Recent Defense of the Book of Mormon Witnesses

Two fellow LDS apologists refuted Sean McDowell (son of Josh McDowell) and Robert Bowman on the Book of Mormon witnesses:

Sean McDowell Attacks the Witnesses

Again, it only shows that Reformed Protestants are willing to deceive. Kinnda like they are totally depraved (sadly, they are also not regenerate):

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. Querying Joseph Fielding Smith on Whether an Adopted Korean Child Could be Sealed in the Temple (January 18, 1954)

  

Pres. Jos. Fielding Smith—inquiry about adoption of Korean child by some woman and question if child had negro blood if it could be sealed in temple. Pres. Smith said that had never been done. (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Journal, January 18, 1954, in The Diaries of J. Reuben Clark, 1933-1961 Abridged, comp. D. Michael Quinn [Digital Edition; Salt Lake City, 2015])

 

Anna Angelini and Edmon L. Gallagher on the Use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18

 

‎  לְמַ֙עַן יִֽירְשׁ֜וּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִ֤ית אֱדוֹם֙ וְכָל־הַגּוֹיִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָ֥א שְׁמִ֖י עֲלֵיהֶ֑ם נְאֻם־יְהוָ֖ה עֹ֥שֶׂה זֹּֽאת	ὅπως ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα
In order that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by name (NRSV)	In order that the rest of humanity and all the nations upon whom my name has been called will seek me out (my trans.)

 

It is undeniable that the Greek translation of verse 12a-b displays a more universalistic understanding of the restoration, whereby all humanity can expect God’s intervention. However, it is still problematic to identify in this passage a deliberate attempt on the part of the translator to alter the meaning of the Hebrew text. The Greek rendering is probably derived from a different “decoding” of the Vorlage: the translator most likely read “Edom” (אדום, Edom) as אדם (Adam), “man” or “people” (ανθρωπων, anthrōpōn). Moreover, he read the verb יירשו (yirshu), “they possess” as ידרשו (yidreshu), “they look for” (εκζητησωσιν/ekzētēsōsin)—that is, the root ירש (yrsh) as if was דרש (drsh), with a confusion in the first letter. Furthermore, the Vorlage might well have had a slightly different spelling of the word “Edom” when compared to the MT, namely, in the short form without the waw. Finally, by the time the translator was working with the text, the reconquest of Edom announced in the Hebrew would have been unintelligible, such that the translator was simply trying to render what he considered to be the correct Hebrew text when he adopted a more universalistic reading. (Anna Angelini, “Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Septuagint Exegesis in Context,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 88-89)

 

 

 

The crucial part of the quotation in Acts reads: “so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called” (Acts 15:17 NRSV). This quotation matches Amos 9:12, whereas the Hebrew text reads differently: “in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name” (NRSV). James would have had a difficult time arguing for gentile inclusion in the church based on the Hebrew text of Amos 9:12 but the LXX more clearly provided a foundation for such a doctrine. (Edmon L. Gallagher. “The Use of the LXX in the Early Church,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 122-23)

 

 

Katell Berthelot on the Importance of Phinehas in 1 Maccabees 2

  

A crucial biblical figure to understand the description of the Hasmoneans in 1 Maccabees is Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, a priest zealous for God to the point of taking arms and killing fellow Israelites who had committed idolatry (Num 25). Mattathias’s murder of a fellow Judean who was willing to sacrifice to foreign gods, in 1 Maccabees 2, is to be understood in light of Phinehas’s behavior in Numbers 25, as 1 Maccabees 2:26 clearly indicates: “[Mattathias] became zealous for the law as Phinehas as had been [lit. “done”] against Sambri son of Salom” (ie., Zimri son of Salu in Num 25:14). In his testament to his sons, Mattathias then states: “Phinehas our father, because he became zealous with zeal, received a covenant of everlasting priesthood” (1 Macc. 2:54). Noteworthy is the fact that Phinehas is described as the Father” of Mattathias and his sons, who are thus depicted as heirs to the Aaronide priesthood. This is probably another way to confer legitimacy on the Hasmoneans. Yet as Torrey Seland notes, there is a slight difference between Phinehas’s zeal and that of Mattathias and his followers: what was zeal for God in Numbers 25 becomes a zeal for the law (Torah) in Maccabees (2:27, 50). (Katell Berthelot, “1 Maccabees,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 138-39)

 

David Lincicum: Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 Teaches that Solomon Personally Preexisted

  

Chapter 8 further expostulates on the benefits of wisdom, seeing in Solomon’s success even as a young man a concrete proof of the virtues that wisdom produces. As a sort of aside, the text presents Solomon as preexisting as a good soul before he takes a body: “I was a naturally clever child, and I obtained a good soul as my lot, or rather, being good I entered an undefiled body” (8:19-20). (David Lincicum, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 235)

 

David Lincicum on the Potential Use of Wisdom of Solomon 2:13, 18-20 in Matthew 27:43

  

Wisdom 2:13, 18-20//Matthew 27:43. As discussed above, in the speech of the wicked in Wisdom 2, they contend against a righteous person who calls himself a son (2:18; υιος, huios) or servant/child (2:13: παις, pais) of the Lord. Those who oppress him taunt and say, “If the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries” (2:18 NRSV). In the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the passion, Jesus is mocked by the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders: “He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son’ [υιος, huios]” (Matt 27:43 NRSV). In Wisdom 2:18 the mockers say God “will rescue him” (ρυσεται, rhysetai), and this same verb is used in Matthew 27:43: ρυσασθω rhysasthō. The thematic parallels are strong, and the righteous sufferer of Wisdom 2 is easily read by subsequent Christian readers as a depiction of Jesus.

 

Complicating the case for direct dependence on Wisdom is the use of Psalm 22:8 (21:9 LXX) in Matthew 27:43: “He hoped in the Lord; let him rescue him; let him save him, because he wanted him.” The psalm text probably lies behind both Wisdom and Matthew, and particularly in light of the significance of Psalm 22 for Matthew elsewhere, we should probably cede the position of first influence to Psalm 22. But the invocation of the righteous one’s identity as “son” speaks in favor of Wisdom’s influence here, and may suggest that the righteous sufferer in Wisdom 2 formed part of the cultural encyclopedia that helped the earliest Christians makes sense of Jesus’s death. (David Lincicum, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 239)

 

Michael W. Duggan on the "Devil" in Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 being Cain

  

Just as immortality is the effect of associating with wisdom, so death is the consequence of abandoning wisdom (Wis 1:16). Pseudo-Solomon asserts that death did not originate with God, as it was not envisaged when created humans (1:13; 2:23; cf. Gen. 1:26). He states that death gained access to humans through “the envy of an adversary [διαβολος, diabolos]” (Wis 2:24). Traditionally, commentators have viewed the phrase as referring to “the devil,” which would be the first instance of identifying this sinister figure with the Edenic serpent in the biblical tradition (Gen 3; cf. 1 Chr 21:1 LXX; Zech 3:1-2 LXX). However, Pseudo-Solomon never mentions demons; furthermore, he describes wisdom as releasing Adam from his transgression (Wis 10:1). Hence, the diabolos is more likely Cain, who brought death into the world when he acted out of envy to kill his brother Abel (Wis 2:24; cf. 10:3; Gen 4:1-8). (Michael W. Duggan, “Creation in the Apocrypha,” in Apocrypha and the Septuagint, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker, Marieke Dhont, and James K. Aitken [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2026], 367-68)