Jump to content

Book Of Mormon Proven Right


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his family "traveled three days' in the wilderness" from their home in Jerusalem, where Lehi "built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord." (1 Nephi 2:6-7)

The common understanding has been that this is an error, inasmuch as sacrificial offerings could be made only at the temple in Jerusalem.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, one of which is called The Temple Scroll, which reversed the common understanding:

You shall not sacrifice any pure cow, sheep or he-goat in any of your cities which are less than three days' walk from my temple, but instead sacrifice them inside the temple.

Temple Scroll, 11Q19, Col, LII, lines 13-14; Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans Publishing Co: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996), p. 171.

Question: How did Joseph Smith get this point absolutely correct?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

Um, I'm not seeing that there's a connection. The Temple scroll passage says that if you are within a three day walk of Jerusalem, you should sacrifice at the temple there and not elsewhere. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi walked three days away from Jerusalem to sacrifice (meaning he disobeyed what the Temple Scroll lays out). At best, they are two different issues; at worst, they contradict, meaning Smith got it exactly wrong.

Take care :P

Link to comment

No because he was outside of the three day range. Inside that 3 day range they where to go to the temple in Jerusalem. Also remember this was after Josiah. when everything was consolidated to a central spot and the priests where killed, Who would not comply.

Link to comment

Um, I'm not seeing that there's a connection. The Temple scroll passage says that if you are within a three day walk of Jerusalem, you should sacrifice at the temple there and not elsewhere. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi walked three days away from Jerusalem to sacrifice (meaning he disobeyed what the Temple Scroll lays out). At best, they are two different issues; at worst, they contradict, meaning Smith got it exactly wrong.

Take care :P

I like you Rhino. I mean, I really like you, man.

But surely you must see you are grasping at straws to escape the obvious implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Book of Mormon historicity.

Link to comment
No because he was outside of the three day range.

According to what consiglieri posted, Lehi lived in Jerusalem and then traveled three days into the wilderness to sacrifice. This means that Lehi was within three days and should have sacrificed at the temple there. At least that's the way I read it.

I like you Rhino. I mean, I really like you, man.

But surely you must see you are grasping at straws to escape the obvious implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Book of Mormon historicity.

Hey, I like you too! <_<

I simply think that you are grasping at straws in order to make a case for the Book of Mormon using other sources, pointing out surface similarities without regard for underlying meaning (or in this case, plain meaning).

Just my opinion. Take care :P

Link to comment

According to what consiglieri posted, Lehi lived in Jerusalem and then traveled three days into the wilderness to sacrifice. This means that Lehi was within three days and should have sacrificed at the temple there. At least that's the way I read it.

Hey, I like you too! <_<

I simply think that you are grasping at straws in order to make a case for the Book of Mormon using other sources, pointing out surface similarities without regard for underlying meaning (or in this case, plain meaning).

Just my opinion. Take care :P

A man convinced against his will . . .

Link to comment

According to what consiglieri posted, Lehi lived in Jerusalem and then traveled three days into the wilderness to sacrifice. This means that Lehi was within three days and should have sacrificed at the temple there. At least that's the way I read it.

Hey, I like you too! <_<

I simply think that you are grasping at straws in order to make a case for the Book of Mormon using other sources, pointing out surface similarities without regard for underlying meaning (or in this case, plain meaning).

Just my opinion. Take care :P

One step over thee days is out of range. :unsure:

PS. I don't see him walking 3 days TOO sacrifice. He walked three days... piched his tent, then sacrificed.

Link to comment
PS. I don't see him walking 3 days TOO sacrifice. He walked three days... piched his tent, then sacrificed.

Okay. All I'm going on is what was in the original post. I don't remember too many specifics from the BoM. But I still don't see a real connection here (other than the mention of three days).

Take care :P

Link to comment

1 Nephi 2

6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.

7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.

1) Traveled three days journey

2) Set up Camp

3) Then offered sacrifice.

He didn't travel to do the sacrifice. He traveled and offered sacrifice along the way.

Link to comment

How did Joseph Smith get this point absolutely correct?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If it is a major point with you, I suggest you write up an article on the subject and submit it for

publication in a reputable scholarly journal.

That is, if you are prepared to receive critical responses from rabbis telling you that the Talmud and

Mishna divulged such information in print, long before the BoM ever saw press.

Or, failing that, somebody is sure to trot out a relevant quote from "Clarke's Commentary," or the

Edinburgh "Royal Arch Craftsman," or some such pre-1830 English language source.

Then you will have to return to the fall-back line of defense, in asking how JS could have ever read

the Talmud ----- and why Solomon Spalding and/or Sidney Rigdon's possible readings of such source

material could not have influenced the BoM text.

Methinks it best to avoid submisison of your thesis to the Journal of Biblical Literature; but ol'

Doc Peterson would perhaps insert it into the back pages of a FARMS Review for you.

UD

Link to comment

If it is a major point with you, I suggest you write up an article on the subject and submit it for

publication in a reputable scholarly journal.

That is, if you are prepared to receive critical responses from rabbis telling you that the Talmud and

Mishna divulged such information in print, long before the BoM ever saw press.

Or, failing that, somebody is sure to trot out a relevant quote from "Clarke's Commentary," or the

Edinburgh "Royal Arch Craftsman," or some such pre-1830 English language source.

Then you will have to return to the fall-back line of defense, in asking how JS could have ever read

the Talmud ----- and why Solomon Spalding and/or Sidney Rigdon's possible readings of such source

material could not have influenced the BoM text.

Methinks it best to avoid submisison of your thesis to the Journal of Biblical Literature; but ol'

Doc Peterson would perhaps insert it into the back pages of a FARMS Review for you.

UD

Of course the problem uncle dale, is that many books were available but of course that does not mean that access was available or that such books were seen by mere mortals such as JS and sidney. What is amazing is that all can pull a rabbit out of their hat...but can the rabbit eat the carrot? And so far, the carrot hasn't been eaten.

And one who does such fine research to write the book of mormon needs to get a literary prize for detail.

Link to comment
1) Traveled three days journey

2) Set up Camp

3) Then offered sacrifice.

He didn't travel to do the sacrifice. He traveled and offered sacrifice along the way.

Okay. This makes it more clear to me that the two are really talking about different things. I suppose that at best it is a nice coincidence.

Take care :P

Link to comment

Are you kidding me? You are going to prove the BOM is true based on a Gnostic text written by "Christian intellectuals" who were writing their own "prequels/interpretations" of what the writers would have written if they were alive during their time. The ancient christians broke into many "splinter groups" after Christ was no longer with them. One of which was a fringe group who taught Christ wasn't even crucified. That he switched bodies with the man who aided him in carrying the cross.(Gnostics/ writer's of the dead sea scrolls) Have you even read the dead sea scrolls? The scrolls themselves are ancient but not written by the purpoted apostle whose names the scrolls carry. It is the equivalant of me writing the Book of Joseph Smith as if he did it himself, then Bury it, 1000 years later a kid finds it and then turns it in to authorities. The more that is translated the more "cultish" and "obscure" the teachings become. You stand on dangerous ground using forged documents to verify the authenticity of anything. The ancient christians weren't united until Augustine (I believe) held his councils requiring christianianity as a whole to conform to one set of ideals and principles. Hence we get the Roman Catholic church and the creeds that Joseph claimed were an abomination in the sight of God. At best the Dead sea scrolls can be used to understand how the early christians struggled to form a church with fluid doctrine and theology. This same group also taught that women should hold the Priesthood, and that John the Baptist was the real savior. Maybee we are wrong maybe we should all convert to Gnosticism?

Link to comment

Okay. All I'm going on is what was in the original post. I don't remember too many specifics from the BoM. But I still don't see a real connection here (other than the mention of three days).

Take care :P

The DSS says LESS THAN THREE DAYS WALK one must not sacrifice. Lehi and family were exactly three days away, so they could sacrifice away from Jerusalem according to the DSS doctrine. Apparently, Lehi and family had the same rules apply as the people of Qumran. Quite a coincidence, don't you think? Maybe Joseph Smith had Google... one that accesses through time!

Link to comment

Are you kidding me? You are going to prove the BOM is true based on a Gnostic text written by "Christian ?

You missed the point. The point is in the coincidence and not in the entire dead sea scrolls. The book of mormon got it right about the sacrifice when the critics were sort of hemming a hawing about a sacrifice away from the temple being against the jewish tradition.

Link to comment

but can the rabbit eat the carrot...

That is why I call it the "fall-back line of defense" for Mormons issuing baptismal challenges.

The typical pro-LDS argument goes something like this:

Mo.: Here is something in the BoM not known until recently....

Counter-Mo: Here is the same thing in a pre-1830 published source...

Mo.: Er, ah, well then.... maybe that is so -- but it is very obscure stuff...

Counter-Mo: Yes, I admit that it is very obscure stuff...

Mo.: Read the book through to the end and pray about it. I assure you it is all true!!

Counter-Mo: What's your point?

Mo.: You will then receive a testimony that Joseph Smith did not write it -- Nephites wrote it!

Counter-Mo: Define "Nephite"......

UD

Link to comment

That is why I call it the "fall-back line of defense" for Mormons issuing baptismal challenges.

The typical pro-LDS argument goes something like this:

Mo.: Here is something in the BoM not known until recently....

Counter-Mo: Here is the same thing in a pre-1830 published source...

Mo.: Er, ah, well then.... maybe that is so -- but it is very obscure stuff...

Counter-Mo: Yes, I admit that it is very obscure stuff...

Mo.: Read the book through to the end and pray about it. I assure you it is all true!!

Counter-Mo: What's your point?

Mo.: You will then receive a testimony that Joseph Smith did not write it -- Nephites wrote it!

Counter-Mo: Define "Nephite"......

UD

I know...but I still think that I am fighting on the Mannerheim Line during the Finnish-Russian war of 1939 to 1945. :P<_< I feel a blizzard coming... but I will not surrender. :unsure:

Link to comment

You missed the point. The point is in the coincidence and not in the entire dead sea scrolls. The book of mormon got it right about the sacrifice when the critics were sort of hemming a hawing about a sacrifice away from the temple being against the jewish tradition.

Coincidence or not, you cannot verify truth with fabrication. A lie even containing truth is still a lie. As another poster suggested there are many other more reputable books of reference that were available to Joseph @ the time. I believe that the thread was titled "Book of Mormon proven right" The source used to verify the BOM as Right/true was the dead sea scrolls. By using them as "proof" you have to allow the entirety or not at all.

Link to comment
At best the Dead sea scrolls can be used to understand how the early christians struggled to form a church with fluid doctrine and theology. This same group also taught that women should hold the Priesthood, and that John the Baptist was the real savior. Maybee we are wrong maybe we should all convert to Gnosticism?

The Dead Sea Scrolls, for the most part, predate Christianity, and have nothing specifically to do with Christianity (no matter what Dan Brown likes to say). There are no Christian or pseudo-Christian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are from a strictly Jewish milieu. Perhaps you were thinking of the Nag Hammadi texts?

Apparently, Lehi and family had the same rules apply as the people of Qumran. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

That is reading a bit into the passage, I think. Where does it say that Lehi was waiting for the three day mark to sacrifice, or that he was following some kind of rule? A coincidence, yes, but only a notable one if you add a bit to the story.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

I know...but I still think that I am fighting on the Mannerheim Line during the Finnish-Russian war of 1939 to 1945. :P<_< I feel a blizzard coming... but I will not surrender. :unsure:

Luckily for the Finns, "Uncle Joe" did not yet have the A-bomb .....

Be careful where you step -- the seeming solid ground beneath your feet may give way one day.

UD

Link to comment

Coincidence or not, you cannot verify truth with fabrication. A lie even containing truth is still a lie. As another poster suggested there are many other more reputable books of reference that were available to Joseph @ the time. I believe that the thread was titled "Book of Mormon proven right" The source used to verify the BOM as Right/true was the dead sea scrolls. By using them as "proof" you have to allow the entirety or not at all.

Well, actually no. You see, hypothetical illustrations of a possibility does not prove the original premise wrong that the book of mormon got it right. Should I assume that no geography book was ever published before the book of mormon came on the scene? No. But I can assume as to whether or not it was seen by JS or Sidney. The lds on this forum know that if sidney or JS wrote the book of mormon, their research was spectacular. And yet, there is no proof of either doing such research. Get the point.

Link to comment

Coincidence or not, you cannot verify truth with fabrication. A lie even containing truth is still a lie. As another poster suggested there are many other more reputable books of reference that were available to Joseph @ the time. I believe that the thread was titled "Book of Mormon proven right" The source used to verify the BOM as Right/true was the dead sea scrolls. By using them as "proof" you have to allow the entirety or not at all.

How so? Evidence is evidence.

Do we beleive Paul that Mt Siani is in Saudia Arabia or do we beleive Genesis?

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...