Unrealistic generational gaps in the Book of Mormon?

[canard78]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do you have one too many Nephi's? My understanding is that there were two in Helaman - 4th Nephi. I browsed through the chapter headings and couldn't find a third. See also this chart here: http://www.mormoncharts.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Book-of-Mormon-Genealogy-Chart.pdf

Good question, I counted 4:

Nephi (1) - we know him
Nephi (2) - Lehi's brother... of the prison fame
Nephi (3) - Nephi's son... alive at Christ appearance (after his death)
Nephi (4) - alive during the 200 years of peace. If you look at the title to 4th Nephi it states: The Book of Nephi, Who Is the Son of Nephi—One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ

I think that's right... but I could be wrong. I can't find a verse where that talks about Nephi (3) dying. So maybe the second description (One of the Disciples) is in reference to the headline Nephi... Nephi (3) and not being used to describe Nephi (4)'s father being a disciple.

I've removed Nephi (4) for now as I think you might be right. Anyone else able to clarify this one?

Edited April 18, 2016 by canard78

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Good question, I counted 4:

Nephi (1) - we know him
Nephi (2) - Lehi's brother... of the prison fame
Nephi (3) - Nephi's son... alive at Christ appearance (after his death)
Nephi (4) - alive during the 200 years of peace. If you look at the title to 4th Nephi it states: The Book of Nephi, Who Is the Son of Nephi—One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ

I think that's right... but I could be wrong. I can't find a verse where that talks about Nephi (3) dying. So maybe the second description (One of the Disciples) is in reference to the headline Nephi... Nephi (3) and not being used to describe Nephi (4)'s father being a disciple.

I read the title of 4th Nephi as: The Book of Nephi (One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ) Who is the son of Nephi. Especially since 4th Nephi starts in 34 AD

 

ETA: See here:https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/nephi-son-of-nephi-son-of-helaman?lang=eng&letter=n

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Yep, also possible. As mentioned in my post above, perhaps "father" and "son" were terms that were also used for "grand-father/great-grandfather" or "grand son" etc.

I'm not familiar enough with Hebrew/Egyptian to know if this would be a reasonable hypothesis. Tagging @Robert F. Smith

Edit: Enos talks about "our father Lehi" and there are other references to "our father Abraham." Are there any cases of someone saying "my father Abraham" or Lehi (or similar) when talking about an ancestor.

In Jarom 1:1, “my father, Enos” could have referred to someone other than the Enos of Enos 1:1 (and Jarom is not mentioned as a son anywhere else). Jarom also refers to Omni as “my son Omni”, and Omni refers to Jarom as “my father, Jarom” – but they too may have been more than one generation apart and referring to individuals having the same names as their immediate son or father, respectively.

Alma 10:11 doesn’t necessarily specify the individual Amuleki calls his father as his immediate progenitor.

I wouldn’t be surprised if ancient people used the word “father” to refer to an ancestor / progenitor they had in mind, but it would be good to confirm that.

[JAHS]

38 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Yep, thanks, already captured in the earlier conversation.

Usually, people talk about "our father Lehi/Abraham" when mentioning an earlier ancestor. Can you share any examples of people saying "my father Abraham/Lehi" (or similar) when referencing a grandparent or great grandparent?

Normally that is not going to happen because if it's an ancestor (grandfather), the tradition would be to to say "our" rather than "my" because he is the father/grandfather of many others. But here is one instance where ancestors were referred to as "my fathers".

"And now I, Nephi, do not give the genealogy of my fathers in this part of my record; neither at any time shall I give it after upon these plates which I am writing; for it is given in the record which has been kept by my father; wherefore, I do not write it in this work. (1 Nephi 6: 1)

Edited April 18, 2016 by JAHS

[Rajah Manchou]

How do expected lifespans fit into all of this? I read some articles recently pinning life expectancy in Mesoamerica around 35-50 years old.

"Even so, in the simplest hunter-gatherer societies, few people survived past age 50. In the healthiest cultures in the 1,000 years before Columbus, a life span of no more than 35 years might be usual." (source)

Would short lifespans compress the expected generation gaps further?

[canard78]

29 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Normally that is not going to happen because if it's an ancestor (grandfather), the tradition would be to to say "our" rather than "my" because he is the father/grandfather of many others. But here is one instance where ancestors were referred to as "my fathers".

"And now I, Nephi, do not give the genealogy of my fathers in this part of my record; neither at any time shall I give it after upon these plates which I am writing; for it is given in the record which has been kept by my father; wherefore, I do not write it in this work. (1 Nephi 6: 1)

Thanks for the reference. Again, it's a pluralisation (of fathers in this case, rather than the pronoun "our") so a distinct phrase to "my father" which comes later in the same verse. 

[canard78]

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I read the title of 4th Nephi as: The Book of Nephi (One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ) Who is the son of Nephi. Especially since 4th Nephi starts in 34 AD

 

ETA: See here:https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/nephi-son-of-nephi-son-of-helaman?lang=eng&letter=n

 

I think you're right, my mistake.

I've removed Nephi (4) from the list. 

4th Nephi is a particularly unusual passage of time, with people living 80-110 years each:

"Nephi left the record to his son Amos. Verses 19–47 are the record of Amos’s ministry (84 years) and that of his son Amos (112 years). In 201 A.D., pride began to cause problems among the people, who divided themselves into classes and began false churches to get gain (4 Ne. 1:24–34)."

112 years?? If he took over at the age of even as young as 12, that's a lifespan over 120 years. 

Is it significant that the writers with the least to say tend to live longest?

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to be more specific, and to cite sources dealing with this issue in the Book of Mormon.  See the following:

John W. Welch, “Longevity of Book of Mormon People and the ‘Age of Man’,” Journal of Collegium Aesculapium, 3 (1985):34-45; reprinted by FARMS in 1985; online at http://www.collegiumaesculapium.org/Journal%20Archives/1985_Longevity%20Book%20of%20Mormon%20People.pdf .

Gy. Acsádi and J. Nemeskéri, History of Human Life Span and Mortality (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970). 

Rebecca Storey, "An Estimate of Mortality in a Pre-Columbian Urban Population," American Anthropologist, 87 (1985):519-535, on ancient Teotihuacan. 

D. I. Kertzer and J. Keith, eds., Age and Anthropological Theory (London, 1984).

Keith Hopkins, Sociological Studies in Roman History, II, Death and Renewal (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), 31-200, on the demographic composition of an ancient elite. 

D. Brothwell and B. Chiarelli, Population Biology of the Ancient Egyptians (London: Academic, 1973).

J. M. A. Janssen, "On the Ideal Lifetime of the Egyptians," Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rÿksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden, 31 (1950):33-43. 

Just to feedback, the first link was very useful. He's done a whole load of the work already in collating dates and possible deaths (I could have saved myself about 2 hours' reading... though it's useful to identify dates myself).

Have you come across a similar summary table for the Alma family tree? 

We get a very specific start and end date for that group and it also has a very long average age gap from start to finish. 

And, just to nudge, could you summarise what you feel the other articles contribute to the discussion. Given I'll not be able access them directly I'd welcome your views on why they are relevant. 

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

How do expected lifespans fit into all of this? I read some articles recently pinning life expectancy in Mesoamerica around 35-50 years old.

"Even so, in the simplest hunter-gatherer societies, few people survived past age 50. In the healthiest cultures in the 1,000 years before Columbus, a life span of no more than 35 years might be usual." (source)

Would short lifespans compress the expected generation gaps further?

Yes, they would, especially over a 1000 year period. Having exceptional life-spans is one thing, having them do so for 10 centuries is another. 

Just be careful with "life expectancy" data. It's often life expectancy at birth. So if 50% live to 70 and 50% die within 12 months of birth then that nation's life expectancy is 35. 

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

How do expected lifespans fit into all of this? I read some articles recently pinning life expectancy in Mesoamerica around 35-50 years old.

"Even so, in the simplest hunter-gatherer societies, few people survived past age 50. In the healthiest cultures in the 1,000 years before Columbus, a life span of no more than 35 years might be usual." (source)

Would short lifespans compress the expected generation gaps further?

Actually, ignore my comment about life expectancy as an average at birth. They make it clear in their wording that they're talking about maximum expected life span, which is different to "average life expectancy at birth."

Really interesting article though. We have Book of Mormon record keepers living 80-120, despite the evidence saying this is unlikely:

The researchers attributed the widespread decline in health in large part to the rise of agriculture and urban living. People in South and Central America began domesticating crops more than 5,000 years ago, and the rise of cities there began more than 2,000 years ago. 

These were mixed blessings. Farming tended to limit the diversity of diets, and the congestion of towns and cities contributed to the rapid spread of disease. In the widening inequalities of urban societies, hard work on low-protein diets left most people vulnerable to illness and early death. 

Similar signs of deleterious health effects have been found in the ancient Middle East, where agriculture started some 10,000 years ago. But the health consequences of farming and urbanism, Dr. Rose said, appeared to have been more abrupt in the New World. 

The more mobile, less densely settled populations were usually the healthiest pre-Columbians. They were taller and had fewer signs of infectious lesions in their bones than residents of large settlements. Their diet was sufficiently rich and varied, the researchers said, for them to largely avoid the symptoms of childhood deprivation, like stunting and anemia. Even so, in the simplest hunter-gatherer societies, few people survived past age 50. In the healthiest cultures in the 1,000 years before Columbus, a life span of no more than 35 years might be usual.

...

The least healthy people in the study were from the urban cultures of Mexico and Central America, notably where the Maya civilization flourished presumably at great cost to life and limb

[mfbukowski]

According to the Bible, the patriarchs lived up to 900 years or perhaps more- I don't remember.

This puts the BOM on par with the bible. 

It doesn't exactly bother me.  In case you hadn't noticed, there are a few things in the Bible and Book of Mormon which are unexplainable in the context of today's knowledge.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Actually, ignore my comment about life expectancy as an average at birth. They make it clear in their wording that they're talking about maximum expected life span, which is different to "average life expectancy at birth."

Really interesting article though. We have Book of Mormon record keepers living 80-120...

It was because of all the coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol they avoided unlike the rest of the population.

[canard78]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was because of all the coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol they avoided unlike the rest of the population.

Haha. 

Instead they just drank the untreated water which, in the ancient world, was notoriously safe to drink.

Oh wait...

[canard78]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

According to the Bible, the patriarchs lived up to 900 years or perhaps more- I don't remember.

This puts the BOM on par with the bible. 

It doesn't exactly bother me.  In case you hadn't noticed, there are a few things in the Bible and Book of Mormon which are unexplainable in the context of today's knowledge.

The bible has lots of events that are "naturally" implausible and are better considered as symbolic and parabolic.

Outside of mythology, do we have any credible sources for people living many 100s of years?

I know that's not your point. The BoM and Bible don't need to be "naturally" possible in your view to still be acceptable as truth. I know I'm putting words in your mouth, but hopefully they're a reasonable summary of your position. 

[The Nehor]

Clearly the Nephites followed the principles of Numenor and their leaders sired an heir in their older age so that their children could inherit while still full of youthful vigor.

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, canard78 said:

The bible has lots of events that are "naturally" implausible and are better considered as symbolic and parabolic.

Outside of mythology, do we have any credible sources for people living many 100s of years?

I know that's not your point. The BoM and Bible don't need to be "naturally" possible in your view to still be acceptable as truth. I know I'm putting words in your mouth, but hopefully they're a reasonable summary of your position. 

That's a reasonable summary.  There is scientific truth, which helps with working with the world, and then there is religious truth which gives us personal peace.  As Alma says, if it is "sweet" to you it is "true".

You know, "myths"- to use your terms, or "truths" to use mine,  like it is better to live in a democratic society than a totalitarian one, and one should be kind to others and that "freedom" is a good thing.

If there was a book teaching that freedom was a good thing, but also saying that some people lived to be 900 years old, would you throw out the idea of freedom because of the scientific problem?

Would or do you throw out the golden rule and all morality because there is a talking donkey in the bible?

Upon what principle of logic would YOU retain the belief in the golden rule while retaining the notion that donkeys don't talk?  What is YOUR justification for such inconsistency?

Or better yet, skipping that step, what is your justification for any ethical beliefs whatsoever?   Certainly atheists are generally moral, so those beliefs must be justified in their minds- they are "sweet" to an atheist just as they are to us.

So then are atheists believers in Alma because they agree that it feels good to BE good?

Edited April 18, 2016 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

You have to bear in mind a couple of things:

• Sariah's child-bearing age... could she still be having children into her 50?

How old was postmenopausal Sarai/Sarah when she had Isaac?  What's one more biological miracle in the context of all the miracles going on in 1 Nephi-Jacob?

Are you claiming that the obvious and intended parallels between Genesis and 1 Nephi-Jacob (and between Judges and 1 Nephi-Jacob) could find no place for a comparison/homage involving Sarai/Sarah and Sarahyahu/Sariah?

[mfbukowski]

Saving the whales is something society "should" do and people organize themselves and spend countless hours and huge amounts of money to pursue this noble cause, based on no scientific reason to do so, no scientific justification whatsoever.

They do it because it is "right" and because it "feels" right to them and they feel as if they are doing something to create meaning in their lives and give their lives purpose.

Rich doctors give up their practices to treat the poor in far away lands, without a scientific justification for doing so, because they think it is "right".

I see the belief in a supreme being as "logical" for the same reasons these other people do all these things, without scientific justification. With that belief, I perform services of all kinds for people as well, in the name of my God who has been merciful to me, convincing me illogically that therefore I should be merciful to others. 

The belief itself and the effects of the belief itself are its own justification.  These ideas are "sweet" to me just as saving the whales is also "sweet" to me.  (for example)

So where am I wrong?

If a leader of "save the whales" harbors an unscientific belief, should we then NOT save the whales?

Edited April 18, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

How do expected lifespans fit into all of this? I read some articles recently pinning life expectancy in Mesoamerica around 35-50 years old.

"Even so, in the simplest hunter-gatherer societies, few people survived past age 50. In the healthiest cultures in the 1,000 years before Columbus, a life span of no more than 35 years might be usual." (source)

Would short lifespans compress the expected generation gaps further?

The lifespans are unreasonably wrong, therefore the BOM and all the truths it contains are false.

I don't blame you for not getting it either.

[The Nehor]

Welp, that is it for the Book of Mormon. We should set a date and kill all the believers on that day.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

You can work out the average by having a start and end point and a count of generations.

We have the approximate date of Jacob's birth (Around 599 to 593BC... so take 595BC as a mid-point). We can then count generations down to the last available birth date: Mormon, born 310AD. Total years between their births = 905. Approximate generations = 16. 905 / 16 = 57

You might want to work your approximate birth sequence into the internal Book of Mormon chronology, and then begin your dating from the first year of the reign of king Zedekiah, which begins in early 597 BC.  Applying the 360-day Long Count year system (the only one which is viable), takes us to the birth of Mormon in about 301 AD, a total of 898 LC years.  However, many of the years involved cannot be averaged since they are controlled by specific year sequences mentioned in the text:  

I Nephi 17:4, eight years in wilderness = 589 BC

Omni 15, king Zedekiah carried away captive to Babylon = August 586 BC

Enos 25, 170 years later (after 597) = 420 BC

Jarom 5, 200 years later = 399 BC

Jarom 13, 238 years later = 362 BC

Omni 5, 323 years later = 281 BC

Mosiah 1:2, Mosiah II born 157 BC

Mosiah 1:10, 6:4, accession of Mosiah II July 127 BC (476 years after Lehi left Jerusalem)

Mosiah 6:5, king Benjamin died 124 BC

etc.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Clearly the Nephites followed the principles of Numenor and their leaders sired an heir in their older age so that their children could inherit while still full of youthful vigor.

 

[webbles]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

I think you're right, my mistake.

I've removed Nephi (4) from the list. 

4th Nephi is a particularly unusual passage of time, with people living 80-110 years each:

"Nephi left the record to his son Amos. Verses 19–47 are the record of Amos’s ministry (84 years) and that of his son Amos (112 years). In 201 A.D., pride began to cause problems among the people, who divided themselves into classes and began false churches to get gain (4 Ne. 1:24–34)."

112 years?? If he took over at the age of even as young as 12, that's a lifespan over 120 years. 

Is it significant that the writers with the least to say tend to live longest?

The Index has Nephi (4) (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/nephi-4) while the Guide doesn't have it (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/nephi-son-of-nephi-son-of-helaman).  I would probably put Nephi (4) back.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, canard78 said:

...............................................................................................

I'd tagged you half way down to get your view on the language of "my father Lehi" vs "our father Lehi" in Hebrew/Egyptian. Would the phrase "my father" or "my son" be reasonably applied to a bigger generational jump (such as my father = my grandfather and my son = my grandson).

Yes, in nearly all the languages of the ancient Near East, "son" and "father" could also mean "descendant" and "ancestor."  This becomes particularly apparent when Aaron is listed as both "son" and "descendant" of Heth in Ether 1:15 and 10:31, and this takes place elsewhere in the BofM.

Cf. Sumerian AMAR = Akkadian māru, mer’u, mar’u (DUMU, AMAR), “son, descendant"; Hebrew ben "son, descendant," as in bĕnê-îśrā΄ēl  "children of Israel, Israelites" (Exodus 9:7, Joshua 13:6,13), bānîm “sons; descendants,” often used as a tribal designation in construct form (Arabic bani-) as follows:  Ammonites = Hebrew běnê-ˁammôn (Genesis 19:38, Deuteronomy 2:19), which could also reflect “people of Ammon” (Alma 27:26, Helaman 3:12); may also be derived from Hebrew běnê-ʾāmôn (Nehemiah 7:59 = Ezra 2:57 běnê-ʾāmî), etc.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, canard78 said:

Sariah's child-bearing age... could she still be having children into her 50?

What makes you think that Sariah was the mother of Jacob and Joseph?