Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Multiple Isaiahs Message-ID: Date: 27 Sep 90 07:19:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 26 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: > The translation of the BoM is a hotly debated topic among Mormon scholars > basically because JS never really told us the exact process, and the process > will influence how Mormons will approach the text. We can piece > together bits here and there, from D&C 9 and off hand comments by JS, > his wife, and several people, and from remarks set down by Oliver Cowdery, > who was present during most of the translation process. Given that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated (as were most of the witnesses listed at the beginning of the BoM), why is his testimony taken seriously? JS had the chance to proof-read and correct the BoM, so we don't have to rely on Cowdery's faithfulness there, but did JS get the chance to review and correct Cowdery's remarks referred to above? [For the sake of revealing possible bias: I have the BoM, D&C, PoGP and so on, some of the commentaries, and several biographies, and have read them. Having read these things I don't understand why _anyone_ is a Mormon. I'm certainly not.] Concerning Isaiah, JS wrote an amplified/"corrected" version of the Bible; part of Matthew is published by the LDS. I understand that the RLDS have and use the whole thing. Shouldn't a Mormon analysis include JS's version of Isaiah as well as the AV and MT? Indeed, shouldn't a Mormon analysis take JS's version as _more_ correct than the MT? -- Fixed in the next release.