1 Nephi 10:7-10 and John the Baptist

[WalkerW]

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.

[zerinus]

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)

[Rob Bowman]

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.

[zerinus]

"Lofty air of superiority" indeed.

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.

[USU78]

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

[zerinus]

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?

[Vance]

Ok, so help me out here.

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?

[WalkerW]

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.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ha, that is funny.

[zerinus]

Ha, that is funny.

I like this one better:

[volgadon]

I like this one better:

I guess apostates don't know class when they see it.

[volgadon]

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.

Seems that you've never read Arthur Quiller-Couch's "Oxford Book of English Verse" or Francis James Child's "The English and Scottish Popular Ballads" or Sir Walter Scott's "The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border."

[WalkerW]

I like this one better:

I'm sure you do. It fits your attitude and approach quite well.

[stemelbow]

Zerinus vs Walker

Bokovoy vs Schryver

Our bishop's wife vs the Primary President

I've been subjected to too much internal fighting the past couple days. What's with us LDS folk?

[Questing Beast]

That's FUNNY! Little blighter aping his elders veeerry well indeed. A religious parallel can be made instantly. Our children ape us, until they don't. But even when they quit, they are still scarred for life by their upbringing. "Caveat parentor"!...

[WalkerW]

Zerinus vs Walker

More like Zerinus vs. anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of scripture.

Notice I was defending David after Zerinus had the audacity to state that David didn't have a testimony.

If people would actually engage the arguments or the methodology instead of arrogantly pronouncing spiritual judgments on everyone, things would go a lot smoother.

[volgadon]

If people would actually engage the arguments or the methodology instead of arrogantly pronouncing spiritual judgments on everyone, things would go a lot smoother.

Precisely.

[stemelbow]

More like Zerinus vs. anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of scripture.

Notice I was defending David after Zerinus had the audacity to state that David didn't have a testimony.

If people would actually engage the arguments or the methodology instead of arrogantly pronouncing spiritual judgments on everyone, things would go a lot smoother.

I'm not taking sides on this. I'm just saying...its disappointing to see, whatever the causes. truth be told the most disappointing has been the bishop's wife and the Primary president. I will spare all from the details.

[zerinus]

I'm sure you do. It fits your attitude and approach quite well.

You must admit, it is a good rebuttal to your pic, isn't it? LOL!

[WalkerW]

I'm not taking sides on this. I'm just saying...its disappointing to see, whatever the causes. truth be told the most disappointing has been the bishop's wife and the Primary president. I will spare all from the details.

How dare you not take sides! I'm obviously for the Primary president. Maybe if you had a stronger testimony, you would see things my way!

[stemelbow]

How dare you not take sides! I'm obviously for the Primary president. Maybe if you had a stronger testimony, you would see things my way!

Let's be honest, if I had a stronger testimony I wouldn't be so troubled by it all.

[ELF1024]

I'm prolly just the dumbest jester in the room, but I don't understand Rob's use of "dependance" in the threads title. I don't see that the BoM is dependant upon any other work of scripture. It stands on it's own. Just because it quotes from other sources doesn't mean that it's dependant on anything else.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

You wrote:

I'm prolly just the dumbest jester in the room, but I don't understand Rob's use of "dependance" in the threads title. I don't see that the BoM is dependant upon any other work of scripture. It stands on it's own. Just because it quotes from other sources doesn't mean that it's dependant on anything else.

"Literary dependence" is a technical term in the study of texts. It means that some of what appears in text A derives from text B. So, for example, most scholars think that Luke's Gospel is "dependent" on Mark. This isn't a bad thing; it just means that Luke used Mark as a source. It would only be a problem if text A claimed to have been written before text B or in a context in which use of text B was impossible.