DiscussMormonism.com

bill4long wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 11:49 pm

Ever since I left the LDS church in the mid 80s, I have been an avid armchair student of all things Hebrew-Religion, all things Levant, and beyond. I believe there is a huge whoopsie right there in Mosiah that I've never seen anyone mention in my 40 years of reading Mormon critics and skeptics, including the Tanners. Maybe someone has written about it, but I've not encountered it. To me it's glaring.

Consider Isaiah 53 as quoted Mosiah chapter 14, starting with verse 1. "Yea, even doth not Isaiah say: Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" The rest of the Isaiah 53 quote continues through verse 12. In the following chapter 15, Mosiah provides an exposition based on Isaiah 53.

Now, the prophecy contained in Isaiah 53 is part of four so-called "Servant Songs" in this section of Isaiah. The Servant Song units are contained in Isaiah 42:1–9; Isaiah 49:1–13; Isaiah 50:4–11; and Isaiah 52:13—53:12. The textual grouping is obvious and unmistakable in Hebrew. Even in English it should be obvious if one bothers to take a close look.

Here's the problem: The fourth Servant Song prophecy, of which Isaiah 53 is a part, actually starts at Isaiah 52:13 not Isaiah 53:1. There were no chapters and verses in the Hebrew scriptures in 600 BC, when the Nephites allegedly took the Hebrew scriptures to the New World. They were added to the Hebrew texts in 1448 by Rabbi Nathan. They were added to the English Bible in 1555 by Robert Estienne.

So why did Mosiah start the quotation at Isaiah 53:1 when the song about the suffering servant starts at 52:13?

Did God inspire him to start at 53:1? Why would God do that if the song starts at 52:13?

There's a more parsimonious reason. Whoever copied the text into the Book of Mormon was using an English Bible and was simply unaware that the song started at 52:13 and not at 53:1, which would be a natural thing to do if one was reading an English Bible and not examining the context very closely.

The devil is always in the details. That was sloppy work, Joe.

yellowstone123 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 13, 2024 4:34 pm

bill4long wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 11:49 pm

Ever since I left the LDS church in the mid 80s, I have been an avid armchair student of all things Hebrew-Religion, all things Levant, and beyond. I believe there is a huge whoopsie right there in Mosiah that I've never seen anyone mention in my 40 years of reading Mormon critics and skeptics, including the Tanners. Maybe someone has written about it, but I've not encountered it. To me it's glaring.

Consider Isaiah 53 as quoted Mosiah chapter 14, starting with verse 1. "Yea, even doth not Isaiah say: Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" The rest of the Isaiah 53 quote continues through verse 12. In the following chapter 15, Mosiah provides an exposition based on Isaiah 53.

Now, the prophecy contained in Isaiah 53 is part of four so-called "Servant Songs" in this section of Isaiah. The Servant Song units are contained in Isaiah 42:1–9; Isaiah 49:1–13; Isaiah 50:4–11; and Isaiah 52:13—53:12. The textual grouping is obvious and unmistakable in Hebrew. Even in English it should be obvious if one bothers to take a close look.

Here's the problem: The fourth Servant Song prophecy, of which Isaiah 53 is a part, actually starts at Isaiah 52:13 not Isaiah 53:1. There were no chapters and verses in the Hebrew scriptures in 600 BC, when the Nephites allegedly took the Hebrew scriptures to the New World. They were added to the Hebrew texts in 1448 by Rabbi Nathan. They were added to the English Bible in 1555 by Robert Estienne.

So why did Mosiah start the quotation at Isaiah 53:1 when the song about the suffering servant starts at 52:13?

Did God inspire him to start at 53:1? Why would God do that if the song starts at 52:13?

There's a more parsimonious reason. Whoever copied the text into the Book of Mormon was using an English Bible and was simply unaware that the song started at 52:13 and not at 53:1, which would be a natural thing to do if one was reading an English Bible and not examining the context very closely.

The devil is always in the details. That was sloppy work, Joe.

Thanks, bill4long. I need to look more closely at these issues you have written about. Isaiah is an interesting book, especially how certain Christian sects use it, or some may say cherry pick it. My big thing was the end of Isaiah 44 and the beginning of 45 mentioning Cyrus the Great.

In 1 Nephi 20 the heading reads:

"CHAPTER 20

The Lord reveals His purposes to Israel—Israel has been chosen in the furnace of affliction and is to go forth from Babylon—Compare Isaiah 48. About 588–570 B.C."

I think - Isaiah 48, you mean the chapters written after Cyrus the Great defeated Babylon and released the Jews to go rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem, likely written about 525 BC.

Isaiah 48 NIV starts:

“Listen to this, you descendants of Jacob,
you who are called by the name of Israel
and come from the line of Judah,
you who take oaths in the name of the Lord
and invoke the God of Israel—
but not in truth or righteousness—:

1 Nephi 20:

1 Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob,
who are called by the name of Israel,
and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,
or out of the waters of baptism,
who swear by the name of the Lord,
and make mention of the God of Israel,
yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.


I think, Hmm. Houston, we have a problem.

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2024 12:05 am

Bill4long, you make an interesting observation, perhaps not earthshaking but one that clarifies the passage. Mormons come up with attempts to counter the date of composition problem. You cannot trust those scholars being the easiest. Your observation here does not require special expertise and is valid anyway. Someone could say it does not prove anything. Perhaps not but it fits the picture of a 19th century production.

bill4long wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 17, 2024 2:33 pm

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 16, 2024 12:05 am

Bill4long, you make an interesting observation, perhaps not earthshaking but one that clarifies the passage. Mormons come up with attempts to counter the date of composition problem. You cannot trust those scholars being the easiest. Your observation here does not require special expertise and is valid anyway. Someone could say it does not prove anything. Perhaps not but it fits the picture of a 19th century production.

Thank you for the comment. I would say that it's one more thing among many that best fits a 19th century production. Of course, true believers are generally not affected by any evidence along these lines.