Lehi followed the Fraknesense trail

[thesometimesaint]

Long time no see. Hope you are well.

I don't understand what you mean by "the day he WALKS the trails."

Would you please explain?

[Zakuska]

I beleive he means takes a camel caravan acrross the trail rather than riding in an air conditioned SUV. Hey... that would be a fun outing to organize!

[volgadon]

Zakuska, I do mean walk, as it is far from obvious that they did have camels or that the camels were ridden.

I'm sure that were Potter to do so, instead of travelling by air-conditioned 4x4, he would reevaluate his theory.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska, I do mean walk, as it is far from obvious that they did have camels or that the camels were ridden.

I'm sure that were Potter to do so, instead of travelling by air-conditioned 4x4, he would reevaluate his theory.

You tried carrying a bedoun tent from Jerusalem to Khor Rori on your back?

Camel was the mode of travel for carvans of the day. Its a very likely senario. A donkey would also do IMHO

[Markk]

Hi David,

I'm sorry, I'm not really interested in directions.

Well...directions is the premise of my question, it is really a very simple point I make. LDS pundits claim that compass points are translated the same in the BoM, yet say these directions actually mean different directions solely in a context that will enforce their argument or theory. So while you may not be interested in directions, I hope you can understand my point.

However, your point that apologists "say that there are "Hebrew-isms" in the BoM, then you bring up that there is no evidence for Temple built like Solomon's, they say something like 'they wouldn't have known that because there were so far removed from that culture," that intrigues me.

Are you suggesting that the Book of Mormon's reference to building a temple like Solomon's outside Jerusalem is not an authentic Hebraism, since there is allegedly no evidence for Jews building anything of the sort?

If I didn't know you better I would say you were trying to bait and switch here David. All I'm saying is that LDS scholar's say things like "horse's aren't really horses", "what would a sword look like"..etc...etc. BUT, then if the argument or point is bolstered by a absolute literal interpretation then all of a sudden the BoM can be taken literally. I'll leave the Hebraism to you, that was not my point. But, I would say that the BoM is abundant with Hebraisms in that I believe that JS wrote it with full knowledge of the KJ language and by plagiarism of the KJ text.

Do you think that it is responsible scholarship to say that directions can logically be different by an interpreter of a text? In other words why wouldn't JS or God, having full knowlage and understanding of both the language the document was originally written in and the language that it is being interpreted into, change the direction to it's proper meaning.

Thanks.

And the surfs been great out here, as it always is in the Fall, but alas, I've been too busy to take full advantage of it.

best

I only got out once this summer and didn't last long, getting old, I like fishing better.

[handys003]

Zakuska, I do mean walk, as it is far from obvious that they did have camels or that the camels were ridden.

I'm sure that were Potter to do so, instead of travelling by air-conditioned 4x4, he would reevaluate his theory.

Why should he have to punish himself!? Now your rhetoric to avoid the fact. It's widely known by the bedoins and already been proven by many arabs riding the same trail. If you watched the dvd's you will notice the trail markers and viewings of some of the Halt's (I hope I spelled it correctly) of tribal chiefs in protecting the water well and territories. It is described in the dvd's and the process of payment to cross those regional territiories to Emir's and the penalties if you don't pay tributed. The process still goes on today.

[David Bokovoy]

Hi David,

Well...directions is the premise of my question, it is really a very simple point I make. LDS pundits claim that compass points are translated the same in the BoM, yet say these directions actually mean different directions solely in a context that will enforce their argument or theory. So while you may not be interested in directions, I hope you can understand my point.

If I didn't know you better I would say you were trying to bait and switch here David. All I'm saying is that LDS scholar's say things like "horse's aren't really horses", "what would a sword look like"..etc...etc. BUT, then if the argument or point is bolstered by a absolute literal interpretation then all of a sudden the BoM can be taken literally. I'll leave the Hebraism to you, that was not my point. But, I would say that the BoM is abundant with Hebraisms in that I believe that JS wrote it with full knowledge of the KJ language and by plagiarism of the KJ text.

Do you think that it is responsible scholarship to say that directions can logically be different by an interpreter of a text? In other words why wouldn't JS or God, having full knowlage and understanding of both the language the document was originally written in and the language that it is being interpreted into, change the direction to it's proper meaning.

I only got out once this summer and didn't last long, getting old, I like fishing better.

Hey my friend Mark,

True enough, I'm not trying to bait and switch. I honestly don't have much interest in the issue of directions. But I'm happy to grant your point. You are correct that Book of Mormon apologists will alter their perspective between a literal versus non-literal interpretation of certain words and/or phrases in order to make sense of the text.

Yes, we do.

Not nearly as much, however, as Evangelical readers of the Bible who approach the work as a privileged text, meaning a book that should be interpreted using special rules. This method of exegesis developed during the late biblical period as witnessed in the Book of Daniel which explains an earlier prophecy of Jeremiah were Jeremiah's seventy years" appears to mean "seventy weeks of years," or 490 years. In every other context, seventy years means precisely that, i.e. "seventy years," but since the statement in Jeremiah amounted to a false prophecy, the author of Daniel simply applied special interpretive rules in order to preserve its authenticity.

Rabbinic interpreters were masters of this tradition, so that when a slave law in Exodus 21:6 states that in certain circumstances a Hebrew slave serves the master "in perpetuity," Jewish commentators insisted that the expression meant "practically (but not literally) forever--that is until the jubilee year" an interpretation which overcame the obvious inconsistency between the Exodus mandate and Leviticus 25:40 which states that the masters must release all Hebrew slaves every fiftieth year.

This approach to the Bible originated in ancient Judaism in order to to subvert the plain sense of words for the sake of harmonization. Evangelicals have carried on the tradition in order to harmonize their theological assumptions with a Bible that does not support their beliefs.

Hence, we end up with absurdities such as the suggestion that the word elohim does not really mean gods in the Bible, and that even though the Bible declares that God is corporeal, God doesn't really possess a physical body, nor was man really created in God's physical image even though the Bible declares that man was created in the selem of God, etc., etc.

So yes, my friend Mark, I believe that I do see your point. And if we as Mormons are guilty of the crime, I can assure you, Brother, we're simply carrying on old family tradition.

[volgadon]

Not to khor rori, but yes I have.

Camel was the mode of travel for caravans, but we aren't dealing with a caravan here, are we?

Argumentum ex silencio, I know, but the BoM never mentions camels, or any other pack animals. Who says that Lehi had camels? I thinks it far from a given, especially considering that Judah was not known for its camels. Never was, come to think of it. Most Arabian trade, IIRC, was done through middlemen.

Perhaps they did take a donkey or two. Wouldn't be riding them, so the pace would still be that of a middle-aged woman, for the most part.

Bedouin tents were not a standard size! Some could be quite small. It all depended on the social and economic status of the Bedouin. Typically, a Bedouin of modest means would have a tent 5 meters long and 2.5 wide. Some were smaller, I wish I had access to the family library, or my copy of Pesach Bar-Adon's account of his life among the Bedouin, replete with 19th century engravings of Bedouin life, but that is almost 10000 miles away and over the sea.

A tent like that could house a family of 6 (the bedouins crammed more into them), so the fact that the BoM says tents leads me to believe that these were small things. Who says that Lehi's tents were Bedouin tents? Could have been very simple affairs, meant merely to keep the sun off.

Anyway, he had four hulking boys, so they could have managed. Easy? of course not, but Lehi's life was at risk.

I carried a 2-man tent too, during basic training. No backstrap. Not fun, no, but do-able.

Provisons, I imagine dried and pressed figs, dates, perhaps apricots, raisins, carobs, nuts and pomegranates if they had them, green wheat, since it could be eaten uncooked, though who knows, maybe they took some harder grain with them. Several waterskins, perhaps some wine.

So yes, they could have gone on foot. Makes sense to me if it is a hasty early-morning flight. Grab some essentials and hotfoot it through the Tekoah area along the myriad of escape routes, evading the frontier posts and into the desert, for who knows how long. Easier nwithout animals.

It seems that Nephi and his brothers did not travel back by camel, they hide in a cavity of a rock.

I suspect their flight was during the water, because of the rivers of water mentioned.

[volgadon]

Why should he have to punish himself!? Now your rhetoric to avoid the fact. It's widely known by the bedoins and already been proven by many arabs riding the same trail. If you watched the dvd's you will notice the trail markers and viewings of some of the Halt's (I hope I spelled it correctly) of tribal chiefs in protecting the water well and territories. It is described in the dvd's and the process of payment to cross those regional territiories to Emir's and the penalties if you don't pay tributed. The process still goes on today.

hy? Because some of it really doesn't make sense if travelling by foot, and no, it isn't really improved even with camels. I don't think George Potter fully apreciates desert travel.

[David Bokovoy]

Not to khor rori, but yes I have.

Camel was the mode of travel for caravans, but we aren't dealing with a caravan here, are we?

Argumentum ex silencio, I know, but the BoM never mentions camels, or any other pack animals. Who says that Lehi had camels? I thinks it far from a given, especially considering that Judah was not known for its camels. Never was, come to think of it. Most Arabian trade, IIRC, was done through middlemen.

Perhaps they did take a donkey or two. Wouldn't be riding them, so the pace would still be that of a middle-aged woman, for the most part.

Bedouin tents were not a standard size! Some could be quite small. It all depended on the social and economic status of the Bedouin. Typically, a Bedouin of modest means would have a tent 5 meters long and 2.5 wide. Some were smaller, I wish I had access to the family library, or my copy of Pesach Bar-Adon's account of his life among the Bedouin, replete with 19th century engravings of Bedouin life, but that is almost 10000 miles away and over the sea.

A tent like that could house a family of 6 (the bedouins crammed more into them), so the fact that the BoM says tents leads me to believe that these were small things. Who says that Lehi's tents were Bedouin tents? Could have been very simple affairs, meant merely to keep the sun off.

Anyway, he had four hulking boys, so they could have managed. Easy? of course not, but Lehi's life was at risk.

I carried a 2-man tent too, during basic training. No backstrap. Not fun, no, but do-able.

Provisons, I imagine dried and pressed figs, dates, perhaps apricots, raisins, carobs, nuts and pomegranates if they had them, green wheat, since it could be eaten uncooked, though who knows, maybe they took some harder grain with them. Several waterskins, perhaps some wine.

So yes, they could have gone on foot. Makes sense to me if it is a hasty early-morning flight. Grab some essentials and hotfoot it through the Tekoah area along the myriad of escape routes, evading the frontier posts and into the desert, for who knows how long. Easier nwithout animals.

It seems that Nephi and his brothers did not travel back by camel, they hide in a cavity of a rock.

I suspect their flight was during the water, because of the rivers of water mentioned.

Thanks for the insight. That's very interesting. I had never thought of the account in those terms, though I've long been convinced that Lehi was not a Bedouin, accustomed to travel.

[Markk]

Edit DLB post, thought I lost it

[Markk]

edit computer issue

[Markk]

Hey my friend Mark,

True enough, I'm not trying to bait and switch. I honestly don't have much interest in the issue of directions. But I'm happy to grant your point. You are correct that Book of Mormon apologists will alter their perspective between a literal versus non-literal interpretation of certain words and/or phrases in order to make sense of the text.

Yes, we do.

Not nearly as much, however, as Evangelical readers of the Bible who approach the work as a privileged text, meaning a book that should be interpreted using special rules. This method of exegesis developed during the late biblical period as witnessed in the Book of Daniel which explains an earlier prophecy of Jeremiah were Jeremiah's seventy years" appears to mean "seventy weeks of years," or 490 years. In every other context, seventy years means precisely that, i.e. "seventy years," but since the statement in Jeremiah amounted to a false prophecy, the author of Daniel simply applied special interpretive rules in order to preserve its authenticity.

Rabbinic interpreters were masters of this tradition, so that when a slave law in Exodus 21:6 states that in certain circumstances a Hebrew slave serves the master "in perpetuity," Jewish commentators insisted that the expression meant "practically (but not literally) forever--that is until the jubilee year" an interpretation which overcame the obvious inconsistency between the Exodus mandate and Leviticus 25:40 which states that the masters must release all Hebrew slaves every fiftieth year.

This approach to the Bible originated in ancient Judaism in order to to subvert the plain sense of words for the sake of harmonization. Evangelicals have carried on the tradition in order to harmonize their theological assumptions with a Bible that does not support their beliefs.

Hence, we end up with absurdities such as the suggestion that the word elohim does not really mean gods in the Bible, and that even though the Bible declares that God is corporeal, God doesn't really possess a physical body, nor was man really created in God's physical image even though the Bible declares that man was created in the selem of God, etc., etc.

So yes, my friend Mark, I believe that I do see your point. And if we as Mormons are guilty of the crime, I can assure you, Brother, we're simply carrying on old family tradition.

Hi David,

So what your saying is LDS scholars and the early rabbis are both wrong in there approach to manuscript interpretation methodology ( or what ever you choose to call it)...LoL, How do I know your not applying this methodology in your interpretation of the OT. You did it with Elyon when you failed to write that it also is referred to Israel and baskets in one of our past conversations. At any rate this is one reason I stick to context and a common sense approach to scripture...you guys are blowing smoke at your own admission, even if you believe it is less smoke.

You are correct that Book of Mormon apologists will alter their perspective between a literal versus non-literal interpretation of certain words and/or phrases in order to make sense of the text

Or make their theory work...wouldn't it be easier to just say that I don't know where the BoM lands are instead of making these ridiculous arguments? And whats kind of ironic, members here are telling me I don't understand the BoM because I don't buy the fact that LDS scholarship changes text meanings to make their arguments and papers work... I'm getting to old for this.

Love ya

Take care

Mark

[Zakuska]

Why should he have to punish himself!? Now your rhetoric to avoid the fact. It's widely known by the bedoins and already been proven by many arabs riding the same trail. If you watched the dvd's you will notice the trail markers and viewings of some of the Halt's (I hope I spelled it correctly) of tribal chiefs in protecting the water well and territories. It is described in the dvd's and the process of payment to cross those regional territiories to Emir's and the penalties if you don't pay tributed. The process still goes on today.

It sure does, from the OP:

The trail began in southern Oman, with a spot of commerce. Keen to echo the original traders' practice of paying their way across the ancient continent with their resin-based wares, Humble headed to a cave with her chequebook. Here, a dealer squatted among mounds of freshly harvested frankincense. "It's like diamonds," Humble cooed, raking through a sack of what looked uncannily like knots of congealed superglue. The dealer grinned toothlessly, and let her have a 90kg sack for a song (it was, we learned later, worth four times the

[volgadon]

Thanks for the insight. That's very interesting. I had never thought of the account in those terms, though I've long been convinced that Lehi was not a Bedouin, accustomed to travel.

My personal conviction is that you are correct on that account.

Granted, ancient inhabitants of the Land of Jerusalem probably had a better idea of the desert than most 21st century Americans, it was almost at their doorstep, and perhaps Lehi (if he were a merchant) might have travelled a little bit there, but that doesn't mean that they were accustomed to life and travel in the desert. There is more to the Middle East than just Bedouins!

Indeed were Lehi accustomed to desert travel, the Lord would not have had to warn him not to light fires at certain points, and he would not have entered into deep despair when Nephi's bow broke, but would have made slings and snares. They really don't display the behaviour of desert adepts. I'm sure they were more experienced after almost a decade, and Laman and Lemuel don't seem to have been able to shake off the habit, but I suspect that Nibley was far too taken by the romance of the desert and that his theories have been taken none too critically.

It pays to read as widely as possible about Israel's history, as well as Arabia's. I'm lucky that my parents have always stressed that, so we had a good library, plus many excursions.

My father is a veritable fount of knowledge. Its no exaggeration that he's travelled almost every inch of the country. Few know it as well as he does, though you'll never catch him claiming that. Something he excelled at in the army was navigation, both daytime and nighttime. And in his day, the army spent a good deal of time educating the soldiers about places and history, organizing many field trips, bringing in experts on every conceivable historical and geographical topic. Some of that stuff is even available in English. My brother is also an expereinced desert trekker.

He is the only person I know of whose idea of fun is to sit down and analyze a PEF (Palestine Exploration Foundation) survey map. Something I've learned from Dad is to always plan the logistics of an expedition, who you are with, where you are, what you have, what you are travelling by, and plan your route accordingly.

That is why 4x4 travel will give you a skewed idea of desert routes.

[volgadon]

A Bedouin encampment near Jericho at the turn of the century. It isn't very large.

This one is near Capernaum, at around the same time. Note that this tent is even smaller.

This would not be a delight to carry by hand, goatskin is heavy, but it is possible. This is assuming that Lehi's tents were like Bedouin ones.