Did Joseph Smith think that North and South America were "islands of the sea"?

[Joseph Antley]

"And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel." (1 Nephi 19:10)

It makes sense for Nephi, who would have been unaware of the vastness of North and South America -- especially if he were in the relatively narrow regions of Central America --, to have considered his "promised land" as one of the "isles of the sea". But it doesn't make sense for Joseph Smith--or Spalding, Rigdon, or Cowdery-- to put such an emphasis on the "isles of the sea" in the Book of Mormon.

[hagoth7]

...which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel. (1 Nephi 19:10)

It makes sense for Nephi, who would have been unaware of the vastness of North and South America -- especially if he were in the relatively narrow regions of Central America --, to have considered his "promised land" as one of the "isles of the sea".

Isles also means coasts.

Israel was scattered to places other than the Americas...and Zenos' sign was for those scattered.

But it doesn't make sense for Joseph Smith--or Spalding, Rigdon, or Cowdery-- to put such an emphasis on the "isles of the sea" in the Book of Mormon.

It makes perfect sense if it was literally fulfilled in more than one isle...which it was.

[Joseph Antley]

Isles also means coasts.

Israel was scattered to places other than the Americas...and Zenos' sign was for those scattered.

It makes perfect sense if it was literally fulfilled in more than one isle...which it was.

I think you missed the point of my post. What I was trying to say is that the "isles of the sea" emphasis throughout the text reflects an ancient author, not a modern one.

[hagoth7]

I think you missed the point of my post.

Apparently.

[John Larsen]

If "Isles of the Sea" can mean whole continents, then the phrase means absolutely nothing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If "Isles of the Sea" can mean whole continents, then the phrase means absolutely nothing.

Nice,

So do you know what "Isle of the sea" would mean to an ancient? I am not familiar.

[urroner]

Let's see what Issac Newton said about the "Isles of the Sea" :

By the earth, the Jews understood the great continent of all Asia and Africa, to which they had access by land: and by the Isles of the sea, they understood the places to which they sailed by sea, particularly all Europe: and hence in this Prophecy, the earth and sea are put for the nations of the Greek and Latin Empires.

Good heaven, a continent could be an isle.

[Lightbearer]

Nephi comments on these verses making a direct connection between the Isles of the sea and the land of promise, as well as other lands:

(2 Nephi 10:20-22) "And now, my beloved brethren, seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for we are not cast off; nevertheless, we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea. But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren. For behold, the Lord God has led away from time to time from the house of Israel, according to his will and pleasure. And now behold, the Lord remembereth all them who have been broken off, wherefore he remembereth us also."

At first glance this may seem a peculiar way of referring to a continent until one realizes that islands can be very big it may be argued that Greenland and even Australia could be considered islands though they are huge.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let's see what Issac Newton said about the "Isles of the Sea" :

Good heaven, a continent could be an isle.

Accourding to John, that means the term is meaningless.

[Nevo]

So do you know what "Isle of the sea" would mean to an ancient? I am not familiar.

When Isaiah referred to "the islands of the sea" (Isa. 11:11), the "sea" was the Mediterranean. So the expression "islands of the sea" probably indicated "either the Phoenician coastal area or the Aegean islands (the Hebrew can mean either 'island' or 'coastal region')" (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1â??39 [AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 268).

But what Jacob may have meant when he said "we are upon an isle of the sea" is anyone's guess. Blake Ostler, for one, takes Jacob's statement literally.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When Isaiah referred to "the islands of the sea" (Isa. 11:11), the "sea" was the Mediterranean. So the expression "islands of the sea" probably indicated "either the Phoenician coastal area or the Aegean islands (the Hebrew can mean either 'island' or 'coastal region')" (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1â??39 [AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 268).

But what Jacob may have meant when he said "we are upon an isle of the sea" is anyone's guess. Blake Ostler, for one, takes Jacob's statement literally.

Thanks for the insight.

[John Larsen]

Accourding to John, that means the term is meaningless.

Newton was also obsessed with Alchemy. Just because he said it, it isn't necessarily a credible thing to believe.

Look, if you accept that definition, what isn't an Isle of the Sea? Any set that includes all possible subsets is a meaningless set.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Newton was also obsessed with Alchemy. Just because he said it, it isn't necessarily a credible thing to believe.

Look, if you accept that definition, what isn't an Isle of the Sea? Any set that includes all possible subsets is a meaningless set.

Just because Newton was obessed with Alchemy doesn't mean he was wrong on somethings he said as well. Is this an ad hominem?

Who says that it has too? You can't force a modern understanding on an ancient one and expect it to work. Did people back in the day classify land as a continent? Any way, it could be argued that Astrallia and Greenland are islands.

When I read the bible or the BoM I have never understood isles of the sea to refer to places like Hawii.

[cinepro]

FWIW, This comment pops up a few chapters later:

1 Ne. 22: 4

And behold, there are many who are already lost from the knowledge of those who are at Jerusalem. Yea, the more part of all the tribes have been led away; and they are scattered to and fro upon the isles of the sea; and whither they are none of us knoweth, save that we know that they have been led away.

and

2 Ne. 29: 7

Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

[Tchild2]

Did people back in the day classify land as a continent? Any way, it could be argued that Astrallia and Greenland are islands.

If you can't count on God to translate accurately what the ancients wrote when offering translation revelation to his prophets, who can you count on for the answer to your questions?

Wouldn't it be swell if there were modern day prophets who could clarify such things definitively for us, instead of endless speculations? One can wish can't they?

[John Larsen]

Just because Newton was obessed with Alchemy doesn't mean he was wrong on somethings he said as well. Is this an ad hominem?

No, it is a refutation of an argumentum ad verecundiam

[MDalby]

23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;

(D&C 133:23)

[Joseph Antley]

Newton was also obsessed with Alchemy. Just because he said it, it isn't necessarily a credible thing to believe.

Look, if you accept that definition, what isn't an Isle of the Sea? Any set that includes all possible subsets is a meaningless set.

I worry that you didn't get my point either, which was that Nephi and Jacob believed that the Americas where they lived was one of the "islands of the sea" because they were unaware of the vastness of the continents. Obviously with our modern understanding of geography, we wouldn't consider North and South America to be islands, which makes it strange that if the author was Joseph Smith, he would refer to them as such. It is much less strange if the author was a relatively-new American inhabitant from 2,600 years ago.

[Avatar4321]

But N and S America would be considered islands to people from Eurasia and Africa. They can only be gotten there by ship.

Not to mention as has already been pointed out, Austraila is considered both an Island and a continent.

Its not the way we normally think of things, but if you understand the context it makes perfect sense.

[mnn727]

Let's see what Issac Newton said about the "Isles of the Sea" :

Good heaven, a continent could be an isle.

Well, an island is land surrounded on all sides by oceans, so a continant IS an island -- a really big one, but still an island.

[Scottie]

"And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel." (1 Nephi 19:10)

It makes sense for Nephi, who would have been unaware of the vastness of North and South America -- especially if he were in the relatively narrow regions of Central America --, to have considered his "promised land" as one of the "isles of the sea". But it doesn't make sense for Joseph Smith--or Spalding, Rigdon, or Cowdery-- to put such an emphasis on the "isles of the sea" in the Book of Mormon.

But Nephi here is supposedly quoting Zenos, who made mention of the isles of the sea. Nephi isn't directly saying he believe he is on an isle of the sea, right?

[urroner]

Try this link http://books.google.com/books?id=bJfwsFxFP...lt&resnum=1

[hagoth7]

Nephi isn't directly saying he believe he is on an isle of the sea, right?

Dunno. But his brother Jacob *is* saying that in this passage cited earlier in the thread by Lightbearer.

[Joseph Antley]

But Nephi here is supposedly quoting Zenos, who made mention of the isles of the sea. Nephi isn't directly saying he believe he is on an isle of the sea, right?

No, Nephi doesn't directly say it (although Jacob does later), but Nephi implies it by the fact that he is quoting it. Nephi and Jacob both put a lot of emphasis on the "isles of the sea", with Jacob directly saying that it means them.

Nephi and Jacob both would have had a very limited awareness of how large the Americas were; apparently they believed they had been led to an island.

[Tchild2]

Well, an island is land surrounded on all sides by oceans, so a continant IS an island -- a really big one, but still an island.

If a continent is an island, then what is an island as we know it? Another island, indistinguishable from continents the size of asia? Why even bother with the semantics of differing landmass sizes then? Lets call any chunk of land at any ol' place an "island" and rid ourselves of cumbersome definitions like continent, peninsula, archipelago, bay, atoll, cape, fjord, gulf, isthmus and all the rest.

Maybe the ancients didn't have the terminology of such things. But then, why is God the creator of the universe bound to translate the ignorance of the ancients to Joseph Smith?

If you apologists can see the problems of terminology distinctions, why couldn't an omnipotent and omniscient being? Is God less clever than a human apologist? Amazingly, it seems so.