69 replies to this topic

[PaulBoyerFan]

Isn't the most pertinent issue why Lehi went about in Jerusalem preaching as he did?  I mean, it is odd that Nephi did not mention the conquest of the city in his narrative, given that he does describe his father's prophecies about the future destruction of the city.  It's somewhat akin to an author describing a politician going around New York City at the beginning of 2002 to warn of a future terrorist attack and then the author describing how this prediction was or was not fulfilled over time, but in doing so the author never mentioned the attacks on 9/11.  I mean, it's possible, but an author would essentially have to deliberately decide to avoid any mention of 9/11 to produce this result.

Anyway, the more interesting question would appear to be why Lehi was commanded to go and tell the remaining and defeated urban peasantry that they needed to repent in order to prevent the future destruction of Jerusalem.  After all, the city had just been devastated due to unsuccessful political alliances that really cannot be blamed in any way on these people.  Doesn't it make sense that they would by annoyed and incensed by the teachings of Lehi, who had somehow managed to retain his wealth amidst the pillage of the region and remained with his sons even as most of the prominent residents of the area were carried off into captivity?  It's much more understandable for someone such as Jeremiah to warn political leaders of the future consequences of unwise decisions.

[Bill Hamblin]

PaulBoyerFan, on 30 December 2010 - 07:43 PM, said:

Isn't the most pertinent issue why Lehi went about in Jerusalem preaching as he did?  I mean, it is odd that Nephi did not mention the conquest of the city in his narrative, given that he does describe his father's prophecies about the future destruction of the city.  It's somewhat akin to an author describing a politician going around New York City at the beginning of 2002 to warn of a future terrorist attack and then the author describing how this prediction was or was not fulfilled over time, but in doing so the author never mentioned the attacks on 9/11.  I mean, it's possible, but an author would essentially have to deliberately decide to avoid any mention of 9/11 to produce this result.

Anyway, the more interesting question would appear to be why Lehi was commanded to go and tell the remaining and defeated urban peasantry that they needed to repent in order to prevent the future destruction of Jerusalem.  After all, the city had just been devastated due to unsuccessful political alliances that really cannot be blamed in any way on these people.  Doesn't it make sense that they would by annoyed and incensed by the teachings of Lehi, who had somehow managed to retain his wealth amidst the pillage of the region and remained with his sons even as most of the prominent residents of the area were carried off into captivity?  It's much more understandable for someone such as Jeremiah to warn political leaders of the future consequences of unwise decisions.

Have you read any of this discussion?  
And have you read Jeremiah?  Ask him.
This is really, really, REALLY a non-issue.  Ancient texts always fail to mention all sorts of things we wish they would.  So?

[Avatar4321]

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."

Because that is 3 years after they left Jerusalem.

[Robert F. Smith]

PaulBoyerFan, on 30 December 2010 - 07:43 PM, said:

Isn't the most pertinent issue why Lehi went about in Jerusalem preaching as he did?  I mean, it is odd that Nephi did not mention the conquest of the city in his narrative, given that he does describe his father's prophecies about the future destruction of the city.  It's somewhat akin to an author describing a politician going around New York City at the beginning of 2002 to warn of a future terrorist attack and then the author describing how this prediction was or was not fulfilled over time, but in doing so the author never mentioned the attacks on 9/11.  I mean, it's possible, but an author would essentially have to deliberately decide to avoid any mention of 9/11 to produce this result.

Anyway, the more interesting question would appear to be why Lehi was commanded to go and tell the remaining and defeated urban peasantry that they needed to repent in order to prevent the future destruction of Jerusalem.  After all, the city had just been devastated due to unsuccessful political alliances that really cannot be blamed in any way on these people.  Doesn't it make sense that they would by annoyed and incensed by the teachings of Lehi, who had somehow managed to retain his wealth amidst the pillage of the region and remained with his sons even as most of the prominent residents of the area were carried off into captivity?  It's much more understandable for someone such as Jeremiah to warn political leaders of the future consequences of unwise decisions.

Avatar4321, on 30 December 2010 - 07:51 PM, said:

Because that is 3 years after they left Jerusalem.

Just in case Avatar is not putting us on, Lehi did not leave Jerusalem in 600 B.C.   He left in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, which encompasses 597-596 B.C.  The modern chronological footnotes in the Book of Mormon are not canonical and were not part of the text translated by Joseph Smith.

At the same time, PaulBoyerFan is equally off the beam in his off-the-cuff notions that Jerusalem had been conquered and devastated in early 597 B.C., as well as that some sort of 9/11 style attack was made on the city.   In 598 B.C., the Neo-Babylonians came in with a huge army and intimidated the kingdom of Judah into capitulating, paying a massive levy, and having the king replaced and a large deportation of top officials and artisans to Babylon in early 597 B.C.  The total with families may have been as high as 8,000 to 10,000 (2 Kings 24:14-16), which is not actually a large percent of the overall population of the city.  Describing the remnants as "urban peasantry" is nonsense.  The vast bulk of the armed men of Judah remained and posed a major problem for Nebuchadrezzar when he returned and laid siege to and destroyed the city of Jerusalem a decade later.  It was that destruction that Lehi was speaking of prophetically, and it was a profound disaster.

It would have made no sense for Nephi to repeat what his father had already presumably written in his own account of events.  Especially since Nephi takes up the story only after this major deportation.  Like Jeremiah, Lehi was also presumably advising Judah to cooperate with the Neo-Babylonians, rather than with Egypt.  Zedekiah and his coterie didn't listen, threatened Lehi's life, and he left Jerusalem.  Had Nephi spent valuable space repeating what was already written in the Brass Plates and in the Book of Lehi, that would itself be anachronistic and evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

[Jon63]

Could one explanation be that the rock that was in the hat that Joseph had his face in for the translation malfunctioned?

[Lachoneus]

Robert F. Smith, on 07 January 2011 - 03:47 AM, said:

  The modern chronological footnotes in the Book of Mormon are not canonical and were not part of the text translated by Joseph Smith.

But this is.

Quote

Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews�even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.

(1 Nephi 10:4)

and this

Quote

And behold he cometh, according to the words of the angel, in six hundred years from the time my father left Jerusalem.

(1 Nephi 19:8 )

and this

Quote

For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

(2 Nephi 25:19)

and this

Quote

NOW it came to pass that the ninety and first year had passed away and it was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem; and it was in the year that Lachoneus was the chief judge and the governor over the land.

(3 Nephi 1:1)

[Kevin Christensen]

For Book of Mormon calendar issues, especially interpreting the 600 year prophecy, see Randall Spackman, The Jewish/Nephite Calendar
http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=1&id=170

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Jon63, on 07 January 2011 - 04:52 AM, said:

Could one explanation be that the rock that was in the hat that Joseph had his face in for the translation malfunctioned?

Hey, everyone, look, we have a joker in the house.

Actually what it was was just JS mixing scripture with the philosophies of man.

[PaulBoyerFan]

Robert F. Smith, on 07 January 2011 - 03:47 AM, said:

Just in case Avatar is not putting us on, Lehi did not leave Jerusalem in 600 B.C.   He left in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, which encompasses 597-596 B.C.  The modern chronological footnotes in the Book of Mormon are not canonical and were not part of the text translated by Joseph Smith.

At the same time, PaulBoyerFan is equally off the beam in his off-the-cuff notions that Jerusalem had been conquered and devastated in early 597 B.C., as well as that some sort of 9/11 style attack was made on the city.   In 598 B.C., the Neo-Babylonians came in with a huge army and intimidated the kingdom of Judah into capitulating, paying a massive levy, and having the king replaced and a large deportation of top officials and artisans to Babylon in early 597 B.C.  The total with families may have been as high as 8,000 to 10,000 (2 Kings 24:14-16), which is not actually a large percent of the overall population of the city.  Describing the remnants as "urban peasantry" is nonsense.  The vast bulk of the armed men of Judah remained and posed a major problem for Nebuchadrezzar when he returned and laid siege to and destroyed the city of Jerusalem a decade later.  It was that destruction that Lehi was speaking of prophetically, and it was a profound disaster.

It would have made no sense for Nephi to repeat what his father had already presumably written in his own account of events.  Especially since Nephi takes up the story only after this major deportation.  Like Jeremiah, Lehi was also presumably advising Judah to cooperate with the Neo-Babylonians, rather than with Egypt.  Zedekiah and his coterie didn't listen, threatened Lehi's life, and he left Jerusalem.  Had Nephi spent valuable space repeating what was already written in the Brass Plates and in the Book of Lehi, that would itself be anachronistic and evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Let's see:

The Babylonian Chronicles state:

"11'. In the seventh year [598/597], the month of Kisl�mu, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land,
12'. and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Addaru he seized the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin; note 2].
13'. He appointed there a king of his own choice [Zedekiah], received its heavy tribute and sent to Babylon."

2 Kings 24 states:

"¹⁰ At that time the officers of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it, ¹¹ and Nebuchadnezzar himself came up to the city while his officers were besieging it. ¹² Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his attendants, his nobles and his officials all surrendered to him. In the eighth year of the reign of the king of Babylon, he took Jehoiachin prisoner. ¹³ As the LORD had declared, Nebuchadnezzar removed the treasures from the temple of the LORD and from the royal palace, and cut up the gold articles that Solomon king of Israel had made for the temple of the LORD. ¹⁴ He carried all Jerusalem into exile: all the officers and fighting men, and all the skilled workers and artisans�a total of ten thousand. Only the poorest people of the land were left."

So the poster finds the figure of 10,000 deported from 2 Kings 24 to be credible, but not the statements in the same passages that these people represented most of the ruling class of the area and that generally the "poorest people" remained?

And Jeremiah 52 states:

"²⁸This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty:  ²⁹In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons: ³⁰In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the persons were four thousand and six hundred."

So Jeremiah indicates that the deportation was greater in 597 BCE than 587 BCE.

[Bill Hamblin]

PaulBoyerFan, on 07 January 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

Let's see:

The Babylonian Chronicles state:

"11'. In the seventh year [598/597], the month of Kisl�mu, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land,
12'. and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Addaru he seized the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin; note 2].
13'. He appointed there a king of his own choice [Zedekiah], received its heavy tribute and sent to Babylon."

2 Kings 24 states:

"¹⁰ At that time the officers of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it, ¹¹ and Nebuchadnezzar himself came up to the city while his officers were besieging it. ¹² Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his attendants, his nobles and his officials all surrendered to him. In the eighth year of the reign of the king of Babylon, he took Jehoiachin prisoner. ¹³ As the LORD had declared, Nebuchadnezzar removed the treasures from the temple of the LORD and from the royal palace, and cut up the gold articles that Solomon king of Israel had made for the temple of the LORD. ¹⁴ He carried all Jerusalem into exile: all the officers and fighting men, and all the skilled workers and artisans�a total of ten thousand. Only the poorest people of the land were left."

So the poster finds the figure of 10,000 deported from 2 Kings 24 to be credible, but not the statements in the same passages that these people represented most of the ruling class of the area and that generally the "poorest people" remained?

And Jeremiah 52 states:

"²⁸This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty:  ²⁹In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons: ³⁰In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the persons were four thousand and six hundred."

So Jeremiah indicates that the deportation was greater in 597 BCE than 587 BCE.

So?  Why is this problematic for the BOM?

But you're missing the point.  There were more captives in the first siege than the second because there were more dead in the second than the first.  Remember the city and temple were sacked and destroyed in the second siege, but not in the first.  Overall, the second siege was more devastating.