81 replies to this topic

[robuchan]

Request for previously published material on this subject or your thoughts.  

If I'm doing the math correctly, I get the following.

There were six generations from Jacob down to Amaleki, covering the time about 590 BC to 130 BC.  This is six generations in 460 years, or 77 years per generation.  

Then you have six generations from Alma Sr to Nephi, son of Nephi, son of Helaman that spanned 240 years.  About 40 years per generation.

Then at the end of the BOM you have longer generations again with the same Nephi to Ammaron going about 350 years in just four generations.

You also have some men living to very old ages: Ammaron and Amos 130 and 131 years old.

[thesometimesaint]

robuchan:

Ok.

[Freedom]

Before we go further, are you reading the Book of Mormon as a modern text or an ancient text? Do you understand how many ancient cultures identified generations and ages?

As a contemporary example, what is the difference in definition of the word 'cousin' between its usage in California among people of British descent and in British Columbia among people Pakistani descent?

[BCSpace]

Quote

There were six generations from Jacob down to Amaleki, covering the time about 590 BC to 130 BC.  This is six generations in 460 years, or 77 years per generation.

Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Amaron, Chemish, Abinadom, and Amaleki. Six or seven depending on how you look at it.  Since you don't seem to be inclusive of Jacob, perhaps you start at 544 BC and not 590 BC?  That could bring you down to 59.  But Amaron and Chemish are brothers so perhaps you're back to six generations anyway unless there is a large age difference.

Edited by BCSpace, 06 July 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[robuchan]

BCSpace, on 06 July 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Amaron, Chemish, Abinadom, and Amaleki. Six or seven depending on how you look at it.  Since you don't seem to be inclusive of Jacob, perhaps you start at 544 BC and not 590 BC?  That could bring you down to 59.  But Amaron and Chemish are brothers so perhaps you're back to six generations anyway unless there is a large age difference.

I'm ignoring brothers as a separate generation.

[robuchan]

Freedom, on 06 July 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

Before we go further, are you reading the Book of Mormon as a modern text or an ancient text? Do you understand how many ancient cultures identified generations and ages?

As a contemporary example, what is the difference in definition of the word 'cousin' between its usage in California among people of British descent and in British Columbia among people Pakistani descent?

Is it fair to compare it to the Bible?  How did the Bible use words like father, son, age, born, die, etc.?  Any different than how we mean it?

[volgadon]

Here is a riddle. My wife is Ukrainian, an only child. She has two brothers and and a sisters. None are adopted and none are the children of my wife's parents. She also has six nieces and nephews. How does an only child have brothers and sisters, let alone nieces and nephews?
Answer, in Slavic culture, you brothers and sisters are more than just the children of your parents. The words encompass cousins of all degrees. If one wants to indicate the nature of the relationship, it must be qualified. I've noticed that one is more likely to encounter the qualifier if an actual brother is meant, rather than a cousin. Any children of your cousins are nieces and nephews.
Almost universally, brother can be taken to mean all members of a group, such as a clan, tribe, or nation.
Likewise, father and mother can be used to indicate any respected figure in or outside the community. All the more so if one has a special relationship to them. Who sits in the Holy See if not the father?

[ANACO]

volgadon, on 06 July 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Here is a riddle. My wife is Ukrainian, an only child. She has two brothers and and a sisters. None are adopted and none are the children of my wife's parents. She also has six nieces and nephews. How does an only child have brothers and sisters, let alone nieces and nephews?
Answer, in Slavic culture, you brothers and sisters are more than just the children of your parents. The words encompass cousins of all degrees. If one wants to indicate the nature of the relationship, it must be qualified. I've noticed that one is more likely to encounter the qualifier if an actual brother is meant, rather than a cousin. Any children of your cousins are nieces and nephews.
Almost universally, brother can be taken to mean all members of a group, such as a clan, tribe, or nation.
Likewise, father and mother can be used to indicate any respected figure in or outside the community. All the more so if one has a special relationship to them. Who sits in the Holy See if not the father?

How would Deuteronomy 25:7, as recorded on the Plates of Brass, have been interpreted by the Nephites?

Kind regards.

[volgadon]

ANACO, on 06 July 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

How would Deuteronomy 25:7, as recorded on the Plates of Brass, have been interpreted by the Nephites?

Kind regards.

Probably the same as elsewhere, the levirate being the closest, living, male relation of the widow's husband.

[ANACO]

volgadon, on 06 July 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Probably the same as elsewhere, the levirate being the closest, living, male relation of the widow's husband.

Then I suppose to answer Freedom's query above, we can read the Book of Mormon as an ancient Israelite text - of a people who came out of Jerusalem - sort of like what the text says, and kept the law of Moses for - oh to take a wild guess - 600 years?

[cdowis]

del

Edited by cdowis, 06 July 2012 - 10:37 PM.

[Freedom]

From my experience in reading ancient texts, genealogies and ages are not reliable as we would rely on them. If this book is set in messo america, we should consider the tradition in this region of using genealogy to establish authority rather than to prove lineage. We do not know how they used the term son; judging from the looseness of modern cultures with a tradition of being much more literal and precise, it would be naive to presume that an ancient where literal and precise.

[ANACO]

Freedom, on 06 July 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

From my experience in reading ancient texts, genealogies and ages are not reliable as we would rely on them. If this book is set in messo america, we should consider the tradition in this region of using genealogy to establish authority rather than to prove lineage. We do not know how they used the term son; judging from the looseness of modern cultures with a tradition of being much more literal and precise, it would be naive to presume that an ancient where literal and precise.

Except of course the Book of Mormon is very precise about lineage:


I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi. I have reason to bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (and no one knew it save it were himself and those whom he brought out of that land) and that he hath given me and my people so much knowledge unto the salvation of our souls.

And I, Mormon, being a descendant of ^aNephi, (and my father’s name was Mormon)

There is also mention of the sons of Alma. the sons of Mosiah, the SON OF GOD.
Yeah. I love that messed up messo-setting, how it takes precedence over and contradicts the Book of Mormon, all in the attempt to prove the Book of Mormon is accurate.  :<

Kind regards.

[robuchan]

Thanks for the inputs. One more data point on this is that we only have one description of a female's birth pattern in the BOM (Sariah), and we see from her that she's produced children over a 25 year span.

I think it is clearly shown that ages, life expectancy, and birthing patterns in the BOM, on a literal basis, do not follow expectations for this time period.  

I'm going to throw out three possible conclusions to make from this fact.

1.  Everything in the BOM is literal and true, ie men regularly fathered children in their 60's, 70's, and 80's and lived past 100 (even 130), women regularly birthed 8 or more children over 25 year spans, etc.  Because this is such a statistical outlier from historical evidence, we can assume there must be something special going on, some divine intervention for some reason.  So we can throw out all other observations from the BOM based on scientific understandings of demographics, such as population growth.  This would include attempting to use Others as a reason for strange passages in the text, such as the population size at the time of Sherem, the Lamanites outnumbering the Nephites, the Mulekites or Nephites having internal wars, etc.

2.  The text is not reliable, or better stated we can't reliably know the text.  We can't assume that when it says Ammaron lived to be 130 years old that he really lived to be 130 years old.  We can't assume that when it says Enos died 180 years after his father was born, that he really died 180 years after his father was born.  For whatever reason, we can't make assumptions.  Maybe the words and phrases in ancient terms mean something different than in modern English.  Maybe the information was recorded imprecisely or Joseph translated it imprecisely.  This appears to be an explanation the apologists like, ie tapir/horse.  So, if this is the case, then again, we can't attempt to use scientific understanding of population growth or demographics to explain strange passages like population at time of Sherem, Lamanites outnumbering Nephites, etc.  

3.   The author of the BOM wrote a piece of fiction without thorough understanding of life expectancy, population growth patterns, and other demographic issues.  So we can expect to find a lot of internal inconsistencies, ie weird stuff like Jacob not knowing Sherem or a hunger/gatherer group outnumbering a civilized/kingship group, or outlandish claims like a two million death battle.

[calmoriah]

Quote

[W]omen regularly birthed 8 or more children over 25 year spans, etc.  Because this is such a statistical outlier from historical evidence,

CFR please....

[robuchan]

calmoriah, on 07 July 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

CFR please....

CFR exactly on what?

[calmoriah]

That women birthing 8 or more children over a 25 year span is historically unusual.....that is what you are stating, right?  I am curious about such information as my impression was different (perhaps due to the records of my own genealogy...).  Would like more info.

[ANACO]

Jacob and Joseph, two of the sons of Lehi, were born in the wilderness. As were the children of Laman, Lemuel, Sam, Nephi (and Zoram and the sons of Ishmael). Therefore, Jacob and Joseph were the same age (approx.) as their older brothers' children.
Or, if you will, Lehi's grandchildren had two Uncles their same age.

(The births of Jacob and Joseph could have been meant to replace the "loss" of Lehi's older sons, similar to Job being restored his family. Just a thought.)

[calmoriah]

ANACO, on 07 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

(The births of Jacob and Joseph could have been meant to replace the "loss" of Lehi's older sons, similar to Job being restored his family. Just a thought.)

I wonder if they would have been considered "lost" at the time of their brothers' birth since that happened before they arrived in the new land when Laman and Lemuel were still cooperating....or perhaps you mean God anticipated their loss and sent them as a comfort/replacement for future sorrows.

[robuchan]

calmoriah, on 07 July 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

That women birthing 8 or more children over a 25 year span is historically unusual.....that is what you are stating, right?  I am curious about such information as my impression was different (perhaps due to the records of my own genealogy...).  Would like more info.

I read that recently when investigating the Others theory claims.  I thought it was from an LDS apologist.  I could be wrong.  Maybe what's unique is that she had 8 children reach adulthood.  At any rate, her mothering pattern is an outlier of ancient times, though she's the only one described in the BOM.