entertain the possibility of the contrary, I would have to first commit an act of unbelief. It is therefore not skepticism, but faith itself, that dictates my rejection of the Book of Mormon.

From the words you are using and the way I am interpreting your words, I think what you now need is a personal confirmation from God to let you whether or not your interpretation of the words in a book are being understood in the way the person who wrote those words meant those words to be understood.

It seems that your "faith" is based on your interpretation of some words in a book, rather than a personal testimony from God.

I am actually not a skeptic, as I believe in a lot of things that are way stranger than any Mormon teachings. It is much easier for a skeptic to believe in Zarahemla than the Trinity.

I think I undestand what you mean.

[Anijen]

So, I'm guessing you reject the idea of deutero-Isaiah.

I must confess its been some time since Ive heard the deutero Isaiah idea. I actually had to look up a reference (you can read here) to make sure I understood it correctly before I posted. I think as a TBM I can have a belief in the BoM and also believe in many aspects of deutero Isaiah.

[Chris Smith]

Of the 400+ Isaiah verses that are found in the Book of Mormon less than half read identical to the KJV

click here

here

and here

In many of these changes would make it it least plausible that the BoM writers had a copy of Old Testament writings.

Just some thoughts

I disagree. You should take a look at David P. Wright's essay on BoM Isaiah in American Apocrypha. You might also take a look at Anthony Hutchinson's essay in Dialogue:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/citation....p;CISOPTR=18834

I really doubt that anyone could read these two essays and come away feeling that the KJV issue isn't a problem. The changes you mentioned largely respond to the italics in the KJV; others try to harmonize biblical discontinuities, etc. KJV mistranslations are also retained in the BoM. There are also about 200 NT quotations in the OT period of the BoM, not to mention the anachronistic use of 2nd Isaiah.

-Chris

[Doctor Steuss]

I disagree. You should take a look at David P. Wright's essay on BoM Isaiah in American Apocrypha. [...]

A link to this essay is in post #11 for anyone interested. I seem to recall Kevin C. posting some stuff from Barker's research a while back that disputes the idea of a Deutero-Isaiah(?). Maybe he'll happen accross this thread or the other one that Lamanite started.

[soren]

It seems that your "faith" is based on your interpretation of some words in a book, rather than a personal testimony from God.

Why do you think you know that? Reading the book was the occasion of my faith, not the essence of it. It confirms and expresses what I have known for myself. There is more to my faith than just the book, I only used that experience to show that evidence wasn't the key factor.

I once was tempted to murder a man for raping a woman I loved and the Holy Spirit stayed my hand. After that the Trinity was manifested to me. True story.

[Anijen]

I disagree. You should take a look at David P. Wright's essay on BoM Isaiah in American Apocrypha. You might also take a look at Anthony Hutchinson's essay in Dialogue:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/citation....p;CISOPTR=18834

I really doubt that anyone could read these two essays and come away feeling that the KJV issue isn't a problem. The changes you mentioned largely respond to the italics in the KJV; others try to harmonize biblical discontinuities, etc. KJV mistranslations are also retained in the BoM. There are also about 200 NT quotations in the OT period of the BoM, not to mention the anachronistic use of 2nd Isaiah.

-Chris

To quote Bruce R McConkie "I am a sliver in a forest of redwood tree's..."

when I see people like Chris Smith and J Welch replying to my humble thoughts (for that's all they are) I feel a bit intimidated. You are of course correct I need to study it a bit more. I have Giliadi's literary message of Isaiah and last days I will check what his thoughts are and see if I can agree, disagree or take some and leave some.... I feel Giliadi is an expert on Isaiah and so I will look it up more and get back when I have done so.

Thanks

Anijen

edited to add I will also read your links too...

[Doctor Steuss]

A link to this essay is in post #11 for anyone interested. I seem to recall Kevin C. posting some stuff from Barker's research a while back that disputes the idea of a Deutero-Isaiah(?). Maybe he'll happen accross this thread or the other one that Lamanite started.

Kevin just posted on the other thread here (which also includes a much deserved Kudos to Chris).

-Stu

[blueadept]

Are you saying your religious convictions come from your understanding and interpretation of a book?

That's what it sounds like to me.

I remember when my wife and I went through the Engagement Encounter program before we were married and I was surprised at how one comes about getting G-d's guidance in discerning truth. The Mormon approach is 1st figure it out and then 2nd confirm w/ G-d if that is correct. So discernment then prayer. My wife was annoyed that Catholics seemed to have it backwards. Catholics ask for G-d's guidance and then discernment.

If I've asked for G-d's guidance and then reach a particular conclusion that is reasonable and I have no further questions about it. Going through process of confirming the conclusions seems redundant. G-d has already guided me from the start. This is the way I read Soren's response, which naturally would look backwards to the casual Mormon reader.

So my wife is consistently annoyed that I won't pray about it and confirm it w/ God. Yes I have, just not the Mormon way. I asked for G-d's guidance FIRST, and let discernment land where it may. If I'm content with where I ended up, G-d guided me there, if I'm not content I do further investigating. I have no real need to CONFIRM it. Consistently going back to G-d and asking, "are you sure, are you sure, are you sure" seems a little silly. If you turn your life over to him, he does do the guiding!!

My religious convictions come from a personal testimony from God to me, personally.

me too!!

From the words you are using and the way I am interpreting your words, I think what you now need is a personal confirmation from God to let you whether or not your interpretation of the words in a book are being understood in the way the person who wrote those words meant those words to be understood.

It seems that your "faith" is based on your interpretation of some words in a book, rather than a personal testimony from God.

I agree to disagree. Both of you are using G-d's guidance IMO. Hopefully you'll consider what I've said.

Peace

[Anijen]

I disagree. You should take a look at David P. Wright's essay on BoM Isaiah in American Apocrypha. You might also take a look at Anthony Hutchinson's essay in Dialogue:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/citation....p;CISOPTR=18834

I really doubt that anyone could read these two essays and come away feeling that the KJV issue isn't a problem. The changes you mentioned largely respond to the italics in the KJV; others try to harmonize biblical discontinuities, etc. KJV mistranslations are also retained in the BoM. There are also about 200 NT quotations in the OT period of the BoM, not to mention the anachronistic use of 2nd Isaiah.

-Chris

Chris,

I cant open up your link with fire fox or internet explorer do you have another one?

[consiglieri]

I would agree that JS's revelations' extensive anachronistic use of the KJV is probably the single biggest strike against their historicity.

In the spirit of openness and honesty which you initiated, I will agree that this is the single biggest strike against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Second Isaiah in the BoM text is one for me.

What am I missing here? Is it because it is accurate or inaccurate?

[consiglieri]

However, as a perhaps small inroad into the strike of the Book of Mormon's sometimes apparent dependence on New Testament texts, it has been noted that the Book of Mormon (in three places, I believe) appears to quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, when he says, Oh, grave where is thy victory. Oh death, where is thy sting.

An article was published recently in the FARMS newsletter suggesting that this phrase may actually have been in an earlier (and now lost) version of Isaiah; in that the Acts of Pilate, an early Christian work, has Isaiah quoting himself with this very phrase.

And so it appears that perhaps, on some occasions, the Book of Mormon appears to be quoting New Testament sources when, in fact, both the Book of Mormon and the New Testament may be quoting then extant Old Testament sources.

As I say, it is perhaps only a small inroad, but an inroad nonetheless.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

What am I missing here? Is it because it is accurate or inaccurate?

If the good doctor will forgive me, it is because many scholars divide up Isaiah into different sections, only the first of which was actually written by Isaiah, or another person living at the time of Isaiah.

The subsequent section(s), usually denominated chapters 44-66, is considered to have been authored by someone different than Isaiah, designated as Deutero-Isaiah (or sometimes even Tritero-Isaiah), who lived well after the events described, and hence lived well after 600 B.C., the date Lehi left Jerusalem with the brass plates.

Which, if true, raises the problem--How do excerpts from Isaiah 44-66 show up in the Book of Mormon as quotes from the brass plates if they were not written before Lehi left Jerusalem?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri