tagriffy Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Larry Poulson's approach to the story of Limhi's explorers not only accounts for how they missed Zarahemla, but also for what they described on their journey, and where they found a site that they could have mistaken for Zarahemla. Among other things. Poulson's approach doesn't account for a number of things I pointed out. I didn't necessarily expect this given that it appears we are dealing with a relatively short presentation doesn't go too far into too much depth. Nevertheless, it isn't just missing Zarahemla and Ammon's party that we need to account for. We also need to account for the fact that both parties missed Amulon and/or Helam in their travels. Those problems are even mentioned, and indeed Poulson's solution may very well exacerbate that problem. Never mind that though. Even discounting that, Poulson's solution produces its own problems: 1. The basic knowledge possessed by Limhi would have likely also been possessed by Ammon. Remember, Zeniff had no apparent problems finding Nephi not once but twice. So what's Ammon's excuse for wandering "forty days" because "they knew not the course they should travel" (Mosiah 7:4)? All they would have had to do was follow the Sidon themselves. 2. Poulson's solution involves Limhi's men going up the wrong river, a river that is not so much as mentioned in the text. Even granting the second river gratis will raise questions about how Limhi's group wound up following the wrong river. 3. Presumably by the time Ammon led Limhi's people out of Nephi, we've gotten the proper river sorted out. So how did the Lamanites get so lost? With flocks to feed and water, the group is not going wander too far away from the river. All the Lamanites would have had to do was send scouts up the river and they would have eventually picked up the trail again. The texts we have regarding the flood also have to fit with what we find in the geographic and biological records. No, they don't. The texts are one thing; the geographic and biological records are another; whether and how the texts and records interact is yet another thing. To say the texts "have to fit" with the records is to say that, for whatever reason, it matters that they do. I don't operate from any such constraint. Edited June 16, 2015 by tagriffy
Gervin Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 You bring to the text a broad set of preconceptions, and they control your reading and understanding. Isn't it fair to say that you bring to the table a preconception that the Book of Mormon is true - that it represents a factual history? 1
Kevin Christensen Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Poulson's approach doesn't account for a number of things I pointed out. I didn't necessarily expect this given that it appears we are dealing with a relatively short presentation doesn't go too far into too much depth. Nevertheless, it isn't just missing Zarahemla and Ammon's party that we need to account for. We also need to account for the fact that both parties missed Amulon and/or Helam in their travels. Those problems are even mentioned, and indeed Poulson's solution may very well exacerbate that problem. Never mind that though. Even discounting that, Poulson's solution produces its own problems: 1. The basic knowledge possessed by Limhi would have likely also been possessed by Ammon. Remember, Zeniff had no apparent problems finding Nephi not once but twice. So what's Ammon's excuse for wandering "forty days" because "they knew not the course they should travel?" All they would have had to do was follow the Sidon themselves. 2. Poulson's solution involves Limhi's men going up the wrong river, a river that is not so much as mentioned in the text. Even granting the second river gratis will raise questions about how Limhi's group wound up following the wrong river. 3. Presumably by the time Ammon led Limhi's people out of Nephi, we've gotten the proper river sorted out. So how did the Lamanites get so lost? With flocks to feed and water, the group is not going wander too far away from the river. All the Lamanites would have had to do was send scouts up the river and they would have eventually picked up the trail again. No, they don't. The texts are one thing; the geographic and biological records are another; whether and how the texts and records interact is yet another thing. To say the texts "have to fit" with the records is to say that, for whatever reason, it matters that they do. I don't operate from any such constraint. All of the problems with the Lamanite Kings and soldiers and Amulon regardsing Alma, the Waters of Mormon, and Ammon and Limhi, happen in the land of Nephi which is separated from the Sidon by the narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the East Sea to the West Sea. So the Sidon is in a completely different watershed area and has nothing to do with Alma's group to and around the Waters of Mormon, or Limhi's group, under the politcal watch of Nephi, until they go up out of the Land of Nephi, and through the wilderness, find the source of the river, and follow that down to Zarahemla. The ups and downs also make a difference in the speed of travel. Going up into the wilderness is harder going (and therefore slower) than coming down to Zarahemla. The way Poulson lays out the story All of the action with Limhi and all of the action with Alma happens on the Nephi side of the watershed, so any creeks or streams of lakes involved are separate from the Sidon. It's not until the travelers get up into the narrow strip of wilderness, and happen to encounter the source of the Grijalva (Alma and Zeniff) and can follow that to Zarehemla, that things get clear. Poulson has Limhi's explorers finding the Uscimacinta, whose source is only a few miles from that of the Grijalva, to Va Venta and back. Zeniff had better information and experience, from recent memory rather than grandparents, who would have provided directions for Limhi's men. And we have no certainty that Ammon was going by eye-witness reports of the journey, but rather general curiousity regarding the emigrants. "for his[benjamin's] people had heard nothing from them from the time they left the land of Zarahemla. Mos. 7.1. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburgh, PA Edited June 16, 2015 by Kevin Christensen 2
tagriffy Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 You are certainly entitled to read the text in whatever way you wish, preconceptions and all, but you do need to own up to that. My recommendation is that you read the text more professionally, say in the way suggested by David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy (SLC: Kofford Books, 2014). Based on the reviews I've read, Bokovoy's book is about the formation of Torah. I'm already well-versed in the Documentary Hypothesis, so I'm going to be more interested in what he has to say about the implications for modern scripture. Be it as it may, I'm am dealing with the text in its received ("final") form. Whatever E and P brought to the table has been irrevocably altered when they were redacted together. Moreover, it was the received text the Prophet Joseph Smith was dealing with. To the contrary, you are ignoring what the text actually says, and you are likewise ignoring human history. You bring to the text a broad set of preconceptions, and they control your reading and understanding. Funny thing to say when I keep making reference to and citing the text. To this point, you still haven't brought the text into this. known about them, and vice versa. In fact, we know they did. You will note that the Olmec did not spread throughout the continent, bur remained within a very small area of Mesoamerica. Your primary mistake is to read "land, earth" to be continental here, which is a reading you impose on the text. The only place in the Americas where such large numbers (millions) of warriors could be assembled was in Mesoamerica. Why? Because they, and they alone, had the population base. Actually, to this point I haven't said anything about how far the Jaredites spread. It is you who are imposing your preconceptions of me on what I actually said and finding a mistake I haven't actually made. At best, you are confounding issues I am treating discretely. Again, we must condition our assumptions based on anthropological reaiity. You do not, and you do not even take notice of the fevers in Alma 15:3,5, and 46:40. You assume your own set of facts not in evidence. That's because the text doesn't say anything the fevers in relation the parties' travels. In Ammon's case, we are specifically told why they wound up wandering for forty days--because "they knew not the course they should travel" (Mosiah 7:4). We are told nothing about how Limhi's men missed Zarahemla and wound up in Jaredite territory, just that they did. Putting anything in there assumes facts not in evidence. In the Lamanites' case, we are specifically told they got lost because "they could no longer follow [Limhi's people's] tracks" (Mosiah 22:16), but nothing about how they managed to do that. And they were healthy enough to pose such a threat to both Amulon and Helam that both lands simply surrendered to them (Mosiah 23:25-36). And fever or no fever, both the Ammon/Limhi and Alma groups had a vested interest in making the best speed possible. Or what you want the text to say, or what you will allow it to say. Again, you need to read Bokovoy's study. As Kevin points out, we need to condition our wild assumptions with some geographic and biological facts, in addition to understanding that the Hebrew word for "land, earth" does not require a planetary meaning -- such as you apparently assume. We don't have to do any such thing. The text is the text. Geographic and biological facts are geographic and biological facts. Whether or not the text squares with the facts is yet another question. You're making the assumption that the text somehow squares with the facts. I simply don't care whether they do. Not caring whether the text squares with the facts will surely affect how I read the text. Most prominently, it means that when I am reading the text, the text is the only thing that matters. And for at least the second time in our discussion, I already understand the Hebrew word for "land, earth" does not require a planetary meaning. I am not assuming the term has a global (for the Israelites) or planetary (for Joseph Smith) meaning. I am making a conclusion that in this case it does based on the context in which the term appears. The argument I am making is not based on the definition of a single word, and to even think that it is requires ignoring basically everything I have said about the subject. There is only one place in the Americas where high civilization, writing, astronomy, math, etc., were developed, and that is Mesamerica. We know the terrain and the various cultures which existed there. You are playing guessing games where none are necessary. At this point, I'm not playing any guessing games at all. At this point I'm not even trying to place Nephi and Zarahemla on a map beyond what is already undisputed. Right now, I'm just trying to gauge what is possible based on what Mosiah tells us about the travels of these various groups.
tagriffy Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Isn't it fair to say that you bring to the table a preconception that the Book of Mormon is true - that it represents a factual history? Robert isn't saying that having preconceptions is a problem in itself. We are both agreed that we are bringing preconceptions to the table. In fact, my very first post in this thread was to question the preconceptions necessary to ask a question like "Is the Book of Mormon either true or not?" Robert is not making an accusation when he says I am bringing my preconceptions to the table. He is saying the preconceptions I have will not lead to an accurate understanding of the text. As Kevin might say, the debate is about whose preconceptions will give us the best reading. 1
Storm Rider Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I appreciate a witness that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, was crucified and resurrected, sits on the right hand of the Father, and will return again one day regardless of where it is found. True, always has been and always will be.
tagriffy Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 All of the problems with the Lamanite Kings and soldiers and Amulon regardsing Alma, the Waters of Mormon, and Ammon and Limhi, happen in the land of Nephi which is separated from the Sidon by the narrow strip of wilderness that extends from the East Sea to the West Sea.So the Sidon is in a completely different watershed area and has nothing to do with Alma's group to and around the Waters of Mormon, or Limhi's group, under the politcal watch of Nephi, until they go up out of the Land of Nephi, and through the wilderness, find the source of the river, and follow that down to Zarahemla.The ups and downs also make a difference in the speed of travel. Going up into the wilderness is harder going (and therefore slower) than coming down to Zarahemla. The way Poulson lays out the story All of the action with Limhi and all of the action with Alma happens on the Nephi side of the watershed, so any creeks or streams of lakes involved are separate from the Sidon.It's not until the travelers get up into the narrow strip of wilderness, and happen to encounter the source of the Grijalva (Alma and Zeniff) and can follow that to Zarehemla, that things get clear. Poulson has Limhi's explorers finding the Uscimacinta, whose source is only a few miles from that of the Grijalva, to Va Venta and back. I am not getting any of this from the link you provided. Poulson's presentation doesn't say anything about Alma's group, or Amulon, or the Waters of Mormon. Perhaps you have reference to something else Poulson wrote? Zeniff had better information and experience, from recent memory rather than grandparents, who would have provided directions for Limhi's men. And we have no certainty that Ammon was going by eye-witness reports of the journey, but rather general curiousity regarding the emigrants. "for his[benjamin's] people had heard nothing from them from the time they left the land of Zarahemla. Mos. 7.1. Are we to assume that Ammon had absolutely no records at all to work from or that their curiosity was so overwhelming they were stupid enough not to consult them? That in itself strains credibility. Now, look at the map on p. 24 of Poulson's presentation. The basic instructions for getting to Nephi from Zarahemla are going to be pretty simple: Follow the river. When you get to the fork, take the one that bends south. On Limhi's side, as you said Zeniff provided the necessary information. This by itself raises the question of how they wound up on the wrong river. Granting they went up the wrong river, the next question that gets raised is how they got so far without realizing they had the wrong one. Following the Uscimacinta, they will come to a fork--one oriented completely in the wrong direction. Going up the Grijalva, their options should have been either northwest or southeast, but the option they would have been presented with were either northwest or southwest (roughly speaking). So it's not like they wouldn't have had a clue here.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) You bring to the text a broad set of preconceptions, and they control your reading and understanding. Isn't it fair to say that you bring to the table a preconception that the Book of Mormon is true - that it represents a factual history?We all bring preconceptions to any text, of course. But we all need to suspend belief or disbelief long enough to make a fair appraisal. As Carolyn Graff says: Each researcher brings a priori knowledge, values, beliefs, and biases to the research process. Therefore, a researcher needs to bracket or set aside personal assumptions throughout the research process–particularly during data collection and analysis, thereby recognizing that others’ experiences or cultures may vary from his or her own. However, paradoxically, it is the researcher’s personal experiences and beliefs that enable him or her to thoughtfully analyze the data and interpret the findings.* * Carolyn Graff in H. R. Hall and L. A. Roussel, eds., Evidence-based Practice: An Integrative Approach to Research, Administration, and Practice (Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2014), 66, online at https://books.google.com/books?id=YYE3GrSZdDMC&pg=PR2&dq=Hall,+evidence-based+practice&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAGoVChMI4cCWmueWxgIVyDiICh2qlwdj#v=onepage&q=Hall%2C%20evidence-based%20practice&f=false . Historians and archeologists need to set aside their presentist notions and to participate in scholarly appraisals, always in concert with and in full recognition of the interpretations of others. We keep each other honest. Too often, however, partisans of particular views are unable to set aside their preconceptions, and indeed are entirely controlled by them. That was the complaint I was making. Does that make sense? Edited June 17, 2015 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Based on the reviews I've read, Bokovoy's book is about the formation of Torah. I'm already well-versed in the Documentary Hypothesis, so I'm going to be more interested in what he has to say about the implications for modern scripture. Be it as it may, I'm am dealing with the text in its received ("final") form. Whatever E and P brought to the table has been irrevocably altered when they were redacted together. Moreover, it was the received text the Prophet Joseph Smith was dealing with.Funny thing to say when I keep making reference to and citing the text. To this point, you still haven't brought the text into this.I am well aware of the school of thought known as Canonical Criticism, which concerns itself only with the received text. To me that seems like a game of "let's pretend" that there is only the synchronic text, and pointedly ignore the diachronic way in which that text came into existence, or any geographical or archeological reality which might be brought to bear. That way the Canon is set, as is the liturgy (Prayer Book). That may be well for purposes of worship, or for analysis of the intentions of the final redactor(s), but it is no basis for analysis of reality -- such as you are discussing here. Actually, to this point I haven't said anything about how far the Jaredites spread. It is you who are imposing your preconceptions of me on what I actually said and finding a mistake I haven't actually made. At best, you are confounding issues I am treating discretely.It would be very difficult not to conclude that you in fact made some very strong assumptions along those very lines from your own words: Almost right from the beginning after the Jaredites landed, "they began to spread upon the face of the land, and to multiply and to till the earth; and they did wax strong in the land" (Ether 6:18). They would build "many mighty cities" (e.g., 9:23); Coriantumr could see "that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people" (Ether 15:2), to say nothing of Shiz's dead; always fought civil wars; become rich though trade is never mentioned. Everything they did was done unimpeded and unopposed--which, if true, would probably be the only time in history that has ever happened. Later civilizations may have been ignorant of the Olmecs, but the Olmecs' contemporaries would have almost certainly known about them, and vice versa. In fact, we know they did. That's because the text doesn't say anything the fevers in relation the parties' travels. In Ammon's case, we are specifically told why they wound up wandering for forty days--because "they knew not the course they should travel" (Mosiah 7:4). We are told nothing about how Limhi's men missed Zarahemla and wound up in Jaredite territory, just that they did. Putting anything in there assumes facts not in evidence. In the Lamanites' case, we are specifically told they got lost because "they could no longer follow [Limhi's people's] tracks" (Mosiah 22:16), but nothing about how they managed to do that. And they were healthy enough to pose such a threat to both Amulon and Helam that both lands simply surrendered to them (Mosiah 23:25-36). And fever or no fever, both the Ammon/Limhi and Alma groups had a vested interest in making the best speed possible.You appear to have missed the point, which is geographical -- fevers being most common in tropical and sub-tropical environs. We may even be dealing with malarial problems in those texts.. We don't have to do any such thing. The text is the text. Geographic and biological facts are geographic and biological facts. Whether or not the text squares with the facts is yet another question. You're making the assumption that the text somehow squares with the facts. I simply don't care whether they do. Not caring whether the text squares with the facts will surely affect how I read the text. Most prominently, it means that when I am reading the text, the text is the only thing that matters.Yes, we can deal with the geography of Middle Earth or of the House at Pooh Corner entirely in a text-based fashion. Why then are you injecting reality-based considerations into the mix? And then ignoring the subject when it doesn't jibe with your wild assumptions? And for at least the second time in our discussion, I already understand the Hebrew word for "land, earth" does not require a planetary meaning. I am not assuming the term has a global (for the Israelites) or planetary (for Joseph Smith) meaning. I am making a conclusion that in this case it does based on the context in which the term appears. The argument I am making is not based on the definition of a single word, and to even think that it is requires ignoring basically everything I have said about the subject.............................................................................................If that were the case, you would not feel compelled to make the Flood a worldwide phenomenon. This is also the place where your refusal to consider the diachronic text comes into play, and where Bokovoy could be of most help to you.
tagriffy Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) I am well aware of the school of thought known as Canonical Criticism, which concerns itself only with the received text. To me that seems like a game of "let's pretend" that there is only the synchronic text, and pointedly ignore the diachronic way in which that text came into existence, or any geographical or archeological reality which might be brought to bear. That way the Canon is set, as is the liturgy (Prayer Book). That may be well for purposes of worship, or for analysis of the intentions of the final redactor(s), but it is no basis for analysis of reality -- such as you are discussing here. I had more in mind literary criticism or an extension of redaction criticism than canonical criticism, but at least we are on the right track. The important part here is that I am not trying to analyze reality; I am trying to analyze a text. Here, it is the intentions of the final redactors that I am looking at. The question is, "Whatever the sources and however they were used, what is being pictured in their text?" Geographical or archeological (or any other) reality can be brought to bear in helping us to understand what is being pictured, particularly when says something they knew could be taken for granted by the original audience but for which we have no reference. For example, knowing how Israelite houses were built makes sense of Deuteronomy 22:8 we wouldn't otherwise have. Nevertheless, the question of what the text says and whether the text comports to reality are two different questions. And at this point, I'm still working on what the text says. It would be very difficult not to conclude that you in fact made some very strong assumptions along those very lines from your own words: QuoteAlmost right from the beginning after the Jaredites landed, "they began to spread upon the face of the land, and to multiply and to till the earth; and they did wax strong in the land" (Ether 6:18). They would build "many mighty cities" (e.g., 9:23); Coriantumr could see "that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people" (Ether 15:2), to say nothing of Shiz's dead; always fought civil wars; become rich though trade is never mentioned. Everything they did was done unimpeded and unopposed--which, if true, would probably be the only time in history that has ever happened. Later civilizations may have been ignorant of the Olmecs, but the Olmecs' contemporaries would have almost certainly known about them, and vice versa. In fact, we know they did. Okay, then let's work with this. What I see myself doing here is making a case and coming to a conclusion. The question I am asking is, "Does the text picture anyone else in the land other than themselves?" The text doesn't say one way or the other. To say yea or nay is ultimately going to be an argument from silence. But here, the silence is significant, even if we totally ignore Ether 13:2, for the reasons I wrote above and elsewhere. That the Jaredites could do everything they did without being bothered by other peoples (assuming they were there) is highly improbable, given what we do know about how people react to those kinds of situations. Not only that, these other peoples simply left the land empty once the Jaredite civilization collapsed. Not only does Limhi's men not mention them (a significant silence itself considering they were looking for help against the Lamanites), but when the Nephites themselves expand into that territory, they do it without any opposition from those others. The simplest way to explain the silence of the text regarding others is that the text doesn't picture any others to deal with. Ether 13:2 thus serves as an explanation why no one impeded the Jaredites. You appear to have missed the point, which is geographical -- fevers being most common in tropical and sub-tropical environs. We may even be dealing with malarial problems in those texts.. When you get right down to it, fevers are a universal phenomena regardless of climate. Alma 46:40 specifically mentions the fevers "at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land" (emphasis added). Unless you're trying to say some or all the travels described in Mosiah took place during those seasons, I still don't really see the relevance. Yes, we can deal with the geography of Middle Earth or of the House at Pooh Corner entirely in a text-based fashion. Why then are you injecting reality-based considerations into the mix? And then ignoring the subject when it doesn't jibe with your wild assumptions? Because, notable exceptions aside, the text presents as reality-based. The Lord may have "caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites" and stopped their pursuit beyond the valley Alma's party rested (Mosiah 24:19, 24. Note in previous posts I presented Alma's group as being chased by the Lamanites as a worry possibly affecting their speed. I was in error there.), but the journey itself is not presented as having any supernatural elements involved. If Alma had been picked up by an angel and carried by his hair like poor Habakkuk being taken to Babylon, then I'd have reason to believe I shouldn't be using reality-based considerations in working out the geography presented by the text. If there is anything I ignored that you specifically wanted me to address, then let me know and I will do the best I can. [Edit to add] If that were the case, you would not feel compelled to make the Flood a worldwide phenomenon. This is also the place where your refusal to consider the diachronic text comes into play, and where Bokovoy could be of most help to you. Actually, I don't feel compelled to make the Flood a worldwide phenomenon. Again, I am making a conclusions based on what the texts say. And from what the texts say, the Flood is pictured as being global (in the case of Genesis) or planetary (in the case of Ether and Joseph Smith). As it so happens, today is payday and I'm now expecting Bokovoy's book to arrive in about a week. If he presents something strong enough for me to change my conclusions about the texts say, so be it. The only question now is whether to continue the discussion based on where we're at or suspend it until I have received and read the book. Edited June 18, 2015 by tagriffy
carbon dioxide Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Isn't it purely speculation that the Book of Mormon 'land of promise' refers to all of North/Central/ and South America (from the North Pole to the South Pole)? I would not call it speculation but simple error. It is absurd that it would cover all that land. They did not have cars, trains, planes, and other fast ways of transportation. They did not phones or other ways to communicate over large distances quickly. Given the technology that existed in those days, one really has to stretch reason to think the Book of Mormon lands extended beyond central America if Lehi landed in that area. The Book of Mormon lands encompassed a geographical area that one could reasonable expect a person could travel in those days in the time period given to those travels and not much beyond it.
carbon dioxide Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Actually, I don't feel compelled to make the Flood a worldwide phenomenon. Again, I am making a conclusions based on what the texts say. And from what the texts say, the Flood is pictured as being global (in the case of Genesis) or planetary (in the case of Ether and Joseph Smith). As it so happens, today is payday and I'm now expecting Bokovoy's book to arrive in about a week. If he presents something strong enough for me to change my conclusions about the texts say, so be it. The only question now is whether to continue the discussion based on where we're at or suspend it until I have received and read the book.I don't either. Based on population growth rates alone, it would have been impossible for just 8 people to reproduce so quickly that the population of the earth could have rebounded so fast. Unless those 8 people multiplied like bacteria, many other people survived the flood at other parts of the world. The flood is not pictured to be global in Genesis. People read that notion into the text while ignoring similar language in the Bible but clearly is not meant to be global. Exodus 10:14-15: "And the locust went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such. For they covered the face of the whole earth..." 1 Kings 10:24: "And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart." Jeremiah 15:10: "Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth!..." Jeremiah 50:23: "How is the hammer [babylon] of the whole earth cut asunder and broken! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations! Jeremiah 51:7: "Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad." Isaiah 23:17: "And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth." Daniel 2:39: "And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass [Greece], which shall bear rule over all the earth." Luke 2:1: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Acts 19:27: "So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth." Romans 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." Edited June 19, 2015 by carbon dioxide 1
Tacenda Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) edited, the article I posted came from an anti source, sorry. Edited June 19, 2015 by Tacenda
tagriffy Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I would not call it speculation but simple error. It is absurd that it would cover all that land. They did not have cars, trains, planes, and other fast ways of transportation. They did not phones or other ways to communicate over large distances quickly. Given the technology that existed in those days, one really has to stretch reason to think the Book of Mormon lands extended beyond central America if Lehi landed in that area. The Book of Mormon lands encompassed a geographical area that one could reasonable expect a person could travel in those days in the time period given to those travels and not much beyond it. I would be cautious about simply dismissing the continental model as absurd. After all, that was the predominent presumption for well over a hundred years after its publication. Nor is it a matter of having to stretch reason to think the Book of Mormon lands extended beyond Central America. I already gave two examples of what is possible, one theoretical, the other based on the experience of the handcart migrations to Utah. In answer to the question "How do you account for the long distances and many miles this map would require people to travel?" the author(s) of this site point to several other treks related to Mormon history where great distances were covered in a relatively short time without cars, trains, planes, and other fast ways of transportation. While I am not endorsing the model proposed there, I do think simply dismissing the model as absurd would be acting a bit too hastily.
tagriffy Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I don't either. Based on population growth rates alone, it would have been impossible for just 8 people to reproduce so quickly that the population of the earth could have rebounded so fast. Unless those 8 people multiplied like bacteria, many other people survived the flood at other parts of the world. This would be a relevant point if the question is whether the text is true. Right now, the question I'm concerned with is what the text says. Now, remembering the world the author/redactors knew was far smaller than what we now know it to be, the text does give the impression that the "world" population did rebound fairly quickly, enough that in ten generations it could be well populated, at least from Ur to Egypt. Even a smaller scale like this that would seem to stretch credibility. Yet the same text would go on to say that seventy men went down to Egypt and come out with a population capable of mustering an army of 600,000 men some 400 years later. Even though the text does note the Israelites' remarkable fertility, that kind of a figure stretches credibility as well. [Note: I am aware of the possibility of translating 'elep as family, clan, or troop. While this does bring the censuses in Numbers into line, it does nothing to address the simple notations in Exodus 12:37 and 38:26. By the time the censuses were redacted into the Torah, it would appear the 600,000 figure was the accepted one.] The text, however, doesn't seem to be aware of any kind of credibility problem in population growth. Again, the world the author/redactor's world was much smaller than the world we know today. The map below, taken from here, is in line with most of the commentaries and study bibles I've read on the so-called Table of Nations (Genesis 10). Though we need to be cautious about it, we can take it as an approximation of how big the world was from the standpoint of Genesis. Note it doesn't know much of northern Europe, west and south Africa, or north and east Asia, to say nothing of Australia and the Americas. Getting a world this size populated probably wouldn't strike the author/redactors as implausible, especially if the land is already unpopulated as a result of the Flood. Factor in the extended lifespans from Shem to Terah (or even to Jacob), along with the fertility rates that the extended lifespans would make possible, and repopulating the world in a mere ten generations just might make it into the realm of plausbility. It might still be highly unlikely; it might still stretch credibility; but it would not have likely struck its earliest readers as impossible. The flood is not pictured to be global in Genesis. People read that notion into the text while ignoring similar language in the Bible but clearly is not meant to be global. <Bible quotations snipped> For at least the third time now, I already understand the Hebrew word for "land, earth" does not require a global meaning. Why you and Robert keep insisting I'm doing something I've clearly and explicitly denied doing is beyond me. It is not the possible meanings of the term that makes me conclude the Flood was picutred to be global; it is the context. Pound your strawman all you want; however, I'm not going to play along. Think about this for a minute. All those texts you quoted have been around for two thousand years or more. Yet people had no problem reading a phrase like "the whole earth" in Exodus 10:15 as referring to Egypt and not litterally the whole world (however large the world's extent). Yet the idea the Flood was global, and then planetary, was the generally accepted understanding of the story until just a few hundred years ago when the problems became to hard to overcome. See the article Kevin posted. Do you really think all these people over all those centuries were so incredibly stupid as to not know the term could mean different things depending on the context? Clearly, it is not the word that made them read the Flood story as global, but the context. And what is this context? Right from the initial announcement in Genesis, God says, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh ... now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.... For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.... And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive" (6:13-20, NRSV). And then once the Flood happens, we are told "the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark" (7:20-23, NRSV). I'm not sure whether the final denouement of the story should be considered Genesis 10:32 or 11:9; either way, the story goes on as related above. Note the sheer repetition of terms like all and every. Note the lists of animal kinds that echo the creation story in Genesis 1. Note the mountains were covered to a depth of about twenty-two feet (a cubit of about eighteen inches actually yields 22.5 feet). Note the Flood lasted for about a year before it was deemed safe enough to leave the ark. At practically every turn, the author/redactors go out of their way to underscore the Flood was worldwide (probably a better term to use than "global" or "planetary"). Even the command to take a male and female of every land animal supports the idea the Flood is pictured as worldwide. If the Flood was pictured as only a fairly localized event, that command makes very little sense. Over-specialized species (itself a concept that would probably be foreign to the Israelites) may not survive, but there wouldn't be any need to be overly concerned about every animal of every kind.
thesometimesaint Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 As a culture we are steeped in science. The problems arise when we take a pre-science culture and try to impose it onto ours. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 This would be a relevant point if the question is whether the text is true. Right now, the question I'm concerned with is what the text says. Now, remembering the world the author/redactors knew was far smaller than what we now know it to be, the text does give the impression that the "world" population did rebound fairly quickly, enough that in ten generations it could be well populated, at least from Ur to Egypt. Even a smaller scale like this that would seem to stretch credibility. Yet the same text would go on to say that seventy men went down to Egypt and come out with a population capable of mustering an army of 600,000 men some 400 years later. Even though the text does note the Israelites' remarkable fertility, that kind of a figure stretches credibility as well. [Note: I am aware of the possibility of translating 'elep as family, clan, or troop. While this does bring the censuses in Numbers into line, it does nothing to address the simple notations in Exodus 12:37 and 38:26. By the time the censuses were redacted into the Torah, it would appear the 600,000 figure was the accepted one.].................................................................................Think about this for a minute. All those texts you quoted have been around for two thousand years or more. Yet people had no problem reading a phrase like "the whole earth" in Exodus 10:15 as referring to Egypt and not litterally the whole world (however large the world's extent). Yet the idea the Flood was global, and then planetary, was the generally accepted understanding of the story until just a few hundred years ago when the problems became to hard to overcome. See the article Kevin posted. Do you really think all these people over all those centuries were so incredibly stupid as to not know the term could mean different things depending on the context? Clearly, it is not the word that made them read the Flood story as global, but the context....................................................................................While it is true that there are a great many aspects of the canonical Flood story in Genesis which would lead the casual reader to believe that it had to have been worldwide in intent, this assumes that there is one biblical Flood story, which is false. Different Flood legends have been combined into one by a redactor (who did not see the Flood), the seams are there for any scholar to see, leading any fairminded person to conclude that there are mutually contradictory versions of the Flood story combined into one. This is what I have been urging you to face in reading Bokovoy on the subject. Moreover, the biblical Flood story is very late (even if not as late as that of Deucalion), and is preceded by several Sumero-Akkadian and Hurrian versions, each with its own take on certain details. This even if we do not consider the worldwide instances of the legend. Here we must ask whether the Flood story is (in any of these cases) meant to be taken in some figurative or ritual sense, rather than as a science text or purely historical account. It had long since become a legend before it appeared in a Hebrew text. Thus, it is not relevant to appeal to those who could not read the text in Hebrew for the past several millennia, and any translation will typically reflect a current cultural appraisal anyhow. 1
tagriffy Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 While it is true that there are a great many aspects of the canonical Flood story in Genesis which would lead the casual reader to believe that it had to have been worldwide in intent, this assumes that there is one biblical Flood story, which is false. Different Flood legends have been combined into one by a redactor (who did not see the Flood), the seams are there for any scholar to see, leading any fairminded person to conclude that there are mutually contradictory versions of the Flood story combined into one. This is what I have been urging you to face in reading Bokovoy on the subject. Moreover, the biblical Flood story is very late (even if not as late as that of Deucalion), and is preceded by several Sumero-Akkadian and Hurrian versions, each with its own take on certain details. This even if we do not consider the worldwide instances of the legend. Here we must ask whether the Flood story is (in any of these cases) meant to be taken in some figurative or ritual sense, rather than as a science text or purely historical account. It had long since become a legend before it appeared in a Hebrew text. Thus, it is not relevant to appeal to those who could not read the text in Hebrew for the past several millennia, and any translation will typically reflect a current cultural appraisal anyhow. OK. Let's at least get it noted for the record that I am not disputing anything you have said about how the biblical Flood story came together. I said as much back in post #129 when you first suggested Bokovoy's work. I am expecting the book to arrive on Thursday. Meanwhile, we seem to be talking past each other and I'm not sure how to break the impasse. In the past, I've toyed with the idea of gathering all the material I could find on Adam regardless of source, time period, or tradition--Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, New Testament Apocrypha, Mormon scripture, you name it--and weave them together into a "biography" of sorts. Since all these sources are publicly available, readers will be able to find out with precision what I used and what I excised. So readers are going to have an advantage we don't have with Genesis. By looking at my sources, they are going to be able to tell things about my intent in the "biography." My intent. Because the finished "biography" is going to be more than the sum of its parts. And even though I would be using different, often mutually contradictory sources, the end result will still be one story. If you just look at the sources without considering what I have done with them and considering the picture that emerges as a result, you would be doing a deep disservice to my story. I do have thoughts about other things you have said in your post, but I fear going into those thoughts will only sidetrack the focus of the discussion. If there is anything you specifically want me to respond, let me know.
ed2276 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) The record is completely true. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything - for instance, the words of Satan in the Bible. And our interpretation could be off base. But the Book of Mormon is True with a capital "T" - not partially true. Or is it possible that some parts are more inspired than others? That doesn't make sense to me. But, even the BOM writers said that the possibility exists that mistakes could exist in the record, in consequence of the fallibility of human beings. I don't know what those mistakes would be, or if any have even been identified within the record itself to-date. So, should we make a distinction between "truth" that cannot be partially true in order to sustain doctrine and "mistakes of men", which don't affect the truth of doctrine? As for whether some parts may be "more inspired" than others, I feel that may be a distinct possibility. I think the Bible gives us examples of just that happening. In some instances Paul says that what he is teaching/instructing the members of the church is by way of commandment, while in some instances he is speaking for himself, not by way of inspiration/revelation. (Notably in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7) After instructing the Corinthians in the first 5 verses, he makes it clear that: 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. and in verse 12, he says: 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. Again, in verse 25, Paul makes it clear that he is not offering his teaching by inspiration, or commandment from the Lord, but is merely giving his own personal opinion: 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. In contrast to Paul's admissions that, in the instances above, he is giving his personal opinion on those matters, Paul affirmatively states that a certain instruction he is giving the church is a commandment of the Lord, not merely his own opinion: 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: However, after stating in verse 25 that he is offering his own judgment, not a commandment from the Lord, Paul ends his teaching by stating: 40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. So, in one instance Paul definitely states that what he is teaching is a commandment from the Lord (definitely inspiration/revelation), while in all other cases he is just giving his own opinion, which the people aren't apparently bound to accept or follow, but which Paul seems sure will bring more happiness if followed. Paul suggests that his opinion, though not commandment, may be inspired because he has the Spirit of God. It appears, then, that the definite commandment is more inspired (as it is binding) than Paul's opinion, which may be inspired by the Spirit of God within him. Edited June 21, 2015 by ed2276
ed2276 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 All of those things come into doubt if you believe Nephi was a murderer who killed Laban in cold blood. I could not accept that God would give such manifestations and blessings to a murderer. Even if Nephi hadn't committed cold blooded murder (if Laban had really accepted the family riches and handed over the plates; if Nephi had never offered payment, but had stolen the plates while no one was around, etc.), but made up the story to enhance his authority/reputation as of being led and favored, and protected by God he still would be a liar, and, as you point out, everything else he said/reported could be discounted/rejected.
ed2276 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Fair enough. There is also a huge difference in connotation between "murder" and "kill" that goes to motivation and situation. Most people (who aren't hippies) don't consider most wartime soldiers to be murderers, even if they kill in battle. It would depend on who they kill, and under what circumstances.
ed2276 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Nephi did nothing wrong, there was no police in 600 BC and no one else could stop Laban. Laban was a dangerous man and likely killed many. Laban was not going to get arrested, so Nephi had no other option. I think Nephi did the right thing because it was his only chance to end Laban´s crimes. That's one way of looking at it: Laban was a bad guy, who got what was coming to him. But, the reason given for killing Laban in the BOM was that had Laban survived, when he sobered up, he would have realized who took the plates and pursued them into the wilderness to kill Nephi and his family, and retake the plates. It seems only Laban and Zoram knew of the brothers' efforts to get the brass plates and that is why, after having killed Laban, they made Zoram promise to come with them back to Lehi, so that Zoram couldn't raise the alarm and lead a force after Nephi and his family. If Zoram had refused to go with them, Nephi would probably also have been commanded to kill Zoram, as well.
mfbukowski Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 I would have liked to hear their testimony in court."I stole his stuff and killed him because God told me to."Uh huh.
thesometimesaint Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 I would have liked to hear their testimony in court."I stole his stuff and killed him because God told me to."Uh huh. Or Laban stole Nephies money, and tried to kill him to keep the plates and the money.
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 I would have liked to hear their testimony in court. Laban was above the law and court
Recommended Posts