Jump to content

Hel5 Chiasm, The Burning Bush And Bap. Of Fire


Warship

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

This is the most important post I'll probably ever make.

I have put together some research I have been doing for awhile on this blog (address below) for all to see. I tried to make it reader friendly.

This contains:

2 new chiasms, 1 which is quite substantial...over 600 words(the Hel5 chiasm).

A comparison of Helaman 5 to Gen 3 (Provides more evidence for a comparison to Gen than Daniel as is usually compared)

A new and rational explanation for the Burning Bush of Moses

Previously undetected prophetic symbolism and its fulfillment.

Here is the web adress

http://war-ship.bravejournal.com/

I have broken the paper into the following parts

1. The Helaman chiasmus and notes about it

2. Helaman 5 and its connection to Gen3

3. The Burning Bush is the Tree of Israel

4.What does it all mean, Fulfilling Prohecy

These sections are titled and should be easy enough to locate. I could not fit all the material in the original blog so I had to post 4 comments to finish it up. On the bottom right there is link that says 4 comments, click on this link and it will display the OP and the comments all together so you can see the entire thing.

My hope is that the MODS will see fit to put this in the School of Pundits to recieve a more focused dialogue.

With the nature of the board it would be easier to sustain a long discussion in the School of Pundits.

I feel it warrants a healthy discussion due to all the original research which in my opinion brings to light a very significant and previously hidden aspect of the gospel...the elusive meaning of the Burning Bush and more.

BTW, please keep all the comments here at fantastic Fair. I won't be answering any comments made at the other site bc I dislike the setup. It was only a convenient way to post this material.

As a side note to help understand the Helaman chiasm, its structure is as follows..

A.

. a

.... b

. a

B.

. a

.... b

...... c

........ d

. ....... d

. ..... c

.... b

. a

A.

. a

. .. b

. a

Link to comment

A new and rational explanation for the Burning Bush of Moses

The Burning Bush is the Tree of Israel

The Bush is the tree of Israel (evidence of this covered further on) which was to and did receive the baptism of fire. The counterpart of which is the baptism of water which Israel also prophetically receives in

Ex15

[23] And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.

Warship/Robert--

I was expecting more content here. I'd like to see you develop this further.

Best.

CKS

Link to comment

CKSalmon,

First, let me thank you for reading and responding, I really appreciate that. I was beginning to think I did a $#!+ load of work for nothing. My fiancee left me last week and I was really hoping to get a discussion going on this to provide some distraction.

As to your question, which part do you want to see more material on ...the Marah incident, the tree as Israel, the baptism of fire, or all of them?

I cut out a lot of work bc I did not want to completely overwhelm. But I will be more than happy to go over any specific part in more detail.

Shalom

Robert

Link to comment

CKSalmon,

First, let me thank you for reading and responding, I really appreciate that. I was beginning to think I did a $#!+ load of work for nothing. My fiancee left me last week and I was really hoping to get a discussion going on this to provide some distraction.

As to your question, which part do you want to see more material on ...the Marah incident, the tree as Israel, the baptism of fire, or all of them?

I cut out a lot of work bc I did not want to completely overwhelm. But I will be more than happy to go over any specific part in more detail.

Shalom

Robert

My sympathy on your loss. I actually know what you're going through, unfortunately. Don't worry, it only hurts for one or two years... :P You're in for a rough time, partner. I'll pray for you.

It takes me a while to get things straight enough in my head to ask intelligent questions. I'm looking at your material again. There's lots of interesting stuff. I'll get back to you soon with some questions I have.

Best to you.

CKS

Link to comment

When I first checked out your link, I immediately scrolled down to

The Burning Bush is the Tree of Israel

But when I got there, I found out you were just teasing me. :P

The Bush is the tree of Israel (evidence of this covered further on) which was to and did receive the baptism of fire. The counterpart of which is the baptism of water which Israel also prophetically receives in

Was this section one from which you deleted some material?

Best.

CKS

PS. I'm still going through the chiastic stuff.

Link to comment

CKS,

Thanks for your sympathy, I'm sorry to hear you've been thru the same. Youre right, in that the last time this happened to me, the rough period only lasted a year :P

Did you scroll down to the end and click on the 4 comments link. I could not fit it all on the blog so I had to post 4 comments to finish up. If you click on the link it will show you the blog and the 4 comments all together. The material youre looking for is in those 4 comments. It continues right where it left off.

It should be a quick read from there on and the link to the sister chiasm in 3Nephi is in those comments.

Thanks CKS

PS

You can click on this link and the comments will be there at the bottom (that's the material you want)

http://war-ship.bravejournal.com/entry/19880

Here is the link to the sister chiasm (I noticed it didn't display itself as a link just an adress so I thought I'd put it up here for you) You can see the chiasms are related...the first two interelated chiasms that I have ever heard of.

http://warship.bravehost.com/

Link to comment

Look out, John Welch! Robert Ramsey is here to stay!

Warship,

I can't say with any certainty that this is a legitimate chiasm, because frankly the more complicated a chiastic structure becomes, the more likely it is that the commentator has manfactured it. Does that make sense? A few of the parallels also seem a bit forced.

That said, I must say that I am impressed by your hard work and ingenuity. It's clear that you've put a lot of thought into this. I would be interested in seeing you apply John Welch's fifteen criteria for evaluating the strength of a chiasm.

As for the burning bush as a tree, I'm not convinced. It seems like right now all you have are appeals to authority. And even if it is a tree, there's not really any overt indication that Exodus intends it as a symbol of Israel. But of course, I'm open to further evidence should you gather it.

-CK

P.S. I am very sorry to hear about your fiance. I will keep you in my prayers.

Link to comment

CK,

Hi CK, thank you for your compassion.

>>I can't say with any certainty that this is a legitimate chiasm, because frankly the more complicated a chiastic structure becomes, the more likely it is that the commentator has manfactured it. Does that make sense?

I understand that, and it is a good point. I might be inclined to think the same, but bc of the way I found it I believe it to be legit. When I came across this passage I noticed there was some structure going on there. I did exactly as you said and tried really hard to impose a structure that I thought was there. This did not work at all and I was just about to give up when the method struck me. All I did was then put all the text on the computer and began numbering the main words and phrases that reappeared. When I was done I was quite suprised with the incredibly symmetric results.

It was the ABA superstructure that was throwing me off. I don't know of any 3 tiered chiasms but this one. Even the famous Alma 36 is only two tiered and only in places at that. Does this make the Helaman chiasm even more complex than Alma 36, I'm not sure.

I also discovered afterward that it featured extended alternates (I point this out in the notes section), a poetical device that I was completely unaware of until after I had mapped it out. In fact at one point, before I knew of extended alternates, I was thinking of eliminating everything but the B structure. When I learned of extended alternates I realized I had uncovered proof of its authenticity that I had not even realized..so ofcourse now they stay.

One more reason I believe it to be a chiasm is bc of the obvious impact it had on third Nephi where the baptism of fire uses the same imagery and even has a sister chiasm that I pointed out in my last post.

>>I would be interested in seeing you apply John Welch's fifteen criteria for evaluating the strength of a chiasm.

I had done so a long time ago, if I remember correctly it passed all fifteen quite well. I tried to use the program you suggested and must admit I could not figure out how to work it. I sent the Hel chiasm to John Welch some time ago. After six months he said he found it complex and interesting but was still investigating it. He assured me that he had not forgotten about it and had been looking at it. But I never heard back from him again. The way I figure it , if Welch, who is the undisputed champion of chiasmus in the BOm, could not dismiss it after studying it for six months....then it must be legit. I assume if it was not legit then he would be able to tell in ten minutes.

>>As for the burning bush as a tree, I'm not convinced. It seems like right now all you have are appeals to authority. And even if it is a tree, there's not really any overt indication that Exodus intends it as a symbol of Israel. But of course, I'm open to further evidence should you gather it.

I did appeal to authority, but only after I feel I gave some pretty solid textual evidence. Maybe you missed it...

Strong's concordance reveals the bush in Exodus is indeed a tree

The word used for bush in Ex3 is 5572, c'neh, meaning to prick; a bramble bush.

Bramble is 329, atad, meaning to pierce or make fast; a thorn TREE.

After saying this I did appeal to Jewish authority that had always interpretted the bush as Israel. Ofcourse nothing in the text says "the burning bush is Israel", but then again I don't see that as a necessity. Because even if Moses did not intend it to be such (though I believe he did), it seems clear the BOM authors did interpret it this way and used this symbology for their own purposes. I would also find it extremely coincedental that I would come to find this bush being a tree and representing Israel thru my own work, and then finding out that Jewish tradition also says it is a tree that represents Israel. Coincidences like that lead me to believe that I am on the right track.

I find it quite unusual though that both baptisms of Israel can be seen in Exodus...the water baptism at Marah.

I don't see what else it could mean really? It would be another huge coincidence if the only two tree incidents (that I know of) in Exodus involve fire and water........ and that Israel is often depicted as a tree and the only two baptisms for the children of Israel also exclusively involve fire and water.

...........................................................................................................................................................

As a sidenote, I thought it interesting that in the PGP we find

Moses1:17-18, and 24

And He also gave me commandments when he called to me out of the burning bush, saying: Call upon God in the name of mine only begotten, and worship me.

And again Moses said: I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him: for his glory has been upon me

24....MOses lifted up his eyes unto heaven being filled with the Holy Ghost

It sounds like Moses had a baptism of fire. He mentions it right after talking about the burning bush (coincidence?). He says that "His glory has been upon me", the glory of God is...

Ex24

[17] And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire

So not only does he say the glory of God was upon him but that he had the holy spirit also which to me means he had a baptism of Fire bc....

2 nephi

13] Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism -- yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

What parallels seemed forced to you? I assume you are talking about the chiastic elements. Most of them use the exact same words and phrases..many of the phrases cannot be found anywhere else in the BOM but they appear only exactly twice in the right chiastic positions. Did you read the Notes and Word Studies sections?

Link to comment

[17] And it came to pass that they

( A ) did preach with great power, insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did confess their sins and were

( B ) baptized unto repentance, and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to

( C ) repair unto them the wrongs which they had done.

[18] And it came to pass that

( A ) Nephi and Lehi did preach unto the Lamanites

( B ) with such great power and authority,

( B ) for they had power and authority, given unto them

( A ) that they might speak, and they also had what they should speak given unto them-

[19] Therefore they

( A ) did speak unto the great astonishment of the Lamanites, to the convincing them, insomuch that there were eight thousand of the Lamanites who were in the land of Zarahemla and round about

( B ) baptized unto repentance, and were

( C ) convinced of the wickedness of the traditions of their fathers.

Sorry, but I am just not seeing anything all that unsusual here. Verse 18 has a statement accompanied

by a reversal of that statement (more of less) -- but I do not see the relevance of attaching verses

17 and 19 as literary outriders.

If the statement and reversed restatement had begun in 17, centered in 18 (upon some notable precept

or word use) and then reversed in the remainder of 18 and 19, I would be much more impressed.

The Bible is full of these sorts of two-line examples of reverse parallelism. I would think that any close

student of the Bible (even in English) would eventually realize that (even back in the 1820s).

I would also be more impressed if you were able to "reverse engineer" this specimen back into its

supposed original Hebrew, and in that translation show some additional examples of Hebrew literary

word-smithing.

Am I missing something here, that would convince the experienced ANE language experts that these

passages must be based upon a Hebrew original (and not just a mimicing of the KJV English)?

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

I also discovered afterward that it featured extended alternates (I point this out in the notes section), a poetical device that I was completely unaware of until after I had mapped it out. In fact at one point, before I knew of extended alternates, I was thinking of eliminating everything but the B structure. When I learned of extended alternates I realized I had uncovered proof of its authenticity that I had not even realized..so ofcourse now they stay.

I'm not familiar with extended alternates.

>>I would be interested in seeing you apply John Welch's fifteen criteria for evaluating the strength of a chiasm.

I had done so a long time ago, if I remember correctly it passed all fifteen quite well. I tried to use the program you suggested and must admit I could not figure out how to work it. I sent the Hel chiasm to John Welch some time ago. After six months he said he found it complex and interesting but was still investigating it. He assured me that he had not forgotten about it and had been looking at it. But I never heard back from him again. The way I figure it , if Welch, who is the undisputed champion of chiasmus in the BOm, could not dismiss it after studying it for six months....then it must be legit. I assume if it was not legit then he would be able to tell in ten minutes.

Write it up!

As for the computer program, I don't think it works for complicated, multiplayered structures like this one. You would only be able to apply it to part B of your superstructure. Still, the results might be enlightening. I would try to do it for you, but I've got a lot on my plate right now, and I'm not sure I'll have time.

>>As for the burning bush as a tree, I'm not convinced. It seems like right now all you have are appeals to authority. And even if it is a tree, there's not really any overt indication that Exodus intends it as a symbol of Israel. But of course, I'm open to further evidence should you gather it.

I did appeal to authority, but only after I feel I gave some pretty solid textual evidence. Maybe you missed it...

Strong's concordance reveals the bush in Exodus is indeed a tree

The word used for bush in Ex3 is 5572, c'neh, meaning to prick; a bramble bush.

Bramble is 329, atad, meaning to pierce or make fast; a thorn TREE.

No, I saw that, but the problem is that the word "bramble" doesn't actually appear in Exodus. You looked in an English lexicon, then looked up the Hebrew word for an English word that the lexicon used to describe another Hebrew word.

What parallels seemed forced to you? I assume you are talking about the chiastic elements. Most of them use the exact same words and phrases..many of the phrases cannot be found anywhere else in the BOM but they appear only exactly twice in the right chiastic positions. Did you read the Notes and Word Studies sections?

Part B is fine, but I'm not sure about part A of the superstructure.

Link to comment

Sorry, but I am just not seeing anything all that unsusual here. Verse 18 has a statement accompanied

by a reversal of that statement (more of less) -- but I do not see the relevance of attaching verses

17 and 19 as literary outriders.

If the statement and reversed restatement had begun in 17, centered in 18 (upon some notable precept

or word use) and then reversed in the remainder of 18 and 19, I would be much more impressed.

The Bible is full of these sorts of two-line examples of reverse parallelism. I would think that any close

student of the Bible (even in English) would eventually realize that (even back in the 1820s).

I would also be more impressed if you were able to "reverse engineer" this specimen back into its

supposed original Hebrew, and in that translation show some additional examples of Hebrew literary

word-smithing.

Am I missing something here, that would convince the experienced ANE language experts that these

passages must be based upon a Hebrew original (and not just a mimicing of the KJV English)?

Uncle Dale

U Dale,

This is funny. You and CK are hung up on the very part that gave me pause...those extended alternates. This is why I mentioned them in my last post, bc I figured this would be the part that was most uneasy to understand.

Here is some info about extended alternates (what vs 17 and 19 are..extended alts)

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbm...252aWV3LnBocA==

Extended Alternates

An extended alternate is a literary form in which three or more ideas or elements are presented and then repeated in the same order. In Alma 13:1-9, four extended alternates are presented, including an alternate to introduce the main chiasm and three other alternates presented within the main chiasm.

First Alternate (Alma 13:1)

a And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward

.........b to the time when the Lord God

................c gave these commandments unto his children;

a and I would that you should remember

.........b that the Lord God

.................c ordained priests, after his holy order

Second Alternate (Alma 13:1-2)

a ordained priests, after his holy order

......b which was after the order of his Son,

.............c to teach these things unto the people.

a And those priests were ordained

.........b after the order of his Son

................c that thereby the people might know

Ok now here is mine vs17 and 19

( A ) did preach with great power, insomuch that they did confound many of those dissenters who had gone over from the Nephites, insomuch that they came forth and did confess their sins and were

........( B ) baptized unto repentance, and immediately returned to the Nephites to endeavor to

..................( C ) repair unto them the wrongs which they had done.

( A ) did speak unto the great astonishment of the Lamanites, to the convincing them, insomuch that there were eight thousand of the Lamanites who were in the land of Zarahemla and round about

.........( B ) baptized unto repentance, and were

....................( C ) convinced of the wickedness of the traditions of their fathers.

Ofcourse these alternates not only match themselves but also have counterparts in the 2nd superstructure A, vs 29 and 32. As a side, in the A's the first A talks about a group and the second A gives their numbers. This is about the third time I have seen this done now and it seems to me perhaps a standard device. See the 3nephi chiasm I linked to and you will see the same thing there in the A's....talk of the multitude and then the counterpart gives their exact numbers.

As a sidenote Dale I remember you saying something about how chiasms use alliteration; I know there aren't that many in the bOM that do. This one does, check out vs 30 the B highlights.

As far as "reverse engineering" the chiasm...I don't know anyone who has done what you say with a BOM chiasmus. Wouldn't we just be guessing as to what the original language would be like? It is an unknown language...combined of Egyptian and hebrew, it is not just hebrew. Since we do not know the original language, I think it would be impossible to do what you are requesting.

Link to comment

CK,

>>I'm not familiar with extended alternates.

>>Part B is fine, but I'm not sure about part A of the superstructure.

Check out my post to Dale for this one.

>>Write it up!

I will try to do that later tonight for you.

>>No, I saw that, but the problem is that the word "bramble" doesn't actually appear in Exodus. You looked in an English lexicon, then looked up the Hebrew word for an English word that the lexicon used to describe another Hebrew word.

Well, not exactly. I looked up the hebrew word that is translated bush in our English versions. And found that C'neh (the word used for bush)meant a bramble bush. I then decided to see what a bramble was in hebrew and it is atad, or thorn tree.

I think I understand what you are saying ...but wouldn't I have to use an English Lexicon to translate into English? If I started explaining in hebrew..none of us would understand.

Maybe you could break this down a little easier for me. Maybe I don't get it.

Link to comment

Warship,

I ran E&E's statistical analysis on part B of your Helaman chiasm this morning. Here are the inputs I used:

Chiastic elements: 5

Appearances: 3,4,2,2,3

Non-Chiastic: 3

Appearances: 3,2,2

Reorderings: 200000

Number of duplicate levels: 0

The program returned the following result:

L = .33203

Margin of error = .00129

In other words, a random rearrangement of the elements in the passage will produce a comparable chiastic structure 33% of the time. That means that there may be a chiasm here, and an application of John Welch's 15 criteria might yet vindicate its authenticity, but that from a statistical standpoint it might just be a freak accident.

Chiastic elements included in the analysis: Lamanites, prison, forth/slay, durst not lay their hands upon them, burned/fire

Non-Chiastic elements included in the analysis: Nephi and Lehi, fear, encircled about

By way of comparison, I have been analyzing texts from the internet that are unintentionally chiastic, and have found values of L ranging from .13 to .53 (i.e. 13-53%).

I produced a technicolor word document that highlights repeated words and phrases. I'll send it to you by email if you like.

-CK

Link to comment

>>No, I saw that, but the problem is that the word "bramble" doesn't actually appear in Exodus. You looked in an English lexicon, then looked up the Hebrew word for an English word that the lexicon used to describe another Hebrew word.

Well, not exactly. I looked up the hebrew word that is translated bush in our English versions. And found that C'neh (the word used for bush)meant a bramble bush. I then decided to see what a bramble was in hebrew and it is atad, or thorn tree.

I think I understand what you are saying ...but wouldn't I have to use an English Lexicon to translate into English? If I started explaining in hebrew..none of us would understand.

Maybe you could break this down a little easier for me. Maybe I don't get it.

Your method was as follows: 1) you look up the Hebrew word for "bush" 2) you find that it means "bramble bush" 3) you look up the Hebrew word for "bramble", and find that it means a thorny three 4) you conclude that the Hebrew word for bush means a thorny tree.

An acceptable sequence of events would be: 1) you look up the Hebrew word for "bush" 2) you find that it means "bramble bush" 3) you look up "bramble" in an English dictionary and find that it means "any prickly shrub" 4) you conclude that the Hebrew word for bush means a prickly shrub.

Step 3 is where I think you went wrong. The purpose of a Hebrew-English lexicon is to give the English translation of a Hebrew word. Its translation "bramble bush", therefore, is to be taken according to the English definition, not according to the Hebrew definition. Does that make sense?

-CK

Link to comment

Your method was as follows: 1) you look up the Hebrew word for "bush" 2) you find that it means "bramble bush" 3) you look up the Hebrew word for "bramble", and find that it means a thorny three 4) you conclude that the Hebrew word for bush means a thorny tree.

An acceptable sequence of events would be: 1) you look up the Hebrew word for "bush" 2) you find that it means "bramble bush" 3) you look up "bramble" in an English dictionary and find that it means "any prickly shrub" 4) you conclude that the Hebrew word for bush means a prickly shrub.

Step 3 is where I think you went wrong. The purpose of a Hebrew-English lexicon is to give the English translation of a Hebrew word. Its translation "bramble bush", therefore, is to be taken according to the English definition, not according to the Hebrew definition. Does that make sense?

-CK

I think CK's point, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that we should go a rigorously original-language route (e.g., in this case, Hebrew) if we are to discover meaningful original-language connections in the text. Strong's is both a blessing and a curse. Facility with the primary language is probably essential to meaningful interaction at this level of poking.

Best.

CKS

Link to comment

I agree with the suggestions given as well as the encouragement.

I would also suggest that you look in your research to the connections made between etz chaim, the tree of life, the various other instances in scripture where etz, "wood," is used, and the rhetorical connections between the various scriptures made.

Have you also thought of connecting your thought up with the Asherah/tree work that Herr Professor Doktor Peterson has begun? I was just thinking that the idea of the Master speaking from the midst of the glorious etz/tree/wood/bush, teaching the same lesson to Moses that He later taught to Nephi/Lehi because of His connection to the tree/G-ddess may be significant.

Also, a rethink of Jacob's citation of the extended (and interminable) olive grove metaphor may be indicated in light of the connections you make.

I look forward to your progress.

Link to comment

Ck,

>>I produced a technicolor word document that highlights repeated words and phrases. I'll send it to you by email if you like.

I would love it, thanks. That's very innovative of you. I can't guarantee I'll be able to figure it out though...I am pretty tech ignorant, but I will certainly play around with it or get someone with half a whit to show me how to use it.

>> Step 3 is where I think you went wrong. The purpose of a Hebrew-English lexicon is to give the English translation of a Hebrew word. Its translation "bramble bush", therefore, is to be taken according to the English definition, not according to the Hebrew definition. Does that make sense?

That makes sense, I get it now. You certainly have a point.

But something must lead others to believe the bush is a tree. I mean, I wonder why Jewish Encyclopedia comes to the same conclusion

"On the latter occasion, and in the other theophanies (Ps. xviii. 8, 12 et seq.; 1. 3; Micah i. 4; Hab. iii. 3 et seq.; compare Deut. iv. 24; Heb. xii. 29), the fire is destructive; whereas here it is shown to be harmless by the preservation of THE TREE that was enveloped IN its FLAMES."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...10&letter=B

There is another verse I know of that hints of the connection of the tree/bramble/burning bush.

Judges9:

[14] Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.

[15] And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

I will certainly try to strengthen this part and do more research, thanks for calling it to my attention CK. I'll look and see what else I have on it besides this and get back to you.

>>Chiastic elements included in the analysis: Lamanites, prison, forth/slay, durst not lay their hands upon them, burned/fire

Non-Chiastic elements included in the analysis: Nephi and Lehi, fear, encircled about

Thank you very much for doing that CK, I felt the results were pretty good. 70% of 200,000 reorderings would not reproduce a chiasm. I think there is something fundamentally flawed about this process though. It is that a chiastic text if reordered is far more likely to become chiastic again than a nonchiastic text. This is bc a chiastic text already has duplicates of words and phrases, which when reordered are more likely to appear chiastic.

Part of the problem I had with the program was I didn't know what was a nonchiastic element. But now I think I get it.

I think Lamanite should be in the nonchiastic elements, at least I don't use it as a parallel between elements.

The test results are interesting but I think the computer lacks the ability to find non word relations.

Such as, one of the fifteen points its the idea of a strong antithetical idea being introduced in the apex. Nothing is really more antithetical to fire as not burning. The computer would not account for this.

It would also miss how in elements b of Superstructure B the captors are originally the ones standing "forth" to "slay" Nephi and Lehi...but its counterpart is completely antithetical in that now it is Nephi and Lehi that "stand forth" telling their captors that they cannot "slay" them.

And this is just two examples of one of the 15 points of criteria that would be missed by computer tests. I promise I will write up a few lines about each point and the Hel chiasm soon, probably tommorrow ...I'm gonna be swamped tonight.

I feel that if all the parallels the computer could not account for were factored in then the results would be even better.

I'm interested to see what you'll think of my application of the 15 points.

Link to comment

CKS,

I think you are correct.

I sure wish I knew more than 10 hebrew words.

Too bad we don't have any linguists around.

Or do we?

Link to comment

I agree with the suggestions given as well as the encouragement.

I would also suggest that you look in your research to the connections made between etz chaim, the tree of life, the various other instances in scripture where etz, "wood," is used, and the rhetorical connections between the various scriptures made.

Have you also thought of connecting your thought up with the Asherah/tree work that Herr Professor Doktor Peterson has begun? I was just thinking that the idea of the Master speaking from the midst of the glorious etz/tree/wood/bush, teaching the same lesson to Moses that He later taught to Nephi/Lehi because of His connection to the tree/G-ddess may be significant.

Also, a rethink of Jacob's citation of the extended (and interminable) olive grove metaphor may be indicated in light of the connections you make.

I look forward to your progress.

USU78,

Thanks for your interest and encouragement. Jacob's olive grove parable was definitely on my mind when I started thinking about this. Its imagery of Irael as an olive tree that is tossed into fires is certainly interestingly connected. I will reread thru it and see what I can extrapolate.

As far as linking this with the Asherah research, I'm not sure I see how...besides glowing trees.

Could you elaborate and throw out some ideas...it would be much appreciated.

Thanks for the ideas USU78

Link to comment

CKSalmon,

First, let me thank you for reading and responding, I really appreciate that. I was beginning to think I did a $#!+ load of work for nothing. My fiancee left me last week and I was really hoping to get a discussion going on this to provide some distraction.

As to your question, which part do you want to see more material on ...the Marah incident, the tree as Israel, the baptism of fire, or all of them?

I cut out a lot of work bc I did not want to completely overwhelm. But I will be more than happy to go over any specific part in more detail.

Shalom

Robert

I would like to hear more about the tree of Israel. I see it also as rebirth or the receiving of the fruit in Lehi's dream. It is coming to 'know' as required by the story of the 10 virgins as well as Matt 7: where Lord Lord isn't enough. One must be known by the Savior as well as to know God.

Link to comment

As far as "reverse engineering" the chiasm...I don't know anyone who has done what you say with a BOM chiasmus. Wouldn't we just be guessing as to what the original language would be like? It is an unknown language...combined of Egyptian and hebrew, it is not just hebrew. Since we do not know the original language, I think it would be impossible to do what you are requesting.

Thanks for the explanations. I thought that the whole purpose of these BoM studies

was to demonstarte to experts in ANE languages that it is indeed a translation from

an ancient text -- with "Hebraicisms" included.

However, if we speculate that one of Mulek's colonists spoke proto-Sanskirt (or some such lingo),

then I suppose that the later Nephites might have written in practically ANY language...

Their counterparts in Palestine evolved to reading their scriptures in Greek and speaking

Aramaic for everything but the Temple ritual, it seems..... so I guess Sanskrit-speaking,

reformed Egyptian-writing Nephites are just as possible.

On the other hand, the BoM writers mention Hebrew -- so perhaps you'd better get a

working theory of how and why "Hebraicisms" were in whatever language they were using.

Best wishes,

UD

Link to comment
USU78, Thanks for your interest and encouragement. Jacob's olive grove parable was definitely on my mind when I started thinking about this. Its imagery of Irael as an olive tree that is tossed into fires is certainly interestingly connected. I will reread thru it and see what I can extrapolate.

I think there's something there. I'm having trouble quantifying it, though.

As far as linking this with the Asherah research, I'm not sure I see how...besides glowing trees. Could you elaborate and throw out some ideas...it would be much appreciated.

Okay, here's how I see it. The Master is the fruit of the tree, which is identifiable both with the Mother G-ddess/Asherah and with Mary, His earthly mother. G-d's love is also expressly the fruit of the tree. Thus the Master as the fullest expression of G-d's love is associated in at least two ways with the tree.

That the Etz Chaim/Eden tree is also symbolic of the same thing, G-d's love and enjoying communion with Him in Eden, is also important in this regard. In more ways than one, the Etz Chaim is identifiable with the tree in Lehi/Nephi's dream(s). Our return to paradise is the purpose of our journey through the mists past the filthy waters and the enticements of the world sums up our lives. But the return is a return to the Tree/Mother/G-d's love. Remember that the Hebrew hazar means both return and repent. It's the same thing.

The light given off by Lehi/Nephi's glowing tree (what else should the whiteness indicate if not glory/burning?) seems to me to be the same as, or at least thematically/symbolically connected with the burning of Moses' bush. The Great Angel (unless I'm mistaken), the Master Himself, speaks out of the glory surrounding the bush . . . and that bush, made as it is out of etz, wood, is thematically/symbolically connected both to the Edenic Etz Chaim and the Lehi/Nephi tree.

Israel's depiction in Jacob as a tree (as well as elsewhere) show Israel's embrasement by G-d. The fire of judgment that consumes the unworthy branches and the rotten fruit is of a different kind from the burning of the burning bush . . . remember the latter is not consumed . . . and that G-d dwells in "everlasting burnings."

That's the kind of thing I was thinking about.

I wish you well on this.

Link to comment

Ck,

>>I produced a technicolor word document that highlights repeated words and phrases. I'll send it to you by email if you like.

I would love it, thanks. That's very innovative of you. I can't guarantee I'll be able to figure it out though...I am pretty tech ignorant, but I will certainly play around with it or get someone with half a whit to show me how to use it.

I had an even better idea. I took a screen shot and saved it as an image. Here it is:

RobertRamseychiasm.jpg

I'll take just a moment to explain how it works. I have highlighted all major repeated elements in the passage. Some of these are discarded, because they are repeated within the same section. Elements that are repeated within the same section don't "count", as far as the Edwards and Edwards method is concerned. So "the Earth" or "shown unto you", for example, are highlighted but don't get taken into consideration in the statistical analysis.

As I mentioned before, the chiastic elements included in the analysis were: Lamanites, prison, forth/slay, durst not lay their hands upon them, burned/fire. The non-chiastic elements included in the analysis were: Nephi and Lehi, fear, encircled about.

Thank you very much for doing that CK, I felt the results were pretty good. 70% of 200,000 reorderings would not reproduce a chiasm.

70% of 200,000 reorderings of this text would not reproduce a chiasm. But you also have to realize that there are a probably dozens of opportunities in Helaman (E&E estimate 956 such opportunities in the entire BoM; see appendix I of their BYU Studies paper) for an accidental chiasm of this length to emerge. By an "opportunity" I mean any section of text that has at least 5 repeated elements within close proximity of one another. In any text with lots of repeated elements, the elements might unintentionally have a chiastic ordering.

As an example of how this affects the numbers, let's look at a simple 3-element chiasm that Edwards and Edwards analyzed in the Book of Abraham. They found that a reordering of elements would produce a chiasm only 7% of the time. That's a considerably better L value than your Helaman 5 structure. But there are an estimated 54 opportunities in the BoA for such a structure to emerge, which gives a 98% that such a structure would show up somewhere in the BoA. This doesn't mean that Abraham 3:26-28 absolutely cannot be an intentional chiasm, but it does mean that we should be really careful about assuming that is.

I think there is something fundamentally flawed about this process though. It is that a chiastic text if reordered is far more likely to become chiastic again than a nonchiastic text. This is bc a chiastic text already has duplicates of words and phrases, which when reordered are more likely to appear chiastic.

I think there's more repetition in the Book of Mormon than you realize. As I mentioned above, there are probably a dozen or more places in Helaman where there are enough repeated elements to accidentally get a chiasm like this one (see above).

I think Lamanite should be in the nonchiastic elements, at least I don't use it as a parallel between elements.

I created an extra chiastic section-- with "Lamanite" as the parallel element-- for our statistical purposes. This was done according to E&E's rules, in order to improve the passage's chiasticity.

The test results are interesting but I think the computer lacks the ability to find non word relations.

That's true; even synonyms are not allowed under E&E's rules. But part of that is because analysts were being very subjective about finding parallels, and inventing reasons for finding a parallel where there really isn't one. Limiting us to word-parallels was supposed to encourage objectivity. This actually isn't a problem in this passage, because there are objective word-links between all of the chiastic sections.

Such as, one of the fifteen points its the idea of a strong antithetical idea being introduced in the apex. Nothing is really more antithetical to fire as not burning. The computer would not account for this.

That's true; you can still strengthen the case for chiasmus by applying Welch's 15 criteria to this passage.

>> Step 3 is where I think you went wrong. The purpose of a Hebrew-English lexicon is to give the English translation of a Hebrew word. Its translation "bramble bush", therefore, is to be taken according to the English definition, not according to the Hebrew definition. Does that make sense?

That makes sense, I get it now. You certainly have a point.

But something must lead others to believe the bush is a tree. I mean, I wonder why Jewish Encyclopedia comes to the same conclusion

There is another verse I know of that hints of the connection of the tree/bramble/burning bush.

I will certainly try to strengthen this part and do more research, thanks for calling it to my attention CK. I'll look and see what else I have on it besides this and get back to you.

I look forward to it. Great work so far, by the way. You've got some interesting ideas that are definitely worth delving into.

-CK

Link to comment

Thanks for the explanations. I thought that the whole purpose of these BoM studies

was to demonstarte to experts in ANE languages that it is indeed a translation from

an ancient text -- with "Hebraicisms" included.

However, if we speculate that one of Mulek's colonists spoke proto-Sanskirt (or some such lingo),

then I suppose that the later Nephites might have written in practically ANY language...

Their counterparts in Palestine evolved to reading their scriptures in Greek and speaking

Aramaic for everything but the Temple ritual, it seems..... so I guess Sanskrit-speaking,

reformed Egyptian-writing Nephites are just as possible.

On the other hand, the BoM writers mention Hebrew -- so perhaps you'd better get a

working theory of how and why "Hebraicisms" were in whatever language they were using.

Best wishes,

UD

You forgot the Akkadian-speaking grain farmers.

-CK

Link to comment

Sheum....it's what's for breakfast.

I will have responses for everyone tomorrow(which is technically today since it's past midnite)..sorry I've been busy.

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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