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.
The Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah 9:1 and changes it from “Way of the Sea” to “Way of the Red Sea.” Skeptics say this geography is incorrect. But when we look at the entire description in Isaiah 9:1 we see “Way of the Red Sea” is more correct. This shows a remarkable understanding of Israelite history which Joseph Smith could not have had.
| Isaiah 9:1 2 Nephi 19:1 “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.” “Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.” |
Joseph Smith was no expert on Middle Eastern geography, but he must have at least 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?
Eastern Trade Routes
This is talking about common trade routes. Two major routes passed through Israel: The King’s Highway and the Way of the Sea. Most scholars read Isaiah 9:1 and immediately assume it is talking about the Way of the Sea, which runs along the Mediterranean Sea to the west. It sounds like it is saying Israel would be invaded from the Way of the Sea to the west where Galilee is.
But the King’s Highway in ancient times had a different name: Way of the Red Sea. In Nephi’s version, Israel would actually be invaded from the south-east. This is the route that Israel used when they were fleeing Egypt and entered Canaan: “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)
When Lehi’s family was fleeing from Jerusalem, they probably used this same trade route that the Hebrews used to flee Egypt. The irony was not lost on Nephi, that is family was fleeing out of Jeruslam along the same path that his ancestors used to find their promised land, and that is why he included this quote. 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, and were greatly interested in this prophesy of Jesus proceeding along the same path. “I am the way (highway), and the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father, but through me.”
Now, look at the context. This is prophesying of dark days ahead for Israel. Biblical scholars say Isaiah 9:1 is supposed to be part of the last verse of chapter 8: “And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness.” It is saying Israel was afflicted by this trade route, but it would also be greatly blessed along this trade route by the arrival of a great light.
Biblical scholars say Jesus compared himself to this route Way of the Red Sea 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) Jesus would be the people’s great hope, just like the route led them to deliverance in the great Exodus. Nephi understood that Israel would be invaded and afflicted through the same route Israel had used to settle the land, and the same route Nephi used to flee Israel, and that eventually the Messiah would be the true “King’s Highway.” The Book of Mormon is full of symbolism of Jesus and walking the “true path,” the same kind of symbolism 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.”
This is why Isaiah prophesies of Jesus immediately after Isaiah 9:1: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
So Nephi’s version makes more sense.
Only The King’s Highway Passes ‘Beyond Jordan’
- 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.” This is what Isaiah 9:1 is referring to as “beyond Jordan.” The Way of the Red Sea passes through this land, but the Way of the Sea does not. So Isaiah 9:1 couldn’t be referring to the Way of the Sea! Josephus the ancient historian repeatedly referred to Peraea as “the land beyond Jordan.” Paraea is the Greek name for this eastern land, but rabbis always called it “beyond Jordan.”
- The King’s Highway was not the alternate name for “Way of the Red Sea” until later in history. We don’t know for sure how much later, but the phrase King’s Highway is not mentioned in the bible at all, so it is very likely that they still used the name “Way of the Red Sea” in Isaiah’s time.
- In early times, the Way of the Sea was called “Way of the Philistines”. It didn’t have the name Way of the Sea until some point in history later. The phrase “way of the sea” never comes up in the bible except this one instance, so it is likely that it was still Way of the Philistines in Isaiah’s time.
- 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. But when was Israel ever invaded from the Mediterranean Sea by Way of the Sea? I don’t think it ever was. So then what darkness or vexation would Isaiah be referring to come from the west?
Nephi in the Book of Mormon clarified an important and interesting error in today’s bible. Or perhaps early transcribers of the bible omitted “Red” because they incorrectly assumed it was referring to the western trade route, just like modern biblical scholars.
Jesus Fulfilled The Prophesy
“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.”
(CES Letter)
- (a) 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 from the scriptures by a transcriber before the time of Matthew. He could have simply been copying an anachronism. Or maybe it never said “Red Sea” to begin with because the Way of the Sea was still called “Way of the Philistines” and there was no reason to include the word “Red.” 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, but 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, from the eastern trade route, and then a great light comes the same way. I see no contradiction.
- (b) We don’t have source manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest copies we have of Isaiah, and they are based on the same record of Judah that Matthew was looking at. 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.
- (c) The Way of the Red Sea meets the Way of the Philistines at Galilee. Both routes lead to Galilee. The NIV translation of Isaiah 9:1 lists in order the places that Jesus would visit in his ministry: “Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the [Red] Sea, beyond the Jordan [Peraea].”
So instead of adding an error that anyone even slightly familiar with bible geography would immediately recognize, it turns out Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon solves a discrepancy that he couldn’t possibly have even known about. How did Joseph Smith know there was a trade route called Way of the Red Sea? How did he know it passed “beyond Jordan” while the Way of the Sea didn’t? How did he fit this in so perfectly in an incredible repeated motif of fleeing and redemption? Anti-Mormons, in trying to disprove the Book of Mormon, have just uncovered a great piece of evidence for its validity. Thanks guys!
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | CES Letter claims Isaiah is quoted by Jesus in Matthew. No, it is quoted by the author of gospel of Matthew. We do not have source manuscripts of Isaiah to determine what they said, contrary to what CES Letter claims. The Red Sea is not 250 miles away from Galilee, but 200 miles. The Way of the Red Sea passes into 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 or Matthew wrote “Red Sea” in the gospel of Matthew is irrelevant, because the scriptures already included already had this discrepancy included. They were just repeating what was already written. Matthew did not have access to the brass plates. CES Letter sets an unreasonable expectation where every single word in the ancient brass plates must match with our modern Old Testament, where our modern Old Testament couldn’t have picked up any errors along the way, and history just doesn’t work that way. |
| 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.” |
| See also: | CES Letter Contradiction Strategy |
Too Much Association, Too Little Association – In the previous argument, CES Letter complained that the Book of Mormon copies errors from the modern bible. But now, CES Letter flips the narrative and complains that the Book of Mormon doesn’t just copy what’s in the bible, what turns out to be a discrepancy. Huh? It’s not close enough to the bible. It’s too close to the bible. Make up your mind!
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. They go back and forth, setting unreasonable expectations. But in the end, CES Letter suggests the bible is made up as well as the Book of Mormon. So what is the point of showing too much association or too little association if you think both books are just made up? 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 discuss this? Wouldn’t that be the logical way?
CES Letter is just 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. It is their contradiction strategy.
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 CES Letter‘s ideology is 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. Why haven’t I seen anyone mention Peraea, the Way of the Red Sea, and “beyond Jordan”? Am I really the only one who has actually bothered to look into this??
Contradiction Strategy – The manipulative Anti-Mormon 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 behavior.
This is a strategy that can be used for anything. 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. 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!”
But from this bad-faith argument we are able to glean a remarkable bit of evidence, that Joseph Smith was a prophet. This change to “Way of the Red Sea” was totally correct and fitting. How could Joseph Smith have guessed all of this correctly with a random stab in the dark, that the Way of the Red Sea passes through Paraea “beyond Jordan,” and the Way of the Sea does not. All just random coincidences? He couldn’t have known this. This argument turns out to be solid, physical, archaeological evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is an ancient testament of Jesus Christ.
Every time you look into any complaint or argument against the Book of Mormon, the truth of the book rings clear. It always wins in the end. This is why I believe the Book of Mormon is true.Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons: