How did Deutero-Isaiah get on the Brass Plates?

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

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.  

The same can be said for interpretations of scholars... I rest my case.

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Why?

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

 

But if one accepts your scripturally-based demolition of the so-called 'Isaiah problem' he'll have to reject some of the most important work of the enlightened gurus of higher criticism, and that would be too embarrassing for any self-respecting intellectual to have to endure. Yours might be a good enough explanation for simple-minded farmers, fishermen and carpenters, but it's a wholly inadequate one for the academic elite who understand scholarship will trump pretended revelation every time. So let's put this simplistic explanation aside because it's too facile and not possessed of enough ponderous erudition to make it acceptable to mention in polite society.

[Atheist Mormon]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

OK, you you asked the Q., and you claim to be aware of it how it happened? How it happened then?

(Was it like while Joseph was dictating the BoM he had Bible open and dictated it?)

[CMZ]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

Classic Shifting the Burden of Proof

Strangely I never said the following: "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," even though I agree with it, and am not sure how it got attributed to me.

And, yes, "whether there is such a thing as a Deutero-Isaiah" is an EXTREMELY good assumption to test, before attempting to prove other things false with it.

[CMZ]

9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by CMZ

[Bobbieaware]

38 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Okay, so scholars understand that their reasoning is always superior. Even if they're not fighting pretended revelation real scholars should know that anything they believe on a particular topic could get overturned later by more information, better insights, etc. To claim that their conclusion on a matter is final is simply conceit. Especially if they are not even open to revelation.

And I like how you're putting down farmers (Amos), fishermen (Peter and other disciples), and carpenters (Jesus).

I was being sarcastic. Guess I should have used a sarcasm-faced emoticon.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Nevo said:

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.

The problem is that it's a kind of visionary state. So we have to be cautious. I'm not saying the traditional view of "supersized Bible" is wrong. Just that due to the nature of the revelation we should be careful. That is we should be open to the different ways to read the various passages.

Also recognize that Nephi is writing what the angel says after the event - perhaps years after. So assuming every word in his record is identical to a stenographer recording the angel seems a dangerous assumption. This tendency to downplaying fallibilism in our scripture is a constant problem IMO - again not saying it's not true in cases but the safer bet is that the specific dialog is more the author's invention to convey a much vaguer memory. Those who want a more controlled word for word record and/or translation tend to say, "God could have done it." Which is of course true but which is not really an argument that God did do it that way. All the evidence seems to be God allowing human frailty a much bigger part in everything.

Quote

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.

I did also bring up the clear differences. The copper scroll doesn't have plates so how it was rolled up was different. While in theory one might be able to do that with plates depending on their thickness I suggested it'd be more likely folded up like a map. That reference to those recently found (or more accurately forged) lead plates was designed to give an idea. If you google the images you'll see the model I was suggesting.

Quote

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. 

We don't know the language/script of the brass plates but I'd imagine the most likely situation was traditional Hebrew. This would likely be a rare thing done just to preserve the record. The gold plates are different and appear to be in some shorthand script precisely because of the problem you raise.

Quote

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 Book of Mormon gives almost no information about their physical appearance. So it's important to keep in mind the options and not just pick one as the correct answer.

Quote

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?

The reader wouldn't because they tend to make assumptions typically based upon accompanying art. The careful reader should discount art as purely speculative and misleading and focus on the words and potential contexts. Brant's assumption that the plates of Nephi were modeled after the brass plates is a completely reasonable reading. I'm merely pointing out it's not the only one. The main argument against the codex model is that we simply don't find ancient codices of that sort. It seems a much later development. So it's completely possible it's an innovation by Nephi (there are hints his family might have been metal workers).

 

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, RevTestament 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. 

(quoted by RevTestament not written by him)

I don't see why that implies the unity of Isaiah in terms of authorship rather than merely the unity of Isaiah as a text at the time of Jesus. (Which no one disputes) The only way one could take this as implying unity of authorship is if one first presupposes a strong inerrancy to the text of the Bible.

Edited March 4, 2017 by clarkgoble
made quote attribution clear

[Gray]

20 hours ago, rongo said:

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 . . .  

 

 

Great comments!

Imagine if we built our system of doctrine so that it was resilient enough to embrace whatever the critical scholarship was telling us (not to say that the scholarship won't continue to evolve as well). I sometimes chat with fundamentalist Christians (evangelicals, mostly) and they react with quite a lot of shock and disbelief when I bring up some of the mainstream NT scholarship (or at least as I understand it as a total layman). It's like when some more uniformed members find out about the multiple first vision stories or Nauvoo polygamy.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Revelation might qualify.  

Revelation will give you theology and spiritual interpretations, but it won't give you history.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The Book of Mormon's relationship with issues of higher textual criticism of the Old Testament is interesting. After all, the Book of Mormon fits what we look at in terms of the textual history of the Old Testament rather well in some places (the way that it uses [proto-]Deuteronomy, for example, and it's interaction with the Samuel literature). And clearly, the Book of Mormon doesn't engage third Isaiah at all. I think that we have a couple of things that can be suggested. First, I think that we have to be careful when talking about the translation of the Book of Mormon - especially where the Book of Mormon quotes from (or alludes to, or references, or reinscribes) material from the Old Testament. I discussed this a bit in my FairMormon presentation last summer:

http://www.fairmormon.org/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/book-mormon-communicative-act

At the same time, I think that there is room for a second Isaiah which could be dated somewhat earlier than the accepted view of biblical scholarship, and there is always the challenge of dating the Brass Plates, and Lehi's departure from Jerusalem.

What if, to create a scenario, the Brass Plates were intended as a gift to the Egyptians. The northern connections (which I have seen sometimes attributed to them being some sort of heirloom for Laban's family) would then be re-understood as trying to emphasize Joseph (the son of Jacob) - and the history in Genesis of Joseph's connection to an earlier Pharoah in Egypt (and this would help us understand in a different context why the genealogy of descendants of Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh would be included in the text). This would potentially make their creation (the Brass Plates) fairly close to the departure of Lehi. And this coupled with a departure for Lehi of around 592, could leave us with a version of second Isaiah on the Brass Plates (it certainly wouldn't be the final form of this text).

Alongside this is the other problem that Nephi is clearly not just quoting Isaiah, but is recontextualizing it (resinscription perhaps on a large scale - or perhaps in more colorful terms, literary cannibalism of the Biblical Isaiah). The accuracy of the translation from the Brass Plates in Nephi's material isn't all that particularly important in this case because of course, it is intended to be likened unto the readers of the text (as Nephi so carefully illustrates in 2 Nephi 26-27). I describe that relationship in this essay here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nephi-a-postmodernist-reading/
 

Quote

Perhaps the most interesting example of Nephi’s interpretive strategies in action occurs in 2 Nephi 26–27. There we have much of Isaiah 29 incorporated into Nephi’s text. However, Nephi’s rendition changes several parts of Isaiah and intersperses it with additional text and commentary. In many ways, Nephi’s presentation resembles a pesher on Isaiah.³⁰ But, when we see where Nephi is pulling the rest of his text from, our perspective changes: Nephi remakes Isaiah’s words into his own prophecy. The narrative unit begins with Nephi’s description in verse 14: “But behold, I prophesy unto you concerning the last days; concerning the days when the Lord God shall bring these things forth unto the children of men.” It’s easy to see the entire verse as an introduction of sorts. It is certainly punctuated that way. However, Nephi has already started the presentation of his prophecy which begins with “Concerning the days when … .” Nephi continues with this passage in verse 15:

After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten. (2 Nephi 26:15)

After the first bit, the text is modified and taken from Isaiah 29:3–4a. And while much of this text comes from Isaiah 29, the rest comes from 1 Nephi 13:34–35, and it progresses through that text:

the Lord God shall bring these things forth (2 Nephi 26:14)

I will bring forth unto them (1 Nephi 13:34)

After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief (2 Nephi 26:15)

after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren (1 Nephi 13:35)

and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles (2 Nephi 26:15)

and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles (1 Nephi 13:34)

They shall write the things which shall be done among them (2 Nephi 26:17)

they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them (1 Nephi 13:35)

In recognizing the earlier text from Nephi being used here, our perspective shifts. We are no longer reading just a commentary on Isaiah. Rather, we are reading a commentary on Nephi’s prophecy. Instead of Nephi’s using his own language to comment on Isaiah, he uses the language of Isaiah to comment on his own earlier text. Nephi understands that his own prophecy is not about Jerusalem (as Isaiah 29 is). He even perhaps recognizes that the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy may never be verified for many of his descendants (they don’t get confirmation of the fall of Jerusalem until the Nephites discover Zarahemla and the Mulekites). In using Isaiah to interpret his own text, Nephi has given them an entirely different framework for understanding Isaiah — one based on the premise of likening the scriptures unto themselves. And this happens not in a rather simple way but in a radical repurposing of Isaiah’s text.³¹ What Nephi does in this narrative unit is to give us an example of reading, both by likening the scriptures unto himself and by invoking the spirit of prophecy.

So, I think that there are lots of ways we can address this issue - but this issue in particular can be challenging because of the assumptions that most readers bring to the text (assumptions about what the text is, about what the translation is, and so on). Personally, I don't buy into the idea of a unified Isaiah. And I think that the Book of Mormon uses what we might label a proto-deutero-Isaiah (which as we know isn't a final form for the Isaiah text either). And I think the the King James language that appears in the Book of Mormon comes not as a literal translation of anything on the Brass Plates, but with other purposes (as I discuss in that first link above). And given all of this (which is obviously a very nuanced perspective - probably shared by very few), the deutero-Isaiah problem doesn't create a lot of anxiety for me.

Ben McGuire

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

(quoted by RevTestament not written by him)

I don't see why that implies the unity of Isaiah in terms of authorship rather than merely the unity of Isaiah as a text at the time of Jesus. (Which no one disputes) The only way one could take this as implying unity of authorship is if one first presupposes a strong inerrancy to the text of the Bible.

Because Yeshua said Isaiah spoke these words - not just that they are in the book of Isaiah. It is possible the Book of Isaiah underwent some redaction, but to wholly conclude that a third of it was written long after Isaiah died doesn't comport with what Jesus said.

As those who know me know, I do not uphold a complete inerrancy of our Bible. I believe 1 John 3:5 is an addition - not that it is "wrong" but the Johannine Coma is not original. I believe Proverbs has a missing verse. I believe the post-Yeshua Jews altered Deuteronomy by a word. But the Bible is highly accurate. Certainly accurate enough to teach correct principles. 

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Because Yeshua said Isaiah spoke these words - not just that they are in the book of Isaiah. It is possible the Book of Isaiah underwent some redaction, but to wholly conclude that a third of it was written long after Isaiah died doesn't comport with what Jesus said.

Again please clarify why Jesus' speaking those words entail unity of authorship unless you are attributing content inerrancy to the text. i.e. explain your logic. I call it Isaiah too when I teach it. Doesn't mean I think it has unity of authorship. So the words you are referring to don't necessarily have the meaning you are drawing from them. Since I do exactly what Jesus did with regards to Isaiah.

[clarkgoble]

38 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

At the same time, I think that there is room for a second Isaiah which could be dated somewhat earlier than the accepted view of biblical scholarship, and there is always the challenge of dating the Brass Plates, and Lehi's departure from Jerusalem.

As I mentioned earlier what doesn't get mentioned in the Book of Mormon is pretty interesting. They tend to be the parts of deutero-Isaiah that are the key parts dated to during or after the exile. While 52:1-10 and parts of 49 are perhaps still problematic, they are far less problematic. I also think they'd fit for the general time frame of when Zedekiah was set up by the Babylonians as ruler under their direction but before their second sacking of Jerusalem and the total exile.

Quote

What if, to create a scenario, the Brass Plates were intended as a gift to the Egyptians. The northern connections (which I have seen sometimes attributed to them being some sort of heirloom for Laban's family) would then be re-understood as trying to emphasize Joseph (the son of Jacob) - and the history in Genesis of Joseph's connection to an earlier Pharoah in Egypt (and this would help us understand in a different context why the genealogy of descendants of Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh would be included in the text).

That's an interesting theory, although the bigger question is why Zedekiah would do that. The question of who Laban is also tends to be a mystery. I confess I always liked the idea that Laban was an escaped elite from the norther kingdom and that the brass plates were from the royalty there. That not to say that perhaps Zedekiah wanted it as a gift, but I can't see him commissioning it as a gift when he's from the southern tradition and more apt to be following the D tradition rather than the E tradition. Although as I said I don't buy all Barker's interpretation of D that have been popular among some apologists. I think Jeremiah's own connection to both D and Josiah is too complicated. (As I recall Hamblin makes a similar argument)

Of course if deutero-Isaiah is a contemporary of Lehi, perhaps even writing the prose commentary on proto-Isaiah (that some attribute to the time of Josiah or even later) then perhaps what we have are scrolls still under development rather than a single codex, as I mentioned. In that case you might be completely right that Isaiah 49-52 was recently put on the plates/scrollls. Perhaps that's even why they're so important to Nephi since they represent a contemporary of his father's. (The question about why Jeremiah is so neglected is then interesting though)

Quote

Alongside this is the other problem that Nephi is clearly not just quoting Isaiah, but is recontextualizing it (resinscription perhaps on a large scale - or perhaps in more colorful terms, literary cannibalism of the Biblical Isaiah).

This actually fits the timeframe of Lehi according to popular contemporary theories on the origin of proto-Isaiah which date the poetry to the time of Isaiah and the prose to commentaries on it around the time of Josiah. Nephi, Jacob and centuries later Abinadi are following this same tradition.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again please clarify why Jesus' speaking those words entail unity of authorship unless you are attributing content inerrancy to the text. i.e. explain your logic. I call it Isaiah too when I teach it. Doesn't mean I think it has unity of authorship. So the words you are referring to don't necessarily have the meaning you are drawing from them. Since I do exactly what Jesus did with regards to Isaiah.

I say Isaiah says or Isaiah wrote when speaking of the book. I don't say Isaiah spoke such and such. TBH I don't know exactly what the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent words would be, or if Jesus used them interchangeably. But Jesus appears to be saying that Isaiah himself actually spoke the words in the last part of the book. So it really doesn't matter if someone else actually wrote the words for him a few weeks later. Isaiah still spoke the words himself rather than some later author writing the words and attributing them to Isaiah. That puts authorship squarely with Isaiah himself. Accepting the literal meaning of what Jesus said means the deutero-Isaiah theory of authorship would be mistaken.

[Vance]

On 3/3/2017 at 11:40 AM, CMZ said:

The Deutero-Isaiah theory is itself problematical.

 

Interesting.  I wish you would elaborate your thoughts.

Just looking at what David B. wrote,

Quote

Isaiah didn’t write the book of Isaiah.  The Bible connects the book with a prophetic figure Isaiah-ben Amoz who lived during the latter half of the eighth century BCE.  However, for many years, scholars have recognized that the Book of Isaiah is an amalgamation of diverse literary sources combined and subsequently attributed to this 8^th century Judean prophet.

Scientists and Scholars are NEVER wrong.  When new data arrive that contradicts existing theories, Scientists and Scholars rewrite the, what has now become old and outdated, theories to be in harmony with the new data. So, that again Scientists and Scholars are NEVER wrong.

As for me, shall I believe the Book of Mormon, that the Spirit has told me is true, or shall I believe the latest fad in Biblical scholarship?

 

Quote

  The historical Isaiah lived during the time of the Assyrian invasions of Israel and Judea, but much of the book was composed at a much later date.

Says who and why?  Is it because he "prophesies"  with such clarity about the "later" events that "he" could not possibly have lived before them?

If so, why should I let such lack of faith disturb me?

[CMZ]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I was being sarcastic. Guess I should have used a sarcasm-faced emoticon.

My post has been edited accordingly.

[Johnnie Cake]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

It certainly is a creative work around...

[PeterPear]

On 3/3/2017 at 10:06 PM, RevTestament said:

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

I can't rep either; (likely the Admins because I've expressed in the past my disagreement with their Deutero-Hill Cumorah Theory. I'm a threat.)

[PeterPear]

16 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

But if one accepts your scripturally-based demolition of the so-called 'Isaiah problem' he'll have to reject some of the most important work of the enlightened gurus of higher criticism, and that would be too embarrassing for any self-respecting intellectual to have to endure. Yours might be a good enough explanation for simple-minded farmers, fishermen and carpenters, but it's a wholly inadequate one for the academic elite who understand scholarship will trump pretended revelation every time. So let's put this simplistic explanation aside because it's too facile and not possessed of enough ponderous erudition to make it acceptable to mention in polite society.

You are correct. To make it acceptable for any self-resepecting academic, I should have added more than 20 footnotes and written in chiasmus in The Chicago Manual of Style and never have used any contractions, phrasal verbs, brackets, exclamation marks, sexist language, or any colloquial language such as: "heys allsy'all, did yousa all know the Savior quoted from that their book of Isaiah in its front and end parts?! So doncha pay no heed to tha' thar Deutoterio-Isaiah Theory! You'all come back now to believing in the Book of Mormon, ya hear?"

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Revelation will give you theology and spiritual interpretations, but it won't give you history.

I highly recommend the "seeing the visions of eternity" thing. It has a lot of history in there.

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, PeterPear said:

You are correct. To make it acceptable for any self-resepecting academic, I should have added more than 20 footnotes and written in chiasmus in The Chicago Manual of Style and never have used any contractions, phrasal verbs, brackets, exclamation marks, sexist language, or any colloquial language such as: "heys allsy'all, did yousa all know the Savior quoted from that their book of Isaiah in its front and end parts?! So doncha pay no heed to tha' thar Deutoterio-Isaiah Theory! You'all come back now to believing in the Book of Mormon, ya hear?"

Do you understand I was being sarcastic and that I'm on your side? You, apparently, are the second person who took what I wrote seriously when I thought it was quite obvious I was using sarcasm to make a point.

[Darren10]

On 3/3/2017 at 10:59 AM, 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.

 

 

What about the idea that Moses wrote it and thus be on the brass plates? 

I've only read the first part of Jeff Lindsey's "Dust" essays regarding its use in the Book of Mormon. While the first is, I say without reservation, outstanding, parts II ans III seem superb as well. 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/arise-from-the-dust-insights-from-dust-related-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon-part-1-tracks-from-the-book-of-moses/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/arise-from-the-dust-insights-from-dust-related-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon-part-2-enthronement-resurrection-and-other-ancient-motifs-from-the-voice-from-the-dust/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/arise-from-the-dust-insights-from-dust-related-themes-in-the-book-of-mormon-part-3-dusting-off-a-famous-chiasmus-alma-36/

Did Joseph Smith just make up all the dust-related themes in the Book of Mormon, including its use in the fotmidable Alma chiasmus? Perhaps he lifted it form View of the Hebrews? If you reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon, you're left to explain alternative ways Joseph Smith profoundly used dust themes related to Deutero-Isaiah. 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Darren10

[Johnnie Cake]

51 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

What about the historicity of the zbook of Mor,on.

Whoa, if I said that I'd get banned

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Great comments!

Imagine if we built our system of doctrine so that it was resilient enough to embrace whatever the critical scholarship was telling us (not to say that the scholarship won't continue to evolve as well). I sometimes chat with fundamentalist Christians (evangelicals, mostly) and they react with quite a lot of shock and disbelief when I bring up some of the mainstream NT scholarship (or at least as I understand it as a total layman). It's like when some more uniformed members find out about the multiple first vision stories or Nauvoo polygamy.

Augustine already tried that.