Avraham gileadi, boise talk about comparing visions of glory and isaiah
![avraham gileadi, boise talk about comparing visions of glory and isaiah avraham gileadi, boise talk about comparing visions of glory and isaiah](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-nxYV9e8-uY4/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAA8M/22l7_A75z_s/photo.jpg)
The main problematic areas are 1 Nephi 22 (quoting Isaiah 49:22-3) 1 Nephi 20-22 (quoting Isaiah 48-49) 2 Nephi 6-8 (quoting Isaiah 49-51) Mosiah 12-15 (quoting Isaiah 52-53 albeit in a weird way) and then a few more minor quotes in 1 Nephi 10:8 (Isaiah 40:3) 1 Nephi 17:3 (Isaiah 45:18) 2 Nephi 10:9 (Isaiah 49:23) and the afore mentioned Mosiah 27:31 (Isaiah 45:23). Since the Book of Mormon is a loose translation that relies heavily on the KJV to translate similar ideas this means that the KJV of deutero-Isaiah was used along with many of the later edits from the exile and after the exile. That is a later editor added in more specific locations and events.
![avraham gileadi, boise talk about comparing visions of glory and isaiah avraham gileadi, boise talk about comparing visions of glory and isaiah](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PQ20a3fjz14/R4g1haZPtQI/AAAAAAAAARY/8QwjhYOWals/s320/MoonToBlood.jpg)
Those original sources for deutero-Isaiah were then heavily edited/redacted during the exile to fit more with the concerns of that community with the usual dating for the final form of deutero-Isaiah. The usual Mormon response to deutero-Isaiah is that it was based upon separate prophetic works that were on the brass plates. However in sticking with it I recognize I’m not being comprehensive to all the arguments about date. I use it because it contains a convenient source of arguments. Wright’s “Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.” It was the original argument against deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. In making the following arguments I’m making extensive use of David P. I consider the latter primarily artifacts of the way the text was translated. The implication of this is that with a few exceptions what matters are extended quotations not a verse or phrase here or there. This means that often quotes or paraphrases of KJV language were used to translate ideas or texts not directly related to the source texts in the KJV Bible. Second let me state up front that I take as an assumption that the Book of Mormon is a loose translation in terms of content. Rather I see it as taking seriously the arguments about deutero-Isaiah. Nor do I really see this as an apologetic work. This is me thinking through the issue not claiming everything works. How then do we deal with this problem of a significant set of texts quoted by Nephi and others after they left Jerusalem?įirst let me note that I am far from an expert here. Even if one buys some of the literary claims, that’s typically possible for a later editor bringing the various works together. While there are some figures who support an unified Isaiah I confess I just don’t find persuasive their answers to the critics argument regarding a later date. A good example is the presumption that Jerusalem has already been destroyed. Rather the text makes assumptions of the audience that just don’t work earlier. Contrary to what some members say, the dating isn’t just assuming that prophecy is impossible. The traditional problem here is that deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40-55) are usually considered to be written fairly late – usually dated to during the exile in Babylon. Several parts of the Book of Mormon are highly influenced by the text of deutero-Isaiah.