Lesson 21 - The Coming of Jesus Christ

[marineland]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:35 AM, InCognitus said:

The "some" applies to those of the house of Israel that are on the Isles of the sea (i.e. other continents).  Not all of the house of Israel were scattered to other continents.  In other words, the three days of darkness are a sign unto his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, specifically to those (who inhabit the isles of the sea) who are of the house of Israel.

Based on how the wording is done, I would say the three days of darkness were for those
who resided in the isles of the sea (all nationalities), but was especially a sign for the house
of Israel. I would include non-Israelites in this too. 

Verse 12 alludes to this. "... many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon
by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers".

At the time of Christ's crucifixion, there were no kings amongst the Nephites nor in the
Roman-controlled world.  Like Rome with the Caesars, China and Japan had their Emperors. 
I am not aware of any kingdom on earth anywhere at the time of Christ's death which had
these kings; especially kings who would know Jesus was being crucified by the Romans on
that day.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Based on how the wording is done, I would say the three days of darkness were for those
who resided in the isles of the sea (all nationalities), but was especially a sign for the house
of Israel. I would include non-Israelites in this too. 

Verse 12 alludes to this. "... many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon
by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers".

At the time of Christ's crucifixion, there were no kings amongst the Nephites nor in the
Roman-controlled world.  Like Rome with the Caesars, China and Japan had their Emperors. 
I am not aware of any kingdom on earth anywhere at the time of Christ's death which had
these kings; especially kings who would know Jesus was being crucified by the Romans on
that day.

You are in error. At the time of the crucifixion of Christ there was a king among the Nephites whose name was King Jacob, and it’s very likely that the fear of God came upon him in a  mighty way as his city, Jacobugath, was being burned to ashes by the wrath of an offended God.

In addition, the later Germanic word ‘king’ didn’t even exist at the time of Christ’s crucifixion, although by that time there had been or were then hundreds of monarchs (in our language, kings) who had ruled or were then ruling all over the world. To imagine that the thousands of monarchs who ruled the nations of the world throughout history weren’t kings simply because their official ruling positions were known by earlier interchangeable titles is unreasonable and unfounded.

Lastly, the fact that many of the ruling monarchs at the time of Christ’s crucifixion would exclaim “the God of nature suffers,” rather than something like “the Son of God suffers,” indicates that they would likely be pagans who were unfamiliar with the prophecies of the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Edited December 23, 2023 by teddyaware

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Verse 12 alludes to this. "... many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon
by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers".

At the time of Christ's crucifixion, there were no kings amongst the Nephites nor in the
Roman-controlled world.  Like Rome with the Caesars, China and Japan had their Emperors. 
I am not aware of any kingdom on earth anywhere at the time of Christ's death which had
these kings; especially kings who would know Jesus was being crucified by the Romans on
that day.

The fact that you missed king Jacob in the Book of Mormon has already been pointed out by teddyaware (see 3 Nephi 7:9-10, 12, and especially 3 Nephi 9:9).

But the main problem is your hyper literal interpretation of the verse especially for the meaning of the word "kings".  Often the word translated as "kings" in the scriptures refers to the government leaders generally, and not only to countries that have a leader with the actual title of "king".  For example, we see verses like Revelation 19:19, where John says that upon the return of Jesus, "I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse".  According to your reasoning if this were to be fulfilled today, we'd only see King Charles, III, and the kings of Bahrain, Belgium, Cambodia, Eswatini, Jordan, Lesotho, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, and Tonga out gathered against Jesus, while the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Russia, China, and other countries that have presidents or some other title for their leader (instead of kings) get to sit out.  (You'd think the countries that use the title of "king" should have considered this way out of the problem).  

Edited December 23, 2023 by InCognitus

[CV75]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Oops.  See https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75666-lesson-21-the-coming-of-jesus-christ/?do=findComment&comment=1210171729

 

This doesn't help, since this is the post I couldn't figure out. If you would like to discuss something, please restate the specific point you are trying to make with me in response to my post. Thank you.

[theplains]

On 12/23/2023 at 10:28 AM, marineland said:

Based on how the wording is done, I would say the three days of darkness were for those
who resided in the isles of the sea (all nationalities), but was especially a sign for the house
of Israel. I would include non-Israelites in this too. 

Verse 12 alludes to this. "... many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon
by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers".

At the time of Christ's crucifixion, there were no kings amongst the Nephites nor in the
Roman-controlled world.  Like Rome with the Caesars, China and Japan had their Emperors. 
I am not aware of any kingdom on earth anywhere at the time of Christ's death which had
these kings; especially kings who would know Jesus was being crucified by the Romans on
that day.

Thanks for that.  I never really thought of the "especially" clause.

Your opinion about verse 12 is not quite right. The Holy Spirit would apparently make 
these Gentile kings know the "God of nature" suffers. But it's not clear what kind of 
suffering this meant and who this "God" was; considering pagan kings (or whatever the
leaders were referred to) worshipped pagan deities. One example being Egypt, which had 
gods for various things. Then you have all the Hindu gods and goddesses.

Some sources: 

https://pasoroblespress.com/commentary/gods-supremacy-over-the-false-gods-of-egypt-displayed-thru-the-10-plagues-by-dr-gary-barker/
https://oldworldgods.com/egyptians/the-10-plagues-and-egyptian-gods/
https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/the-exodus-plagues-judgment-on-egypts-gods

There is quite a difference when we examine events described in the Book of Mormon
and Bible surrounding the crucifixion and death of Christ.

In the Book of Mormon, many cities were destroyed. None were destroyed in the Bible. 
The city of Moronihah and the land of Israel were special cases. I can't comment on 
all the other lands of the world that suffered in the ways the Book of Mormon describes 
because those peoples' records "may or may not" be forthcoming in the future.

Let's go with what we have.

3 Nephi 8:25 says the women and children of Moronihah were destroyed but the men, who 
killed and stoned the prophets, were spared. This is despite other passages saying that 
the more righteous part of the people survived (3 Nephi 9:13; 10:12).

Then we have the land of Israel. Despite the Book of Mormon saying that Jesus came 
among the Jews who are the more wicked part of the world (2 Nephi 10:3), there was no 
death and destruction there.  Darkness lasted for only 3 hours and a brief earthquake 
caused the temple veil to tear in two.

But based on what Nephi had previously said in verse 10, I'd say the 3 days of darkness would
also apply to them. For the Nephites who were spared because they were more righteous 
than the wicked (3 Nephi 9:13; 10:12), they would nevertheless howl, weep, and mourn 
greatly because of the destruction among them (3 Nephi 8:23). At the crucifixion scene 
in the Bible, it is most likely that only the followers of Christ were weeping, and not 
because of any disasters at that time.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Thanks for that.  I never really thought of the "especially" clause.

Your opinion about verse 12 is not quite right. The Holy Spirit would apparently make 
these Gentile kings know the "God of nature" suffers. But it's not clear what kind of 
suffering this meant and who this "God" was; considering pagan kings (or whatever the
leaders were referred to) worshipped pagan deities. One example being Egypt, which had 
gods for various things. Then you have all the Hindu gods and goddesses.

Some sources: 

https://pasoroblespress.com/commentary/gods-supremacy-over-the-false-gods-of-egypt-displayed-thru-the-10-plagues-by-dr-gary-barker/
https://oldworldgods.com/egyptians/the-10-plagues-and-egyptian-gods/
https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/the-exodus-plagues-judgment-on-egypts-gods

There is quite a difference when we examine events described in the Book of Mormon
and Bible surrounding the crucifixion and death of Christ.

In the Book of Mormon, many cities were destroyed. None were destroyed in the Bible. 
The city of Moronihah and the land of Israel were special cases. I can't comment on 
all the other lands of the world that suffered in the ways the Book of Mormon describes 
because those peoples' records "may or may not" be forthcoming in the future.

Let's go with what we have.

3 Nephi 8:25 says the women and children of Moronihah were destroyed but the men, who 
killed and stoned the prophets, were spared. This is despite other passages saying that 
the more righteous part of the people survived (3 Nephi 9:13; 10:12).

Then we have the land of Israel. Despite the Book of Mormon saying that Jesus came 
among the Jews who are the more wicked part of the world (2 Nephi 10:3), there was no 
death and destruction there.  Darkness lasted for only 3 hours and a brief earthquake 
caused the temple veil to tear in two.

But based on what Nephi had previously said in verse 10, I'd say the 3 days of darkness would
also apply to them. For the Nephites who were spared because they were more righteous 
than the wicked (3 Nephi 9:13; 10:12), they would nevertheless howl, weep, and mourn 
greatly because of the destruction among them (3 Nephi 8:23). At the crucifixion scene 
in the Bible, it is most likely that only the followers of Christ were weeping, and not 
because of any disasters at that time.

For centuries prior to the birth of Christ, the Nephites were taught the gospel of Christ by authorized living prophets, men who had a clear and correct understanding of the saving mission of the Christ. By the time of Christ’s death, however, a very large number of apostate former Nephite Christians had fully ripened in iniquity, while being fully aware that they were in a state of open rebellion against God and Christ. It’s for this reason that God decreed the terrible destructions that descended upon the Nephites at the time of Christ’s death.

Meanwhile, during the same period of time in the Holy Land, most of the Jews had, at best, only a vague understanding of Jesus’ role as the Messiah, and it therefore took more time for the Jews to fully ripen in their rebellion against Christ and his church. But when they finally demonstrated by their actions that they had fully rejected their Messiah, the military might of Rome caused the Jews to meet a fate similar to the divinely decreed destructions that had come upon the Nephites about 35 years earlier. Simply put: the wicked Nephites were left without excuse at the time of Christ’s death, while the largely ignorant Jews in the Holy Land were given a grace period of 35 years to come unto Christ and repent of their sins before a most terrible destruction also came upon them.

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by teddyaware

[Pyreaux]

On 12/23/2023 at 9:28 AM, marineland said:

Based on how the wording is done, I would say the three days of darkness were for those
who resided in the isles of the sea (all nationalities), but was especially a sign for the house
of Israel. I would include non-Israelites in this too. 

Verse 12 alludes to this. "... many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon
by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers".

At the time of Christ's crucifixion, there were no kings amongst the Nephites nor in the
Roman-controlled world.  Like Rome with the Caesars, China and Japan had their Emperors. 
I am not aware of any kingdom on earth anywhere at the time of Christ's death which had
these kings; especially kings who would know Jesus was being crucified by the Romans on
that day.

Why not settle these language issues using the Bible? "The isles of the sea" is a phrase by which the Hebrews described countries which were accessible by sea (Isaiah 11:10-11, Isaiah 40:15, Jeremiah 2:10, Jeremiah 25:22, Ezekiel 27:3, Zephaniah 2:11.

The words, "king" and "kings" are used in Daniel 7:24 for the line of Roman emperors. In 1 Peter 2:17, the word "king" means "leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, king". This refers unambiguously to the Caesar. Emperors were a kingly position having supreme military authority.

Lamanites had "many" kings, I'm sure, as "Lamanites" were "many" separate people, as it means any non-Nephite, like "Gentile" meant any non-Jew and were many nations. Any American Native Chieftain that witnessed such a calamity would concur with Nephi, all nature was upset.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pyreaux

[marineland]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:56 PM, CV75 said:

This doesn't help, since this is the post I couldn't figure out. If you would like to discuss something, please restate the specific point you are trying to make with me in response to my post. Thank you.

Could one explain the 3 days of darkness in the Book of Mormon without one or more volcanoes
for those Nephites?

[marineland]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:02 PM, teddyaware said:

You are in error. At the time of the crucifixion of Christ there was a king among the Nephites whose name was King Jacob, and it’s very likely that the fear of God came upon him in a  mighty way as his city, Jacobugath, was being burned to ashes by the wrath of an offended God.

Thank you for correcting me.  I should have said "no surviving king among the Nephites".

My assumption was that 1 Nephi 19:12 was about kings in non-Nephite lands, who would
experience the 3 days of darkness but not all the other calamities.  

[marineland]

On 12/23/2023 at 12:47 PM, InCognitus said:

The fact that you missed king Jacob in the Book of Mormon has already been pointed out by teddyaware (see 3 Nephi 7:9-10, 12, and especially 3 Nephi 9:9).

But the main problem is your hyper literal interpretation of the verse especially for the meaning of the word "kings".  Often the word translated as "kings" in the scriptures refers to the government leaders generally, and not only to countries that have a leader with the actual title of "king".  For example, we see verses like Revelation 19:19, where John says that upon the return of Jesus, "I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse".  According to your reasoning if this were to be fulfilled today, we'd only see King Charles, III, and the kings of Bahrain, Belgium, Cambodia, Eswatini, Jordan, Lesotho, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, and Tonga out gathered against Jesus, while the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Russia, China, and other countries that have presidents or some other title for their leader (instead of kings) get to sit out.  (You'd think the countries that use the title of "king" should have considered this way out of the problem). 

 

On 12/26/2023 at 6:37 PM, Pyreaux said:

The words, "king" and "kings" are used in Daniel 7:24 for the line of Roman emperors. In 1 Peter 2:17, the word "king" means "leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, king". This refers unambiguously to the Caesar. Emperors were a kingly position having supreme military authority.

Lamanites had "many" kings, I'm sure, as "Lamanites" were "many" separate people, as it means any non-Nephite, like "Gentile" meant any non-Jew and were many nations. Any American Native Chieftain that witnessed such a calamity would concur with Nephi, all nature was upset.

Does 1 Nephi 19:11-12 describe two sets of people making up all the house of Israel
scattered all around the world?

In the way kings are classified, I would see them (queens too) as government leaders.

How would you explain these two verses?

2 Nephi 10:9 - Yea, the kings of the Gentiles shall be nursing fathers unto them, and
their queens shall become nursing mothers; wherefore, the promises of the Lord are
great unto the Gentiles, for he hath spoken it, and who can dispute?

2 Nephi 10:11 - And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there
shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Could one explain the 3 days of darkness in the Book of Mormon without one or more volcanoes
for those Nephites?

Yes. Taking the text at face value, it was a sign from God, however He might otherwise explain the natural aspect of the phenomenon or whatever else the authors chose to include as associated phenomena.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Does 1 Nephi 19:11-12 describe two sets of people making up all the house of Israel
scattered all around the world?

No.  The tribes of Israel were scattered all over.  We don't have the full context for the prophecy of Zenos which was quoted by Nephi, but Nephi was recognizing the parts of the prophecy that he knew applied to his people.  

1 hour ago, marineland said:

In the way kings are classified, I would see them (queens too) as government leaders.

How would you explain these two verses?

2 Nephi 10:9 - Yea, the kings of the Gentiles shall be nursing fathers unto them, and
their queens shall become nursing mothers; wherefore, the promises of the Lord are
great unto the Gentiles, for he hath spoken it, and who can dispute?

2 Nephi 10:11 - And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there
shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.

The verses seem self explanatory to me.  Do you have a specific question about the verses?  Is your question about the Gentiles not being subject to kings in the land where Lehi and his family were led?  Or something else?

I see the verses teaching that the Gentiles are to play a big part in the gathering of Israel, and this is very much the same as what Isaiah says about the Gentiles in Isaiah 49:22–23:

"Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.  And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me."

Nephi was well aware of this prophecy, as he quoted Isaiah 49 in 1 Nephi 21. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 12/26/2023 at 12:39 PM, teddyaware said:

Simply put: the wicked Nephites were left without excuse at the time of Christ’s death, while the largely ignorant Jews in the Holy Land were given a grace period of 35 years to come unto Christ and repent of their sins

If you study the history of Israel in the Old Testament, they were largely rebellious and had
rejected the prophets and were destroyed / scattered for it. They had periods of grace for
millennia. 

But the coming of Christ to the Holy Land was an entirely different matter. He had come to
seek and to save the lost. While his preaching was mostly rejected by the Jews, the crucifixion
event brought atonement, not 3 days of darkness nor the massive destruction of their cities
and lives.

[marineland]

On 12/30/2023 at 11:52 AM, CV75 said:

Yes. Taking the text at face value, it was a sign from God, however He might otherwise explain the natural aspect of the phenomenon or whatever else the authors chose to include as associated phenomena.

Based on 1 Nephi 19:10, how widespread do you believe the three days of darkness were?

[marineland]

On 12/30/2023 at 11:57 AM, InCognitus said:

The tribes of Israel were scattered all over.  We don't have the full context for the prophecy of Zenos which was quoted by Nephi, but Nephi was recognizing the parts of the prophecy that he knew applied to his people. 

Based on 1 Nephi 19:10, how widespread do you believe the three days of darkness were?
 

On 12/30/2023 at 11:57 AM, InCognitus said:

The verses seem self explanatory to me.  Do you have a specific question about the verses?  Is your question about the Gentiles not being subject to kings in the land where Lehi and his family were led?  Or something else?

I was just asking how you define kings in 2 Nephi 10:9,11.

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, marineland said:

Based on 1 Nephi 19:10, how widespread do you believe the three days of darkness were?

The record attests to the darkness experienced by those living in the land of promise (see footnote k), so at least that widespread. I believe it would have been somewhere in the western hemisphere (I don't have a firm opinion on any of the models). I take the phrases, "those who should inhabit the isles of the sea" and "more especially ...those who are of the house of Israel" to refer the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, Zoram and Mulek living there, and not just anyone, since Zenos had an eye on the Lamanites (see footnote j) and the message of our Redeemer's mission was widely known for better (acceptance and peace) or worse (rejection and conflict). Compared to the size of the entire western hemisphere, I believe the locale would have been relatively small and the significance of the sign vis-a-vis the Crucifixion would have been nonexistent to minimal for anyone observing or hearing about them from afar. I suppose that other remnants of the house of Israel living elsewhere in the world at the time would have had their own set of signs.

What do you believe?

Edited January 11, 2024 by CV75

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Based on 1 Nephi 19:10, how widespread do you believe the three days of darkness were?

CV75 answered this same question adequately, and I concur with everything he said about the scope of the three days of darkness.

2 hours ago, marineland said:

I was just asking how you define kings in 2 Nephi 10:9,11.

There are two different contexts for the "kings" in 2 Nephi 10:9 and 2 Nephi 10:11.  

As I already mentioned, 2 Nephi 10:9 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 49:22-23, which Nephi had previously quoted in 1 Nephi 21, and it refers to the generic leaders around the world that would be of assistance to the house of Israel in the latter days.  Isaiah is emphasizing that great and notable rulers will come to their light and assist them, and this emphasizes the profound influence that God's people will have in that day in contrast to their prior state of affliction that was dealt out by the LORD.  Isaiah says similar things elsewhere, such as:

• Isaiah 49:7, "Kings shall see and arise, and princes also shall worship"
• Isaiah 60:3, "the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising"
• Isaiah 60:10, "their kings shall minister unto thee, for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee"
• Isaiah 60:11, "men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought"
• Isaiah 60:16, "Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings"
• Isaiah 62:2, "the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory"

I don't see why Presidents and Prime Ministers should be excluded from any of the verses listed above.  The point is that high ranking dignitaries will take notice of God's people and they will be treated well.

As for 2 Nephi 10:11, it has to do with the promised land being a "land of liberty" to the Gentiles, and that "liberty" is contrasted with the "captivity" they had in their mother lands (see for example 1 Nephi 13:16-19 and 2 Nephi 1:7).  So the "kings" in 2 Nephi 10:11 are associated with that captivity, and the promised land will be free from that form of captivity.  The promise is explained further in the verses that follow:  

"And I will fortify this land against all other nations.  And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God.  For he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord, the king of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them forever, that hear my words."  (2 Nephi 10:12–14)

[marineland]

On 1/11/2024 at 4:16 PM, CV75 said:

I take the phrases, "those who should inhabit the isles of the sea" and "more especially ...those who are of the house of Israel" to refer the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, Zoram and Mulek living there, and not just anyone, since Zenos had an eye on the Lamanites (see footnote j)

What do you believe?

@InCognitus

I don't believe the house of Israel only refers to descendants of Lehi (of Manasseh), 
Ishmael (of Ephraim?), Zoram (of Manasseh?), and Mulek (of Judah).

Let me insert into 1 Nephi 19:10 what I believe.

"... concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death 
unto those [the entire house of Israel + Gentiles] who should inhabit [all, not some] 
the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel 
[but more especially given unto those of the twelve tribes of Israel; which is the 
house of Israel].

[marineland]

On 1/11/2024 at 11:57 PM, InCognitus said:

I don't see why Presidents and Prime Ministers should be excluded from any of the verses listed above.  The point is that high ranking dignitaries will take notice of God's people and they will be treated well.

As for 2 Nephi 10:11, it has to do with the promised land being a "land of liberty" to the Gentiles, and that "liberty" is contrasted with the "captivity" they had in their mother lands (see for example 1 Nephi 13:16-19 and 2 Nephi 1:7).  So the "kings" in 2 Nephi 10:11 are associated with that captivity, and the promised land will be free from that form of captivity.  The promise is explained further in the verses that follow:  

"And I will fortify this land against all other nations.  And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God.  For he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord, the king of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them forever, that hear my words."  (2 Nephi 10:12–14)

Regarding verse 11.

"And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no 
kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles".

What is this land a reference to and who are the Gentiles?  Why would having a
king (President for the United States or Prime Minister for Canada) mean it
would not be a land of liberty?

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

I don't believe the house of Israel only refers to descendants of Lehi (of Manasseh), 
Ishmael (of Ephraim?), Zoram (of Manasseh?), and Mulek (of Judah).

I don't believe it only refers to these people as well.  

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Let me insert into 1 Nephi 19:10 what I believe.

"... concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death 
unto those [the entire house of Israel + Gentiles] who should inhabit [all, not some] 
the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel 
[but more especially given unto those of the twelve tribes of Israel; which is the 
house of Israel].

You expressed this same view earlier in the thread.  And I already explained my view here. 

Do you believe that everywhere that the House of Israel has been scattered could be called an "isle of the sea"?  By what you say above, it sounds like it.  Would Russia and Assyria be considered "an isle of the sea" using the biblical usage of the phrase?  The difference between what I think you are saying and what I'm saying is that the house of Israel has been scattered, and only some of those that have been scattered are on "isles of the sea", at least by the definition of the term that I provided in my prior post here, which is:  

"Isles of the sea" is a phrase in the Hebrew scriptures that indicates far off lands, or coasts and continents, habitable spots (see verses like Genesis 10:5, Isaiah 11:11 and 24:15)."  

This Bible Hub definition says the following:  

"The plural of this word, usually translated islands, was employed by the Hebrews to denote distant regions beyond the sea, whether coasts or islands; and especially the islands and maritime countries of the west, which had become indistinctly known to the Hebrews, through the voyages of the Phoenicians, Isaiah 24:15 40:15 42:4,10,12 Psalm 72:10. In Ezekiel 27:15, the East Indian Archipelago would seem to be intended."

I really don't think all the House of Israel could be considered to be on the "isles of the sea" by the definition given above.

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Regarding verse 11.

"And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no 
kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles".

What is this land a reference to and who are the Gentiles?  Why would having a
king (President for the United States or Prime Minister for Canada) mean it
would not be a land of liberty?

Did you not read in my prior post where I said there are two distinct contexts for the usage of the word "kings" in those two verses?  If you read it, then why are you ignoring what I said?

The President of the United States is a leader from within the nations on the American continent, and does not fit the definition of "king" as given in the context of verse 11, which had to do with having liberty (and thus freedom from captivity) from the nations of their mother lands.  They are independent countries. 

Edited January 13, 2024 by InCognitus

[CV75]

4 hours ago, marineland said:

@InCognitus

I don't believe the house of Israel only refers to descendants of Lehi (of Manasseh), 
Ishmael (of Ephraim?), Zoram (of Manasseh?), and Mulek (of Judah).

Let me insert into 1 Nephi 19:10 what I believe.

"... concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death 
unto those [the entire house of Israel + Gentiles] who should inhabit [all, not some] 
the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel 
[but more especially given unto those of the twelve tribes of Israel; which is the 
house of Israel].

I can see it that way too, but it's apparently easier for me to lean toward believing the way I do. Either belief comports with a testimony of the Book of Mormon as another witness of Jesus Christ, belief in Him being most important belief. This witness is of a much higher caliber than the Bible, containing the fulness of the gospel (there are threads covering what this entails).

What is the importance to you of believing as you? If it is helpful in advancing our faith in Christ, I'd be happy to hear how that is.

[marineland]

On 1/13/2024 at 5:58 PM, CV75 said:

with a testimony of the Book of Mormon as another witness of Jesus Christ, belief in Him being most important belief. This witness is of a much higher caliber than the Bible, containing the fulness of the gospel

In the 1981 version of the Book of Mormon, the Introduction page had this statement:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record 
of God's dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the 
Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The current (2013?) version viewed online changed it to:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record 
of God's dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of 
the everlasting gospel.

Was the church in error all that time or did they just de-emphasize the Bible in the later
statement?

Doctrine and Covenants 42:12 says "And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this 
church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of 
Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel".

When I read that, it doesn't indicate any gospel principles missing from the Bible but
found in the Book of Mormon.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, marineland said:

In the 1981 version of the Book of Mormon, the Introduction page had this statement:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record 
of God's dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the 
Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The current (2013?) version viewed online changed it to:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record 
of God's dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of 
the everlasting gospel.

Was the church in error all that time or did they just de-emphasize the Bible in the later
statement?

Doctrine and Covenants 42:12 says "And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this 
church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of 
Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel".

When I read that, it doesn't indicate any gospel principles missing from the Bible but
found in the Book of Mormon.

Before we consider a new question on a new topic and quotes (and I suggest you start a new thread for that anyway), please answer my last question to you concerning 1 Nephi 19:10. 

Posted Saturday at 05:58 PM

[marineland]

On 1/13/2024 at 4:16 PM, InCognitus said:

You expressed this same view earlier in the thread.  And I already explained my view here. 

I saw that.  You mentioned that 1 Nephi 19:10 implies some of the house of Israel, not 
all.

Saying "isles of the sea" to someone in Israel would not mean that Cyprus is a "far off 
land". Neither would Greenland be a "far off land" to someone living in Canada or Iceland.
 

On 1/13/2024 at 4:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe that everywhere that the House of Israel has been scattered could be called an "isle of the sea"?  By what you say above, it sounds like it.  Would Russia and Assyria be considered "an isle of the sea" using the biblical usage of the phrase?  The difference between what I think you are saying and what I'm saying is that the house of Israel has been scattered, and only some of those that have been scattered are on "isles of the sea", at least by the definition of the term that I provided in my prior post here, which is:  

That's the tricky part.  If "isles of the sea" means land masses adjacent to water, 
then the 3 days of darkness would have basically affected most areas of the world 
(Russia and Assyria too, especially Israel - but there we know it was only 3 hours 
of darkness and no massive destructions like is mentioned to have occurred in the 
Book of Mormon.
 

On 1/13/2024 at 4:16 PM, InCognitus said:

"Isles of the sea" is a phrase in the Hebrew scriptures that indicates far off lands, or coasts and continents, habitable spots (see verses like Genesis 10:5, Isaiah 11:11 and 24:15)." 

That would put the 3 days of darkness all around the world since they all in some way 
satisfy what you mentioned.
 

On 1/13/2024 at 4:16 PM, InCognitus said:

The President of the United States is a leader from within the nations on the American continent, and does not fit the definition of "king" as given in the context of verse 11, which had to do with having liberty (and thus freedom from captivity) from the nations of their mother lands.

In the context of the verses we've been discussing (2 Nephi 10:9,11), what nations in the 
Americas are you referring to when you mention freedom of captivity from the nations of 
their mother lands?
 

On 1/13/2024 at 4:16 PM, InCognitus said:

I really don't think all the House of Israel could be considered to be on the "isles of the sea" by the definition given above.

Right. I believe 1 Nephi 19:10 is a reference to Gentiles in the first part (those who 
should inhabit the isles of the sea) and more especially the house of Israel in the 
second part (more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel).  As I 
wrote before, "all" instead of "some" is implied to both "isles of the sea" and "those 
who are of the house of Israel".

[Calm]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

Neither would Greenland be a "far off land" to someone living in Canada

Sure it is….it was almost 2500 miles straight from where I lived in Canada and no way could one travel straight line back before planes 

Edited January 16, 2024 by Calm