“Therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward. And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took took their course northward” (Alma 63:5-6).
From this one scripture, we see that some type of body of water represented as the West Sea is large enough for a very large ship to sail in, and that this body of water had to have been more than a lake—no matter how large—that went somewhere for a large number of emigrants to travel upon to another land “a land which was northward” (Alma 63:4)
In earlier posts, we have discussed this west sea as the Pacific Ocean, and the “land which was northward” as that portion of Central America across the Pacific-Atlantic Passage before Panama was lifted out of the ocean and formed a connection to South America above the water—a fete which all geologists, including the findings of the Glomar Challenger deep-sea drilling vessel proved, happened at one time in the past. The Book of Mormon suggests that the upheavals that took place at the time of Christ’s crucifixion in the Old World (3 Nephi) as that point in time.
The point is, lakes are not seas—seas are portions or sections of oceans that are set apart in name only, such as the Arabian Sea, which is part of the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea which is part of the Atlantic Ocean, etc. (see the post on What is a Sea?). Thus, no matter how much the Great Lakes Theorists want to claim that area and the Heartland as the Land of Promise as described in the Book of Mormon, they cannot show scripture that verifies that without changing the “plain and simple” language of the scriptures.
If the writings of the ancient Nephite prophets, and Mormon in his abridgement, had to be qualified by modern scholars to show what was meant, such as north really meaning west, a sea really meaning a lake or river, etc., then it cannot be claimed the scriptures contained “plain and simple” language as Nephi said. It must also be suggested that the spirit in verifying Joseph Smith’s translation was really not being plain and simple, but convoluted and mysterious, requiring reams of written words to try and define what was really meant.
Such a scenario, of course, is unthinkable and untenable. Nephi delighted in plain and simple language as has earlier been stated in these posts. Joseph Smith said that the Lord speaks to us in our language of our day. The Book of Mormon scriptures, whether dealing with a doctrinal issue or a location description, states the information in plain and simple language for our use in our day and for our understanding. To claim otherwise, as so many Theorists try to do, is disingenuous at best.
And in this sense, lakes are not seas! And in 600 B.C. or 421 A.D., you could not sail into Lake Erie (Theorists’ west sea) and go anywhere, because Lake Erie, before canals and man-made openings, did not connect to any other of the Great Lakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment