Monday, December 15, 2014

More Comments from Readers - Part V

These are more comments that we have received on this website blog: 
    Comment #1: “Despite the insistence of the Book of Mormon that many parts have been taken away from the Bible, the New Testament makes it very clear that this would never be permitted by God: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Mt. 5:18). Also, Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book written, yet it is filled with mistakes, and not just grammar. Take, for instance in the 1830 edition: “Yea, if my days could have been in them days, then would my soul have had joy in the righteousness of my brethren. But behold, I am consigned that these are my days “Helaman 7:8, 9).” The Mormon editors caught the first error and changed "them" to "these," but left "consigned," which should have been changed to "resigned," but was not.
    Response: In the first example, Matthew was telling us that the law of God would remain the law, no matter what, till heaven and earth pass away—in fact, he says, “not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” He did not say a word or phrase or entire meaning might not be removed from the writing, but that it will not be removed from the law of God, no matter what. The purpose of his statement is to assure us that God is the same yesterdays, today and forever, and that his law and word is the same yesterday, today and forever, and will not pass away until it is all fulfilled.

In the second example, Joseph Smith was referring to the value of the Book of Mormon to draw a person closer to God than any other book. His comment, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book,” was not about the perfection of the writing, but the perfection of the doctrine—perhaps if you read it with spiritual intent, you might understand this.
    As for the example of “them” instead of “these,” you might want to study the English language in 1830—there were no rules for grammar, and there was no correct or incorrect spelling of words. People, very important and educated people, still spelled differently than we do today—quite often phonetically. As for the word “consign,” you might want to look it up.
    The word means “to deliver something to a person’s custody,” ”to give to the care of another,” “to entrust” “to turn over permanently to another’s charge or to a lasting condition.”
Nephi read upon the Brass Plates about a more righteous time in the history of the Hebrews with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and others
    Now suppose, after Nephi seeing all the iniquity of his day, and having the records of a former day when the people were far more righteous, was lamenting his placement in the flow of time, saying “I would rather have been born then, but I was not, for the Lord has placed me here, and I am consigned to that,” meaning:
    1. “to deliver something to a person’s custody,”—he is delivering himself into the custody of God;
    2. ”to give to the care of another,”—he is giving himself unto the care of God;
    3. “to entrust”—he is entrusting himself to God’s care and decision;
    4. “to turn over permanently to another’s charge or to a lasting condition”—he is turning over himself permanently to God’s charge, to God’s lasting purposes.
    How we use phrases, sentences, and meaning today has not always been the case in English, let alone in other languages. Nephi is consigning himself to God—not resigning himself, but consigning himself. The two carry very different commitments and very different meanings—and is an example to us all!
    Comment #2: “I read where: ‘Nephite-type forts found to either side of this ancient pass [a foot bridge over Lake Tonawanda] helps solidify its importance during primitive times, and the likelihood that it was the narrow neck mentioned in the scriptures. E.G. Squire found an unbroken chain of no fewer than twenty ancient fortifications which stretched from the lake ridge southward to the Buffalo River, (the proposed river Sidon), a distance of 50 miles, the reason undoubtedly being the need to protect and facilitate those crossing the narrow neck into the land northward, and the reverse.’ That sounds pretty convincing to me” Carter B.
    Response: Vincent Coon mentions these forts in connection with defending his narrow neck of land, a path about fifty feet wide over the ancient Lake Tonawanda between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. First of all, twenty forts on a 50-mile line would not have been needed to protect or defend this very narrow path across the Batavia Moraine and would have been a costly and totally unnecessary waste of time, money, resources and personnel to build and maintain.
Top: The Narrow Neck across the ancient LakeTonawanda, which would lead into a very tiny Land Northward; Bottom; Gates or narrow openings between high walls would have been all that was needed to defend the Batavia Moraine from anyone passing through it
    Secondly, if defending this narrow path was the intent of building a fort, all the Nephites would have needed to do was build one fort, wall, or gate across the entrance to this path where access to the land beyond would have had to go through the fort—a type of fortification that was not unknown in the ancient world when simply guarding a small, singular and very narrow entrance between two important areas.
    Thirdly, the forts the Nephites built in the scriptural record were much further south in the Land Southward to guard the northern approaches to the Land of Zarahemla along the border of the narrow strip of wilderness (Alma 50:11) and also around their cities (Alma 49:13). There are only a few activities mentioned around the Narrow Neck of Land, and that is the building of a city by the Jaredites (Ether 10:20); Hagoth’s shipyards (Alma 63:5); the Treaty Mormon signed with the Lamanties and Robbers (Mormon 2:28), and then the battles between Mormon’s army and the Lamanites near the city of Desolation when the Lamanites broke the treaty, beginning with Mormon gathering his people there (Mormon 3:5).
    There simply is no mention, suggestion or implication that the Nephites built any forts near the narrow neck of land at any time, since most of the first 950 years or so basically took place in the Land Southward from the Land of Nephi to the Land of Zarahemla, not reaching the Land of Bountiful until sometime in the last century B.C., and no battles are recorded there other than that of a few Nephite defectors, such as Morianton.
    Comment #3: “If science was right all along about the dominant Siberian ancestry of American Indians, are they also right about the timing of their entry? There is abundant evidence, some now coming from the DNA research, that their [American Indian] Siberian ancestors arrived over 12,000 years ago. How does such a date fit with other LDS beliefs?" Trevor F.
    Response: Three points: 1) Science has yet to be “right all along,” in almost any category of archaeology, anthropology, settlement patterns, etc. We have written numerous times about this (see the book Scientific Fallacies & Other Myths). 2) Ancient DNA research is again and again shown to be inaccurate and has to be changed, updated, etc., as new and larger samples become available to scientific study (see earlier blog series “DNA and the American Indian – Parts I & II,” March 1, 2, 2013; “Comments from our DNA Series – Parts 1-4,”April 24-27, 2013); 3) Since there was a Great Flood that engulfed the entire planet, dated by information the Lord dictated to Moses, in 2344 B.C., about 4350 years ago, the value of anything that took place prior to that time would be questionable, especially anything regarding records, movement, settlements, migratory patterns, etc.
Not even DNA, since everyone on the planet came through Noah and his wife, basically with their DNA, which all came from Canaan through Mesopotamia (with the addition of Ham’s wife somewhere in that vicinity). These three points, then, make science and science’s claim not only wrong, but irrelevant.

No comments:

Post a Comment