robuchan Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 Have you figured out how Nephi found an ox when they landed? You include that question in your continued study. You might start by reading wiki:Note that they are "trained" and normally "castrated". Now, ask yourself, does a cow castrate itself, and self-trained? Are you going to finally admit that the ox indicates inhabitants in the area where Lehi landed?No. I have several possible explanations for this. One, would be that they found tapirs but Joseph didn't know that word, so he translated it as ox. More obvious from the text would be that God created these animals and gave to Lehi's family as blessings to help them get started in their new land.
robuchan Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 OK, so admittedly I'm not up on Jaredite/Nephite timelines, but I've been trying to understand it.What's the timeline for the end of Ether's record and the final destruction of Jaredites. It appears it's in a window of 550 BC and 200 BC?
cdowis Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) No. I have several possible explanations for this. One, would be that they found tapirs but Joseph didn't know that word, so he translated it as ox. More obvious from the text would be that God created these animals and gave to Lehi's family as blessings to help them get started in their new land.You win. I give up. Edited June 30, 2012 by cdowis
robuchan Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 You win. I give up.http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Anachronisms1.pdf“Ox” or “oxen” is mentioned six times in the Book of Mormon (Ether 9:18; 1 Nephi 18:25; 2 Nephi 17:25; 2 Nephi 21:7; 2 Nephi 30:13; Mosiah 13:24). Some critics charge that this is an anachronism because, they claim, an “ox” is a castrated bull – something that would be impossible to find in the wild (see 1 Nephi 18:25). Ox, however, also refers to members of the subfamily Bovinae, in the Bovidae family, which includes Asiatic buffaloes, African buffaloes, cattle, and bison. A glance at a good encyclopedia will reveal the listing of other “wild ox” such as the yak, banteng, and the wild North African ox.15 Some LDS scholars have suggested that the Book of Mormon “ox” may refer to the tapir, camelidae, or perhaps bison.16
CASteinman Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Impossible to know. How fast could a Nephite walk? How many hours is a day and a half?
robuchan Posted June 30, 2012 Author Posted June 30, 2012 You win. I give up.]Anyway, don't you have bigger problems if you insist the Nephites had domesticated animals like ox, cattle, horse?
cursor Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) I see that there are strong opinions on this subject, which have already been discussed at length in another topic (just two weeks ago)..[edit: and now it seems that the discussion has drifted off-topic.] Edited June 30, 2012 by cursor
robuchan Posted July 1, 2012 Author Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) OK, so admittedly I'm not up on Jaredite/Nephite timelines, but I've been trying to understand it.What's the timeline for the end of Ether's record and the final destruction of Jaredites. It appears it's in a window of 550 BC and 200 BC?No one cares to engage me here? The Dehlin vs MI thing is entertaining, but I really am interested in this.It seems a little random that the three groups: Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites all travel from the Old World to the New World and land and occupy nearly the exact spot. It also seems random that the Lehites would land, and instantly be absorbed into Others, yet never have any contact with one of the world's most advanced largest (2M+ population in a small area) and advanced civilizations at the time that was just a few miles north. It also seems random that the Mulekites would land even closer to the Lehites and get absorbed by Others before they get a chance to mix with the Lehites. It also seems a little odd and random that Others are everywhere, such that you would not expect Lehi to land without immediately being absorbed into their culture, yet the land the Jaredites lived in went vacant for 400 years or so until the Nephites (not Others).Are these things truly random, or am I not understanding the narrative (something I freely admit is possible, if so please help me out)? Edited July 1, 2012 by robuchan
Freedom Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 No one cares to engage me here? The Dehlin vs MI thing is entertaining, but I really am interested in this.It seems a little random that the three groups: Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites all travel from the Old World to the New World and land and occupy nearly the exact spot. It also seems random that the Lehites would land, and instantly be absorbed into Others, yet never have any contact with one of the world's most advanced largest (2M+ population in a small area) and advanced civilizations at the time that was just a few miles north. It also seems random that the Mulekites would land even closer to the Lehites and get absorbed by Others before they get a chance to mix with the Lehites. It also seems a little odd and random that Others are everywhere, such that you would not expect Lehi to land without immediately being absorbed into their culture, yet the land the Jaredites lived in went vacant for 400 years or so until the Nephites (not Others).Are these things truly random, or am I not understanding the narrative (something I freely admit is possible, if so please help me out)?These assumptions were responded to, you just ignored them. But let me go over it again. Who says they were never in contact with them? who says they were just a few miles north? who says the Mulekites were never in touch with them? Who says the land of the Jaradites went vacant for 400 years? You are making sweeping assumptions to justify your pretense that the book is false.
robuchan Posted July 1, 2012 Author Posted July 1, 2012 These assumptions were responded to, you just ignored them. But let me go over it again. Who says they were never in contact with them? who says they were just a few miles north? who says the Mulekites were never in touch with them? Who says the land of the Jaradites went vacant for 400 years? You are making sweeping assumptions to justify your pretense that the book is false.No these are new questions. And you're not answering them. I'm trying to get some common understanding of what is taking place. We can worry about the implications later.Who says they were never in contact with them? Omni 1:19-21who says they were just a few miles north? The Mulekites were basically right on top of the Nephites, and became integrated the first time a Nephite group ventured out. The LGT theory dictates the Jaredites were just a day and half's journey, north, right. That's what several have said in this thread. Who says the land of the Jaradites went vacant for 400 years? Limhi's people discover the Jaredites land around 130 BC. They find bones and rusted swords and ruins and refer to the land as "peopled" in past tense. Alma 22 around 90 BC gives us another data point. When the Nephites went northward to the land Desolate around 50 BC, the land is still uninhabited.
CASteinman Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 No one cares to engage me here? The Dehlin vs MI thing is entertaining, but I really am interested in this.It seems a little random that the three groups: Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites all travel from the Old World to the New World and land and occupy nearly the exact spot. It also seems random that the Lehites would land, and instantly be absorbed into Others, yet never have any contact with one of the world's most advanced largest (2M+ population in a small area) and advanced civilizations at the time that was just a few miles north. It also seems random that the Mulekites would land even closer to the Lehites and get absorbed by Others before they get a chance to mix with the Lehites. It also seems a little odd and random that Others are everywhere, such that you would not expect Lehi to land without immediately being absorbed into their culture, yet the land the Jaredites lived in went vacant for 400 years or so until the Nephites (not Others).Are these things truly random, or am I not understanding the narrative (something I freely admit is possible, if so please help me out)?What's to help? you have perceptions. This is all about how things "seem" to you. There is nothing that can be done about that here.
robuchan Posted July 1, 2012 Author Posted July 1, 2012 What's to help? you have perceptions. This is all about how things "seem" to you. There is nothing that can be done about that here.That's fine. What I'm looking for is two things. 1) to check to see if you agree on my observations of the text and 2) if you don't agree with my conclusions "seems random or improbable" to explain why you don't think it seems random or improbable.
CASteinman Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 That's fine. What I'm looking for is two things. 1) to check to see if you agree on my observations of the text and 2) if you don't agree with my conclusions "seems random or improbable" to explain why you don't think it seems random or improbable.Oh. OK.I do not agree. It does not seem improbable to me because I do not accept your premises. I do not think the Jaredites, Nephites and Mulekites occupied the same land and I do not think the distances were all that easy to travel, especially in pre-columbian times with dense forests.But I do not have anything specific to focus on because most of your complaints are that you perceive things a certain way -- and do not give any reason for that perception. If you had some cogent reasons stated, I could focus on those.
webbles Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 No one cares to engage me here? The Dehlin vs MI thing is entertaining, but I really am interested in this.It seems a little random that the three groups: Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites all travel from the Old World to the New World and land and occupy nearly the exact spot. It also seems random that the Lehites would land, and instantly be absorbed into Others, yet never have any contact with one of the world's most advanced largest (2M+ population in a small area) and advanced civilizations at the time that was just a few miles north. It also seems random that the Mulekites would land even closer to the Lehites and get absorbed by Others before they get a chance to mix with the Lehites. It also seems a little odd and random that Others are everywhere, such that you would not expect Lehi to land without immediately being absorbed into their culture, yet the land the Jaredites lived in went vacant for 400 years or so until the Nephites (not Others).Are these things truly random, or am I not understanding the narrative (something I freely admit is possible, if so please help me out)?I wouldn't say they occupied the exact same spot. The distance from Zarahemla to Nephi is somewhere between 20 and 40 days of travel (40 days according to Mosiah 7: 4 or 21 days according to Mosiah 23: 8, 22: 20&25). If you average just 10 miles a day (which is probably low), that's 200-400 miles.Also, I believe Zarahemla is not very near an ocean (this is based on the "maps" that people have attempted to create for the Book of Mormon so I could be wrong). That means that the Mulekites had to travel a significant distance from their landing point before they reached Zarahemla.And what is wrong with leaving a land vacant for a long period of time? If it was desolated to the point that you need cement to live there, then no one would live there until cement was invented. Not because they don't want to but because they cannot.
cursor Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) The Mulekites were basically right on top of the Nephites, and became integrated the first time a Nephite group ventured out. The LGT theory dictates the Jaredites were just a day and half's journey, north, right[?]If you are indeed being honest about really wanting to know, then I think that you have simply not understood the information that has been offered. Or, perhaps the presentation of the information has been less than optimal.As a single example (referencing your quotation above), according to the LGT theory the Jaredites were not "just a day and [a] half's journey, north." The narrow neck of land was "a day and a half's journey for a Nephite" (Alma 22:32). The distance from Zarahemla might have been more on the order of 250 miles. I expect that this could be helpful: Distances and Directions, John L. Sorenson. [This is one chapter from his book, "Mormon's Map." I note that the Maxwell Institute's online presentation doesn't offer any of the map illustrations that are included in the printed book. You can purchase a used copy from Amazon for less than four dollars. I'd highly recommend it.]You should find this article interesting: A Day and a Half's Journey for a Nephite, John L. SorensonI can also recommend, When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?, John L. Sorenson[edit: added references and links] Edited July 1, 2012 by cursor
robuchan Posted July 2, 2012 Author Posted July 2, 2012 If you are indeed being honest about really wanting to know, then I think that you have simply not understood the information that has been offered. Or, perhaps the presentation of the information has been less than optimal.As a single example (referencing your quotation above), according to the LGT theory the Jaredites were not "just a day and [a] half's journey, north." The narrow neck of land was "a day and a half's journey for a Nephite" (Alma 22:32). The distance from Zarahemla might have been more on the order of 250 miles. I expect that this could be helpful: Distances and Directions, John L. Sorenson. [This is one chapter from his book, "Mormon's Map." I note that the Maxwell Institute's online presentation doesn't offer any of the map illustrations that are included in the printed book. You can purchase a used copy from Amazon for less than four dollars. I'd highly recommend it.]You should find this article interesting: A Day and a Half's Journey for a Nephite, John L. SorensonI can also recommend, When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?, John L. Sorenson[edit: added references and links]Thanks, you're right, I misunderstood the day and a half journey thing. They're still close (ie relative to the American continent), but not as close as I mentioned.
cursor Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 If you'll study the material from the three references that I offered, you'll have a much better understanding of plausible Book of Mormon geography.After you devour the above, I'll be more than happy to offer additional materials that shed light on the subject of ancient transoceanic voyages to the Americas. 1
Freedom Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Omni 1:19-21You are making unjustified assumptions about this text. Regardless, you need to familiarize yourself with the geography of southern Mexico. The Mulekites were basically right on top of the Nephites, and became integrated the first time a Nephite group ventured out. The LGT theory dictates the Jaredites were just a day and half's journey, north, right. That's what several have said in this thread.If they were 'right on top of the Nephites' when why was it that the Nephites had to travel through the wilderness to find them? You need to provide references that support these claims. Again, become familiar with the geography of southern Mexico. Limhi's people discover the Jaredites land around 130 BC. They find bones and rusted swords and ruins and refer to the land as "peopled" in past tense. Alma 22 around 90 BC gives us another data point. When the Nephites went northward to the land Desolate around 50 BC, the land is still uninhabited.You are assuming that they found the entire realm of the Jaredites. At best they found one of the remaining cities. Once more, I suggest you become familiar with the geography, and the current archaeology of Southern Mexico. You are also applying a very 19th-21th century view of nation states on what would have been loosely associated tribal groups.
Freedom Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Thanks, you're right, I misunderstood the day and a half journey thing. They're still close (ie relative to the American continent), but not as close as I mentioned.They were close if you had modern freeways and cars. Consider how long it took the Saints to travel from Nauvoo to Winter Quarters on open and flat plains.
Anijen Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 It is interesting to note that the people of Zarahemla did not give the name of Lamanites to their enemies. As Brant Gardner writes in his book;"they would not have known the term. Furthermore, if the Nephites did not find the Zarahemlaites for three hundred years, then it is logical that the "true" Lamanites would not have found them either. This verse makes it incontestably clear that the Book of Mormon is speaking of, but not naming, indigenous peoples." Brant Gardner Second Witness Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volumne Three Enos through Mosiah, 59-60 1
cursor Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) It is interesting to note that the people of Zarahemla did not give the name of Lamanites to their enemiesThere's no indication that the people of Zarahemla (those descendants of Mulek, and of his traveling party), who settled in the land of Zarahemla before king Mosiah arrived from the land of Nephi (Omni 1:12-14), were not previously aware of the Nephites—much less of the Lamanites (who lived even further southward). Not knowing that they even existed (the Lamanites were never their enemies), they wouldn't have had names for either group. Edited July 2, 2012 by cursor
robuchan Posted July 2, 2012 Author Posted July 2, 2012 It is interesting to note that the people of Zarahemla did not give the name of Lamanites to their enemies. As Brant Gardner writes in his book;"they would not have known the term. Furthermore, if the Nephites did not find the Zarahemlaites for three hundred years, then it is logical that the "true" Lamanites would not have found them either. This verse makes it incontestably clear that the Book of Mormon is speaking of, but not naming, indigenous peoples." Brant Gardner Second Witness Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volumne Three Enos through Mosiah, 59-60I'm not following this. Can you explain in more detail?
Anijen Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) I'm not following this. Can you explain in more detail?The people of Zarahemla did not have Lamanite enemies. The enemy of the people of Zarahemla were not termed Lamanites. If they had common enemies, after the two groups met, they should have been able to connect their enemies with the Nephite enemies [Lamanites]. The Mulekites I'm sure had a name for their enemies but the term Lamanite was never used.This is a point for indigenous people [the others] that I argue was there. IMO this is one of those small gems that come out from deep study of the book. Edited July 2, 2012 by Jeff Holt
robuchan Posted July 2, 2012 Author Posted July 2, 2012 The people of Zarahemla did not have Lamanite enemies. The enemy of the people of Zarahemla were not termed Lamanites. If they had common enemies, after the two groups met, they should have been able to connect their enemies with the Nephite enemies [Lamanites]. The Mulekites I'm sure had a name for their enemies but the term Lamanite was never used.This is a point for indigenous people [the others] that I argue was there. IMO this is one of those small gems that come out from deep study of the book.Is this from Mosiah 8? Where are the enemies of the Mulekites referenced?
Recommended Posts