This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“2 Nephi 19:1… quotes nearly verbatim from the 1611 AD translation of Isaiah 9:1 KJV… Additionally, Joseph qualified the sea as the Red Sea. The problem with this is that (a) Christ quoted Isaiah in Matt. 4:14-15 and did not mention the Red Sea, (b) “Red” sea is not found in any source manuscripts, and (c) the Red Sea is 250 miles away.”
| Joseph Smith must have known that the Red Sea was hundreds of miles from Galilee. When someone talks about a “sea” in Galilee, the Sea of Galilee is the obvious answer. So why would Joseph Smith go out of his way to add an obvious error to a bible verse? Two Trade Routes – Two major routes passed through Israel: The King’s Highway and the Way of the Sea. In Isaiah 9, it sounds like Israel would be invaded from the Way of the Sea to the west where Galilee is: |  |
“Nevertheless the dimness not such as in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.” (Isaiah 9:1)
But in Nephi’s version, Israel would actually be invaded from the south or east, from the King’s Highway, which was also known as “The Way Of The Red Sea.” This is what this route was called when Israel was fleeing Egypt:
“Then we turned and set out for the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea, as the Lord spoke to me, and circled Mount Seir for many days.” (Deut.2:1) “Tomorrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea… And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea.”(Num.2:1, Num. 21:4)
This is the route that the Hebrews used to flee Egypt, and probably the same route that Lehi’s family used to flee Jerusalem. Lehi’s family found the geography of the Red Sea important, as they traveled along the Way of the Red Sea to get to their promised land. So this detail was important to Nephi. Furthermore, biblical scholars say Jesus compared himself to this route when he said: “I am the way (highway), and the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father, but through me.” (John 14:5-6) So it was incredibly important to Nephi to discuss the invasion of Israel through the same route Israel had used to settle the land, and the same route Nephi used to flee Israel, and then immediately afterwards discuss the birth of Jesus Christ, who called himself the true “King’s Highway.” The Book of Mormon is full of symbolism of Jesus and walking the “true path,” as we also see in Psalms 119 which compares the King’s Highway to God’s path: ” I have chosen the way of truth… I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings.”
Nephi’s version makes more sense.
- In early times, the Way of the Sea was called “Way of the Philistines”. It didn’t have the name Way of the Sea. The phrase “way of the sea” never comes up in the bible except this one instance.
- The King’s Highway was not the alternate name for “Way of the Red Sea” till later, and the phrase King’s Highway is not mentioned in the bible.
- Both routes go to Galilee. “Galilee of the Gentiles” actually translates as “the circuit of the Gentiles” or circle of Gentiles, and refers to the region above the Chinnereth sea, which both routes lead to. “Beyond Jordan” refers to the land of Peraea that is directly east of Jordan, “the tract east of the sea and of the upper Jordan, where the five thousand were fed, and where our Lord was transfigured.” The Way of the Red Sea passes through this land, but the Way of the Sea does not.
- Israel was indeed invaded from Way of the Red Sea, just as Isaiah said they would be “vexed”, Syrians and Assyrians from the east and Ptolemy Lathyrus who came up from Egypt. When was Israel ever invaded from the Mediterranean Sea by Way of the Sea? I don’t think it ever was.
So Nephi in the Book of Mormon clarified an important discrepancy. Either that or early transcribers of the bible omitted “Red” because they incorrectly assumed it was referring to the western trade route. Or maybe there is a third explanation…
Jesus Fulfilled The Prophesy – Matt 4:14-15 certainly quotes Isaiah 9:1 and omits the word “Red.” Yes, but this is not a quote from Jesus. It was written by Matthew. Maybe the word “Red” was dropped by a transcriber before the time of Matthew, or it never said “Red Sea” to begin with because the Way of the Sea was still called “Way of the Philistines.” Isaiah was written long before the time of Matthew and there was plenty of time for “Red” to be dropped, or just not included to begin with.
Modern scholars say this verse in Isaiah “requires an entire remodelling” to make sense. I don’t think so. The way Matthew quotes it, Jesus is the “great light” who comes to Zebulon and Nephthalim, to the way of the sea, to Peraea, and up to Galilee. The way Nephi quotes it, vexation comes to these places and then a great light comes. I see no contradiction.
| Original Manuscript Is Lost – Unfortunately, we do not have original records to see what happened. 2 Nephi 19 is based on the Brass Plates, which are probably the lost record of Joseph and which included a copy of Isaiah from back when it was originally written. The record of Judah, which the Old Testament is based on, evidently had a few discrepancies, such as this one. But we do not have original manuscript sources today, or much from an ancient date. We have the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, but that was written based on the record of Judah not the record of Joseph. CES Letter Logical Fallacies |  |
| Falsehood | Isaiah is not quoted by Jesus in Matthew, but by the author of Matthew. We do not have source manuscripts to determine what they said as CES Letter claims. The Red Sea is not 250 miles away from Galilee, but 200 miles. The Way of the Red Sea passes very close to it. |
| Shifting Goalposts | In the previous argument, CES Letter complained that the Book of Mormon’s associations quoting the bible are too strong. Now they complain they are too weak. |
| Circular Argument | CES Letter says “Joseph qualified the sea as the Red Sea,” but the whole point of this discussion is to determine whether Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon or whether ancient prophets did. CES Letter thus includes the premise of their argument within the argument itself. |
| Appeal to Authority | Whether Jesus of Matthew included “Red Sea” is irrelevant, because the record of Judah already contained this discrepancy. |
| False Dilemma | Nephi was working off a totally different record than what our bible is based off of, so there should be no surprise when a few differences like this arise. |
| Repetition | CES Letter repeats the date of the KJV bible translation several times. “between 1604 and 1611,” “17th century,” “17th century.” |
Too Much Association, Too Little Association – In the previous argument, CES Letter complained that the Book of Mormon’s association is too close to prove itself to be ancient scripture, as modern translator additions were supposedly included in its quotes from the bible. So now, CES Letter flips the narrative and complains that the association is too weak. It’s not close enough to the bible.
This is the game they play. Every little similarity that appears modern can be attacked. Every little discrepancy can be cherry-picked as evidence of the same conclusion. Finally, CES Letter suggests the bible is made up as well as the Book of Mormon. So why then are they trying to show weaknesses from association at all? Why not just say “the bible is false, so the Book of Mormon is false for quoting it”? Wouldn’t that be the honest way to argue?
The reason is CES Letter is trying to discredit the Book of Mormon by portraying discrepancies within its own narrative. This is not about discovering truth, but attacking a narrative and setting a rival narrative.
Fake Science – CES Letter begins with an appeal to science in this argument, with their fake claim that source manuscripts contradict Nephi. CES Letter‘s rival narrative is that archaeological science disqualifies the Book of Mormon and presents a better truth. This appeals to the younger generation, who have not really studied the issue, and who have been brainwashed to believe anything as holy sacred truth if the word “scientific” is attached.
Contradiction Strategy – The manipulative tactic of portraying discrepancies comes straight out of the Marxist handbook. Extremist Marxists mastered the art of this agitating rhetoric, which anti-Christs like Korihor in the scriptures also used. Marxists are taught to point out logical discrepancies in their enemy’s narrative, as well as discrepancies between their moral rules and historical behavior.
This strategy can always be applied. With something as complex as scripture, which claims to keep a consistent set of principles, there is always going to be some kind of apparent discrepancy. Once their enemy doubts themselves, the Marxists can insert their own ideology as a replacement belief system. You can see CES Letter do this here, as they point to “science” as the higher authority for truth.
Satan himself used this debate tactic in is second temptation of Christ. Satan did not believe Jesus to be the chosen Son of God, so he mocked Jesus for not living up to his own claims in inspired scripture. “If you really are the Son of God, jump from this spire and prove it!”