Where are the "isles of the sea"?

[Bernard Gui]

In 2 Nephi 10 Jacob says, 

Quote

20....we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea.
21 But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren.

We have the continental and the limited geographic theories of the location of the Book of Mormon lands.

Is there also an island theory?

[Alan]

British Isles.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Where indeed?

<Checks location in profile...>

[hagoth7]

4 hours ago, Alan said:

British Isles.

And if we're gonna focus on Europe for a wee bit, might as well include the likes of Batavia, Sjaelland/Fyn, Iceland, etc.etc.

And since the Hebrew word translates also as "coasts"...that includes, well, every land....the four corners of the globe. :0)

:::picturing the One Voice Children's Choir's, when they gently stormed Omaha Beach:::

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[USU78]

Jutland, where great great grampa Eskildsen hailed from.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In 2 Nephi 10 Jacob says, 

We have the continental and the limited geographic theories of the location of the Book of Mormon lands.

Is there also an island theory?

The Jews were not a maritime people, and in early times their geographical knowledge was very limited. http://biblehub.com/topical/i/isle.htm

Shore land at opposed to sea, dry land as opposed to rivers. Isaiah 42:15, "I will make the rivers islands." ...So the word is applied to all lands reached from Israel by sea. http://www.bible-history.com/faussets/I/Isles/

The radical sense of the Hebrew word seems to be "habitable places," as opposed to water, and in this sense it occurs in ( Isaiah 42:15 ) Hence it means secondarily any maritime district, whether belonging to a continent or to an island... http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/isle/

Perhaps Jacob, writing in Chapter 10, was on an island in a river ("eyot") on the American continent or an island just off the continent ("holm") that seasonally or ultimately filled in to become part of the mainland. In 2 Nephi 5, Nephi had separated from the Lamanites (around 580 BC), so by Chapter 10 (around 550 BC) Jacob could confirm they are on such an isle of the sea, which would have afforded them a good deal of protection with a natural moat during most seasons. Jacob's mention of being "driven out of the land of our inheritance" in verse 20 could apply to both the land of Jerusalem and to the land of their first inheritance (Lehi-Nephi) from which they also escaped under Nephi.

But probably not.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Jutland, where great great grampa Eskildsen hailed from.

Near and dear to my heart. Served most of my mission in Jutland / Jylland.

Where in Jutland did the Eskildsens live?

(As of 2010, one out of every seven Utahn claimed Scandinavian heritage.)

 

If interested, early-draft chapters of Mormons at the Danevirke. Chapter One touches upon military events at the southern end of the Jutland peninsula, where Nephite history was unwittingly reenacted, shortly after Joseph and Hyrum died in a hail of bullets at Carthage. The fortified cities and earthwork strongholds prepared hearts throughout Scandinavia for the Book of Mormon. The wars of that generaton were tragic LARPs , where honored heroes (those who distinguished themselves in battle, and those who did the same by honorably refusing to even touch a weapon)  entered the waters of baptism shortly after their conflict ended. Events which impacted all of Scandinavia, and much of Germany.

The other chapters (pending) document sweeping cultural shifts that rapidly prepared Denmark (and families across Scandinavia) for the 1850 arrival of an apostle, missionaries, and the first non-English translation of the Book of Mormon. 

The undercurrent message of the book is an echo of O Canada We Stand on Guard for Thee...but in a broader sense than just Canada or Denmark...an assurance that the Restoration functions as  a city on a hill, a sentry to preserve the heritage and protect the liberty of peoples of any nation, language, or faith. A bastion behind which peoples of good heart can retreat for refuge. Wherever we are found, we form the bulwark, the shock-and-awesome prayer warriors, standing watch against a growing storm, seeking the post assigned to us, and lifting/serving where we stand. We are a figurative Fredericia ("peaceful reign", an amazing fortified city where I had the privilege to serve for a month.)

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Jews were not a maritime people, and in early times their geographical knowledge was very limited. http://biblehub.com/topical/i/isle.htm

True Jews weren't maritime, except perhaps during Solomon's reign...because the kingdom of Judah was landlocked...like Utah's ever-so-mighty naval fleet

The northern tribes of Israel were reportedly maritime.

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Perhaps Jacob, writing in Chapter 10, was on an island in a river ("eyot") on the American continent or an island just off the continent ("holm") that seasonally or ultimately filled in to become part of the mainland...

How is "eyot" typically pronounced?

There are a few holms I've wanted to visit...and may soon.

Speaking of holms, and scattered Israel:

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

And since the Hebrew word translates also as "coasts"...that includes, well, every land....the four corners of the globe. :0)

This. The Hebrew word is basically being used as coasts around the sea... new habitable places. I agree that the translation as "isles" is not the best here. In the OT the Jews were often speaking of the Gentiles as the peoples around the Aegean Sea, where there were of course many islands so the word makes sense as islands, but a lot like the word Gentiles the Hebrews would use the word to speak of any new place they sailed to rather than traveled on land to.

Even though the Torah uses Goyim/Gentiles for Jacob/Israel, the word later is used to refer to all other nations - same type of idea. So basically 2 Nephi is speaking of traveling by boat to new lands rather than the Gentile idea of traveling to some isolated islands in the ocean.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

How is "eyot" typically pronounced?

I do not know, but it sounds like "8" whenever I've heard it but I'm sure there are regional distinctions like "ay-ot" and "eye-ot."

Don't tell me it has to be pronounced "a-ot" where the H (except for cockney) and g are silent and the "th" is pronounced as "t"...!

[stemelbow]

Any old candidate is as good as anything that's been proposed it seems to me; afterall, the Hill Cumorah in NY is not the same as that which is described in the BoM.  Not only could Moroni have traveled on foot hundreds or thousands of miles.  he could have also hopped on a boat and traveled.

[Alan]

Celts, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes etc all invaded and settled in the British Isles.

Their insignia, such as lions, unicorns and harps, suggest a significant connection with Israel (not so sure about the Jews though). The Danes also populated Iceland.

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In 2 Nephi 10 Jacob says, 

We have the continental and the limited geographic theories of the location of the Book of Mormon lands.

Is there also an island theory?

It's been discussed here in other threads, but I've been working the past couple of years on what I'm calling the "Island Model". In short, I propose the setting for the Book of Mormon is an island called Qumr/Komoriyya/Camara mentioned in several ancient texts.

Interestingly, this island was inhabited by two different Biblical clans, one that left the Old World around the time of the tower and another that left around 600 BC.






 

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

...Don't tell me it has to be pronounced "a-ot" where the H (except for cockney) and g are silent and the "th" is pronounced as "t"...!

  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I do not know, but it sounds like "8" 

A figure eyot. 

K. Got it. Thx. :0)

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

Celts, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes etc all invaded and settled in the British Isles.

Their insignia, such as lions, unicorns and harps, suggest a significant connection with Israel (not so sure about the Jews though). The Danes also populated Iceland.

Angles and Saxons didn't invade.

They were invited/enlisted to help restore order.

And then betrayed.

And true to human nature, after being betrayed, they were then maligned to shift the blame of the conflict.

[hagoth7]

15 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Angles and Saxons didn't invade.

They were invited/enlisted to help restore order.

And then betrayed.

And true to human nature, after being betrayed, they were then maligned to shift the blame of the conflict.

If interested, one can read of it in Widukind's history of the Saxons. Few have even heard of it.

 

And the supposed Lombard "invastion" of Italy? 

DIdn't happen. 

They were recruited by Byzantium to come restore order to Italy...and were literally sent the first fruit basket-gram ....to lure/show them how bountiful and promising the land was.  Which is why there is zero contemoprary evidence of a violent march.

But later conquerors to Italy opted to supplant the Lombards...and to justify their role in uprooting the Lombards....bore false witness against the Lombard migration.

Italian hisorians simply opted not to disclose their perfidy. Ditto with the British. So everyone came to assume the lie (invasion) was the truth. Instead of the fact that Angles, Saxons, Lombards, instead were called in as peacekeeprs, similar to the French Foreign Legion or the current United Nations peacekeeping troops.

But if people prefer whitewashed (or rather blackwashed) history of Lombards and Angles/Saxons being unwelcome invaders and rogues...so be it. They didn't go rogue until they had no choice...after they had been treated worse than Laban treated Nephi.

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[Alan]

8 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Angles and Saxons didn't invade.

They were invited/enlisted to help restore order.

And then betrayed.

And true to human nature, after being betrayed, they were then maligned to shift the blame of the conflict.

Angles and Saxons certainly did invade.

It was the Romans who were invited to return to restore order and defend the Britons against the invaders (ie. the Angles and Saxons). It worked the first time but when the Romans refused to return the next time, the Anglo-Saxons were successful.

[hagoth7]

Fomenting war? Hardly.

They were called in renowned champions of liberty. Fearless.

Unlike Vizzini's warmongering, the Nephite tradition of succoring/strengthening the weak, etc., encircling the innocent in safety,  truly was a "long and glorious" tradition. "They had been born as Nefi as old..."

Next time you thnk of early England or Italy, think this:

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, Alan said:

Angles and Saxons certainly did invade.

It was the Romans who were invited to return to restore order and defend the Britons against the invaders (ie. the Angles and Saxons). It worked the first time but when the Romans refused to return the next time, the Anglo-Saxons were successful.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle admits it.  I see no reason to doubt this statement.  They admitted and defended title by conquest of the bulk of the island.

[hagoth7]

29 minutes ago, Alan said:

Angles and Saxons certainly did invade.

It was the Romans who were invited to return to restore order and defend the Britons against the invaders (ie. the Angles and Saxons). It worked the first time but when the Romans refused to return the next time, the Anglo-Saxons were successful.

I invite you to compare the early accounts.

1. The british accounts which claimed the Saxons were the troublemakers.

2. The Saxon account which claims they had been called in to help. Used for that purpose. And then spitefully betrayed.

While letting those two competing accounts simmer...

Do the same for Lombard migration into Italy? Brute force? Or peacekeeping//restoration of order?

 

A few examples from others sons of Nefi:

1. Viking troops enlisted in England's defense in 1002 experienced the exact same betrayal. None question the reality of that tragic event/betrayal. Pearl-harbor-level perfidy...and the just Viking backlash of that betrayal cost that dynasty their crown.

2. Julius Caesar did the exact same thing over a thousand years earlier, against early sons of Nefi. And when they freely forgave and offered to serve Caesar (as earlier anti-nephii-lehites laid down their swords/lives before Lamanite armies) ,  Caesar subsequently experienced a mighty change of heart.

3. In Esther's Day, that exact same rubric had played out...when she and her father rescued her people from what otherwise would have been tragic perfidy. "For such a day as this..."

 

I suggest briefly reviewing the principles in an amazing book called Leadership and Self-Deception. It basically demonstrates how it is central to human nature that when we are in a position of authority, and abuse that authority, "almost all men" as D&C puts it, then immediately pivot to believe that the one(s) they had wronged were instead the ones fault, and mertited whatever abuse of authority they had wielded. And being self-deceived by a narrative that falsely puts themselves in a superior position, then belittles/blacklists the victim of their injustice...both to themselves and to others...to frame a narrative that puts them hero to the story. It *is* human nature. Such aprocess involves the searing of the conscience to the plight of others one could otherwise reach. Psych 102. Humility 101. Whichi s why we're cautioned very specifically in scripture how we feel in our heart...something that needs to be reigned in and properly guided...when someone appeals for our aid. We are not to say they merited their condition and therefore merit no assistance. (a microcosm of the Leadership Deception.)

True to what D&C teaches of authority. True to what we know happened in the 50's BC to the earliest Germans, true to what happened in 1002 to their enlisted descendants, true to what almost happened to Jews in Esther's day, and which tragically happened to them en masse in the 1940's.

"True to the (false) faith" the our fathers had to armor up and brace themselves against.

So feel free to align with those who have abused their authority and rewritten history to obscure prior betrayal...untl this starts to sink in...if you give it place.. I encourage you to step out of their ranks as soon as you can. Please.

I'll make a stand with Nephites and Jews who saw through the smokescreen. 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/123.9-11?lang=eng#p8

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

How are America's veterans treated today?

Allowed to return with honor? Honored on their return? Granted rest, and the security they had fought to establish for others? 

?  ?  ?

Or kicked to the curb...discarded...by leaders and citizens alike. 

As to literally kicked to the curb, the homeless population has a tragic number of veterans and sometimes their families.The research might surprise you.

They are those among us with some of the most troubling psychic/spiritual/emotional scars, trying to recover from what they had been enlisted/ordered to, the human cost it inflicted, and their subsequently being discarded. It is actually a wonder we don't see more enraged Rambo's, fed up.

Human. Nature.

To discard those sent off to fight. Whose bloodsheed makes us too uncomfortable as a society to face. Which is in part why wars continue. We never face and confront the actual reality among our own troops...let alone pray for or serve the supposed enemy.

Self deception.

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

One of the isles of the sea:

[hagoth7]

Stranded, like Gilligan...only not comical.

[hagoth7]

54 minutes ago, Alan said:

Angles and Saxons certainly did invade.

It was the Romans who were invited to return to restore order and defend the Britons against the invaders (ie. the Angles and Saxons). It worked the first time but when the Romans refused to return the next time, the Anglo-Saxons were successful.

Let's riff on the Viking "invasions" to test the strength of your premise a wee bit.

You do realize that Charlemagne unleashed a vicious war against the Frisians to his NE and the Saxons to his east flank the latter of which dragged on for 30 years. And in both cases, those refusing to bow to a tyrant withdrew to Denmark.

The Viking "invasion" was, as my brother once put it, a response to their hornet's nest being swatted. A resonse to those repeatedly attempting to spread their versoin of Christianity by the sword...repeatedly forcing tithing and baptism on others under punishment of death. Thousands being killed in the Carolingian campaigns of conquest.

 

And true to form, Charlemagne and his sons (who had usurped the Merovingian throne because the Merovingians were considered too peaceful) then playing the victim for the backlash from the north from a repeatedly wronged/aggreived people. Argh.

Most hiistory was written by brigands. Bullies.

Don't drink their koolaid.  Or at least spit it out and reconsider.

For those who prefer to continue drinking tradiitional history, instead of reah for an antedote (the faith of our fathers)...from a movie I rewatched last weekend:

Edited July 18, 2017 by hagoth7