Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You speak very definatively about the subject, almost in absolutes. However it doesn't change the fact the overall work that is the Book of Mormon is an abridgment by a prophet hundreds of years removed from Nephi.

In what order and over what time frame did Nephi restate in his own writing what he had read and seen in visions, that was in turn abridged? How many small plates involving dealings with God and the Nephite nation verses larger 'a peoples history' plates did Mormon have to study and draw from for his abridgment?

Furthermore the more and more I read this section it is not always clear to me at what point Nephi is no longer speaking and in fact Jacob is speaking, in addition to the author of the abridgment? Perhaps it's due mostly to my poor reading comprehension?

I am not stretching, or looking for a silver bullet explaination. The Book of Mormon is a whole work of abridgment, note merely a complilation. I feel there is a very clear distinction to be made.

I'm not speaking in absolutes. I'm telling you what the BOM text says. Read it for yourself. Nephi says, here I'm quoting from Isaiah, stuff I found in the brass plates. You're off on a completely unrelated tangent.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You speak very definatively about the subject, almost in absolutes. However it doesn't change the fact the overall work that is the Book of Mormon is an abridgment by a prophet hundreds of years removed from Nephi.

In what order and over what time frame did Nephi restate in his own writing what he had read and seen in visions, that was in turn abridged? How many small plates involving dealings with God and the Nephite nation verses larger 'a peoples history' plates did Mormon have to study and draw from for his abridgment?

Furthermore the more and more I read this section it is not always clear to me at what point Nephi is no longer speaking and in fact Jacob is speaking, in addition to the author of the abridgment? Perhaps it's due mostly to my poor reading comprehension?

I am not stretching, or looking for a silver bullet explaination. The Book of Mormon is a whole work of abridgment, note merely a complilation. I feel there is a very clear distinction to be made.

I literally think of it in these terms ... A music producer can create a compilation album of a popular band for distribution. Or, the same producer can invite another artist to perform the songs of a popular band in his or her own musical style for distribution.

The two resulting albums would be dramatically different.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I'm not speaking in absolutes. I'm telling you what the BOM text says. Read it for yourself. Nephi says, here I'm quoting from Isaiah, stuff I found in the brass plates. You're off on a completely unrelated tangent.

I'm not disputing the plainess of what is written, nor am I trying to attack you. I am pointing out that you are reading what Nephi says through the filter of Mormon who writes; Nephi says.

Let's consider the subject of history on the whole; Does an absolutely comprehensive, entirely truthful history of any event or moment in recorded human history exist?

No. Such a work would require an omniscient author.

That is why the Book of Mormon is an abridgment and not merely a compilation.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I'm not disputing the plainess of what is written, nor am I trying to attack you. I am pointing out that you are reading what Nephi says through the filter of Mormon who writes; Nephi says.

Let's consider the subject of history on the whole; Does an absolutely comprehensive, entirely truthful history of any event or moment in recorded human history exist?

No. Such a work word require an omniscient author.

That is why the Book of Mormon is an abridgment and not merely a compilation.

Whoa, you're misunderstanding the BOM. Again, 2 Nephi is unabridged. It is Nephi writing. Moroni included his writings without editing or otherwise touching them. Mormon doesn't enter the picture until Mosiah. That's the distinction between the large plates, which are an abridgment, and the small plates, which come straight from Nephi and were appended to the abridged large plates.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Whoa, you're misunderstanding the BOM. Again, 2 Nephi is unabridged. It is Nephi writing. Moroni included his writings without editing or otherwise touching them. Mormon doesn't enter the picture until Mosiah. That's the distinction between the large plates, which are an abridgment, and the small plates, which come straight from Nephi and were appended to the abridged large plates.

It's not all there though, namely what was written by Lehi -those plates were taken from JS and are lost.

Again, the entire book as a whole is an abridgment. Why were only the Isaiah writings included? Furthermore we are only permitted access to a small portion of the abridgment. The remainder of Mormons work was sealed.

I agree with what you wrote in another thread that the Book of Mormon is not a history ... in a traditional sense. So why then attemp, as though it were a round peg, to force it into a square hole?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It's not all there though, namely what was written by Lehi -those plates were taken from JS and are lost.

Again, the entire book as a whole is an abridgment. Why were only the Isaiah writings included? Furthermore we are only permitted access to a small portion of the abridgment. The remainder of Mormons work was sealed.

I agree with what you wrote in another thread that the Book of Mormon is not a history ... in a traditional sense. So why then attemp, as though it were a round peg, to force it into a square hole?

I feel I understand the BOM pretty well ... That there is much more to the abridgment that has not yet been translated, and may yet be revealed; and that what is essential to my salvation has been provided to me on it's pages if I will but study, ponder on and pray about it.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It's not all there though, namely what was written by Lehi -those plates were taken from JS and are lost.

Again, the entire book as a whole is an abridgment. Why were only the Isaiah writings included? Furthermore we are only permitted access to a small portion of the abridgment. The remainder of Mormons work was sealed.

I agree with what you wrote in another thread that the Book of Mormon is not a history ... in a traditional sense. So why then attemp, as though it were a round peg, to force it into a square hole?

Why do you want to talk about every part of the bom except the part with Isaiah in it? The Isaiah chapters are in 2nd Nephi. They aren't in the large plates, they aren't in the book of Lehi, they aren't in the sealed portion. I feel like you're having a completely different conversation with someone else, yet responding to me. 2 Nephi was written by Nephi, and nobody else, according to the text. Nephi quotes from Isaiah, including chapters that had not been written yet. The compilation of the BOM as a whole has nothing to do with this problem. As to your last statement: I agree, but if you think the BOM is not a history, then why argue that the inclusion of the Isaiah chapters had a historical basis?

[Indy Coug]

What is the mainstream date for 2nd Isaiah that you are rigorously defending?

Your argument seems to be

1. You claim that Nephi was responsible for all the Isaiah chapters in 2nd Nephi.
2. You seem to claim that 2nd Isaiah was written after either the death of Nephi or after they left Jerusalem (not sure which) and that there is no way that Nephi had access to that chapter.

Obviously, at least one of the two is false. Which one is it?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What is the mainstream date for 2nd Isaiah that you are rigorously defending?

Your argument seems to be

1. You claim that Nephi was responsible for all the Isaiah chapters in 2nd Nephi.
2. You seem to claim that 2nd Isaiah was written after either the death of Nephi or after they left Jerusalem (not sure which) and that there is no way that Nephi had access to that chapter.

Obviously, at least one of the two is false. Which one is it?

Indy, I think scholarly mainstream would be something like no earlier than 540 BCE. 3rd Isaiah would be even later but Nephi doesn't ever quote from that part of Isaiah.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

then why argue that the inclusion of the Isaiah chapters had a historical basis?

You are misunderstanding me and I apologize. I have understood that you wish to critique those that would assign historical basis to the Isaiah chapters. I will not criticize for I do believe it may be possible to discover historical basis for the Isaiah chapters ... I am open to the possiblity.

I do struggle with your regimented scholarly thought process. You seem fully prepared to dissect the sections of the Book of Mormon and place them in separate silos. Yet, that directly contradicts the stated purpose of what the book purports to be … And ultimately it is a fruitless intellectual endeavor as it feels like you have missed the point.