Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Squaring 2 Kings 24:10-16 with the Story of Lehi and his Family in the Book of Mormon


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But, his assumptions are based on an assessment of attitudes of that time period using historical sources, they aren't pulled out of thin air.  It all comes down to how you interpret the data, and you can't get away from the "mental mind games" with this kind of thing because, as has been pointed out, historical accounts don't always mesh with each other.  

True, historical accounts don't always mesh with each other. But in this case the historical record is clear that Zedekiah became king in 597 BCE. As Chadwick notes, "It is a historical certainty, now accepted by a complete consensus of biblical and historical scholarship, that Zedekiah was elevated to the throne of Judah by the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar in the spring of the year 597 BC." The problem for Chadwick is that if "Lehi and his family been in Jerusalem in 598 BC, they would very likely have been deported away to Babylon in the aftermath of the 597 surrender of the city" and Lehi's prophecies would be nonsense:

Quote

Lehi and his prophet contemporaries were bold in their message that Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Babylonians and that “many should be carried away captive into Babylon” (1 Ne. 1:13). Yet when confronted with these warnings, Lehi was mocked by the populace (see 1 Ne. 1:19). Indeed, Laman and Lemuel, like the rest of the population of Judah, did not believe “that Jerusalem, that great city, could be destroyed” (1 Ne. 2:13) and regarded Lehi’s warnings as “foolish imaginations” (1 Ne. 2:11). Such attitudes would hardly have been possible in 597 BC, or in any subsequent year, after Jerusalem had been successfully besieged by the Babylonians, had surrendered, and had begun to see the deportation of ten thousand Judahites. And even though the capital had not been destroyed that year, the Babylonian capacity to both conquer and decimate large cities had been well understood in Judah since 604 BC, when their close neighbor Ekron, a large and prosperous fortified city with a temple comparable to Solomon’s, had been utterly demolished by Nebuchadnezzar’s forces.

Furthermore, "the travel of Lehi and his party through the Arava, essentially controlled by Edom, . . . is essentially unthinkable from 600 BC onward."

So this forces Chadwick to backdate "the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Ne. 1:4) to the reign of Jehoiakim. His proposed solution? Lehi and Nephi must have "regarded the Egyptian puppet Jehoiakim as illegitimate or, at best, an undesired co-regent, and would have actually recognized young Zedekiah as the rightful monarch from the point in late 609 BC when it was clear that Jehoahaz would never return."

Chadwick is grasping at straws here. There isn't a shred of evidence from the Bible (or any other source) that anyone anywhere in antiquity—or at any time since—ever considered Zedekiah's reign to have begun in late 609. Not one source so much as hints at such a thing. Chadwick offers a tendentious reading of 2 Kings to argue that "the people of the land" (which he identifies as "the Judahite populace of Jerusalem") might have felt that way, but he offers no evidence that they did. He offers none because there is none. The biblical record is silent on the subject. The authors/editors of 2 Kings had a lot to say about the role of "the people of the land" in choosing (and deposing) certain monarchs, but they are conspicuously silent about Zedekiah. 

It may also be a stretch to connect Lehi to "the people of the land." While the meaning of the term is debated, a number of scholars have understood it to refer to poor, rural folk (cf. 2 Kings 24:14). William Schniedewind, for example, identifies them as "the old rural tribal leaders" from the Judaean foothills who had been politically marginalized by "urban elites with ties to northern Israel" (see Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book, 107). But if the Book of Mormon is to be believed, Lehi was wealthy and well-connected, with ties to northern Israel no less. Also, is there any reason to believe that Lehi, who apparently had an Egyptian scribal education as well as being a skilled metalsmith, would have been pro-Babylonian rather than pro-Egyptian? Or that he would have been a devoted partisan of Josiah's policies?

1 Nephi poses a number of historical problems and Chadwick (to his credit) notes several of them. I'm just not convinced by his solution. 

Edited by Nevo
Link to comment
On 11/13/2020 at 5:57 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

2 Kings 24:10-16 Reads:

This seems to conflict with what the Book of Mormon states with respect to Lehi and his family

The F.A.I.R. website describes Lehi as being wealthy:

 The Book of Mormon states in 1 Nephi 2:2-4 that Lehi was warned of the coming peril in a dream and left taking nothing with them but necessary provisions leaving behind their wealth.

 

The church website describes what happened next here https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/book-of-mormon-stories/chapter-4-the-brass-plates?lang=eng

 

And the Book of Mormon says:

So I have a few questions:

The Bible says that Jerusalem was plundered of all of its riches and that "all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained" They were sent into Exile leaving behind the poorest sort of the people of the land. 

01. Lehi certainly wasn't among the Poorest sort, so how did his family survive?

01. How did something valuable like the Brass plates, kept by Laban, escape this plundering?

02. Why would someone allegedly important like Laban escape being exiled?

02. How did Lehi's gold, silver and riches survive the plunder of the Babylonians?  Why was he alone spared having his riches, his gold, his silver plundered?

03. How did a wealthy family like Lehi's escape exile?  They certainly weren't among the poorest sort.

On the surface, the claims found in the Book of Mormon fly in the face of the claims made in the Biblical story that Lehi and his family supposedly lived through...yet somehow they survived all of the consequences of the Babylonian assault of Jerusalem. How did they do it?

I ask these questions because I've just finished reading The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finklestein.  Note the book has nothing to do with Mormonism and yet it raised many question that seemed to undermine many of its claims.  But this is one of many questions that the book raised in my mind as I read the book.

You have valid questions, but it seems you're assuming a lot. Was Lehi a mighty man of valor? He was not a man of war. He was not a soldier. He was not a defender of the city. Now if I were him and the Lord warned me that the city was going to be attacked by Nebuchadnezzar and told me to warn the people, would I leave all my riches in my house? That would just be stupid. That would be me not heeding the Lord. I would hide it in several places probably outside of the city - in the family tomb or something like that. I definitely would not leave it lying around for the taking when the Lord told me what was going to happen. I would not dress richly or make myself a target. I may have even taken a vacation outside of the city right before the big event.... Yep, definitely, if I knew exactly when. I don't see anywhere in the BoM where the Lord commanded Lehi to stay in the city until Zedekiah became king. 

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

... For once I would just like the facts to fit together without some mental mind games.

That doesn't even happen with most current events reported by professional journalists, and you're expecting it with religious texts from over 2,500 years ago?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Nevo said:

True, historical accounts don't always mesh with each other. But in this case the historical record is clear that Zedekiah became king in 597 BCE. As Chadwick notes, "It is a historical certainty, now accepted by a complete consensus of biblical and historical scholarship, that Zedekiah was elevated to the throne of Judah by the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar in the spring of the year 597 BC." The problem for Chadwick is that if "Lehi and his family been in Jerusalem in 598 BC, they would very likely have been deported away to Babylon in the aftermath of the 597 surrender of the city" and Lehi's prophecies would be nonsense:

Furthermore, "the travel of Lehi and his party through the Arava, essentially controlled by Edom, . . . is essentially unthinkable from 600 BC onward."

So this forces Chadwick to backdate "the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah" (1 Ne. 1:4) to the reign of Jehoiakim. His proposed solution? Lehi and Nephi must have "regarded the Egyptian puppet Jehoiakim as illegitimate or, at best, an undesired co-regent, and would have actually recognized young Zedekiah as the rightful monarch from the point in late 609 BC when it was clear that Jehoahaz would never return."

Chadwick is grasping at straws here. There isn't a shred of evidence from the Bible (or any other source) that anyone anywhere in antiquity—or at any time since—ever considered Zedekiah's reign to have begun in late 609. Not one source so much as hints at such a thing. Chadwick offers a tendentious reading of 2 Kings to argue that "the people of the land" (which he identifies as "the Judahite populace of Jerusalem") might have felt that way, but he offers no evidence that they did. He offers none because there is none. The biblical record is silent on the subject. The authors/editors of 2 Kings had a lot to say about the role of "the people of the land" in choosing (and deposing) certain monarchs, but they are conspicuously silent about Zedekiah. 

It may also be a stretch to connect Lehi to "the people of the land." While the meaning of the term is debated, a number of scholars have understood it to refer to be poor, rural folk (cf. 2 Kings 24:14). William Schniedewind, for example, identifies them as "the old rural tribal leaders" from the Judaean foothills who had been politically marginalized by "urban elites with ties to northern Israel" (see Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book, 107). But if the Book of Mormon is to be believed, Lehi was wealthy and well-connected, with ties to northern Israel no less. Also, is there any reason to believe that Lehi, who apparently had an Egyptian scribal education as well as being a skilled metalsmith, would have been pro-Babylonian rather than pro-Egyptian? Or that he would have been a devoted partisan of Josiah's political program?

1 Nephi poses a number of historical problems and Chadwick (to his credit) notes several of them. I'm just not convinced by his solution. 

I wish I could articulate the problem as well as you have done.  This is exactly what I have been attempting, although doing so poorly, to explain.  The entire Book of Mormon timeline for Lehi and his family while in Jerusalem is problematic and doesn't fit into the known history of the period in which the Book of Mormon narrative claims.  Chadwick's solution is convoluted and built on too many assumptions and speculative conclusions to make it believable.  This is why I could not get the story to square with the historical record.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

You have valid questions, but it seems you're assuming a lot. Was Lehi a mighty man of valor? He was not a man of war. He was not a soldier. He was not a defender of the city. Now if I were him and the Lord warned me that the city was going to be attacked by Nebuchadnezzar and told me to warn the people, would I leave all my riches in my house? That would just be stupid. That would be me not heeding the Lord. I would hide it in several places probably outside of the city - in the family tomb or something like that. I definitely would not leave it lying around for the taking when the Lord told me what was going to happen. I would not dress richly or make myself a target. I may have even taken a vacation outside of the city right before the big event.... Yep, definitely, if I knew exactly when. I don't see anywhere in the BoM where the Lord commanded Lehi to stay in the city until Zedekiah became king. 

Actually the BoM does say that in1 Nephi 1:4 (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days), so the book doesn't give any clues of any other residences.

Another question is by the 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah, Jerusalem had already been through one Babylonian siege 8 years earlier...what exactly was Lehi warning the people of and had they already gone through an earlier siege and suffered the consequences of that siege why would they be so resistive of Lehi's warning?  Surely the citizens of Jerusalem, by that time, would have known that such a warning was possible would they not?  The timeline in the BoM just doesn't add up.  It seems that Jeff Chadwick is well aware of these difficulties thus his attempt to come up with an alternative.

UBF Gospel Musings: Timeline of Israel and Judah (Isaiah ...607 for Beginners | Jeffro’s ‘607’ Pages

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Actually the BoM does say that in1 Nephi 1:4 (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days), so the book doesn't give any clues of any other residences.

Another question is by the 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah, Jerusalem had already been through one Babylonian siege 8 years earlier...what exactly was Lehi warning the people of and had they already gone through an earlier siege and suffered the consequences of that siege why would they be so resistive of Lehi's warning?  Surely the citizens of Jerusalem, by that time, would have known that such a warning was possible would they not?  The timeline in the BoM just doesn't add up.  It seems that Jeff Chadwick is well aware of these difficulties thus his attempt to come up with an alternative.

 

Thank you for that image you included earlier.   When I read the following, the siege seems to occur some
time in the three month reign of Jehoiachin, just before Zedekiah becomes king.

2 Kings 24:8-17

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.
And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 

And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. 
Jerusalem Captured

At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was
besieged. 

And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 

And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and
his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. 

And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house,
and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as
the Lord had said. 

And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand
captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 

And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and
the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 

And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong
and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. 

And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to
Zedekiah.

1 Nephi 7:6 says some of Ishmael's household, together with some of Nephi's brothers, rebelled
and wished to return to the land of Jerusalem. 1 Nephi 16:36 mentions that the daughters of 
Ishmael wanted to return to Jerusalem.  It's puzzling how they would think their life would be 
better in Jerusalem as opposed to freedom in the desert when Jerusalem is being ransacked, 
people are being killed, and possibly women are being raped - before Zedekiah comes to the 
throne (2 Kings 23 and 2 Kings 24).

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, theplains said:

Thank you for that image you included earlier.   When I read the following, the siege seems to occur some
time in the three month reign of Jehoiachin, just before Zedekiah becomes king.

2 Kings 24:8-17

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.
And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 

And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. 
Jerusalem Captured

At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was
besieged. 

And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 

And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and
his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. 

And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house,
and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as
the Lord had said. 

And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand
captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 

And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and
the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 

And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong
and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. 

And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to
Zedekiah.

Sorry, but no duh. We know from the BoM that Lehi was around until Zedekiah became king. It also appears from the record that the whole siege event took place because Jehoiachin's father provoked Nebuchadnezzar by being rebellious. So, Nebuchadnezzar came to remove him from office and teach the rebellious Jews a lesson. It follows that Zedekiah was placed into office quickly to be a puppet to Nebuchadnezzar. So yeah, Nebu put him in office, took gold from the temple to pay for his raid, took the city defenders with him, and left fairly promptly - having accomplished his goal. 

Quote

1 Nephi 7:6 says some of Ishmael's household, together with some of Nephi's brothers, rebelled
and wished to return to the land of Jerusalem. 1 Nephi 16:36 mentions that the daughters of 
Ishmael wanted to return to Jerusalem.  It's puzzling how they would think their life would be 
better in Jerusalem as opposed to freedom in the desert when Jerusalem is being ransacked, 
people are being killed, and possibly women are being raped - before Zedekiah comes to the 
throne (2 Kings 23 and 2 Kings 24).

Nope. King Nebu left and the city began to prosper again. No ransacking going on. People liked the comfort of the city for the same reasons the Israelites wanted to return to slavery in Egypt rather than experience the harshness and uncertainties of the desert even though it is quite apparent they were being led by the Lord and should have nothing to fear.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Actually the BoM does say that in1 Nephi 1:4 (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days), so the book doesn't give any clues of any other residences.

Another question is by the 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah, Jerusalem had already been through one Babylonian siege 8 years earlier...what exactly was Lehi warning the people of and had they already gone through an earlier siege and suffered the consequences of that siege why would they be so resistive of Lehi's warning?  Surely the citizens of Jerusalem, by that time, would have known that such a warning was possible would they not?  The timeline in the BoM just doesn't add up.  It seems that Jeff Chadwick is well aware of these difficulties thus his attempt to come up with an alternative.

UBF Gospel Musings: Timeline of Israel and Judah (Isaiah ...607 for Beginners | Jeffro’s ‘607’ Pages

Having a dwelling in the city is not the same as residing there 24/7. Lehi was probably a merchant who spent much of his time away from home. He had a tent already prepared for his trip out of the city apparently. He may have been somewhat familiar with the route for at least the first three days, because the Liahona did not show up until after that part of the journey. Lehi probably left soon after the second siege when Zedekiah became king. His warnings preceded that siege. He obviously wasn't around for the last siege when the city was totally destroyed. So the reluctance of the people at that point was somewhat predictable. Nothing much happened to them in the prior siege. When Zedekiah failed to heed Nebuchadnezzar, the writing was on the wall for Lehi. Time to get out of Dodge.

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Having a dwelling in the city is not the same as residing there 24/7. Lehi was probably a merchant who spent much of his time away from home. He had a tent already prepared for his trip out of the city apparently. He may have been somewhat familiar with the route for at least the first three days, because the Liahona did not show up until after that part of the journey. Lehi probably left soon after the second siege when Zedekiah became king. His warnings preceded that siege. He obviously wasn't around for the last siege when the city was totally destroyed. So the reluctance of the people at that point was somewhat predictable. Nothing much happened to them in the prior siege. When Zedekiah failed to heed Nebuchadnezzar, the writing was on the wall for Lehi. Time to get out of Dodge.

This is plausible...not too much head scratching for it to have happened this way

Link to comment
4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry, but no duh. We know from the BoM that Lehi was around until Zedekiah became king. It also appears from the record that the whole siege event took place because Jehoiachin's father provoked Nebuchadnezzar by being rebellious. So, Nebuchadnezzar came to remove him from office and teach the rebellious Jews a lesson. It follows that Zedekiah was placed into office quickly to be a puppet to Nebuchadnezzar. So yeah, Nebu put him in office, took gold from the temple to pay for his raid, took the city defenders with him, and left fairly promptly - having accomplished his goal. 

Nope. King Nebu left and the city began to prosper again. No ransacking going on. People liked the comfort of the city for the same reasons the Israelites wanted to return to slavery in Egypt rather than experience the harshness and uncertainties of the desert even though it is quite apparent they were being led by the Lord and should have nothing to fear.

Now you want to appeal to the Bible to make your point since the Book of Mormon is silent about these
events.  Maybe you can quote some scripture to support your theories about King Nebuchadnezzar
leaving (with his entire army) after installing a puppet after his siege in the 3 month reign of the previous
king and the city prospering again.  You seem to think King Nebuchadnezzar thought his entire campaign
against Jerusalem was over in this particular incident and he returned with his entire army and left the
city in peace.

The Book of Mormon says Jerusalem was said to have been destroyed immediately after Lehi left Jerusalem 
(2 Nephi 25:10).  And 1 Nephi 2 says Lehi leaves Jerusalem in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign (introductory
notes to 3 Nephi 1).

Edited by theplains
small edit
Link to comment
4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

People liked the comfort of the city for the same reasons the Israelites wanted to return to slavery in Egypt rather than experience the harshness and uncertainties of the desert even though it is quite apparent they were being led by the Lord and should have nothing to fear.

Some additional information.

2 Kings 24:14 says, "And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor,
even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the
people of the land
"

The Book of Mormon is oblivious to all this activity.

In addition, Lehi and Laban do not fit this description.  They were both wealthy and Laban was supposedly
a man of valor.  Lehi with his gold, silver, other precious items, and his home (1 Nephi 2:4). And Laban (a
man with an unspecified number of servants, a mighty man who can command 50, and someone who has
his own treasury; 1 Nephi 3:25,31).

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Actually the BoM does say that in1 Nephi 1:4 (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days), so the book doesn't give any clues of any other residences.

Another question is by the 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah, Jerusalem had already been through one Babylonian siege 8 years earlier...what exactly was Lehi warning the people of and had they already gone through an earlier siege and suffered the consequences of that siege why would they be so resistive of Lehi's warning?  Surely the citizens of Jerusalem, by that time, would have known that such a warning was possible would they not?  The timeline in the BoM just doesn't add up.  It seems that Jeff Chadwick is well aware of these difficulties thus his attempt to come up with an alternative.

UBF Gospel Musings: Timeline of Israel and Judah (Isaiah ...607 for Beginners | Jeffro’s ‘607’ Pages

Yes, they would have known invasion and occupation but Lehi probably provoked them more with his talk of the city being destroyed. Jerusalem was probably generally considered to be too valuable where it was to imagine Babylon would decide to get rid of it. They overestimated Babylon's patience with their endless revolts and Egyptian willingness to fight and die for them.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, theplains said:

Now you want to appeal to the Bible to make your point since the Book of Mormon is silent about these
events.  Maybe you can quote some scripture to support your theories about King Nebuchadnezzar
leaving (with his entire army) after installing a puppet after his siege in the 3 month reign of the previous
king and the city prospering again.  You seem to think King Nebuchadnezzar thought his entire campaign
against Jerusalem was over in this particular incident and he returned with his entire army and left the
city in peace.

Actually, history shows that Nebuchadnezzar left and went to besiege Tyre. So yeah, he probably left with basically his entire army. Maybe he left a few troops and some administrators in Jerusalem, but his MO was to go from city to city to try to collect tribute. This is probably when some Sidonians left with Mulek to go find a new place to live, which is why there is a river named Sidon in the BoM. But this does not support the Pacific voyage beliefs of some in the Church regarding the Jaredites and Lehites.

7 hours ago, theplains said:

The Book of Mormon says Jerusalem was said to have been destroyed immediately after Lehi left Jerusalem 
(2 Nephi 25:10).  And 1 Nephi 2 says Lehi leaves Jerusalem in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign (introductory
notes to 3 Nephi 1).

Yeah, like I said, it became apparent that Jerusalem was asking for it when Zedekiah's rebelliousness became manifest. I think a few years is close enough for me to be "immediately." That is a fairly ambiguous word. Nor do I think your interpretation is correct that Lehi left in the first year of Zedekiah. 1 Nephi 1 says that Lehi had a vision of the destruction of the city in the first year of Zedekiah. He then went out to prophesy about it and warn the people. How long this lasted we aren't told. At some point Zedekiah apparently decided to try to further an alliance with Egypt, and this is when it became apparent to the prophets that Jerusalem was headed for trouble. In fact he threw Jeremiah in jail, because he didn't want to listen to the Lord's warnings. By that point, I think it would have certainly been evident to Lehi too... but I do believe Lehi left before that point. You are just trying to read too much into that first year of Zedekiah's reign.

Link to comment
On 11/13/2020 at 5:57 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

 

So I have a few questions:

The Bible says that Jerusalem was plundered of all of its riches and that "all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained" They were sent into Exile leaving behind the poorest sort of the people of the land. 

01. Lehi certainly wasn't among the Poorest sort, so how did his family survive?

01. How did something valuable like the Brass plates, kept by Laban, escape this plundering?

02. Why would someone allegedly important like Laban escape being exiled?

02. How did Lehi's gold, silver and riches survive the plunder of the Babylonians?  Why was he alone spared having his riches, his gold, his silver plundered?

03. How did a wealthy family like Lehi's escape exile?  They certainly weren't among the poorest sort.

 

As I understand it, much of this portion of the Bible was written in the 4th-5th century BC by scribes of the deuteronomist school centered around Babylon.  Most of these were Jews who had been deported during the earlier sieges of Jerusalem and were relatively well-established in Babylon by the time of the temple’s destruction, some even taking positions in Nebuchadnezzar’s bureaucracy.  These would have looked with scorn in the more recent deportees as being a) a threat to the new Jewish religious order that emerging in Babylon, b) an embarrassing and inconvenient reminder to the Babylonians that not all Jews would be unconditionally loyal to Babylon; c) the proximate cause of Jerusalem’s destruction (“we weren’t even IN Jerusalem when the temple fell.  Clearly this was a result of your wickedness, not ours!”), and d) country bumpkins unacquainted with the sophisticated, cosmopolitan ways of Babylonia.

Generating a narrative that all the best Jews were out of Judah by the time Zedekiah took the throne, advanced the interests both of the Babylonian power base as well as (in Cyrus’s time) Babylonian Jews who were returning to Jerusalem and wanted to exert religious and secular authority over the remnant Jews who had never left the holy land at all.  “History is written by the victors”, and all that.

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment
11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Chapter headings are not authoritative scripture.

The heading is either true or false.  If false, the church has been misleading readers of the Book of
Mormon for decades and continues to do so in future publications. In addition, 2 Nephi 25:10 says 
Jerusalem was destroyed immediately after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Nephi also said, "... according to my prophecy they have been destroyed, save it be those which are
carried away captive into Babylon
."   He was not aware that the poorest remained in the land as the
Bible says.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, theplains said:

The heading is either true or false.  If false, the church has been misleading readers of the Book of
Mormon for decades and continues to do so in future publications. In addition, 2 Nephi 25:10 says 
Jerusalem was destroyed immediately after Lehi left Jerusalem.

 

You know, Jimmy, you tried to harp on this point over at MormonHub/ThirdHour a little over a year ago; and at that point a participant there told you:

In 1 Ne 17:43 (tentatively dated around 592 BC), Nephi states he doesn’t know whether Jerusalem has been destroyed yet.  In 2 Ne 1:4, dated around 588 BC, Lehi announces that it has indeed been destroyed.  Nephi’s use of “immediately” in 2 Ne 25:10 (dating to 559 BC at the earliest) should be granted the latitude we’d ordinarily give to someone rehashing a thirty-year-old memory.  We know the destruction wasn’t “immediate”, because the boys went back to Jerusalem twice after Lehi left andapparently found business was going on as usual. 

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment
14 hours ago, mgy401 said:

In 1 Ne 17:43 (tentatively dated around 592 BC), Nephi states he doesn’t know whether Jerusalem has been destroyed yet.  In 2 Ne 1:4, dated around 588 BC, Lehi announces that it has indeed been destroyed.  Nephi’s use of “immediately” in 2 Ne 25:10 (dating to 559 BC at the earliest) should be granted the latitude we’d ordinarily give to someone rehashing a thirty-year-old memory.  We know the destruction wasn’t “immediate”, because the boys went back to Jerusalem twice after Lehi left andapparently found business was going on as usual. 

You haven't explained what you believe about the heading in the Book of Mormon. Is the church
knowingly misleading people with this statement if false? Or does the church really believe all these
decades that it is true and it wants to convey that truth to readers?

Nephi also said, "... according to my prophecy they have been destroyed, save it be those which are
carried away captive into Babylon
."   He was not aware that the poorest remained in the land as the
Bible says.  Neither was Lehi.

As you said, Lehi apparently found business was going on as usual.  This is because the record shows
he was oblivious of what occurred before Zedekiah became king.  See 2 Kings 24:8-18.

Matthew 4:21-22 says, "And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called
them. And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him
."

Do you believe the person who recorded this also suffered from memory-loss?

If you want to give Lehi some latitude for his 'supposed' memory loss in 2 Nephi 25:10, how much time
do you wish to give him?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

Nephi also said, "... according to my prophecy they have been destroyed, save it be those which are
carried away captive into Babylon
."   He was not aware that the poorest remained in the land as the
Bible says.  Neither was Lehi.

This is typical prophetic language.  Consider Jeremiah's prophecy about the same event:

Jer 9:11  "And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant."

Was Jeremiah not aware that the poorest remained in the land as the Bible says?  If we follow your line of reasoning, apparently Jeremiah was also clueless.  But what is the truth of the matter?   "Look not to find fault where there is no fault, but consider all things in the setting in which it was given" (InCognitus 23:14).   And, "don't use a double standard."  (No verse reference, I just made that up).

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Matthew 4:21-22 says, "And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called
them. And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him
."

Do you believe the person who recorded this also suffered from memory-loss?

Again, "immediately" is a relative statement when considered in prophetic language.  Jesus also said:

Mat 24:29-30:  "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Do all those things happen at the same time, "immediately"?   This kind of thing is typical of prophetic language to stress urgency.  Regarding the events in the book of Revelation, the angel told John (and also spoke the words of Jesus in the first person):

"And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.  Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book." (Rev 22:6-7).

How short is "shortly" in prophetic language?  Probably as immediate as "immediately".

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...