A Day Or A Day And One Half Journey

[poulsenll]

Alma 22:

And now, it was only the distance of a day and a halfâ??s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small bneck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

Helaman 4:5-7

5 And in the *fifty and seventh year they did come down against the Nephites to battle, and they did commence the work of death; yea, insomuch that in the fifty and eighth year of the reign of the judges they succeeded in obtaining apossession of the land of Zarahemla; yea, and also all the lands, even unto the land which was near the land Bountiful.

6 And the Nephites and the armies of Moronihah were driven even into the land of Bountiful;

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

Here we have two instances that describe the distance a Nephite can travel in a specifird time.

In one case it is the line dividing Boutiful from Desolation. The distance along this line can be traveled in a day and a half.

In the second instance, it is the length of a fortified line and travel time is only one day. Before choosing a line to fortify, the Nephites had been driven into the Land Bountiful and were attempting to drive the Lamanites back into and out of the Land of Zarahemla.

Now the question is Where was this fortified line of defense located? It says that the army was stationed on the line of defense. There are those who claim that this is the same line mentioned previously in Alma 22. There is however a slight problem with this in that if the army were located behind the line, this would place the army and those they were defending in the Land of Desolation rather than in the Land of Bountiful as stated in the text. If they and the people were in front of the line of defense in Bountiful then the fortification of the line would not be doing them much good.

Based on this argument, these two lines must be in different locations. It is therefore unlikely that they are a measure of the distance across the narrow neck and that the narrow neck was not necessarily oriented west to east.

Larry P

[Hammer]

on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land

on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country.

Are these the same place?

[poulsenll]

Are these the same place?

on the line which they had fortified and stationed their armies to defend their north country

The Land northward was never considered their country until they were forced by the Lamanites to cede everything south of the narrow neck to the Lamanites. Bountiful, that land to the north of Zarahemla was considered to be their country. The scripture in Helaman is clear that they had been forced to leave Zarahemla and were in Bountiful, not Desolation. The Land of Cumorah, somewhere in the Land Northward, was never considered a land of promise or in other words, their country. It was a land where they might have advantasge over the Lamanites in a last ditch effort to destroy the Lamanites.

Larry P

[helix]

Good find!

This helps me out on an unrelated question of mine.

We discussed the Alma 22 verse long ago as part of other posters discussings the LGT. I find it interesting that Alma 22 mentioned "east to the west sea" and not "east sea to the west sea". Critics like Dan Vogel and apologists like Sorensen have insisted this meant "east [sea] to the west sea". I could never buy that argument, and I believe you didn't either. I actually spent a couple of hours searching for similar phrases where you might see a situation where one direction gets a noun but the other direction does not (such as sea in this case). I gave up after not finding anything (and it seemed like a boring search).

But you've got one right there in Helaman 4, "from the west sea, even unto the east". To me, this supports that the east is not the east sea, but just somewhere east. If it were implied, I'd expect both phrases to follow a similar form. But they don't. One phrase mentioned sea at the end, while the other mentions sea at the beginning.

The more likely answer is that there is no implied sea in the east.

[helix]

Now the question is Where was this fortified line of defense located? It says that the army was stationed on the line of defense. There are those who claim that this is the same line mentioned previously in Alma 22. There is however a slight problem with this in that if the army were located behind the line, this would place the army and those they were defending in the Land of Desolation rather than in the Land of Bountiful as stated in the text. If they and the people were in front of the line of defense in Bountiful then the fortification of the line would not be doing them much good.

I fully agree with this reasoning.

[Kevin Christensen]

Larry, this is another good insight. Which means it would be good for Insights.

Also, FYIW, in Mormon's Map, Sorenson accepted criticism of the reading that the distance ought to be read from the east sea to the west sea. His current reading is different than helix suggested.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Larry, this is another good insight. Which means it would be good for Insights.

Also, FYIW, in Mormon's Map, Sorenson accepted criticism of the reading that the distance ought to be read from the east sea to the west sea. His current reading is different than helix suggested.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I must have read these verus 100 times. Im not so sure that it is taking about a line from a west sea to an east sea. I still am in the pondering moment. Oh well.

As to the OP

I would have to say that Yes, these are 2 separte places.

[poulsenll]

I must have read these verus 100 times. Im not so sure that it is taking about a line from a west sea to an east sea. I still am in the pondering moment. Oh well.

As to the OP

I would have to say that Yes, these are 2 separte places.

Mola

One of the problems that arises when we do not have a geography of the BofM in mind when we read the text, is that whenever we see a reference to geography, our mind simply skips over the text as though it has nothing to say.

However when we have a geography in mind, it matters not the model, then our mind stops and says Does this fit? and if not how should I modify the model of geography I am using.

Larry P

[helix]

Larry, this is another good insight. Which means it would be good for Insights.

Also, FYIW, in Mormon's Map, Sorenson accepted criticism of the reading that the distance ought to be read from the east sea to the west sea. His current reading is different than helix suggested.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Aaah, good to know. Thanks for the update Kevin.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola

One of the problems that arises when we do not have a geography of the BofM in mind when we read the text, is that whenever we see a reference to geography, our mind simply skips over the text as though it has nothing to say.

However when we have a geography in mind, it matters not the model, then our mind stops and says Does this fit? and if not how should I modify the model of geography I am using.

Larry P

That clearly is my problem. I have a hard time trying to figure it all out. There are others that are much better at it.

[LittleBrother]

These are my observations:

It appears that there are four types of syntax used in the Book of Mormon when one or more seas are invloved.

1) When a single item is the subject, the syntax is "by the sea", or "by the seashore".

2) When a piece of land borders on two seas, the syntax is, "the sea, on the east, and on the west". The word sea is specified first, followed by the references to east and west.

3) When an area between two seas is specified, the syntax mentions both seas "sea east and sea west".

4) When the subject is a line running between two seas, the syntax is, "east, to the west sea", or "west, to the east sea". (The word sea is left out for one end).

-----------------

As for why it is "a day and a half" in one verse, and "a day" in another verse, it is likely that the rest of the line (a half-day in length) may have had a natural feature, like a ravine, which did not require fortification, because that section was an impass to begin with.

Just my thoughts.

[poulsenll]

These are my observations:

It appears that there are four types of syntax used in the Book of Mormon when one or more seas are invloved.

1) When a single item is the subject, the syntax is "by the sea", or "by the seashore".

2) When a piece of land borders on two seas, the syntax is, "the sea, on the east, and on the west". The word sea is specified first, followed by the references to east and west.

3) When an area between two seas is specified, the syntax mentions both seas "sea east and sea west".

4) When the subject is a line running between two seas, the syntax is, "east, to the west sea", or "west, to the east sea". (The word sea is left out for one end).

-----------------

As for why it is "a day and a half" in one verse, and "a day" in another verse, it is likely that the rest of the line (a half-day in length) may have had a natural feature, like a ravine, which did not require fortification, because that section was an impass to begin with.

Just my thoughts.

Good thoughts. The problem with number four is that you are assuming that the line is between two seas. The text gives no indication of this and so you are dealing with a circular argument. You are saying that the word sea is left out for one end because you assumed that the line was between two seas rather than from one sea to some point in the east other than a sea.

One of the problems that always occur in defining geographic features described in the text is our assumptions about the overall geography.

Larry P

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good thoughts. The problem with number four is that you are assuming that the line is between two seas. The text gives no indication of this and so you are dealing with a circular argument. You are saying that the word sea is left out for one end because you assumed that the line was between two seas rather than from one sea to some point in the east other than a sea.

One of the problems that always occur in defining geographic features described in the text is our assumptions about the overall geography.

Larry P

I thought that the line was between to point in between the 2 seas. That is what the text, to me, seems to say.

[poulsenll]

I thought that the line was between to point in between the 2 seas. That is what the text, to me, seems to say.

Mola

Where in the text quoted above, not church tradition, does it say anything about two seas. Even though the narrow neck is mentioned in Alma, it is not mentioned in Helaman. In Alma , Mormon is describing a large area in very few words. The following verses show that Mormon is describing the land Bountiful and the fact that the Nephites and Lamanites are nearly surrounded by water. He inserts the information about the narrow neck to modify this conclusion about water on all sides.It does not modify the statement about the journey. Note the semicolon, in brackets , seperating the two phrases. Even the printer who put in the punctuation based on English grammer rules, recognized that these are two seperate thoughts.

The phrase "from the east to the west sea" is repeated in verse 33 with a slight modification. The "to" is changed to "unto"with no second use of the word sea making it even more apparent that there is no implied east sea.

Alma 22:

29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful.

30 And it bordered upon the land which they called Desolation, it being so far northward that it came into the land which had been peopled and been destroyed, of whose bbones we have spoken, which was discovered by the people of Zarahemla, it being the place of their first landing.

31 And they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.

32 And now, it was only the adistance of a day and a halfâ??s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea[;] and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small bneck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

33 And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea, and thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward.

Edited to add:

In addition, both the narrow neck in the NA model, the Hemisperic model and the Mesoamerican model all run in the wrong direction. They are located between a north and a south sea not an east and a west sea. The only way this could be is if you assume that the Nephites had a modern global concept of geography. Unfortunately all ancient cultures including the Hebrews had a local concept of geography. We must always be aware of our tendency to impose modern concepts on ancirnt cultures.

Larry P

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola

Where in the text quoted above, not church tradition, does it say anything about two seas. Even though the narrow neck is mentioned in Alma, it is not mentioned in Helaman. In Alma , Mormon is describing a large area in very few words. The following verses show that Mormon is describing the land Bountiful and the fact that the Nephites and Lamanites are nearly surrounded by water. He inserts the information about the narrow neck to modify this conclusion about water on all sides.It does not modify the statement about the journey. Note the semicolon, in brackets , seperating the two phrases. Even the printer who put in the punctuation based on English grammer rules, recognized that these are two seperate thoughts.

Larry P

I think we are saying the same thing just diffrently. Im not claiming that the "narrow neck" is necessarily talking about being able to cross land between two seas. It seems to just be a line drawn between to points.

Good times.

[poulsenll]

I think we are saying the same thing just diffrently. Im not claiming that the "narrow neck" is necessarily talking about being able to cross land between two seas. It seems to just be a line drawn between to points.

Good times.

I agree. It is a line drawn between two points. There is nothing wrong with the idea that there may be a second implied sea. However if this is true then there is a sea at the east end of the line and not at the north end of the line. The implied distance across the neck is of little importance until a geographic feature, an isthmus, is located that fits the description without making assumptions based on global concepts of the Atlantic and Pacificic Oceans being to the east and the west. In Panama they are to the north and the south and in one location the Pacific is actually to the north. In as much that ancient cultures thought of east and west as sunrise and sunset, it is unlikely that they would think of a sea to the north as being in the direction where the sun rose in the morning. I know that very few of us are outside in the morning at sunrise and are not aware that in most places in the US two days ago at the summer solstice the sun rose in the north east rather than due east as many assume.

Check out my view of an internal map of BofM lands on my most recent post on the MA&D blog.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...;blogid=20&

Larry P