69 replies to this topic

[PaulBoyerFan]

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians?  After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24).  And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation?  1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed  according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the  Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my  father."

[volgadon]

Try Jeremiah 28 onwards.

[Mortal Man]

PaulBoyerFan, on 15 December 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians?  After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24).  And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation?  1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed  according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the  Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my  father."

2 Kings 24:

10 ¶At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.
11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.

Nebuchadnezzar was an exceedingly quiet fellow. His sieges typically went without notice.

12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon,  he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his  officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his  reign.

Jehoiachin just wanted to go say hello to his new friend.

13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said.

This was merely a bit of spring cleaning. Treasures can really clutter up the temple if you don't clear them out once in a while.

14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.

Laban, Lehi and Ishmael were poverty stricken; hence they lost out on this opportunity.

15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.

These were useless bureaucrats, so nobody missed them.

16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.

Nephi was a pacifist with no crafting skills.

17 ¶And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.

Upon taking throne, Zedekiah's issued his first official proclamation: "Nothing to see here folks, move along!" which everyone naturally went along with.

Edited by Mortal Man, 15 December 2010 - 04:56 PM.

[jadams_4242]

PaulBoyerFan, on 15 December 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians?  After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24).  And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation?  1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed  according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the  Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my  father."

  Isnt that excatly why lehi was directed to leave..? {destruction}

[Bill Hamblin]

In the first siege in 597 the city was not captured by force nor destroyed; it surrendered after a siege, and was made a vassal state, and was forced to pay tribute (hence the despoiling of the temple).  It was destroyed and the temple was destroyed in the second siege in 587-586.  The first siege was a defeat, but Jerusalem had been a vassal of foreign powers (Assyria and Egypt) for a century before that.  The 586 siege left the city in ruins and its temple destroyed.

[dougtheavenger]

PaulBoyerFan, on 15 December 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians?  After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24).  And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation?  1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed  according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the  Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my  father."

Jeremiah was predicting the destruction of the temple as early as 629 BC

http://www.jewishvir.../vjw/Yemen.html

“According to Yemenite tradition, a group of well-to-do Jews left Jerusalem after they heard Jeremiah predict the destruction of the Temple in 629 BCE, 42 years before the destruction occurred.”

Edited by dougtheavenger, 15 December 2010 - 04:46 PM.

[ElfLord]

dougtheavenger, on 15 December 2010 - 04:44 PM, said:

Jeremiah was predicting the destruction of the temple as early as 629 BC

http://www.jewishvir.../vjw/Yemen.html

“According to Yemenite tradition, a group of well-to-do Jews left Jerusalem after they heard Jeremiah predict the destruction of the Temple in 629 BCE, 42 years before the destruction occurred.”

hmmm so it took the Lehianites 29 years to get out of town.

Isn't 597 bce 3 years after Lehi left?  Why in the world would he write about it?

Edited by ElfLord, 15 December 2010 - 04:53 PM.

[Mortal Man]

Bill Hamblin, on 15 December 2010 - 03:43 PM, said:

In the first siege in 597 the city was not captured by force nor destroyed; it surrendered after a siege, and was made a vassal state, and was forced to pay tribute (hence the despoiling of the temple).  It was destroyed and the temple was destroyed in the second siege in 587-586.  The first siege was a defeat, but Jerusalem had been a vassal of foreign powers (Assyria and Egypt) for a century before that.  The 586 siege left the city in ruins and its temple destroyed.

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem,  and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand  captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the  poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

[ElfLord]

Mortal Man, on 15 December 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem,  and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand  captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the  poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

The problem is... you are going off the chronology of a text that was translated from the Mesoretic source.

I read somewhere that the discrepancies of years and Chronologies between the Mesoretic text and the LXX text can differ as widely as 1400 years.

What does the LXX say about the verses you are quoting?

Edited by ElfLord, 15 December 2010 - 06:16 PM.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello PaulBoyerFan,

PaulBoyerFan, on 15 December 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians?  After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24).  And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation?  1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed  according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the  Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my  father."

Thanks for raising an interesting issue.

Biblical scholars refer to the mindset that Laman and Lemuel manifest as the notion of the “Inviolability of Jerusalem.”  Evidence suggests that prior to the final Babylonian description of the holy city and its temple, many Jews interpreted their sacred writings to suggest that while God would allow Jerusalem to be punished, as the location of his sacred ark and temple, Jerusalem, the "city of David" would never be destroyed.  The most recent scholar to address this theme that I am aware of is Tiziano Lorenzin in the article “L'arca dell'alleanza (1 Samuel 4-6; 2 Samuel 6),” Parole di Vita 46 (1, 2001): 39-44.

The “Inviolability of Jerusalem” perspective appears, for instance, in Psalm 46:1-7:

"God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah. There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early. The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted. The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah."

This is the very theme that distinguishes Isaiah’s message from that of the other classical prophets:

“As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it. Turn ye unto him from whom the children of Israel have deeply revolted. For in that day every man shall cast away his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto you for a sin. Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man, shall devour him: but he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be discomfited. And he shall pass over to his strong hold for fear, and his princes shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 31:5-9)

Edited by David Bokovoy, 15 December 2010 - 07:30 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

Mortal Man, on 15 December 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem,  and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand  captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the  poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

The first captivity was bad.  The second was worse (2 Kgs 25).  So?  Jerusalem was not "destroyed" (1 Ne 1.13) in the first siege.  There were Jews taken captive in the second siege.

[phaedrus ut]

Mortal Man, on 15 December 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem,  and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand  captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the  poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

It's not a big deal that Nephi didn't mention this, those trivial details are ignored all the time.  However do you know about the bullseye in the Book of Mormon with Nahom and NHM?


Phaedrus

Edited by phaedrus ut, 16 December 2010 - 02:50 PM.

[Zakuska]

Mortal Man, on 15 December 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

1 Nephi 13: ...and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

So, immediately after Nebuchadnezzar "carried away all Jerusalem,  and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand  captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths" such that "none remained, save the  poorest sort of the people of the land", Lehi reads in ominous vision that some of Jerusalem's inhabitants (presumably poor people) would be taken captive sometime in the future? That must have come as quite a shock.

Shock?

Have I missed something...

Quote

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM: AN INSIDE VIEW

Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem on the 10th day of the 10th month (roughly January) of 588 BC, which was in the 9th year of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.

This is 9 years AFTER Lehi preached.

Edited by Zakuska, 16 December 2010 - 01:51 PM.

[Fifth Columnist]

PaulBoyerFan, on 15 December 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

I was just wondering why 1st Nephi doesn't mention the conquest of Jerusalem around 597 BCE by the Babylonians?  After all, the book begins at the beginning of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, who ascended to the throne after Jerusalem was sacked, the contents of the temple plundered, and most of the leading residents taken into captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 24).  And why are the residents of Jerusalem said to be incredulous that Jerusalem could be destroyed in 1st Nephi, when they had just witnessed the city's devastation?  1 Nephi 2:13, for example, says of Laman and Lemuel, " Neither did they believe that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed  according to the words of the prophets. And they were like unto the  Jews who were at Jerusalem, who sought to take away the life of my  father."

All of these really tough questions are easily answered once you accept that Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc., are fictional characters in a book of fiction.  Accepting this doesn't mean that you have to jettison the BOM as a source of spiritual inspiration.

[mapman]

Fifth Columnist, on 16 December 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

All of these really tough questions are easily answered once you accept that Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc., are fictional characters in a book of fiction.  Accepting this doesn't mean that you have to jettison the BOM as a source of spiritual inspiration.

It's not a really tough question.  Jerusalem wasn't destroyed until after Lehi left.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Fifth Columnist, on 16 December 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

All of these really tough questions are easily answered once you accept that Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc., are fictional characters in a book of fiction.  Accepting this doesn't mean that you have to jettison the BOM as a source of spiritual inspiration.

No need to look at it that way, but if it helps you out, more power to you.

[David Bokovoy]

Fifth Columnist, on 16 December 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

All of these really tough questions are easily answered once you accept that Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc., are fictional characters in a book of fiction.  Accepting this doesn't mean that you have to jettison the BOM as a source of spiritual inspiration.

Interesting that this could be considered a "really tough question."  In my mind, Laman and Lemuel's perspective on the "inviolability of Jerusalem” creates an impressive link between the Book of Mormon and the ancient world.

[Mortal Man]

David Bokovoy, on 16 December 2010 - 04:44 PM, said:

Interesting that this could be considered a "really tough question."  In my mind, Laman and Lemuel's perspective on the "inviolability of Jerusalem” creates an impressive link between the Book of Mormon and the ancient world.

So Laman and Lemuel held to the "inviolability of Jerusalem" as the temple was being pillaged and tens of thousand of their friends and relatives were being hauled away captive?
That would be like standing on ground zero on 9/12/2001 and declaring that New York could never be attacked.

[nosmelone]

Zakuska, on 16 December 2010 - 01:46 PM, said:

Shock?

Have I missed something...



This is 9 years AFTER Lehi preached. [/font]

"The Destruction of Jerusalem, An Inside View"  where is this from?  This is great information I would just like a little background if possible.  Thanks!

[David Bokovoy]

Mortal Man, on 16 December 2010 - 05:26 PM, said:

So Laman and Lemuel held to the "inviolability of Jerusalem" as the temple was being pillaged and tens of thousand of their friends and relatives were being hauled away captive?
That would be like standing on ground zero on 9/12/2001 and declaring that New York could never be attacked.

Sorry, Brother, but not a very good analogy.  They certainly knew that Jerusalem not only could but had been "attacked."  

A more appropriate analogy would be like standing on ground zero on 9/12/2001 and stating that because of promises God had made in sacred texts, New York might experience great tragedy but would never be destroyed.