top of page

Chapter 18: "Stumbling Blockhead"

 

Chapter Summary:

Christ will be as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense--Seek the Lord, not peeping wizards--Turn to the law and to the testimony for guidance--Compare Isaiah 8. About 559–545 B.C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the aspects of the Book of Mormon to which Mormons often point to demonstrate authenticity is the language used in the book. The argument goes that although there are distinct voices in the Book of Mormon, they all use similar language which sounds like the KJV bible. And if it sounds like the bible, then it must be just as authentic. Well, the line of reasoning may be fallacious, but I agree that both holy books are equally truthful; which is to say, not very.

 

There are a few reasons why people think the bible and the Book of Mormon sound similar. For one, they both use old-sounding English. Second, several authors in the Book of Mormon cite entire chapters from the bible, including this chapter. This adds to the first point. But I find a striking difference in the language in the bible (like Isaiah) with the narrative style used in the Book of Mormon.

 

Nephi, who has written most of the Book of Mormon this far, uses a first person narrative style: "I did this, and this happened, which allowed us to this other thing while arguing/worshiping/prophesying". It is straightforward, fairly easy to digest.

 

Like much of the bible, Isaiah prefers third-person omniscient, and more complicated and choppy language, as though it had been filtered through a process of imperfect translations over many years. In fact, it was so incongruent with modern English that the scribes who wrote the KJV added various phrases for clarity (indicated in the KJV with italics). And still it is not nearly as fluid and easy to read as the Book of Mormon. It may be argued, however, to be equally dry.

 

It should be noted that the authors of both books supposedly lived in the same Palestinian area at the same time (~600 BCE), so the limitations in translation due to differences in grammar or word meanings (which we know is the case in the KJV) should be consistent with the Book of Mormon also.

 

Why do I mention all of this in this particular chapter, you ask? Because this chapter is especially confusing. The metaphors are strange and time-specific. The sentence structure throughout is messy and at times incomplete. This is exactly what we would expect to see through an imperfect translation process.

 

So, why would these imperfections and limitations be found in the Book of Mormon's citation of Isaiah? Shouldn't the language be cleaner? Why would the exact same words added for clarity by 17th century scribes (who were members of a church which the Book of Mormon calls an "abomination" and "the whore of all the earth"), why would they be in found in an independent original document written in 600 BCE? It is simple, really. The Book of Mormon is not an ancient historical record, but a 19th century fabrication written by a man (or a few men) with a vested interest in the Book of Mormon being accepted as historical.

 

Isaiah uses most of this chapter to illustrate the child born of a "virgin" from the previous chapter as a successful leader and war-hero. This is consistent with the Jewish interpretation of messianic prophecies, such as the book of Isaiah, that their messiah will save the Jews from bondage and be a great political leader similar to Moses. In fact, if you really want to delve in to the harshest criticisms of the supposed biblical prophecies of Jesus being a messiah, ask a Jewish scholar.

 

Before closing the chapter with more vague metaphors which drift merrily over my head, Isaiah issues a warning against seeking out wizards to speak with the dead. You know, because that's a real danger which should concern people.

 

As I mentioned several chapters ago, Isaiah's messianic prophecies, which Christians claim to be so clearly and obviously about Jesus, lack the specificity which Nephi uses in describing future events like Columbus discovering America, and Joseph Smith being a totally awesome dude. If Isaiah spoke with the kind of detailed predictions as Nephi (whose prophecies were clearly retrofitted by Joseph Smith), then the claim that Isaiah was speaking about Jesus would at least have one leg upon which to stand.

 

Since this is not the case, I must side with great minds like Christopher Hitchens, and point out that the New Testament was written after the Old one. Just as Joseph Smith had a vested interest in the Book of Mormon, early Christians also had a vested interest in Jesus being the fulfillment of prophecy. 

 

[next] [previous] [top]

bottom of page