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

[consiglieri]

"G'day mate! Let's put another shrimp on the barbie!"

Now, THAT was funny!

Believe it or not, I've never seen the movie.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mortal Man]

Defenses like these, while well intentioned, really seem to be an argument for rejecting the Bible, not accepting the Book of Mormon.

Bill is always attacking the Bible. I think he has a grudge against it.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

Here it is in a nutshell: "[T]to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

Isaiah, to most Christians, is a prophetic text which, at its heart, has the same purpose.

Indeed, but this doesn't answer my question, which has to do with the fact that there was no need to quote full chapters from Isaiah when they were already available on the plates of brass.

You wrote:

I don't think you've ever read it, even though you did leap the pretty low hurdle I laid out for you.

There's no point in continuing the discussion with someone who claims to think that I haven't even read the title page of the Book of Mormon.

[USU78]

Bill is always attacking the Bible. I think he has a grudge against it.

Mule muffins. He does nothing of the kind. He attacks the strawman version of the Bible that the ignorant and fundamentalist have built for themselves.

[USU78]

USU78,

You wrote:

Indeed, but this doesn't answer my question, which has to do with the fact that there was no need to quote full chapters from Isaiah when they were already available on the plates of brass.

You wrote:

There's no point in continuing the discussion with someone who claims to think that I haven't even read the title page of the Book of Mormon.

No. You misconstrue. You have never read the Book of Mormon. You have prooftexted it. You have wordsearched it. You have built a strawman of what little you've gleaned from looking at it.

You've never read it. Had you done so, had you grasped that the BoM is a piece of persuasive writing built around and including portions of the holy books of a dead-and-gone people, then you would have understood a bit of it. And you wouldn't ask the "questions" you do.

Nope. You know next to nothing of the BoM.

[Mortal Man]

It it merely an observation the argument that God would not inspire anyone (especially Joseph Smith) to use the most popular, recognizable, and influential translation in use, including its errors, is not based on the actual evidence and experience we have to draw upon when considering what God would or would not do. Rather, it is pure supposition, unsupported by precedent. Professor Hamblin, and Nibley and others have noted that there is both precedent and practical benefit for using KJV language (as the Septuagint quotations demonstrate), and no evidence that God works with and through human agents in any other way.

This is why I'm so grateful for the Sealed Plates. The unsealed portion went through so many changes during the printing process and subsequent editing over the last two centuries that we can never be sure whether it's "bore" or "bare", "sin" or "sins", "pure" or "white" etc. Hence, I think that we can only believe the BoM to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. With the Sealed Plates; however, there are no such difficulties, since they were translated by direct modern revelation from Heaven. They describe in enlightening detail the significance of the temple context. And, from the structure and themes, provide many insights into ancient Israelite practices. They contain striking parallels, which JS could not possibly have known about, and are chock-full of Hebraisms. The Sealed Plates stand as a second witness to the Book of Mormon and provide another testament of Joseph Smith.

[ELF1024]

This is why I'm so grateful for the Sealed Plates. The unsealed portion went through so many changes during the printing process and subsequent editing over the last two centuries that we can never be sure whether it's "bore" or "bare", "sin" or "sins", "pure" or "white" etc. Hence, I think that we can only believe the BoM to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. With the Sealed Plates; however, there are no such difficulties, since they were translated by direct modern revelation from Heaven. They describe in enlightening detail the significance of the temple context, and from the structure and themes provide many insights into ancient Israelite practices. They contain striking parallels, which JS could not possibly have know about, and are chock full of Hebraisms. The Sealed Plates stand as a second witness to the Book of Mormon and provide another testament of Joseph Smith.

Wow, sarcasm... that's unique...

[Thunderfire]

The fact that the Book of Mormon is an abridgment raises yet another difficulty in regard to the extensive quotations from Isaiah. Why, in an abridgment, would such lengthy quotations be included from a book already available in full on another set of plates?

Hello Rob!

That's a good question and the simply answer is I do not know. Yet this I do know. If I was attempting to do a work like this, I would seek to include the "full thought". Meaning I would most likely do the same thing. We need to remember that our chapter and verse divisions were not part of the original manuscript. In my opinion, Mormon answers this by including the phrase that the passages in Isaiah were "particularly pleasing" to him. The message in those passages had great value in their eyes.

What I'm saying is that I would most likely do the same thing if I was attempting to do a similar work. Then too, if I felt God inspire me to do that, who am I to tell him no or that the people did not need it? Frankly, we should really take note of these Isaiah passages for containing information which we vitally need to learn and understand.

It's like a glass half full or empty approach. Some will say I already have that and do need to be reminded again. Others will say there must be something of extreme importance here because it was repeated again!

Most people do not accept the BOM, and one of the main reasons they cite for not accepting it is the evidence that the BOM copies whole chapters from the KJV! Besides, by your reasoning, the BOM quotations from Isaiah should not vary from the KJV at all, yet they do, though mostly in trivial ways.

I often wonder what my "beliefs" would be like if I was concerned with believing like most people! As I mentioned earlier, we must agree that "most Christians" do not act much differently than those of other religions (and in some cases much worse). If my pursuit of Jesus is based on what others accept then am I looking at Jesus or other people for acceptance? Think about this for a moment, looking at all the worlds religions, MOST people do not accept the bible and one of the reasons is its message of Jesus Christ. Does that stop us from accepting it? Of course not.

What I ask is the grace to be accepted as a child of God, one who has a deep and abiding passion for Jesus Christ. I ask for the right to use whatever I need to further my spiritual devotion too and fellowship with Jesus and with those who have the same desire for him. I deeply respect the Book of Mormon for what it is and how it helped me in my pursuit of Jesus Christ. In my opinion, the real issue here is accepting others as "brothers in Christ" who are attempting to walk the same path, yet using different resourses in this great quest.

I understand and acknowledge that many reach an impass where certain resources are used by one and not another. I really don't know what to do about this...

[Anijen]

I haven't the time to check. I know that E. B. Grandin printed many bibles, I also heard that the BoM manuscript with no punctuation spelling errors etc. My point being, is it possible that Grandin could have used his KJV Isiah when he recognized the passages? Anyway it is it least an interesting concept.

Not saying this happened and I side with Dr. Peterson that I believe this is how it was translated (errors and all), because this is what they would have been familiar with (The KJV). IOW why translate it to something like the NIV when that would have been foreign and possibly wrong in their minds.

[Mortal Man]

Not saying this happened and I side with Dr. Peterson that I believe this is how it was translated (errors and all), because this is what they would have been familiar with (The KJV). IOW why translate it to something like the NIV when that would have been foreign and possibly wrong in their minds.

I agree; it's always better to tell people what they already know and are comfortable with.

[Anijen]

I agree; it's always better to tell people what they already know and are comfortable with.

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

No. You misconstrue. You have never read the Book of Mormon. You have prooftexted it. You have wordsearched it. You have built a strawman of what little you've gleaned from looking at it.

You've never read it. Had you done so, had you grasped that the BoM is a piece of persuasive writing built around and including portions of the holy books of a dead-and-gone people, then you would have understood a bit of it. And you wouldn't ask the "questions" you do.

Nope. You know next to nothing of the BoM.

The reality is that you know next to nothing about me or about the reading I have done. Moreover, your false opinion about my knowledge of the BOM, even if it were true, would be irrelevant to the argument I present.

[Rob Bowman]

Anijen,

You wrote:

I haven't the time to check. I know that E. B. Grandin printed many bibles, I also heard that the BoM manuscript with no punctuation spelling errors etc. My point being, is it possible that Grandin could have used his KJV Isiah when he recognized the passages? Anyway it is it least an interesting concept.

I think we can rule out this suggestion. According to Royal Skousen in The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon (FARMS-BYU, 2001), 37, the original manuscript is extant for 1 Nephi 20-21 and 2 Nephi 6-8, which quote Isaiah 48:1-52:2; for 2 Nephi 23-24, which quotes Isaiah 13-14; and for 3 Nephi 20, which quotes Isaiah 52. The original manuscript is not extant for 2 Nephi 12-22, which contains Isaiah 2-12; for 2 Nephi 27, which contains Isaiah 29 (which is the most substantially different chapter from Isaiah in the BOM); for Mosiah 14, which contains Isaiah 53; or for 3 Nephi 22, which contains Isaiah 54. Thus, the extant portions of the original manuscript include 8 of the BOM chapters that quote extensively 7 chapters from Isaiah, but is missing 13 of the BOM chapters that quote extensively 13 other Isaiah chapters. From the seven chapters of Isaiah that appear in the extant portions of the original manuscript we can see that the printer was not responsible for the BOM's dependence on the KJV. It is reasonable to infer that this applies to the chapters for which we do not have extant portions of the original manuscript. Confirming this inference is the fact that these chapters were not substantially changed in the later revision that Joseph Smith made of the BOM.

[Anijen]

Anijen,

You wrote:

I think we can rule out this suggestion. According to Royal Skousen in The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon (FARMS-BYU, 2001), 37, the original manuscript is extant for 1 Nephi 20-21 and 2 Nephi 6-8, which quote Isaiah 48:1-52:2; for 2 Nephi 23-24, which quotes Isaiah 13-14; and for 3 Nephi 20, which quotes Isaiah 52. The original manuscript is not extant for 2 Nephi 12-22, which contains Isaiah 2-12; for 2 Nephi 27, which contains Isaiah 29 (which is the most substantially different chapter from Isaiah in the BOM); for Mosiah 14, which contains Isaiah 53; or for 3 Nephi 22, which contains Isaiah 54. Thus, the extant portions of the original manuscript include 8 of the BOM chapters that quote extensively 7 chapters from Isaiah, but is missing 13 of the BOM chapters that quote extensively 13 other Isaiah chapters. From the seven chapters of Isaiah that appear in the extant portions of the original manuscript we can see that the printer was not responsible for the BOM's dependence on the KJV. It is reasonable to infer that this applies to the chapters for which we do not have extant portions of the original manuscript. Confirming this inference is the fact that these chapters were not substantially changed in the later revision that Joseph Smith made of the BOM.

Thanks Rob. When I visited Palmyra and seen the many bibles that was printed there I always wondered would it have not just been easy for him to go to what he had done before. I was sure the original manuscript would hold the answer. Having said that I still believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired and true and if it was translated to match the KJV errors and all well then thats how He wanted us to receive it at that time. If the time comes when Heavenly Father wants to change the words then I am for that too as for now I am perfectly happy the way it is.

[Rob Bowman]

Anijen,

You wrote:

Having said that I still believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired and true and if it was translated to match the KJV errors and all well then thats how Moroni wanted us to receive it at that time.

So, in your view, Moroni is responsible for the dependence of the BOM on the KJV? How is Moroni involved in this regard?

[Questing Beast]

I said: "Your understanding of the two kinds of god is not the only possible concept. The "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" is the god I followed from my youth. But He was always a lesser "God" than the concept I could formulate on my own."

No.

He was not.

The notion that the true God would be "lesser" than a purely mental construct of your own is utterly hubristic.

The god that Joseph Smith proposed is far less than what can be imagined; merely a glorified, formerly mortal man. The "God" that I conceive of is the biggest I can possibly imagine. That should be a "rule" for anyone trying to honestly comprehend "God": never settle for a concept/theology that is smaller than your own imagination.

...

I took two classes in philosophy when I was first back off my mission. The Metaphysics class began by looking at classical arguments for and against the existence of God. The Ontological argument, which you elsewhere described yourself as impressed with, impressed me as nothing more than an attempt to manipulate words in order to define God into existence. The Cosmological argument, upon which you rely -- the argument that all things have a cause, and therefore there must be some uncaused "First Cause," which is then labelled as God -- I found perplexing.

My perplexity was settled when I realised that the God being spoken of was not the true and living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who reveals Himself to prophets, but the abstract "God of the philosophers."

The latter is the only "God" that my education has "contaminated" me with.

All things in the multiverse must have a cause. Its very Existence requires a Cause. You did not cease to be perplexed. Instead you focused on a puny concept of a comprehensible, anthropomorphic being that in no way could be responsible for Existence in the First Place. This god is merely part of the matter that derives from "God"; this god, and all of us, was never created nor can be: that is true enough (no thanks to the D&C). None of "us" can create matter, ergo in space-time "we" have always existed as part of it.

And yes, the "god of the philosophers" is an incomplete concept or set of concepts. The Ontological Argument "impresses" me only in the logical assertion that to be the only uncaused Cause, "God" must be the greatest concept: taken further, "God" must be infinitely greater than all the concepts of every finite, sapient mind in the infinitely expanding multiverse.

You're not thinking nearly big enough.

I said: "Your straw man is the repeated comparison between the "God" of "Abraham et al." and the so-called God of the Absolutes. There is no such being as the latter; and the former can only be a glorified creation of "God", not the Source of Existence in the First Place."

He's the source of your existence; the light and the life of men, and the only source you can look to for eternal life. If you look beyond the mark, supposing that Christ, the Lord omnipotent, is somehow "lesser," then I promise you that your totally imaginary "first cause" won't help you. Your idol, made not of stone but of words, has no power.

You really are completely impressed with your own brilliance, aren't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

If "Christ" and the "Father" worship the "God" who caused their own existence then why should I settle for less?

But in fact you are not comprehending Joseph Smith's doctrine: D. & C. 93:29

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created nor made, neither indeed can be .... And: Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.353-354)

Where in that do we get God the Father as the "source of [our] existence"? The doctrine is that God the Father is only the cause of our spirits. The actual "intelligences" which then become "spirits" are not caused by God the Father. Nothing residing within space-time causes it or the matter defining it: all matter must have a Cause that transcends space-time itself.

Even if you buy into the concept that matter itself is somehow intelligent in an omniscient way, i.e. all-knowing and all-aware as "God" must be in order to fit the definition of omnipotent; and that matter (and space-time) has always existed and is not caused: where in any of this do we get Joseph Smith's "God the Father" as the ultimate Deity deserving of worship as the ONE GOD? God the Father is merely a glorified man. And I insist on worshiping the Cause of his existence.

"[My] own brilliance" does not impress me. But the concept that "God" is thinking through each one of us, that does impress me....

[Questing Beast]

This has been an interesting discussion. I did want to comment briefly on the idea that the JS himself did not use a KJV of the Bible in translating the BOM but instead a supernatural entity used the KJV and presumably fed JS direct quotations from the Bible. I understand the reasoning behind such a hypothesis it is an attempt to reconcile witness statements of JS not using any written sources when translating the BOM with the rock solid textual evidence a KJV of the bible was used in producing parts of the BOM. The problem with the above hypothesis is then we have to make the supernatural entity responsible for how the KJV was used. For example italics in the KJV were apparently viewed with suspicion 40% of the italicized words present in the KJV of Isaiah are absent from the BOM quoting of Isaiah this is striking when compared to the 3.6% overall occurrence of italicized words in KJV Isaiah. Italicized words were removed from the BOM Isaiah at a far higher rate than would be expected given how frequently they occur in the KJV Isaiah.

Ref:

http://www.xmission....ml#introduction

When the KJV translators had to add words or phrases to produce a readable translation but those words were not found in the original language they would add them but italicize them.

These are word/phrases that are needed in order to produce a readable translation. Adding words or phrases not present in the original language to produce readable English is unavoidable. And viewing these words as somehow suspect is unwarranted. If the KJV Isaiah found in the BOM is a result of a supernatural translator feeding JS direct quotations from the KJV why was this supernatural translator incorrectly suspicious of italicized words?

The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible also shows this same pattern of reacting to italicized words. And this project we can place squarely at the feet of JS. Given this observation it starts becoming very difficult to argue that some supernatural translator who must be well aware that adding in words to make readable English is unavoidable is responsible for the focus on changing italicized words instead of JS. But if JS is responsible for the focus on modifying italicized words he must know what words are italicized in the KJV. This necessarily places a copy of the relevant text of the KJV squarely in his hands during the translation process. Unless of course JS simply memorized large chunks of the KJV right down to the location of italicized words.

What then are we to do with the witness testimony which specifically claimed no written sources were present? Well the witness testimony used is Emma Smith's claim that JS did not read from or use a manuscript or document. While Emma did serve for a time as Josephs scribe this was brief and those portions of the BOM transcribed by Emma do not include the large quotations from the KJV. Oliver Cowdery was the primary scribe for most of the BOM and as far as I know there is no similar Emma like statement from him.

I would like to add even if eyewitness testimony directly contradicted the textual evidence not all evidence is created equal. Empirical quantifiable evidence trumps witness testimony. If I am a detective investigating a crime and the primary suspect's wife claims he was with her all evening. But DNA and fingerprint evidence puts him at the location of the crime. Empirical quantifiable forensic evidence trumps witness testimony. We have empirical quantifiable textual evidence linking the BOM with the KJV text. It might be possible to construct convoluted ad hoc scenarios to get a KJV somewhere in the loop but not in the hands of JS but it is not necessarily easy as I argue above.

Best,

Uncertain

This post seems to have slid under the radar of those here who have descended into focused interpersonal rebuttal (putting it politely).

I would like this point discussed by Doc Peterson or anyone else who thinks s/he knows how to explain it? The italicized words in the KJV are indeed an interesting problem for the "God gave the KJV to Joseph Smith" theory....

[WalkerW]

Now, THAT was funny!

Believe it or not, I've never seen the movie.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Believe it or not, despite the title, it is absolutely brilliant.

[WalkerW]

There are a number of very interesting variants in the Book of Mormon quotations, as John Tvedtnes (Isaiah) and John Welch (Sermon on the Mount compared to Sermon at the temple), and some intriguing context issues. For instance, "John Thompson has an article called "Isaiah 50

[ELF1024]

I find it more interesting that out of the entire works of the Bible up until the departure of the Lehites from the land of Jerusalem; that it is Isaiah that was valued enough by the Lord to include in the final product that became the Book of Mormon.

Not Leviticus, not Kings, not Song of Solomon or Psalms, even Deuteronomy; but Isaiah.

Perhaps Rob would like to tell us his theory on why Joseph Smith chose those sections of Isaiah to plaugrize from the KJV. Or for that matter, why he chose to include any parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon. Are those chapters of any signifigance? Surely Rob has a brilliant theory as to why those sections, and not just that he did it.

[LeSellers]

I find it more interesting that out of the entire works of the Bible up until the departure of the Lehites from the land of Jerusalem; that it is Isaiah that was valued enough by the Lord to include in the final product that became the Book of Mormon.

Yours is indeed an interesting question, but another one that no one has managed to answer is how Joseph figured out which books to quote.

Isaiah (the questions of Deutero- and Tertio-Isaiah notwithstanding) lived 700 bc. Malachi lived much later. Oddly, Joseph quoted Isaiah after he lived, but only quoted Malachi through the Savior, because Malachi lived long after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Just another (series of) lucky guess(es), I must needs suppose.

Lehi

[Anijen]

Anijen,

You wrote:

So, in your view, Moroni is responsible for the dependence of the BOM on the KJV? How is Moroni involved in this regard?

Excellent question have no idea, I didn't realize I wrote that. Fixed it.

[Mortal Man]

I find it more interesting that out of the entire works of the Bible up until the departure of the Lehites from the land of Jerusalem; that it is Isaiah that was valued enough by the Lord to include in the final product that became the Book of Mormon.

Not Leviticus, not Kings, not Song of Solomon or Psalms, even Deuteronomy; but Isaiah.

Perhaps Rob would like to tell us his theory on why Joseph Smith chose those sections of Isaiah to plaugrize from the KJV. Or for that matter, why he chose to include any parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon. Are those chapters of any signifigance? Surely Rob has a brilliant theory as to why those sections, and not just that he did it.

Residents of NY in the 1820's believed that Isaiah's "land shadowing with wings" was North and South America:

"Thou land 'shadowing with wings.' The above direction lands the prophetic vision at the point of the western continent, where the two great wings of North and South America meet; as the body of a great Eagle. This at first might furnish the prophetic imagery of a land 'shadowing with wings.' As though the inspiring Spirit had whispered; The continent of those two great wings shall be found at last most interesting in relation to your Hebrew brethren." -- VotH p. 139

A popular theory, originating in the 16^th century, was that the American Indians were of Hebrew origin. And, just like the captive Jews in Babylon, the Indian tribes to the west were in desperate need of redemption by a major power in the east. It was further believed that,

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The BoM is the prequel to VotH.

This is about as bad as the SR/SS theory for the origins of the BoM.

I well I can tell you are bored.

[zerinus]

Indeed, but this doesn't answer my question, which has to do with the fact that there was no need to quote full chapters from Isaiah when they were already available on the plates of brass.

Nephi in the Book of Mormon has answered that question for you:

1 Nephi 9

:

2 And now, as I have spoken concerning these [smaller] plates, behold they are not the [larger] plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the [larger] plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; wherefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these [smaller] plates also are called the plates of Nephi.

3 Nevertheless, I have

received a commandment of the Lord that I should make these [smaller] plates, for the special purpose that there should be an account engraven of the

ministry

of my people

.

4 Upon the other [larger] plates should be engraven an account of the reign of the kings, and the wars and contentions of my people; wherefore these [smaller] plates are for the more part of the

ministry;

and the other [larger] plates are for the more part of the reign of the kings and the wars and contentions of my people.

5 Wherefore,

the Lord hath commanded me to make these [smaller] plates

for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not

.

6 But

the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning;

wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is. Amen.

1 Nephi 19

:

1 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded me, wherefore I did make plates of ore that I might engraven upon them the record of my people. And upon the [larger] plates which I made I did engraven the record of my father, and also our journeyings in the wilderness, and the prophecies of my father; and also many of mine own prophecies have I engraven upon them.

2 And

I knew not at the time when I made them that I should be commanded of the Lord to make these [smaller] plates;

wherefore, the record of my father, and the genealogy of his fathers, and the more part of all our proceedings in the wilderness are engraven upon those first plates of which I have spoken; wherefore, the things which transpired before I made these [smaller] plates are, of a truth, more particularly made mention upon the first plates.

3 And after I had made these [smaller] plates

by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the

ministry and the prophecies,

the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates;

and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land,

and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord

.

2 Nephi 4

:

14 For I, Nephi, was constrained to speak unto them, according to his word; for I had spoken many things unto them, and also my father, before his death; many of which sayings are written upon mine other [larger] plates; for a more history part are written upon mine other plates.

15 And upon these [smaller plates] I write

the things of my soul, and many of the scriptures which are engraven upon the plates of brass.

For my soul delighteth in the scriptures, and my heart pondereth them, and writeth them for the learning and the profit of my children.

16 Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard.

These verses explain why Nephi made the smaller plates (after he had made the larger plates by commandment of the Lord); and why he put in it what he did. He made both sets of plates because the Lord commanded him to do it, and he wrote what he wrote in it because he was inspired of the Lord to put them in it. Half the time he didn