Conquest of Jerusalem - 597 BCE

[ElfLord]

This is actually a bulls eye for the Book of Mormon as stated by Hamblin and Bokovoy the destruction was later. Does the BofM verify this? yes see 2 Nephi 1:4, oh my what started out as an attempt to damage the BofM the text comes to the rescue and turns it into a bulls eye.

2 Nephi 1:4

For, behold, said he, I have aseen a vision, in which I know that Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have perished. (between 588-677 B.C.)

Ssshhh, Now the critics are going to move the goal posts and say that Joseph Smith knew it all along and incorporated it into his "fictious" story. That backwoods pious genious that he was at age 20.

Oh the tangled webs we weeve...

[Fifth Columnist]

Interesting that this could be considered a "really tough question." In my mind, Laman and Lemuel's perspective on the "inviolability of Jerusalem

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay, I can see that maybe this isn't a really tough question, but I don't know that it qualifies as a bullseye.

I have it on good authority that the bulls eyes and the problems with the BoM are in the eye of the beholder.

[ElfLord]

I have it on good authority that the bulls eyes and the problems with the BoM are in the eye of the beholder.

Are you saying that those who see them as bulls eyes have bulls eyes and horns? (Elluding to a mormon stereotype)

[phaedrus ut]

Okay, I can see that maybe this isn't a really tough question, but I don't know that it qualifies as a bullseye.

This thread make me go back and reread 1 Nephi and I found dozens of bullseyes there. Not only would Jerusalem be destroyed but they would also return from captivity, the messiah would be born 600 years later, he will organize 12 apostles, one apostle would be named John and he would write about the last days, and that Jesus would be baptized by John the Baptist, suffer and be crucified.

It's not possible that Nephi could have know any of those specific details.

phaedrus

[Fifth Columnist]

This thread make me go back and reread 1 Nephi and I found dozens of bullseyes there. Not only would Jerusalem be destroyed but they would also return from captivity, the messiah would be born 600 years later, he will organize 12 apostles, one apostle would be named John and he would write about the last days, and that Jesus would be baptized by John the Baptist, suffer and be crucified.

It's not possible that Nephi could have know any of those specific details.

phaedrus

LOL. I know what you mean. Oddly enough, Nephi's prescience became much less detailed when it came to post 1830 events. I mean he prophesied of Columbus, the founding of America, the three witnesses, and even the names of Joseph Smith and his father, but everything after 1830 is very vague.

It's hard for me to believe that the hard hearted Jews (including Laman and Lemuel) thinking that Jerusalem couldn't be destroyed is especially strong evidence of the historicity of the BOM. If Joseph were writing an inspired novel where the first prophet warns the inhabitants of Jerusalem that they and their city will be destroyed, it seems less than remarkable that Joseph would have the people reject that message, especially since doing so sets up said prophets departure from the city to a new world.

[Mortal Man]

You need to look at the Babylon-Jerusalem situation from the context of the Assyria-Jerusalem situation.

There are important differences; e.g., the plague and the fact that Hezekiah was not deposed.

The precise same type of vassal-tributary relationship was established between Hezekiah and Assyria. Assyria conquered all of Judah, Jerusalem was besieged, Jerusalem paid vast tribute, thousands went into captivity, and Isaiah declared it a triumph of Yahweh because Jerusalem and the temple were spared.

Isaiah did indeed declare it a triumph of Yahweh. In fact, he describes the failed Assyrian conquest in such detail that you get the feeling he was actually there at the time.

This is not a historical problem. Why do you insist on making it one?

History is not the problem. The problem is Nephi's deafening silence regarding the momentous events surrounding him. If Isaiah had never mentioned Sennacherib or the Assyrian siege or Hezekiah's politics then your comparison might be meaningful.

[Mortal Man]

Jehoiachin and that siege are not mentioned by Nephi for the same reason that biblical books regularly proceed to tell their particular story by taking up where the previous book left off.

You mean Book of Mormon books. This is manifestly not the case for most biblical books where "previous book" is rarely even definable.

We might speculate that the Book of Lehi actually contained such details (but Martin Harris lost it),

Or we might read 1 Nephi 17: "But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life." and deduce that Nephi must not have found any mention of the Babylonian siege in Lehi's record.

Isn't it odd that Nephi suddenly gets the urge to interrupt his narrative to tell us about his future plans to write a different record on different plates? It's almost as if he's telling us, "Don't worry if this first record gets lost." But why does he break context so suddenly by jumping in with this utterly irrelevant tidbit right at the beginning of his story?

but we know that the portions of Jeremiah which were on the Brass Plates likely included the siege of 597 and all the events leading up to it (1 Nephi 5:13).

Let's take a look at 1 Nephi 5:12-13:

12 And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah.

Twice in a row he casually refers to the "commencement of the reign of Zedekiah" as if there were nothing unusual about his coronation. I think that Isaiah would have at least mentioned the man who put Zedekiah on his throne.

In fact Nephi starts with the commencement of the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, who took the throne on about 10 Nisannu = 22 April 597 BC (I Nephi 1:4). Indeed, Lehi is called as a prophet at that time, and the First Book of Nephi is concerned almost exclusively with the meaning of Lehi's visions and the trek of his clan into South Arabia.

And the First Book of Nephi is completely unconcerned about the thousands and thousand of well-to-do able-bodied craftsmen, such as Nephi, who were, at that very moment, being hauled away captive by Nebuchadnezzar.

[Mortal Man]

So if anything, this dissonance is actually a bull's eye for the BofM.

Show me evidence that Joseph Smith was aware of the siege of 597 BC and I'll grant you victory.

(Hint: You won't find it in Ethan Smith's book.)

[Mortal Man]

Ssshhh, Now the critics are going to move the goal posts and say that Joseph Smith knew it all along and incorporated it into his "fictious" story. That backwoods pious genious that he was at age 20.

Oh the tangled webs we weeve...

There's no need to move the goal posts. No critic has ever claimed that Joseph was not aware of the 587 BC conquest.

[stemelbow]

Show me evidence that Joseph Smith was aware of the siege of 597 BC and I'll grant you victory.

you mean the guy who didn't know there were walls around Jerusalem?

Simply put you don't know if Lehi and co left town days after any such (597) seige took place or not. Do you?

[ElfLord]

you mean the guy who didn't know there were walls around Jerusalem?

Simply put you don't know if Lehi and co left town days after any such (597) seige took place or not. Do you?

That was just a smoke and mirrors publicity stunt, so critics during Joseph's time would think he was dumb as a door knob and make the Miracle of the Book of Mormon seem larger than life.

[Bill Hamblin]

Show me evidence that Joseph Smith was aware of the siege of 597 BC and I'll grant you victory.

(Hint: You won't find it in Ethan Smith's book.)

So, let's see. You want me to believe that Joseph was smart enough to invent the BOM and insert all sorts of subtle Near Eastern words, concepts and names, and examine arcane maps of Arabia and the Comoros islands to come up with place names, but never read 2 Kings 24 (where, by the way, the first mention of Zedekiah is found, 2 Kgs 24.18), even though it was right before the king whose reign begins the BOM? You really want me to believe that's a coherent, cogent theory, that actually explains the production of the book? It's a variant on the long-standing idiot-savant theory (e.g. Joseph was so stupid he didn't know Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but could invent the BOM), and, quite frankly, it's an idiotic theory that merits no more response.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's a variant on the long-standing idiot-savant theory (e.g. Joseph was so stupid he didn't know Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but could invent the BOM), and, quite frankly, it's an idiotic theory that merits no more response.

Oh, this reminds me of the good ol' days with you and Tarski.

[Mortal Man]

So, let's see. You want me to believe that Joseph was smart enough to invent the BOM and insert all sorts of subtle Near Eastern words, concepts and names, and examine arcane maps of Arabia and the Comoros islands to come up with place names, but never read 2 Kings 24 (where, by the way, the first mention of Zedekiah is found, 2 Kgs 24.18), even though it was right before the king whose reign begins the BOM? You really want me to believe that's a coherent, cogent theory, that actually explains the production of the book?

As certain luminaries of this board are wont to say, "Can we try to focus here?"

I believe that I will be held responsible for my own arguments, and not for other critics' theories.

I didn't say you had to find evidence, only that you might look for some evidence as as means of escaping the hole you've got yourself into. I'm just trying to help you out.

It's a variant on the long-standing idiot-savant theory (e.g. Joseph was so stupid he didn't know Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but could invent the BOM), and, quite frankly, it's an idiotic theory that merits no more response.

Except that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. If Alma 7:10 had read, "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Nazareth which is in the land of Galilee, she being a wife of Joseph, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed by her husband and conceive by the power of procreation, and bring forth a son, yea, even a son of Joseph." then I would take serious pause and award the book a major atomic direct hit.

[Robert F. Smith]

The First Book of Nephi begins after Nebuchadrezzar's siege has ended on Babylonian 2 Addaru (= 16 March 597 BC) and King Jehoiachin and his retainers have been taken captive to Babylon (where he is finally released from prison in 562 BC, II Kings 25:27). Jehoiachin and that siege are not mentioned by Nephi for the same reason that biblical books regularly proceed to tell their particular story by taking up where the previous book left off.

You mean Book of Mormon books. This is manifestly not the case for most biblical books where "previous book" is rarely even definable.

No, I mean "biblical books," which regularly fail to mention important events which have just occurred simply because they are already contained in the previous narrative, e.g., the death of 70,000 Israelites from Dan to Beersheba (II Samuel 24:15) is not mentioned by the writer of I Kings 1 only a few verses later; likewise, Jeremiah doesn't tell us that the father of Josiah was an apostate who had been assassinated, both because he was called in the 13th year of the reign of Josiah, and because he knew that the fact was already on record; just so Zephaniah merely mentions the name of the father of Josiah -- Amon, but has nothing further to say of him; likewise Ezekiel starts off his account with a date formula and further places it in the 5th year of the captivity of King Jehoiachin. No flashbacks needed.

We might speculate that the Book of Lehi actually contained such details (but Martin Harris lost it), but we know that the portions of Jeremiah which were on the Brass Plates likely included the siege of 597 and all the events leading up to it (1 Nephi 5:13).

In fact Nephi starts with the commencement of the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, who took the throne on about 10 Nisannu = 22 April 597 BC (I Nephi 1:4). Indeed, Lehi is called as a prophet at that time, and the First Book of Nephi is concerned almost exclusively with the meaning of Lehi's visions and the trek of his clan into South Arabia.

Or we might read 1 Nephi 17: "But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life." and deduce that Nephi must not have found any mention of the Babylonian siege in Lehi's record.

Isn't it odd that Nephi suddenly gets the urge to interrupt his narrative to tell us about his future plans to write a different record on different plates? It's almost as if he's telling us, "Don't worry if this first record gets lost." But why does he break context so suddenly by jumping in with this utterly irrelevant tidbit right at the beginning of his story?

Let's take a look at 1 Nephi 5:12-13:

12 And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;

13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah.

Twice in a row he casually refers to the "commencement of the reign of Zedekiah" as if there were nothing unusual about his coronation. I think that Isaiah would have at least mentioned the man who put Zedekiah on his throne.

And the First Book of Nephi is completely unconcerned about the thousands and thousand of well-to-do able-bodied craftsmen, such as Nephi, who were, at that very moment, being hauled away captive by Nebuchadnezzar.

Putting aside for the moment the Brass Plates and the complexities of the Large Plates of Nephi (from which he abridged the Book of Lehi, the translation of which was lost), and the Small Plates of Nephi, each of which is declared to have different content and purpose, wouldn't it be absurd to require that the account of I Nephi perform "dog tricks" according to some non-biblical pattern? What would you say then?

You're just a mortal man. You can't have it both ways.

[Robert F. Smith]

Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. If Alma 7:10 had read, "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Nazareth which is in the land of Galilee, she being a wife of Joseph, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed by her husband and conceive by the power of procreation, and bring forth a son, yea, even a son of Joseph." then I would take serious pause and award the book a major atomic direct hit.

That's a deft way of avoiding the very difficult implications of the non-biblical phrase in Alma 7:10 "land of Jerusalem" being found in the Amarna Letters. It isn't only that the Dan Vogel theory that Joseph had to have been the greatest scholar of his day and therefore surely knew that the Bible placed the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (even if only for early Christian apologetic reasons, since it was the birthplace of King David also), but why would he throw us the curve of saying that Jesus was born in the "land of Jerusalem"? Was it because he brilliantly deduced (based on European and Crusader history) that Jerusalem was a duchy which included Bethlehem in its jurisdiction? How cunning!! I can envision him pouring over the best maps available at Harvard College.

[Mortal Man]

No, I mean "biblical books," which regularly fail to mention important events which have just occurred simply because they are already contained in the previous narrative, e.g., the death of 70,000 Israelites from Dan to Beersheba (II Samuel 24:15) is not mentioned by the writer of I Kings 1 only a few verses later; likewise, Jeremiah doesn't tell us that the father of Josiah was an apostate who had been assassinated, both because he was called in the 13th year of the reign of Josiah, and because he knew that the fact was already on record; just so Zephaniah merely mentions the name of the father of Josiah -- Amon, but has nothing further to say of him; likewise Ezekiel starts off his account with a date formula and further places it in the 5th year of the captivity of King Jehoiachin. No flashbacks needed.

So whenever a biblical writer fails to mention some event we should assume it's because he knew it was already "on record" (whatever that means) in the "previous narrative" (whatever that means)? And since I Kings 1 is "only a few verses later" than II Samuel 24:15, we should assume that the Tanakh was composed on one giant scroll passed down from Moses to Malachi? If I wrote a book about my personal experience on 9/11 but failed to mention airplanes, terrorists, the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, would you assume that I just didn't want to repeat "the previous narrative"?

What you have described is actually pretty close to the views of Joseph Smith. He viewed the books of the Old Testament as having been written in the same chronological order as they appear in the Bible, and accumulated, as they were passed down, in a single volume.

Putting aside for the moment the Brass Plates and the complexities of the Large Plates of Nephi (from which he abridged the Book of Lehi, the translation of which was lost), and the Small Plates of Nephi, each of which is declared to have different content and purpose, wouldn't it be absurd to require that the account of I Nephi perform "dog tricks" according to some non-biblical pattern? What would you say then?

I don't think that a brief mention of Nebuchadnezzar, or the tens of thousands of his neighbors being taken prisoner, or the pludering of the temple would constitute "dog tricks" for Nephi.

You're just a mortal man. You can't have it both ways.

Lol, we mortal men are capable of quite a lot. I'm not trying to "have it" any way at all. I simply follow the facts to their logical conclusion.

That's a deft way of avoiding the very difficult implications of the non-biblical phrase in Alma 7:10 "land of Jerusalem" being found in the Amarna Letters. It isn't only that the Dan Vogel theory that Joseph had to have been the greatest scholar of his day and therefore surely knew that the Bible placed the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (even if only for early Christian apologetic reasons, since it was the birthplace of King David also), but why would he throw us the curve of saying that Jesus was born in the "land of Jerusalem"? Was it because he brilliantly deduced (based on European and Crusader history) that Jerusalem was a duchy which included Bethlehem in its jurisdiction? How cunning!! I can envision him pouring over the best maps available at Harvard College.

Perhaps you should take this up with Dan Vogel.

In the mean time, if you want to respond to my arguments, you're more than welcome

[Bill Hamblin]

I simply follow the facts to their logical conclusion.

What preposterous posturing!

[Bill Hamblin]

So whenever a biblical writer fails to mention some event we should assume it's because he knew it was already "on record" (whatever that means) in the "previous narrative" (whatever that means)? And since I Kings 1 is "only a few verses later" than II Samuel 24:15, we should assume that the Tanakh was composed on one giant scroll passed down from Moses to Malachi? If I wrote a book about my personal experience on 9/11 but failed to mention airplanes, terrorists, the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, would you assume that I just didn't want to repeat "the previous narrative"?

So I take it you are unaware that the standard critical scholarly theory is that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are all part of the "Deutronomistic History." They are, according to this theory, "one giant scroll." The reason there are multiple books is because of the standard size of scroll production in the ancient world, making a "book."

[volgadon]

So whenever a biblical writer fails to mention some event we should assume it's because he knew it was already "on record" (whatever that means) in the "previous narrative" (whatever that means)? And since I Kings 1 is "only a few verses later" than II Samuel 24:15, we should assume that the Tanakh was composed on one giant scroll passed down from Moses to Malachi? If I wrote a book about my personal experience on 9/11 but failed to mention airplanes, terrorists, the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, would you assume that I just didn't want to repeat "the previous narrative"?

Perhaps not part of the previous narrative, but if I were to write an account of my life around the time I met my wife, focusing on that event and the circumstances surrounding our courtship, would you assume that I was unaware of the Orange Revolution several months prior, or the bus bombing by Pardes Hannah, or the Second Intifada?

The Orange Revolution occured a few months prior to meeting my wife. She took an active role in the revolution.

The bus by Pardes Hannah blew up before my very eyes, when I was in basic training. On top of that, my neighbour was actually one of the wounded.

The Second Intifida started not far from my highschool at the time. It spread to the town closest to where my home was.

All of these were major events that I can vividly recollect, yet they would form no part of my narrative. Do you see what I'm getting at?

[Mortal Man]

So I take it you are unaware that the standard critical scholarly theory is that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are all part of the "Deutronomistic History." They are, according to this theory, "one giant scroll." The reason there are multiple books is because of the standard size of scroll production in the ancient world, making a "book."

I have no trouble believing that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, as we currently have them, are the work of a single redactor, "D", circa 550 BC. D's sources however, were originally independent; e.g., in Kings, his alternation between the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah show him comparing accession dates in separate texts.

The apparent fact that disparate historical writings were eventually put together into "one giant scroll" doesn't support Robert's thesis; in fact, it undermines it. D didn't experience first-hand the events he wrote about and his "previous" author was himself. Furthermore, according to Robert's theory, we should find nothing in Chronicles duplicating material in Kings.

Robert assumes that the surrendering of Jerusalem, deposing of the king, plundering of the temple and deporting of tens of thousands of prominent citizens were covered in the Book of Lehi and/or the Brass Plates in sufficient detail that Nephi didn't feel any need to mention them. If all these events were on the Brass Plates then Laban's scribe must have been engraving them up to the moment Nephi killed Laban. If Nephi proceeded to tell his "particular story by taking up where the previous book left off" then why did he copy ~1/3 of Isaiah directly off the Brass Plates (including four chapters which had yet to be written)?

Regarding the lost Book of Lehi, why couldn't the Lord have made provision for Nephi to copy just a wee bit of the "plain and precious parts" about Nebuchadnezzar, the temple and/or 597-BC captivity onto his small plates?

[Mortal Man]

Perhaps not part of the previous narrative, but if I were to write an account of my life around the time I met my wife, focusing on that event and the circumstances surrounding our courtship, would you assume that I was unaware of the Orange Revolution several months prior, or the bus bombing by Pardes Hannah, or the Second Intifada?

The Orange Revolution occured a few months prior to meeting my wife. She took an active role in the revolution.

The bus by Pardes Hannah blew up before my very eyes, when I was in basic training. On top of that, my neighbour was actually one of the wounded.

The Second Intifida started not far from my highschool at the time. It spread to the town closest to where my home was.

All of these were major events that I can vividly recollect, yet they would form no part of my narrative. Do you see what I'm getting at?

If your scope were limited to just you and your wife then you might leave out elements of your milieu; however, Nephi's scope is much broader. He repeatedly mentions the king, his social environment, the politics and preachings of the many prophets, his brothers' beliefs, his father's views and anything and everything deemed important about Jerusalem except for the major defining events of his day.

[volgadon]

If your scope were limited to just you and your wife then you might leave out elements of your milieu;

Yet the above events had an impact on that first meeting, especially the first two I mentioned. No, I'm not going to go into details.

however, Nephi's scope is much broader. He repeatedly mentions the king,

All of three times. In one of those he evens mentions something supporting Robert's assumption. 1 N 5:12.

his social environment,

Very vague about it.

the politics and preachings of the many prophets,

All he really does is note that there was preaching and political scheming.

his brothers' beliefs,

Only when they have a direct impact on the narrative.

his father's views

Again, only when it has a direct impact on the narrative.

and anything and everything deemed important about Jerusalem except for the major defining events of his day.

Do please be more specific about the "anything and everything."

[Anijen]

If your scope were limited to just you and your wife then you might leave out elements of your milieu; however, Nephi's scope is much broader. He repeatedly mentions the king, his social environment, the politics and preachings of the many prophets, his brothers' beliefs, his father's views and anything and everything deemed important about Jerusalem except for the major defining events of his day.

Jacob 1:2

And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi.

Yet Nephi is reluctant to write too much of secular things you can see it in his writings and also in the instructions he gives his brother Jacob..