Bom Bull'sâ??eyes

[Matt Amos]

ROFL! Thats an amazing feat since it was added much later when the books was chopped up into sections and verses.

Zak, the summary in question was written by Nephi and is part of the original 1830 edition of the BoM. Turn to the beginning of 1 Nephi and read it for yourself.

[Matt Amos]

Summaries, even those written by the author of the piece, by definition, do not take into account all of the shades of meaning or nuances of the entire text.

Agreed. However, in this case Nephi's summary is consistent with the interpretation I offered earlier. Were it not for Nephi's paraphrase, I would concede that the text was open to either interpretation. If Nephi did not mean to cast the first leg of their journey as three days, he could have easily done so by changing three days' to twelve days, or to eliminate the number of days completely. Why write three days in the summary, if it was entirely meaningless?

[LeSellers]

Nephi's summary is consistent with the interpretation I offered earlier.

"Consistent", maybe, although I don't accep tthat it is. But it is every bit as consistent with mine. The issue is not the time mentioned, but when that time began.

Were it not for Nephi's paraphrase, I would concede that the text was open to either interpretation. If Nephi did not mean to cast the first leg of their journey as three days, he could have easily done so by changing three days' to twelve days, or to eliminate the number of days completely. Why write three days in the summary, if it was entirely meaningless?

Who said it was "meaningless"?

Nephi told us how long they traveled in the wilderness. Why that was significant to him, no one knows. But we might ask the same thing about why he bothered to inform us that "[his] father dwelt in a tent." According to Dr. Nibley, dwelling in a tent was a sign of a true desert nomad, and a reason to be proud. I'd heard exactly the same thing from my own Middle Eastern Studies professor before I had read any Nibley, so it rang particularly true. From this, I conclude that, if living like a nomad is a point of pride, then actually being a nomad (not a city dweller) would be even more so.

Moreover, three days travel in unoccupied territory is a significant distance, and that three days would be enough space to ensure (or at least provide the probability) that any trackers would be unlikely to find them. But this is true only if the three days were already far from their pursuit.

While we have been discussing whether Laban's entourage would chase a fleeing Nephi, we forget that the Jews were already angry with Lehi, and had sought to take his life. They had to get far enough away to feel comfortably safe from this original pursuit. Three days travel, from Jerusalem would not have provided that margin of safety: they'd still be within the confines of the "land of Jerusalem", and subject to its oversight.

Lehi

[Matt Amos]

LeSellers,

So are you suggesting that "the wilderness" does not start until the Red Sea? I thought that we established that there was considerable wilderness between Jerusalem and the Red Sea. Also, I would like to better understand the significance you place on "in the wilderness".

[Zakuska]

Love ya ta death, Zak, but Nephi wrote it.

The chapter headings have been added (in various forms) over the years, but there are several books with author-produced introductory 'graphs. First and Second Nephi are among them. Jacob, Alma, Helaman, and Third Nephi each have one.

Lehi

My Bad.

Carry on.

[Zakuska]

LeSellers,

So are you suggesting that "the wilderness" does not start until the Red Sea? I thought that we established that there was considerable wilderness between Jerusalem and the Red Sea. Also, I would like to better understand the significance you place on "in the wilderness".

Following the Narrative that was posted earlier... I see two Wildernesses being spoken of. One immediatly outside of the city confines of Jerusalem in the land of Jerusalem, and another in the Mountians [ie Borders] closest to the Gulf of Aquaba. The 3 days travel seems to be associated with the second wilderness. Here it is again... (Bold my Comments)

I came in late to the conversation, so I apologize if I overlooked any previous discussion. As far as the 1 Nephi summary (you're talking about 1 Nephi 2:4-6, right?), it supports our interpretation. Here's the text:

4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.

5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.

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 coffering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.

8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

The text, when read chronologically, gives the events occurring in this order:

1 - he departed into the wilderness In the land of Jerusalem

2 - he came down by the borders [ie Mountains] near the shore of the Red Sea

3 - he traveled in the wilderness in the borders [ie Mountains] which are nearer the Red Sea

4 - when he had traveled three days in the wilderness [in the Mountains/borders near the Red Sea], he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water

5 - he built an altar of stones

6 - he called the name of the river, Laman

The text explains that he came down by the borders of the Red Sea and then traveled three days in the wilderness. Which wilderness? "The wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea."

So 15 Days to travel from Jerusalem to Aquaba. (Although Nephi never mentions how long that leg of the trip took)

And 3 days to travel from the tip of Aquaba to the River/Valley 2/3 the way down the Gulf. (The 3 days travel is associated with the wilderness IN the Mountains NEARER the Red Sea)

Thanks Maklelan.

[LeSellers]

So are you suggesting that "the wilderness" does not start until the Red Sea? I thought that we established that there was considerable wilderness between Jerusalem and the Red Sea.

What you mean, "we", white man?

I do not know where the wilderness started, and have never tried to define it except that it was beyond "the land of Jerusalem".

One of the other participants here did show that even my more liberal view is probably wrong, i.e., that the specific wilderness Nephi wrote of was that which was in the borders of the Red Sea. As I re-read the passage, this makes a lot of sense, and I am prepared to revise my position.

Also, I would like to better understand the significance you place on "in the wilderness".

Because that's what Nephi actually wrote when he was describing the trek. He says they traveled "in the wilderness" for three days. It is obvious that he if he had wanted to tell us that the entire voyage to Laman/Lemuel had lasted three days, that's what he'd have said. But he did not.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I must confess that I have never been comfortable with these particular claims about Arabia, since I cannot understand how an eight/ten-day journey from Jerusalem to the Red Sea could have been accomplished by the Lehi party in three days.

In addition to the other arguments we have seen to refute this view, let's not forget that Lehi was fleeing from the Jews who "sought to take away his life." Nephi mentions this ten times in his narrative. Lehi must have really ticked the Jews off, and I mean really!

Lehi

[maklelan]

Actually, I was referring to the summary from the beginning of 1 Nephi:

I don't see how this at all undermines my reading of the text. This book heading is not made up of complete sentences and is remarkably fragmented. There's nothing in it that indicates the sentences are chronologically seamless.

[Matt Amos]

What you mean, "we", white man?

I do not know where the wilderness started, and have never tried to define it except that it was beyond "the land of Jerusalem".

One of the other participants here did show that even my more liberal view is probably wrong, i.e., that the specific wilderness Nephi wrote of was that which was in the borders of the Red Sea. As I re-read the passage, this makes a lot of sense, and I am prepared to revise my position.

Because that's what Nephi actually wrote when he was describing the trek. He says they traveled "in the wilderness" for three days. It is obvious that he if he had wanted to tell us that the entire voyage to Laman/Lemuel had lasted three days, that's what he'd have said. But he did not.

Lehi

Fair enough...if we cannot firmly establish where "the wilderness" begins, then Nephi's summary is of little help.

[Zakuska]

Fair enough...if we cannot firmly establish where "the wilderness" begins, then Nephi's summary is of little help.

But first we have to establish which part of the wilderness is associated with the 3 days travel.

[Kevin Christensen]

I didn't know how else to describe the Mormon spiritual paradigm other than pre conceived confirmation bias and I apologize if that was offensive to those reading this thread. It's not a bad thing to have them. But all theists have one.

If you've been reading Alan Goff's essays, or Peter Novick's That Noble Dream, or my esssay "Paradigm's Crossed" in RBBM 7:2, you'd know that you have one as well. Neither atheism, nor agnosticism work without confirmation bias. Positivism depends upon it.

Which leads me to observe that there appears not to be one conclusive version of what is actually most certainly True pertaining to what God is, who God is, and what that entity actually would like us to do while we live our lives. So if there is no way to know what the reality of salvific Truth actually is, in that context, I understand better why this thread of Book of Mormon bullseyes exists.

Those who nurture the seed in the proper soil, in the proper way, experience the growth. "Is this not real?" Alma asks. Those who don't nurture the seed, those who plant their seeds on rocks, and then focus their questions and uncertainties upon the seed with the intent to kill any possibility of it growning, tend not to produce any Book of Mormon bullseyes. I've mentioned a talk by William Russell published in Sunstone in 1982. He gave all sorts of reasons for disbelieving the Book of Mormon. He ignored all sorts of information that could have provided balance. And it turns out that as 26 years roll by, he was wrong about everything. Others have been just as aware as he was of the questions he raised, but they have not been so dead certain that nothing would or could ever grow.

One of the things I have seen with increasing clarity over my 54 years is that the case for the Book of Mormon keeps getting better, the older arguments keep falling by the wayside, and work on the open questions remains exciting and fruitful for those of us who give it a chance.

Again, I appreciate that and thank you for the insight.

...

You're welcome, but I doubt if we are communicting very well.

What I observe, and I don't mean to be redundant, is that most religions with potent exclusivity claims state the same sort of observation C.S. Lewis is talking about there. Muslims know that lack of argument in defense of the Qu'ran could very well undermine the faith of Muslims. Catholics also know this and if one looks, they will find a legion of defensive but extremely cogent arguments that defend Catholicism. These religions, probably most organized religions understand this and that is why they engage in academic apologetics so as to maintain a climate in which belief (in their religion) may flourish.

So then, to what extent is this useful?

I suppose we could all decide to ignore what we've found, and decide that without absolute certainty, fully certified and endorsed by the Pride of the World, that life is utterly meaningless, truth, an illusion, God, a human-generated illusion, and then mope about the dismal prospect of that existence. That seems rather pointless to me. I also don't find the picture believable in light of my own experiences.

But believing, nourishing my seed, watching it grow, experience the resolution of questions, and facing open questions with faith and hope seems the opposite of pointless. It's exciting, energizing, and uplifting.

I begin to wonder why the defense, the apologetics, the finding of interesting tidbits that seem to support Catholicism or Islam or Mormonism as the "only actual truth" God approves is needed if truly God's spirit is supposed to be sufficient in sustaining a person's conviction (via Moroni 10:3-4).

Moroni refers the reader to the Ponder the text of the Book of Mormon, which includes Alma 32. I have argued elsewhere and at length that the approach that Alma puts forward is consistent with that described in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. We participate in the experient. We test out the accuracy of key life experiments, experience mind expanding enlightenment, fruitfulness, seeing things we never could have imagined had we not tried the experiment, see the beauty of it, and taste the future promise. You are over-simplifying in a way that just happens to support your insinuation that confirmation bias explains everything.

Because we engage in dialogue, and exchange ongoing criticism, we have an ongoing check on confirmation bias.

Do you, or any of you on this thread engage in finding the bullseyes simply because you need more to sustain your faith? Is it a hobby? I am curious.

Noggin

What definition do you imply for "sustain", which is super word with interesting definitions. If you mean nurture, then yes. If you mean desperately hold up in a frenzy of unmoderated confirmation bias then no. "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." Joseph Smith to Daniel Rupp. He means wrestling with opposing notions. Testing them. Wrestling does not mean flopping on our backs and surrendering whenever we encounter opposition. It means putting our whole heart and mind in it. (There was a good essay in Sunstone called Godwrestling a while back.)

The one time in my life I ran across anything that rattled my faith led directly to the flash of insight that resolved the questions. The answer excited me, so I shared it in a Dialogue article. One of the editors thanked me for writing what I had done because it helped her. Given the questions that William Russell raised in his 1982 essay, he should have been well placed to recognize the significance of John Welch's book on Illuminating the the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount. He should have been sensitive to the far reaching implications of Margaret Barker's work. Yet in this case, doubt has been far less productive of solutions than has faith.

I participate because I occasionaly learn some exciting and useful things. I share because I am converted and I want to strengthen my brethren and sisters. I love the gospel, and I love sharing it. It's exciting. New insights are mind-expanding and enlightening. I've felt like the implications of Barker's approach is broader than I can explore with my own resources, and I want to see more people working with it. I like watching the seed grow.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[cdowis]

To add to the posts above, we all know that the culture can affect the language. For example, Eskimos have multiple words for snow and ice, many more than English.

In English "wilderness" can be a desert, a forest, a mountain range.

I understand that in Hebrew there are multiple words to indicate our

one word "wilderness". When we read

"wilderness" in the English text, the corresponding BOM text may have been

one of several words.

In 1 Ne chapter 2, the word "wilderness" in verse 5 may have been a

different word from verse 6. In verse 5 they are talking abt the wilderness

(*w1) at their doorstep until they reach the "borders" of the Red Sea, and

verse 6 then speaks of going three days into the wilderness (*w2). Two

different words in the original text which, because of our limitations in

English, were translated as a single word.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My Bad.

Carry on.

Apparenlty I had mistaken that for the chapter headings. My bad to start with. I need to be more careful when I am at work. Time restraints and all.

[LeSellers]

what would be the top five BoM bull's-eyes?

Not a "bull's eye", per se, but a couple of very interesting consistencies.

I noticed, while reading A View of the Hebrews, that Ethan Smith uses numerous references to biblical chapter and verse throughout his booklet. This is a very different presentation from that of the Book of Mormon.

Within the text we have the first of these consistencies: the sometimes lengthy citations of biblical scripture are all given without versification. There is no reference to chapters or verses in any other way either, and was none until Orson Pratt introduced verses to the whole of the book in 1879. He used the customary versification for these cited passages, and made chapter breaks coincide with those in the Bible, even when these required some interesting breaks. This is in contrast to Joseph's practice in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price where he does refer to chapter or verse numbers when talking about biblical scripture. See, for instance,

While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

There is no reason to suppose that Joseph knew that biblical scriptures were not originally written with chapters and verses. Yet, when he translated the Book of Mormon, as scripture, and while using "scriptural language" (i.e., what some have called "Jacobean cant"), he rendered the text as simple narrative, with occasional chapter breaks, but without any versification at all. Just another coincidence, I'm sure.

Lehi

[cdowis]

Punctuation is a relatively modern invention. The BOM has no punctuation (the original manuscript had no punctuation and was added by the printer) and uses transitional words and phrases to indicate the end of a sentence -- the famous "and it came to pass". We also find a list of nouns connected, not with commas, but with "and".