Isaiah Within The Book of Mormon:

[_Brackite]

Hi All Here,

Here are some important Isaiah Passages, Which were basically copied from the King James Version from the text of the Book of Isaiah, Within the text of the Book of Mormon:

Isaiah 2:1:

2:1 - The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. (KJV)


2nd Nephi 12:1:

[1] The word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:

Note: Jerusalem is Mentioned 161 Times, Within the text of the Book of Mormon. Judah is Mentioned just 21 Times, Within the text of the Book of Mormon. Judah is Mentioned 29 Times, within the text of the Book of Isaiah from the King James Version.

Isaiah 7:14:

7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)


2nd Nephi 17:14:

[14] Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign -- Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Note: The word "virgin" is Mentioned in that Isaiah Passage. There was a Discussion Thread several Months ago, within the Terrestrial Forum around here, which discussed Isaiah Chapter Seven, Verse 14.
Here is Part of that Discussion Thread:

...

Please explain Isaiah chapter 7 to me. Please explain the historical setting and what Isaiah is writing about.

While not an expert I'll take a stab at it:

Syria and Israel had formed an alliance for protection against Assyria. Judah refused to join the alliance and the alliance moved against them. The opening verses of the chapter speak of this and say they have no strength to conquer. In verse 8 Isaiah tells the king that within 65 years Israel will be broken (by Assyrian deportation).

He then says that a virgin will bear a son and before he knows good from evil (i.e. young) both the kings of the alliance will be dead (killed by Assyrians). Then there is mention of the coming Assyrian invasion and that it is going to be bad. While they were largely defeated Jerusalem held out against the siege.

There is debate about the virgin passage with Jews from the First Century on arguing that it meant only a young woman, not necessarily a virgin. I'm not an expert but from Irenaus on I think it's clear that the Jews thought it meant virgin until the passage became troubling. The word in the Septuagint translates best as virgin.

In any case, to be a revelation of Christ the passage has to be in some sense dualistic.

At that point, my knowledge runs much deeper into speculation and is of less worth then my musings above.

Link: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9929&start=0




Here is Alma Chapter Seven, Verse 10:

Alma 7:10:

[10] And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Note: Jerusalem is Mentioned 161 Times, within the text of the Book of Mormon. Jerusalem is Mentioned 49 Times, within the text of the Book of Isaiah from the King James Version. Bethlehem is Not Mentioned, within the text of the Book of Mormon, and Bethlehem is Not Mentioned, within the text of the Book of Isaiah.

Isaiah 9:6:

9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (KJV)


2nd Nephi 19:6:

[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Note: Jesus Christ is referred to as the Eternal God, and He is referred to also as the Eternal Father, within the text of the Book of Mormon.
Here is Second Nephi Chapter 26, Verse 12:

2nd Nephi 26:12:

[12] And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

Here is also Alma Chapter 11, Verses 38 and 39:

Alma 11:38 & 39:

[38] Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

[39] And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Isaiah 12:2:

2 - Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. (KJV)


2 Nephi 22:2:

[2] Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also has become my salvation.

Note: The Lord's Name 'Jehovah' is Mentioned just two times, within the text of the Book of Mormon.

Isaiah 14:12:

14:12 - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (KJV)


2nd Nephi 24:12:

[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!

Is the Name of "Lucifer" a Problem, within the text of Book of Mormon???


<>

[Guest]

I just received two books about Isaiah written by Avraham Gileadi

1) The Book of Isaiah - A New Translation With Interpretive Keys From The Book of Mormon;

2) The End from The Beginning - The Apocalyptic Vision of Isaiah.

When I received the new translation book, I did check Isaiah chapter 7 and he does use "young woman" instead of the word "virgin".

The other book has to do with why he believes all of Isaiah was written by one person, which should be interesting.

I will report back :)

[_Brackite]

...
When I reicieved the new translation one I did check Isaiah chapter 7 and he does use "young woman" instead of the word "virgin".

...

Hi karl61,

Here is the Passage of Isaiah Chapter Seven, Verse 14, From more modern Versions (Translations) of the Bible:

Isaiah 7:14: (New King James Version):

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. [a]


Footnotes:

a. Isaiah 7:14 Literally God-With-Us

Isaiah 7:14: (New International Version):

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [b] will call him Immanuel. [c]


Footnotes:

a. Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural.
b. Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls and he or and they
c. Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us .

Isaiah 7:14: (New American Standard Bible):

14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, (A) a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [a] (B) Immanuel.


Footnotes:

a. Isaiah 7:14 I e God is with us


Cross references:

A. Isaiah 7:14 : Matt 1:23
B. Isaiah 7:14 : Is 8:8, 10

Isaiah 7:14: (New Living Translation):

14 All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin [a] will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’).


Footnotes:

a. Isaiah 7:14 Or young woman.

Here, Out of all these Five Separate Modern Versions (Translations) of the Bible, Only Just The New Living Translation of the Bible, Mentions that the word "virgin" can also mean a young woman.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Brackite asked me to comment on this thread - so here goes.

My view of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is very, very nuanced.

Note: The word "virgin" is Mentioned in that Isaiah Passage. There was a Discussion Thread several Months ago, within the Terrestrial Forum around here, which discussed Isaiah Chapter Seven, Verse 14.

I think that the word is somewhat ambiguous. It is, on occasion used in parallel with a non-ambiguous term for virgin in ancient semitic text (particularly in Ugaritic sources, which Isaiah seems to have been aware of - at least as traditions). So I don't think that its inappropriate to speak of it as referring to a virgin. The other issue is that a young maiden bearing a child isn't really all that much of a sign ....

Note: Jerusalem is Mentioned 161 Times, within the text of the Book of Mormon. Jerusalem is Mentioned 49 Times, within the text of the Book of Isaiah from the King James Version. Bethlehem is Not Mentioned, within the text of the Book of Mormon, and Bethlehem is Not Mentioned, within the text of the Book of Isaiah.

Part of the issue here is a topic which I have looked at in a number of different ways. The identification of Bethlehem in the Old Testament with the Mesiah comes in Micah. It's quite possible that the Brass Plates did not contain Micah. It's also true that Bethlehem is called the city of David. The Book of Mormon does its best to downplay the Davidic monarchy (Nephi isn't a Davidic king, and even later, when a Davidic king appears - Zarahemla - it is the Nephite who becomes king of the combined group not the Davidic King). As a place, of course, Bethlehem would be meaningless to all but the first generation colonists - so I think that its not appearing is not unusual.

Jesus Christ is referred to as the Eternal God, and He is referred to also as the Eternal Father, within the text of the Book of Mormon.

The quote from Isaiah takes its form from the KJV Isaiah. There are a number of unique features of the text that can be pointed out due to this. But, the Book of Mormon often refers to Christ as the Eternal Father. You won't see a lot of them in the modern edition. The first editing which Joseph Smith did removed several of the instances (to clarify the text according to Joseph) - so 1 Nephi 11:21 used to read:

And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

I believe that at least in Mormon's and Moroni's writings, we have evidence of a related liturgical usage. That is, just like the compound name for the Messiah figure in Isaiah, the Book of Mormon has it's own compound name - most completely stated (also as a prophetic statement) in Mosiah 3:8 (repunctuated according to my preference)

"And he shall be called Jesus, Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning"

This then is repeated, and also abbreviated in a number of different ways.

You mention Jehovah - but in actuality, there are several terms which are much more mundane to add to your list. One classic example is the word "stream" which occurs in the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 21:15 (from Isaiah 11)

And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind he shall shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry shod.

Nowhere else in the Book of Mormon is the word "stream" used. The Book of Mormon exclusively uses the word "river" instead in all instances in the Book of Mormon except in this particular place.

So you ask:

Is the Name of "Lucifer" a Problem, within the text of Book of Mormon???

The answer can be made in a couple of different ways.

First, there is no question that the text of the Book of Mormon is highly reliant on the King James Version of the Bible. There are various explanations put forward from the whole spectrum of belief, but I think this fact is unavoidable. We can say, quite simply, that the word "Lucifer" occurs in the Book of Mormon precisely because of the way it occurred in the KJV text of Isaiah.

The second issue is that the word "Lucifer" was at that time (and not so much today) a more nuanced word. Lucifer was a designation for Satan before his fall - at least that was how Christian commentators have understood the term since the very beginnings of Christianity. It occurs in commentary a couple of centuries before Jerome's Latin Vulgate made it more common usage. However, it has become blurred in definition with the term "Satan" over time. So, 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines Lucifer as:

1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness.
2. Satan.
"And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer, never to hope again."

The final part there (Webster's example) is a quote from Shakespeare's Henry VIII, Act 3, Scene 2. In other words, despite the fact that it obviously comes from Isaiah, the word itself is not entirely inappropriate - particularly in an early 19th century context - where we regularly find references to Lucifer (although not nearly as frequently as we do to Satan).

On this note, I should point out that usually the Book of Mormon uses the term "Satan", but it is always in a post-fall context. So the text of the Book of Mormon isn't particularly helpful in that regard.

The Book of Mormon discussion of Lucifer's fall is related in 2 Nephi 2:17-18 - and for whatever reason avoid both terms entirely, and introduces a couple of other terms which are also used in the Book of Mormon:

And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

So, Lehi has put 1 and 1 together. The question can really only be answered speculatively. Did Lehi get his understanding of the fallen angel from Isaiah, or does it come from some unknown source text. "The things which I have read" seems rather ambiguous at best.

So, I hadn't commented earlier since I really don't have a different opinion than you do (I don't think). The Book of Mormon clearly uses the King James Version text of Isaiah. And while you provide a few examples, I think there are better ones that generally get ignored (because the subject matter isn't quite so exciting). I don't think this causes significant problems for believers though (at least not for me and the way I approach texts). But, that's really a whole different discussion.

Ben M.

[_Enuma Elish]

Ben,

Part of the issue here is a topic which I have looked at in a number of different ways. The identification of Bethlehem in the Old Testament with the Mesiah comes in Micah. It's quite possible that the Brass Plates did not contain Micah. It's also true that Bethlehem is called the city of David. The Book of Mormon does its best to downplay the Davidic monarchy (Nephi isn't a Davidic king, and even later, when a Davidic king appears - Zarahemla - it is the Nephite who becomes king of the combined group not the Davidic King). As a place, of course, Bethlehem would be meaningless to all but the first generation colonists - so I think that its not appearing is not unusual.

That, my friend, is a very astute observation! I had never thought of the issue from that angle. From that perspective, the reference to Jesus' birth in Jerusalem would appear to actually provide some evidence for the book's authenticity, since Joseph Smith would have certainly known the tradition from Luke concerning the Bethlehem birth narrative.

[_Paracelsus]

There is two language which use this name (Lucifer) in the Bible.
1. Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome (or Hieronymus if you like). It means Venus.
2. English King James. In it, it means - - - ooops, I don't know what does it mean. Or what should mean. Or what did the English translators of that king think it means.

In other languages, this verse uses "day star" or "morning star" or "dawn star". Same logic as used with "Sun King". (A nickname for Louis xiv that captures the magnificence of his court and of the Palace of Versailles, which he built. Louis himself adopted the sun as his emblem. )

For example in German bibles:
Das Buch Jesaja, Kapitel 14:12
Wie bist du vom Himmel gefallen, du schöner Morgenstern! Wie bist du zur Erde gefället, der du die Heiden schwächtest! (Luther 1945)
Ach, du bist vom Himmel gefallen, / du strahlender Sohn der Morgenröte. Zu Boden bist du geschmettert, / du Bezwinger der Völker. (Roman Catholic version)

We have no problem with the name Lucifer - outside of Mormonism.

Something may be interesting.
Our official site - if there is such thing as something official - uses the Roman Catholic Bible version, as online scripture.

Lizenzausgabe der Katholischen Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, anlässlich der Weltausstellung EXPO 2000 in Hannover.
Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift © 1980 Katholische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart.
Die weitere Nutzung über den privaten Gebrauch hinaus ist ausgeschlossen.

The German site uses the same.
The Isaiah verses in the Book of Mormon, and the Jesaja verses from our Bible are as Sindarin compared to Standard Mandarin (Pǔtōnghuà).
Obsessed people can do parallel word counting or other wizardry on them.

by the way.
The austrian site doesn't use any Bible link. So much about correlation.

[_Enuma Elish]

First, there is no question that the text of the Book of Mormon is highly reliant on the King James Version of the Bible. There are various explanations put forward from the whole spectrum of belief, but I think this fact is unavoidable. We can say, quite simply, that the word "Lucifer" occurs in the Book of Mormon precisely because of the way it occurred in the KJV text of Isaiah.

The second issue is that the word "Lucifer" was at that time (and not so much today) a more nuanced word. Lucifer was a designation for Satan before his fall - at least that was how Christian commentators have understood the term since the very beginnings of Christianity. It occurs in commentary a couple of centuries before Jerome's Latin Vulgate made it more common usage. However, it has become blurred in definition with the term "Satan" over time. So, 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines Lucifer as:

1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness.
2. Satan.
"And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer, never to hope again."

The final part there (Webster's example) is a quote from Shakespeare's Henry VIII, Act 3, Scene 2. In other words, despite the fact that it obviously comes from Isaiah, the word itself is not entirely inappropriate - particularly in an early 19th century context - where we regularly find references to Lucifer (although not nearly as frequently as we do to Satan).

On this note, I should point out that usually the Book of Mormon uses the term "Satan", but it is always in a post-fall context. So the text of the Book of Mormon isn't particularly helpful in that regard.

The Book of Mormon discussion of Lucifer's fall is related in 2 Nephi 2:17-18 - and for whatever reason avoid both terms entirely, and introduces a couple of other terms which are also used in the Book of Mormon:

And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

So, Lehi has put 1 and 1 together. The question can really only be answered speculatively. Did Lehi get his understanding of the fallen angel from Isaiah, or does it come from some unknown source text. "The things which I have read" seems rather ambiguous at best.

Isaiah 14:12-15 is clearly based upon an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity. Hesier goes so far as to suggest that the reading can be entirely correlated with the Baal-Athtar myth from Ugarit. See Michael S. Heiser, “The mythological provenance of Isa. xiv 12-15: a reconsideration of the Ugaritic material,” Vetus Testamentum 51(2001): 354-369.

So, when Lehi states that an angel of God, i.e. a divine being from the heavenly host, fell from heaven, Lehi's interpretation directly reflects the West Semitic origins of the taunt. Lehi then takes the myth one step further by interpreting this "angel" as a being who actively seeks the misery of mankind, and who reflects the serpent in the story of Eden. This element clearly takes the North West Semitic tradition beyond its original meaning.

However, as Ben suggests, there exists a well-established tradition in later Rabbinic and Christian texts of “putting two and two together” as did Lehi, and interpreting the passage as a reference to Satan or some other diabolical entitiy. See Joseph Jensen, “Helel ben Shahar (Isaiah 14:12-15) in Bible and Tradition,” Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, Vol. 1 (Leiden; New York; Cologne: 1997), 339-356

[_Paracelsus]

Isaiah 14:12-15 is clearly based upon an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity.

Isa 13,14 is a revelation about destroying Babylon, and its king. (As Isa 15, 16 against Moab, Isa 17 against Damascus or Isa 19 against Egypt.) This is a series of revelations against enemies of Israel. Babylon is the first and most important enemy of the Jews. (see captivity/exile)
Nothing to do about any god. One should read the words and put together for valid sentences.
Or ... are Moab, Damascus and Egypt other usurper gods of the divine council?

For example
Isaiah 13:1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
Isaiah 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
Isaiah 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
Isaiah 14:22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

putting two and two together

It is four.

If we want explain away our old errors, we say three or five. It can not change the fact.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Paracelsus,

Isa 13,14 is a revelation about destroying Babylon, and its king. (As Isa 15, 16 against Moab, Isa 17 against Damascus or Isa 19 against Egypt.) This is a series of revelations against enemies of Israel. Babylon is the first and most important enemy of the Jews. (see captivity/exile)
Nothing to do about any god. One should read the words and put together for valid sentences.
Or ... are Moab, Damascus and Egypt other usurper gods of the divine council?

Please note my topical sentence: "Isaiah 14:12-15 is clearly based upon an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity" (emphasis added).

Isaiah 14 presents a taunt directed against the king of Babylon whose vain aspirations to god-like status appear mocked via an allusion to Canaanite mythology regarding a divine being who attempts to usurp the throne of God. Though some of the details are debated, i.e., whether Isaiah draws upon an original Greek myth that later appeared in Semitic mythology, etc., one would be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who failed to recognize that Isaiah 14:12-15 is based upon an early North West Semitic tradition.

[_Paracelsus]

Hello Paracelsus,

Isa 13,14 is a revelation about destroying Babylon, and its king. (As Isa 15, 16 against Moab, Isa 17 against Damascus or Isa 19 against Egypt.) This is a series of revelations against enemies of Israel. Babylon is the first and most important enemy of the Jews. (see captivity/exile)
Nothing to do about any god. One should read the words and put together for valid sentences.
Or ... are Moab, Damascus and Egypt other usurper gods of the divine council?

Please note my topical sentence: "Isaiah 14:12-15 is clearly based upon an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity" (emphasis added).

Isaiah 14 presents a taunt directed against the king of Babylon whose vain aspirations to god-like status appear mocked via an allusion to Canaanite mythology regarding a divine being who attempts to usurp the throne of God. Though some of the details are debated, i.e., whether Isaiah draws upon an original Greek myth that later appeared in Semitic mythology, etc., one would be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who failed to recognize that Isaiah 14:12-15 is [Arei]based[/i] upon an early North West Semitic tradition.

Are Isaiah 15, 16, 17, 19 based upon any semitic tradition? (From north west or from any direction?) Or are they something to do with canaanite mythology?
If not, why is it CLEAR that Isaiah 14:12-15 is?

one would be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who failed to recognize

Hearsay. Guess. Assumption. Wishful thinking.

The early patristic scholars (church fathers etc.) have made an error with that "Lucifer" name. It must be explained away by their academic descendants.

They (and you) underline one element of a logical queue and interpret it differently. They (and you) have right to do it. That doesn't make it true.

by the way
The most beautiful word of your topical sentence is the clearly.
You wrote:

some of the details are debated, i.e., whether Isaiah draws upon an original Greek myth that later appeared in Semitic mythology, etc

I leave it to you whether it is clear or it is debated.