How did Deutero-Isaiah get on the Brass Plates?

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So if you don't believe scholars are smarter than God, then believing that Isaiah prophesied a name rather than Isaiah was written after this person lived is not a problem, and the Deutero-Isaiah "problem" is no longer a problem. Scholarly textual analysis is often just plain wrong in its conclusions, and is definitely not a reason to lose faith in what the spirit has revealed to you.

It's not a question of scholars vs God. It's scholars vs fundamentalists. 

[Gray]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The difference is that with physics and medicine if you get it wrong it usually becomes obvious in testing. The plane does not fly, the collider does not collide, and the patient dies.

Writing and speculating and reaching conclusions about the machinations of long-dead authors and their motivations and timeframes gives the benefit of (absent new discoveries) never being crudely proven wrong. Isaiah is unlikely to show up at a conference of Bible scholars to clarify the issues and if he did that would probably not be the point of discussion in any case.

While it's true that critical scholarship has its limitations, it's the approach to the Bible with the FEWEST limitations, if you're concerned about understanding the history, origins, and intent behind the text. There are no other competing avenues of exploration. 

Edited March 3, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

You're assuming that all scholarship monolithically and unanimously accepts multiple-Isaiah authorship. I know when Sperry wrote on it (a long time ago, admittedly), he listed many prominent scholars who rejected that.

The vast bulk of scholarship assumes multiple authors although there are a few who push single authorship still. But they're a definite minority view. (And often have religious reasons for wanting single authorship) The main arguments for single authorship are literary but (IMO) they don't deal well with the arguments for a latter date for deutero-Isaiah.

Quote

Another thing I've noticed is that higher critics in the Church, in my experience, always actually reject the actual existence of gold or brass plates. Every single one, every single time.

What do you count as a higher critic? I know lots of people who accept some variant of the documentary hypothesis yet assume real Nephites, real brass plates and so forth. Indeed a common argument is taking some of the traditions of the documentary hypothesis to explain features of the Nephites. For instance a common view among apologists is that Lehi is reacting against the deuteronomist reforms which is centralizing the cult at the time of Josiah. Further they note that the Eloheimist tradition is more in line with the northern kingdom and probably reflects why Lehi has traditions different from what we see in post-exilic Israel (particularly with where he makes offerings). I think some of this is very overstated due to the complex relationship towards Josiah and the deuteronomists by Jeremiah. But I don't think accepting multiple composition is particularly controversial. Heck John Sorenson wrote about the brass plates being tied to E decades ago.

Edited March 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This may be kicking a dead horse...but of the many problems I personally find in forming a belief paradigm in Mormonism...this particular difficulty is at or near the top of a very very deep pile of perceived problems.

Dr David Bokovoy, makes a compelling argument for why this is a significant problem for believers in the Book of Mormon as a literal history...of course if one considers the BoM as inspired scripture allegory just not a literal historical document...then the problem of Deutero Isaiah being found  in the BoM disappears.  It just creates other problems.

So how exactly do believer's resolve this difficulty? Ignore it,  buy into some magical solution or is there some other workaround that you've found that resolves this dilemma?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/04/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon-a-literary-analysis-pt-1/

Just want to add...that an inspired fictional scripture as a foundation for belief is not satisfactory to me...so Bokovoy's argument...confirms my reasons for non-believe...but leaves me with a path to belief that does not work for me.  I should also add that anyone who proposes that the Biblical scholars are wrong and that the proof is in the fact that the Book of Mormon its self is proof that Deutero Isaiah was written before Lehi left Jerusalem because of the fact that it is in the Book of Mormon and thus must have been on the Brass Plates...sorry that dog won't hunt.

 

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm in agreement with Bokovoy on this.  The BoM doesn't represent good historicity. 

A very bad habit of some Mormons is to read an item on the internet and imagine that the item is normative and requires no further discussion.  Among scholars, of course, that is not the case.  Only someone like David Bokovoy himself is actually capable of carrying on a discussion of the issue raised here.  One who comes upon such a summary is duty bound to compare it with other comments on the same phenomenon, say of this article by Kent P. Jackson, “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (SLC: Deseret Book/ Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2016), 69–78.

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson/ 

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson-part-2/ .

http://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon  (Marc Schindler).

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf .

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65687-key-variances-in-isaiah-in-book-of-mormon-from-the-bible/page-2 .

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

A very bad habit of some Mormons is to read an item on the internet and imagine that the item is normative and requires no further discussion.  Among scholars, of course, that is not the case.  Only someone like David Bokovoy himself is actually capable of carrying on a discussion of the issue raised here.  One who comes upon such a summary is duty bound to compare it with other comments on the same phenomenon, say of this article by Kent P. Jackson, “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon,” in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (SLC: Deseret Book/ Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2016), 69–78.

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson/ 

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson-part-2/ .

http://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon  (Marc Schindler).

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf .

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65687-key-variances-in-isaiah-in-book-of-mormon-from-the-bible/page-2 .

Thanks for linking David Bokovoy's Rational Faiths 2 part response to Jackson...I searched and searched for these but couldn't remember exactly where I had read them...duh rational faiths  Thanks

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

You're assuming that all scholarship monolithically and unanimously accepts multiple-Isaiah authorship. I know when Sperry wrote on it (a long time ago, admittedly), he listed many prominent scholars who rejected that.

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=jbms

Sperry quotes Charles C. Torrey's (who vigorously defended one Isaiah) survey of the situation:

 

 

What drives me nuts about higher criticism, whether it be of Homer, or Isaiah, or whomever, is this tendency to whittle down what higher critics accept as being from the "genuine author" to a minute fraction of the whole. And not on very compelling evidence, in my view. Sperry writes: "Only about 262 verses of a total of 1292 in Isaiah are considered to be the genuine product of Isaiah by the higher critics" (including the Trito-Isaiah camp). Higher critics, every single time, without fail, will inevitably disallow the vast majority of a given work as being from the historical author. And, while textual evidence is offered, in the case of scripture it is always backed by the underlying assumption that actual predictive prophecy is impossible. That lies at the heart of multiple Isaiah theories: since predictive prophecy is actually a fiction, anything connected with that must be dated after the author could have known about it in retrospect. In some cases, anachronisms are assumed that have assumptions that aren't demonstrated in my view (e.g., cultural contacts, etc.). The literary evidence is even weaker. It is assumed that the real Isaiah could only have one mood or tone, so sections that are deemed too joyful (looking at the 2nd Coming and Millennium) or too somber (Babylonian captivity, consequences for disobedience, etc.) had to have been from someone else. This, of course, overlaps with the primary assumption that prophets actually can't see into the future. 

 

 

I don't think that rejecting a certain type of scholarship with a certain agenda equates to rejecting scholarship altogether. Nor do I consider it to be anti-intellectual. I have read a lot of higher criticism. The Interpreter's Bible is full of it, and that took me about 10 years to read and take notes on. 

My understanding is that no one rejects multiple authorship of Isaiah these days except for a few people on the extreme fringes, usually because they have strong theological commitments to the contrary. Catholic scholarship certainly acknowledges multiple authors. 

Multiple authorship does NOT depend solely on an a priori rejection of predictions about the future. (It's true, however, that historians have no access to the supernatural and have to set it aside.) If you read Bokovoy's multi-part article, he lays it out very clearly. There are many, many strong evidences in support of multiple authorship of Isaiah. Perhaps you've read all that and reject it, but I find it convincing. 

You don't need to know anything about historical criticism to reject brass plates. That's the default position for most people, after all. My presupposition is that good, mainstream, critical scholarship is the best way to answer historical and textual questions. Some people feel that mainstream Biblical scholarship has some kind of anti-religious agenda and reject it. I think that's the approach that young earth creationists take toward biology and geology. 

 

Quote

Another thing I've noticed is that higher critics in the Church, in my experience, always actually reject the actual existence of gold or brass plates. Every single one, every single time. I think that is what actually lies at the heart of their acceptance of higher criticism, not that the evidence is so compelling that it demands it. They don't believe that the Book of Mormon peoples actually existed, and higher criticism allows them, in their way, to claim belief in Mormonism in some way while rejecting the historicity of the scriptures. 

I think you may have reversed the actual cause and effect there. 

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by Gray

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think you may have reversed the actual cause and effect there. 

Very possibly.  

I look forward to reading through the Bokovoy/Jackson discussion Robert E. Smith linked to. 

I do have to say that I don't reject the documentary hypothesis out of hand, and I do acknowledge and accept parts of it. For example, I do find the mention of details and regulations in urban living situations to be much more likely to have arisen later, and not in the Sinai desert. I've made notes in my Interpreter's Bible volumes, too, when there's a "touche!" moment and a good point is made against my views.

I was angry as a missionary with the scholarly footnotes in the Einheitsübersetzung (German Catholic Bible). They made no bones about most of the Pentateuch being mythical, Job is a myth, Daniel was written centuries later in response to Antiochus Epiphanes, etc. It was annoying for a Bible . . .  

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

When we're done talking about Deutero Isaiah, we should figure out how much brass it would take to write down all the stuff that the Book of Mormon says was in the Brass Plates.

Dang the rabbit hole goes deeper still...I've never even considered how much brass it would take for all the stuff that the Book of Mormon says was on the Brass Plates...thanks a lot Cinepro...you've ruined my weekend

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Did you really take down a whole discipline that many continue to give their life to by showing two instances where someone might be wrong about Daniel?  Wow.  I wonder if they know this.  

If not, I hope they do come to know this. God vs. Scholars - who will win? I believe prophecy will win. You are free to root for the losing side.

P.S. I am not saying scholars are always wrong, and that they don't do good work. However, lots of times they base their conclusions on faulty reasoning - such as God can't prophesy. I know otherwise.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

When we're done talking about Deutero Isaiah, we should figure out how much brass it would take to write down all the stuff that the Book of Mormon says was in the Brass Plates.

You may be able to come to an educated guess by extrapolating from the brass plates of Qumran. Have fun

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We don't know what was on them or even whether they were a codex or more akin to the Copper Scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which is basically plates but linked to make more like a scroll).

I agree that if we suppose that the brass plates weren't brass, weren't plates, and didn't contain all of the writings that the Book of Mormon claims they did, then the problem sort of goes away.

But if we're talking about an alloy of copper and zinc hammered into plates that contained Lehi's genealogy (1 Ne. 3:12; 5:14); the five books of Moses (1 Ne. 5:11); a history of the Jews "from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah" (1 Ne. 5:12); and prophetic oracles "from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah" (1 Ne. 5:13) — including those of Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Jeremiah, as well as the writings of non-biblical prophets such as Zenos, Zenoch, Neum, and Ezias — then we're talking about something more extensive even than the Old Testament (which runs 970 pages in the thinnest bible I own).

By way of comparison, the Isaiah scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls — a fraction of what was said to be on the brass plates — is 11 inches high and 24 feet long.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Nevo

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

While it's true that critical scholarship has its limitations, it's the approach to the Bible with the FEWEST limitations, if you're concerned about understanding the history, origins, and intent behind the text. There are no other competing avenues of exploration. 

Revelation might qualify.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I agree that if we suppose that the brass plates weren't brass, weren't plates, and didn't contain all of the writings that the Book of Mormon claims they did, then the problem sort of goes away.

But if we're talking about an alloy of copper and zinc hammered into plates that contained Lehi's genealogy (1 Ne. 3:12; 5:14); the five books of Moses (1 Ne. 5:11); a history of the Jews "from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah" (1 Ne. 5:12); and prophetic oracles "from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah" (1 Ne. 5:13) — including those of Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Jeremiah, as well as the writings of non-biblical prophets such as Zenos, Zenoch, Neum, and Ezias — then we're talking about something more extensive even than the Old Testament (which runs 970 pages in the thinnest bible I own).

By way of comparison, the Isaiah scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls — a fraction of what was said to be on the brass plates — is 11 inches high and 24 feet long.

As I said, we don't know if it was a codex or a scroll. The reason for questioning the composition as brass is that the copper/zinc combination wasn't known util fairly late. The word translated as brass by the KJV for passages like Deut 8:9 is probably copper - such as the copper scroll at Qumran. I'm not saying it's not brass but I'd lay better odds it's an artifact of translation and the influence of the KJV language on the translation. The other problem with brass for plates is the tarnishing problem.

Anyway, my point was that we can't tell if the plates were done in a scroll like fashion or a codex like fashion. That's just not specified in the text. But I agree if in a scroll like form with a separate scroll for each book it'd likely be quite large. Personally it would seem much more likely they'd be scroll like both because of the lack of codices at the time as well as just the ubiquity of scrolls.  

The OT as we have it consists of about 12-20 scrolls. It's not clear if the brass plates would be bigger or smaller than our current OT since of course a lot was written after Nephi left. But probably a lot was lost or redacted into the existing OT. Some scrolls would contain multiple authors (like the minor prophets). Of course we don't know much about what was going on in palestine in the 6th century but I'd imagine that's the best bet. Note the DDS Isaiah scroll is 24 feet stretched out. It's stored rolled up though although if the scroll was metallic that might cause problems rolling it up. Of course if it is plates tied together each 'scroll' might fold more like a map.

While I think most consider the lead plates from discovered in 2009 forgeries they do give an idea of the problems metal plates would have. (They were also lead, not copper) On the other hand the DSS copper scroll was rolled up and not in plates. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Atheist Mormon]

How did Deutero-Isaiah get on the Brass Plates?

You want us to do your homwork for you?

[Johnnie Cake]

39 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How did Deutero-Isaiah get on the Brass Plates?

You want us to do your homwork for you?

If this is directed at me...the answer is no.  I'm well aware of the deutero Isaiah problem...but as I asked in my op...I'm interested in how believers reconcile it to maintain belief.

[Thinking]

10 hours ago, CMZ said:

Our focus of attention then should not be the Book of Mormon, but the Bible and whether there is such a thing as a Deutero-Isaiah.

Classic Shifting the Burden of Proof

[Calm]

Maybe CMZ means we need to know what Isaiah is first before moving on to see if Isaiah fits in the Book of Mormon.

[PeterPear]

18 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Classic Shifting the Burden of Proof

Why?

Quote

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/Deutero-Isaiah.html

But by far the strongest evidence that proves the unity of the book of Isaiah is that Jesus Himself quoted from both the beginning and the end of the book, attributing all of it to Isaiah. 

1. Jesus quoting from Isaiah 29:13: “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’” (Mark 7:6–7). 

2. Jesus also referenced Isaiah 42:1–4 in Matthew 12:17: “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah.” 

3. Isaiah is also referenced in Matthew 8:16–17 by quoting Isaiah 53:4: “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.’” 

Aside from the passages quoted by Jesus above, several other New Testament verses refer to the prophet Isaiah as been the sole author: Matthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4 (Isaiah 40:3); Romans 10:16, 20 (Isaiah 53:1; 65:1);John 12:38-41 (Isaiah 53:1; 6:10). But the fact that our Lord Jesus affirmed Isaiah’s authorship by quoting from both sections of the book and attributing them to Isaiah is proof enough of the entire book’s authorship. Those who reject the words of the Lord Himself will never be convinced by any other means.

 

Now let's get rid of the Deutero-Hill Cumorah Theory.
 

 

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

Yes, there are. 

 

 

This cuts to the crux of the matter. Mormons are tied to historicity in a way that other churches aren't, because of the Book of Mormon. Evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians feel similarly about the Bible, but Moroni, gold plates, etc. make the stake even higher for Mormons. 

I get the feeling that Bokovoy, et. al. don't think there were gold plates and that Moroni didn't really visit Joseph Smith (because there wasn't really a Moroni). While there are people who believe that the Book of Mormon has spiritual value despite not being what it says it is, that view will never dominate in the Church. And if it did, the Church would cease being the Church in any meaningful sense. 

I agree with you.  Any change from viewing the BoM as historical, with real Nephites, would fundamentally change the makeup of the church.  Case in point is the Community of Christ.

Edited March 4, 2017 by sunstoned

[Nevo]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While I think most consider the lead plates from discovered in 2009 forgeries they do give an idea of the problems metal plates would have. (They were also lead, not copper) On the other hand the DSS copper scroll was rolled up and not in plates. 

In 1 Nephi 13:23, an angel describes the (Christian) Bible to Nephi as "a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many"—and this was before "many plain and precious things were taken away" (vv. 26–29). The brass plates are portrayed as a sort of super-sized Bible.

You suggest that the format of the brass plates would "much more likely . . . be scroll like both because of the lack of codices at the time as well as just the ubiquity of scrolls." I agree that scrolls are the more logical format, but not made of metal. You keep mentioning the Copper Scroll as a possible model for the brass plates. Here is a description of the Copper Scroll:

Quote

The original scroll consisted of three copper sheets riveted together, but it was found in two rolled-up pieces. Apparently one of the three sheets had become detached before the scroll was rolled up and hidden. The metal is of exceptional purity (99 percent copper) and thinness (about 1 millimeter), and would have been very costly. The size of the sheets (roughly 30 by 30 centimeters each), as well as the way they were attached to each other and inscribed in columns, indicated that the Copper Scroll is a replica of a standard parchment scroll. It is unclear why copper was chosen as the medium on which the text was inscribed; the choice may have been dictated by considerations of durability or ritual purity.

The uniqueness of the writing material had two important consequences. Firstly, the text of the Copper Scroll was not so much "written" by a trained scribe as "engraved" by one or more metalworkers, who may themselves have been illiterate. The letters of the text appear to have been hammered into the copper with a punch (each letter requiring several blows), with the result that they showed through on the reverse side of the thin copper.

— Al Wolters, "Copper Scroll," Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 144–145.

The author here describes the scroll's writing material, very thin sheets of copper, as "unique." It is also clearly impractical. Each letter required "several blows" to engrave it into the metal. That's each letter, not each word. Now imagine doing that for the length of the entire Bible and then some. And doing it in Egyptian hieratic—a cursive script. The Copper Scroll may have been intended as a replica of a parchment scroll but you can see why they stopped at 3 feet.

The Book of Mormon, of course, never so much as hints that the "plates of brass" were really thin sheets of copper rolled up as one (?) ginormous scroll (or 20+ book-length scrolls). The format of the brass plates is not specified in the text but it can be reasonably inferred. Joseph Smith gave the rough dimensions of the gold plates. He described a codex. If the plates of Mormon were in codex form, and the small plates of Nephi were in codex form, why would we picture the plates of brass as a scroll? In his commentary, Brant Gardner observes that the small plates of Nephi and the plates of Mormon, though "created independently from each other at widely different times," appear to have been exactly the same size. He hypothesizes that "Nephi's original plates established a tradition that was followed by later historians, archivists, and plate-makers" and that "Nephi hammered out his plates so that they were the same size as the brass plates so that they more closely aligned with that sacred model" (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon: First Nephi 1–11, Kindle location 1143).  

Edited March 4, 2017 by Nevo

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If not, I hope they do come to know this. God vs. Scholars - who will win? I believe prophecy will win. You are free to root for the losing side.

P.S. I am not saying scholars are always wrong, and that they don't do good work. However, lots of times they base their conclusions on faulty reasoning - such as God can't prophesy. I know otherwise.

its not God vs. Scholars.  Its more like Scholars vs. Fundamentalist.  Many scholars believe in God. Their research does not necessary challenge the belief in God.  More often that not the work of scholars challenges fundamentalist beliefs.

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

But by far the strongest evidence that proves the unity of the book of Isaiah is that Jesus Himself quoted from both the beginning and the end of the book, attributing all of it to Isaiah. 

1. Jesus quoting from Isaiah 29:13: “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’” (Mark 7:6–7). 

2. Jesus also referenced Isaiah 42:1–4 in Matthew 12:17: “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah.” 

3. Isaiah is also referenced in Matthew 8:16–17 by quoting Isaiah 53:4: “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.’” 

Aside from the passages quoted by Jesus above, several other New Testament verses refer to the prophet Isaiah as been the sole author: Matthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4 (Isaiah 40:3); Romans 10:16, 20 (Isaiah 53:1; 65:1);John 12:38-41 (Isaiah 53:1; 6:10). But the fact that our Lord Jesus affirmed Isaiah’s authorship by quoting from both sections of the book and attributing them to Isaiah is proof enough of the entire book’s authorship. Those who reject the words of the Lord Himself will never be convinced by any other means.

Now let's get rid of the Deutero-Hill Cumorah Theory.

I wanted to rep this but couldn't. Right on!

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This may be kicking a dead horse...but of the many problems I personally find in forming a belief paradigm in Mormonism...this particular difficulty is at or near the top of a very very deep pile of perceived problems.

Dr David Bokovoy, makes a compelling argument for why this is a significant problem for believers in the Book of Mormon as a literal history...of course if one considers the BoM as inspired scripture allegory just not a literal historical document...then the problem of Deutero Isaiah being found  in the BoM disappears.  It just creates other problems.

So how exactly do believer's resolve this difficulty? Ignore it,  buy into some magical solution or is there some other workaround that you've found that resolves this dilemma?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/04/deutero-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon-a-literary-analysis-pt-1/

 

Just want to add...that an inspired fictional scripture as a foundation for belief is not satisfactory to me...so Bokovoy's argument...confirms my reasons for non-believe...but leaves me with a path to belief that does not work for me.  I should also add that anyone who proposes that the Biblical scholars are wrong and that the proof is in the fact that the Book of Mormon its self is proof that Deutero Isaiah was written before Lehi left Jerusalem because of the fact that it is in the Book of Mormon and thus must have been on the Brass Plates...sorry that dog won't hunt.

 

 

Joseph was inspired to include it, as he included may other bible verses or very close parallels, into his revelations.   I mean Isaiah 53 is a major scripture of major importance which the alleged Nephites would have to have been acquainted with.  The whole BOM is based on the idea that those people had a knowledge of Christ who was to come, and Isaiah 53 is a key scripture for that in the OT.

After all he re-wrote the bible, adding what he liked, omitting other sections etc.  He thought himself to be the definer of scripture with the authority to "translate it correctly"

That's what he thought he was doing and that was his commission.  We have BOOKS of new scripture plucked from the air- BOA, Moses, D&C.

No biggie.  Either you think he was a prophet and had that ability or you don't.

Next question.

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

its not God vs. Scholars.  Its more like Scholars vs. Fundamentalist.  Many scholars believe in God. Their research does not necessary challenge the belief in God.  More often that not the work of scholars challenges fundamentalist beliefs.

That is fallacious thinking Sunstoned. Unfortunately, scholars put more faith in their analysis than in God's word. They have caused many people to lose faith in God's word. God is about to end that tho.

[sunstoned]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That is fallacious thinking Sunstoned. Unfortunately, scholars put more faith in their analysis than in God's word. They have caused many people to lose faith in God's word. God is about to end that tho.

How do you define "God's word"?  Would this be the interpretation of the scriptures as you see it?  And because you see things differently than "scholars", that means they are wrong? There are many hundreds of christian churches out there that have their own interpretation of what God's word is.  These varied and often contradictory beliefs seems to cast doubt on the reliability of the process used to form them.