Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Book of Mormon Message-ID: Date: 30 Aug 90 07:00:12 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 34 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >In article zappala@larisa.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala) writes: > >>... If you fled Jerusalem in 600 B.C., wouldn't >>you bring with you copies of your culture's scriptures if they >>existed? > >You probably would. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon quotes >substantial chunks of parts of Isaiah that did not exist in >600 BC (the parts now attributed to Deutero-Isaiah). Joseph >Smith didn't know this, and so didn't realise that by these >quotations he was providing us with clear proof that the BoM >is a forgery. If we accept the Deutero-Isaiah theory as certain fact this would be true. While most scholars probably do believe the theory, it's not unanimous. Avraham Gileadi for one disagrees with it. (Gileadi has been recognized for his work on Isaiah). I've also heard a seminar on a wordprint analysis of Isaiah indicating a high probability that it was written by a single author. I think there are 2 reasons why Isaiah is regarded as written by 2 (or more) authors: 1. The book describes events which happened after Isaiah's life, even mentioning Cyrus by name. This is a valid objection only if we reject the possibility of specific prophecy. 2. Perceived difference in literary styles in different parts of the book. This is a topic which would consume more bandwidth than appropriate (even if I knew enough to treat it). Gileadi deals with this in his book _The Apocalyptic Book of Isaiah, a New Translation with Interpretive Key_. He finds evidence that the book is tightly bound together by its literary style.