Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How far is a days journey


Guest Just Curious

Recommended Posts

Just Curious, have you ever been curious enough to read John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. He systematically works through all these sorts of issues. very methodically and carefully, and, really, is the starting point for any serious consideration of such topics. If you're really actually genuinely interested in the topic, I suggest reading Sorenson's book. Are you actually interested? Or is this merely a game?

Perhaps an even better first book on the topic would be Sorenson's Mormon's Map, about which you can learn at

http://farms.byu.edu/index.php

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
Are you actually interested? Or is this merely a game?

Well judging by some of your comments about me on prior post you would seem to have the power to read peoples minds or determine their real motives...so I will leave that answer to your superior powers of reasoning...

Thank you for the heads up on the book, I was not aware of it, I will have to check it out of the local library if they have a copy...

Link to comment
Well judging by some of your comments about me on prior post you would seem to have the power to read peoples minds or determine their real motives...so I will leave that answer to your superior powers of reasoning...

Whatever.

Thank you for the heads up on the book, I was not aware of it, I will have to check it out of the local library if they have a copy...

And don't forget about Mormon's Map, which I added to my post above while you were busy waxing sullen. I'm sorry that I was unable, on the other thread, to explain the relevance of animal naming-conventions to you. I tried everything I could think of.

Link to comment

Just Curious,

This text appears twice in the Book Mormon. The one you quote and a second time in Helaman 4:7.

7 And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east; it being a day's journey for a Nephite, on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country.

(Book of Mormon | Helaman 4:7)

In niether case does it say east sea. Everyone quotes Alma because it is easier to assume that east refers to a sea. In the verse in Helaman, however, it is clear that this simply refers to somewhere to the east which is a day and a half journey from the west sea along a line of defense.

Sorenson makes a good case for his use of the verse in Alma to establish the isthmus of Tehuantepec as the narrow neck spoken of in Alma.

If you are really interested, check out my web page.

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

If one back translates this phrase to Latin and then does a literal translation into English one gets the following phrase:

"from where to sun dissapears into the sea to where the sun originates".

The same result is obtained when the Mayan language is used. Ancient cultures both in the old world and the new world always referred to east and west in terms of sunrise and sunset, not as the compass points used in modern culture.

Link to comment

This commentary was published in 1955 and quotes statements published over 100 yrs ago. It in no way reflects current thought or research at BYU. It is a typical attempt to promulgate the idea that church members should be protected from concepts or ideas that might cause them to lose there testimonies. In other words "let me do your thinking for you". This was and still is Satan's plan. Unfortunately this is typical of commentaries, after all why write a commentary if you dont think you are more capable of interpreting what the scripture are trying to teach us than is the reader. Since this time, the Gospel Doctrine class has been changed to emphasize the use and study of the Standard works on a four year cycle. While teaching the class, I found that the manual emphasized personal study with few if any references to commentaries.

Although the Church does not nor will it endorse any proposed model of geography, it no longer discourages research into this topic. Each person should study the Book of Mormon and compare what it says to any proposed model. We have maps in the Bible and the D&C which enhance our understanding of these scriptures. The Book of Mormon has a very consistant internal geography as has been shown by those who have taken the time to study and correlate the over 500 references to geography and relative directions.

The Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum, which provides a non Church sponsoed forum for discussion on this topic, has the following members of its Research and Education Board:

Elder William Bradford - Co-chair

Elder Ted E. Brewerton - Co-chair

Elder Robert E. Wells - Co-chair

David Hadlock - BMAF

F. Richard Hauck - ARI

Bruce Warren - AAF

Diane Wirth

Sorenson and others have written some very good books which explain this in much greater depth. For a listing go to:

http://farms.byu.edu/

Yes, the statement is very bold as are all statements by those who want you to accept their opinion rather than let you form your own.

Link to comment

It in no way reflects current thought or research at BYU.

I agree to some extend.

It is a typical attempt to promulgate the idea that church members should be protected from concepts or ideas that might cause them to lose there testimonies. In other words "let me do your thinking for you". This was and still is Satan's plan.

I thought it was strange that you used this language of saying that the commentaries do our thinking for us. But in the commentaries itself it said:

Then, too, there are many of our readers who permit others to do their thinking; they need to remember that it is easy to present an unreal and misleading inference and then to palm it off as reasoned judgment.

I found that the manual emphasized personal study with few if any references to commentaries.

I think this is a good way to go, but this doesn

Link to comment

I agree also! I don't think any commentaries should be taken as the final word on anything. I use them more I guess to get a second opinion.

I was going through more of those places on Farms about Geography and the Book of Mormon. I will say they have come a long way with the studies they have done and so forth. But this one article

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=464

Really kind of proves the point of what I quoted from earlier. (I realize this is some guys review of a couple of these Geography books).

But the guy points out a number of things.

First I guess the author of the

Link to comment

In brief, Mormon made his abridgement of the Nephite records over 300 years after the death of Christ and had no problem with describing or writing about locations. In fact he includes several mentions of what was changed and which cities were destroyed. He also reports that Zarahemla was rebuilt after it burned. This is a common excuse used to imply that attempts to understand and use geographic descriptions in the Book of Mormon are impossible. Mormon had no trouble and niether should we.

There are more comments and discussion of this on the following thread.

Book of Mormon Maps

found on these same maessage boards

Link to comment
Are you actually interested? Or is this merely a game?

Well judging by some of your comments about me on prior post you would seem to have the power to read peoples minds or determine their real motives...so I will leave that answer to your superior powers of reasoning...

Exactly.

It's a game. In fact, it's another game. I say a more appropriate moniker for Just Curious is Just Nitpicking or how about Just Playing Games?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...