Wherever Mormon was when he
finished his abridgement of the Large Plates of Nephi, those plates kept by
the kings and sometimes referred to by Nephi as “mine other plates,” is not
told us. Certainly, it was not in the comfort of his “office” as we see in the
famous drawing I love to use:
It was probably more accurate to
think of him on a battlefield somewhere, hiding out in a cave, or recovering
from his wounds. But wherever it was, it seems that his mental framework might
be important to understand his final writings.
Somewhere in those last days,
either just after, or more likely just before that final battle at Cumorah,
Mormon finished abridging the record. As he states: “And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our
people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and
knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of
the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our
fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the
Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of
Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted
to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto
my son Moroni” (Mormon 6:7).
He must have felt
pretty good about completing one of his life-long tasks, i.e., abridging the
record of all the prophets and writers, from Benjamin down to Ammaron, who had
been constrained by the Holy Ghost to hide up the records which had been handed
down from generation to generation in the year 320 A.D. (4 Nephi 1:48). These
are the same records that Mormon mentions in his own works (Mormon 1:2), and
that he did take out of hiding before the final battle.
Mormon retrieves the records that Ammaron hid up in the hill Shim years earlier
Whether this had been an ongoing
work, started years earlier, or something that he accomplished in a short time
just before Cumorah and the final battle is not exactly clear; however, it
would seem from the record that he took them out of hiding. This probably
occurred when the “revenge-minded” Nephites decided to attack the Lamanites in
the latter’s own territory and Mormon declined to lead them. During those final
years, it is most likely Mormon abridged the record as he watched the final
decline of his army from a distance.
At one of these points later in
life, Mormon takes the records out of hiding of which Ammaron had told him
years earlier. Those records were evidently the Large Plates of Nephi,
including the Plates of Lehi and the overall Record of Nephi, which must have
been the 116 pages earlier abridged and ended up being translated by Joseph
Smith and ultimately lost by Martin Harris. After accomplishing that part of
his assignment, Mormon turned to the record of the kings that had been in the
hands of Benjamin forward to Ammaron. At what point he actually wrote his own
book, that is the final book he named the Book of Mormon, is not known, but it
would be assumed it was awaiting that final battle at Cumorah, or just before
his writing to King Laman as to fighting that final battle at Cumorah, or
possibly while waiting at Cumorah for the Lamanite armies to arrive.
It is also likely that the final
two chapters, Mormon 6 and 7, were written by him on, or near, the hill Cumorah
after his being wounded and before dying, and during the time or after that he
looked down upon the dead of 230,000 of his fighting men, and their wives and
children.
Some will say it really doesn’t
matter, and perhaps it does not, however, I am more inclined to appreciate the
mental and physical state of the magnificent men who wrote that record, whose
life blood was spilt in defense of their nation or in the building up of that
nation, the Church, and trying to establish peace in the land.
As an example, consider Mormon
as he wrote his sixth chapter. If it was after that battle and before his
death, as some claim, it picks up with his narrative about “marching forth
before the Lamanites” (Mormon 6:1). He starts with having written a letter to
the king of the Lamanites that they could have their final battle at the hill
Cumorah (Mormon 6:2), and that they obtained an agreement, and continued on to
Cumorah where Mormon talks about pitching their tents around the hill Cumorah
(Mormon 6:4). He tells us that this was in 384 A.D., and that the Nephites had
spent some time gathering “all the remainder of our peole unto the land of
Cumorah” (Mormon 6:5).
If this was after that battle,
then during the time while gathering in their people and marching to Cumorah,
Mormon most likely finished his abridgement and the writing of the first five
chapters of his own book. It is possible that during that time or just before,
while fighting running battles with the Lamanites, Mormon wrote to his son,
Moroni, in what appears in his book as chapters 8 and 9, which Moroni included
in the record after his father’s death.
So for this brief moment in
time, which could have been weeks, maybe months, even a year or two, Mormon has
time to reflect on his life, finish his abridgement and ready himself for that
final battle that, while he hoped Cumorah might provide some advantage for them
over the Lamanites (Mormon 6:4), deep in his heart he knew it would be the
final battle of his people (Mormon 6:6).
How close he was to finishing
his abridgement we are not told, but also fearful of failing in his assignment
to make sure the sacred records did not fall into the hands of the Lamanites,
Mormon hurries to complete his abridgement and hide up the records in the hill
before that final battle.
Mormon, after the battle at Cumorah, looking out over the battlefield at the dead of his 230,000 troops and their wives and children. What a sad moment for him, which shows up in his descriptive writing
Assuming he completed this task
before the final battle, Mormon sets aside the records and prepares for battle,
apparently knowing he would not survive it. Yet, after that day-long battle,
and being wounded severely, he does survive through the night and into the
next day or two. From the top of the hill, where his son and the other few
survivors must have carried him during the night from the battlefield where he
had been wounded (Mormon 6:10), he looks down upon the death and carnage of
that final battle where he records his view as he wrote of his memory of the
battle—and having been defeated in that first wave, may well have relied upon
Moroni or the other’s account of what happened. His sorrow can be felt as one
reads his lament, beginning with the terrible anxiety of his people awaiting
the overwhelming army of the Lamanites approaching (Mormon 6:7).
When one stands in battle as an
overwhelming foe approaches, their life passes before their eyes in one way or
another—certainly, for these Nephites who had been unwilling to repent of their
sins and call upon the Lord in those last years, no doubt were ravaged with
their awful guilt for they were “filled with terror because of the greatness of
the (Lamanite) numbers” (Mormon 6:8). And as any leader of people knows, Mormon
felt the overwhelming concern for his people who stood now unprotected by the
Lord, awaiting their “awful fear of death which fills the breasts of the
wicked” (Mormon 6:7).
Then Mormon was hewn down and
the waves of Lamanites passed by him, leaving him alive but probably severely
wounded. At some point Mormon would have regained consciousness, probably
during the night after being carried to the top of the hill for safety by those
23 other survivors, including his son, Moroni (Mormon 6:11). What a horrible feeling must have passed through him as he learned of the final moments of the battle and what happened to all his people.
(See the next post, “The Words
of Mormon – Part II,” for this prophet’s last acts and final writing and
disbursement of the plates)
“Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of
the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2).
Somewhere around the time of
Jeremiah, who was born between 650 and 645 B.C., based on a series of events
that occurred about four centuries later, namely the letter of Aristeas written
to his brother Philocrates, as brought into the library in the time of Ptolemy
Philadelphus. Whether the letter and its history is accurate (there are always
questions about ancient Egyptian history), it speaks of an event that is found
elsewhere in history, namely, the movement of numerous Jewish priests from
Jerusalem to Thebes along the upper Nile in Egypt,
carrying Egyptian records with them.
The script, called Meroïtic, was the written
phonetic script of Northern Sudan in the ancient civilization of Kush, located
west of the Red Sea near the city of Meroë, which was located on the east bank
of the Nile in the area known as Török. These Jews later occupied an area
in ancient Kush, near Meroë, south of where the
Atbara River flows off to the east.
Interested in
promoting Judaism, and not wanting anything to do with Alexandrian society,
they devised a plan to communicate through this Meroïtic language, which was basically a series
of Egyptian characters .
Today, it is seen as the
oldest written script in Africa other than Egyptian hieroglyphs and the related
hieratic and demotic scripts. It has a hieroglyphic form using some adopted
Egyptian signs and a cursive form similar to demotic. The script had one
innovation uncommon in ancient written scripts, such as Egyptian hieroglyphics
or Greek, in that there was a word separator, similar in function to spaces in
modern scripts, that looks similar to a colon. Meroïtic is first attested in the 2nd century BC
and was continuously used until the fall of Meroë in the mid-4th century AD.
The script was
rediscovered in the 19th and 20th centuries as Western
archaeologists began investigating the ancient ruins of Török northern Sudan
(the ancient Kingdom of Kush). The first substantial progress in deciphering Meroïtic came around 1909 when
British archaeologist Francis Llewellyn Griffith was able to use a barque stand
bearing the names of Meroïtic rulers
in both Meroïtic and
Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Meroïtic
hieroglyphs were then corresponded to the Meroïtic cursive script,
allowing the transliteration of Meroïtic.
Some vocabulary was
later deciphered by scholars including loan words from Egyptian, gods, names,
honorific phrases, and other common words. However, the script remains largely
undeciphered. The greatest hope for decipherment, an inscription similar to the
Rosetta Stone, containing writing in Meroïtic
and a known language such as Egyptian, Greek, Latin, or
Axumite, has yet to be found.
Further confounding
research is the debate regarding which language family Meroïtic belongs to. Cognate (related)
analysis has proceeded extremely slowly due to the dispute as to which language
family Meroïtic properly
belongs.
It is evident that no
language has ever been fully deciphered using purely statistical or
mathematical techniques, and Meroïtic
will of course never be completely understood using these
tools alone—what will be needed, is something like the Rosetta Stone, or the
Urim and Thummim.
In particular, many
of the subtleties of human semantics and syntax are irregular or do not follow
consistent patterns, which statistics would be excellent at analyzing. Thus, we
have a language, Meroïtic,
that is simply not going to be deciphered until the time of the Lord.
Does this sound
familiar?
Nephi and Moroni’s
“Reformed Egyptian was in that category. It simply could not be translated
until the Lord was ready to have it done. Even today, 186 years after Joseph
Smith translated the Reformed Egyptian from the plates, no other Egyptologist
has shown his ability to do so, even from the scrap of glyphs shown below.
It is not that Meroïtic (2nd image above) or Reformed Egyptian (above)
are the same language, or even similar. It is important to note that they both
evidently came about from the same source—some type of reformed or altered
Egyptian language
It should be noted that this
reformed or altered Meroïtic script
is not a fluke somewhere, or a language meant to be hidden from the people like Nephi’s
Reformed Egyptian, since it was used in the Kingdom of Kush, from the 2nd
century B.C. onwards until the 5th century A.D., about a 700 year period, in an
area of the Nile Valley stretching from Philae in Nubia to near Khartoum in
Sudan. The form of this script was borrowed from Egyptian, but the way the
system worked was quite different.
Whether or not this Meroïtic had the same type of beginning
as did Lehi’s Reformed Egyptian is
not known, and may never be determined until the Lord reveals more of his
secrets.
Eastern Sudanic (Northern) language family with Meroïtic inserted according
to the research of Rilly, who considered it a possible vestigial language of
Lower Nubia
The important part is that there
is a pattern that is not connected to the Book of Mormon or the scriptural
record, but to history itself. One can only wonder where we might be in better
understanding Lehi’s Reformed Egyptian if knowledgeable scholars spent less
time trying to convince us it did not exist and more time in trying to find a
way it might fit into the Egyptian world as Rilley did with Meroïtic.
Once again, the point is there
is a type—a pattern shown in the Meroïtic
script that should open the door in Academia to where a similar language,
such as Lehi’s Reformed Egyptian might
also fit. After all, if there is one type of altered Egyptian that can be
traced back to the Egyptian language, and there are as many Eastern Sudanic
languages in that family as Rilley has shown and orthodox Egyptologists accept,
there is certainly a reason to see if Lehi’s Reformed Egyptian is another such
language and see where it might fit. If this idea was connected to anything
other than the Book of Mormon scriptural record, it would have sufficient merit
to warrant such an effort. It might also, along this same line, be suggested
that if this idea was not connected with a different approach than the one
found at BYU over the past hundred years, namely, Mesoamerica, it might even
find some interest there where a greater reason to look into it could be found
than regular Acdemia.
The complete Meroïtic text or
glyphs. The main impetus behind deciphering Meroïtic was done by the English
scholar Francis Llewellyn Griffith (1862-1934), who worked out the phonetic
value of the signs by comparing proper names on texts in Meroïtic and Egyptian
It should also be noted that
while scholars can read the glyphs, they cannot understand what the
texts mean, because the problem is that the Meroïtic language is an isolate as
far as linguists know. It has no known relatives, and the meaning of its words
and its grammatical structure remain relatively obscure, therefore so impeding
attempts at reading of the texts.
As Moroni closed out his
father’s record, saying: “But
the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other
people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our
language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof”
(Mormon 9:34). Again, this is not to say that Meroïtic is Moroni’s language, or has anything
to do with the Book of Mormon scriptural record—but it is a type. Consequently,
we now have proof of such a thing as Reformed Egyptian that Egyptologists
accept as real and existing, but cannot read and do not understand.
When reading Hugh Nibley, he uses the
term Robber Bands, and refers to those robber bands of Asia, and connects them
to the Jaredite period. One of the problems with this is that the Asian period
and the Jaredite period are not necessarily compatible.
Nibley wrote: “An important by-product of the Asiatic-Jaredite system of rallying
armies and absorbing nations is an efflorescence of robber bands on all the
face of the land.
(Nibley (2) p 233)”
It is
interesting that in the Nephi record, the term Robber or Gaddianton Robber and
their acts is listed in eleven sequences, including some with the Lamanites,
but not one single mention in the entire Book of Ether. And since such Robbers
pose a threat to the continuity of any government, if they had been in the Land
Northward with the Jaredites, one would think some mention, even if minor,
would have been included. However, there are only two mentions of "Robbers" in the land (Ether 10:33; 13:26), and one mention of a single robber (Ether 10:3).
Does
this mean they did not exist in the Jaredite nation, except in the days of Com. There is no way to know.
However, when Nibley makes a major point of their existence and that, later,
they infiltrate into the Land Southward to join up with the Lamanites and
dominate those warriors, one needs to take a second look at the reality of such
a scenario, for the mention or existence of robbers occurs only in one period, and then again a little later during the last days of the Jaredite battles between Corientumr and Shared. At a time when the entire nation was at war and everyone was joining one side or the other, the fact that some turned to robbing would be understandable—and when we consider that the record is being abridged by Moroni, who would hve known of Robber Bands among the Nephites and Lamanites, it seems significant that he did not refer to the "robbers" as being organized in such a manner.
Nibley
added, (p233), “Asia has at all times
swarmed with robber bands, exactly as did this continent under the Jaredites,
and from time to time these robber bands have formed coalitions strong enough
to ruin states and overturn thrones.”
Since we
do not have the entire account of the Jaredite nation and its activities and
problems, it cannot be assumed that it was the result of robber bands that
brought destruction to the Jaredites—but, rather, their wickedness and
unwillingness to do as the Lord asked them.
But Nibley is not through with his mention of these robber bands despite
their not being mentioned in the scriptural account as any organized force as Nibley describes:
He
continues (p234): “This typical and
recurrent state of things vividly recalls the awful days of the Jaredite
robbers, when every man slept on his sword to guard his property from every
other man—and still had it stolen (Ether 14:1-2)”
Verses 1
and 2 of Ether chapter 14, does not suggest this problem was from robbers
stealing things, or their involvement at all. In this case, The ongoing war
between the two main Jaredite factions, under Shared and Coriantumr, there was
a two year hiatus between the two leaders, which had both been wounded;
however, during this time the war continued as “all the people upon the face of
the land were shedding blood, and there was none to restrain them.” (One of the things about an army that few non-military people understand is, that it is the leaders of any military unit or force that keeps the force in check—kill off or eliminate the leaders and chaos results as the military unit or army goes berserk in killing, robbing, and rapine orgies. With both leaders here wounded and out of the picture for a time, we see this result among the two Jaredite forces—it is human nature, not robbers that leads to such inhumane actions).
Typically,
dynamic leaders keep an army in check, or on a specific battle plan, and in this case with
both Shared and Coriantumr withdrawing because of their wounds, all the people
were still fighting. As a result, a great “curse” came upon the land because of
the iniquity of the people, in which a man could not keep hold of his own
property. When he set it down at night, it was gone in the morning. Every man kept
hold of what was his and did not lend out or borrow, and kept his weapon in his
hand to defend himself and his family against those who would attack him
without warning.
After
this two-year period, and after Shared died his brother, Gilead, became the new
leader, who gathered his army against that of Coriantumr and the war was
resumed. There were “secret combinations” among Gilead’s people who gave great
strength to his army; however, they murdered him and Lib became the new leader,
continuing the war with Coriantumr, who killed him in battle and his brother,
Shiz took his place, again pressing the war with Coriantumr. This battle
continued until all were dead, including Shiz, and only Coriantumr remained
alive as the Lord had told Ether.
Nowhere in all this is there any
mention of Robbers or Robber Bands, thieves, or the like. If they existed, which they probably did as unorganizerd individuals or small groups,
there is no record of them. But that never slows down a Mesoamerican Theorist,
including Nibley from creating what is not in print.
It is interesting that early writings
are full of adventures of robber bands, such as those of Greece, of which
Alexander the Great is oft considered the last of the breed of those who
brought him to power and broke apart at his death. Robber bands are mentioned
in the Ionian Islands of Greece, Turkey, Thessaly, Corinth and Olympus, that
were protected by the villages, and who burned and plundered the districts
under the Pasha’s protection.
There were bandit cavalcades or robber
bands along the Mongolia prairie; robber bands were suggested in connection
with Lehi not having fire across the great sand desert (1 Nephi 17:2), and
robber bands that were the descendants of Genghis Khan, Ogdai and Batu, who led
their hordes of cavalry in conquest after conquest.
But all of these were of a much later
date than the Jaredites, who came on the scene sometime during or just after
the days of Peleg, who was born five (5) generations after the Flood (Shem,
Arphaxad, Salalah, Eber and Peleg.) Then,”in the days of Peleg the earth was
divided” (Genesis 10:25), the Tower was built, Babylon was founded, the
Jatedites left, and eventualy Egypt and Greece (among other nations as the
confounded languages spread further out from Babylon) were founded.
While our 2116 date is an arbitrary one for
the leaving of the Jaredites (see Chapter 12, “Jaredite Chronology,” Who Really Settled Mesoamerica), a
complete though speculative chronology is available to see how these events fit
into place with one another based on their probable ages and the known dates of the Flood, Peleg, the Tower, etc.
The point is that when Nibley continually
creates an Asian-Jaredite connection, both the timing and the location are not
consistent, and a false understanding is established. As an example, the famed Robber Bands
of Asia, which Nibley connects as the forerunners of the Jaredfites, did not
even exist at the time the Jaredites formed and were led out of Mesopotamia.
While the two civilizations may have had this in common, it was not because the
Jaredites were part of the Asian development, which came later, and not likely
to be the forerunner, since they disappeared from history and ended up on an
entirely different continent with no connection before or after with that
movement in Asia.
If, indeed, the Robber Bands of history
were the descendants of Ghenghis Khan, as some historians claim, or those of
the later Arabs who controlled the Rub’ al-Khalil, or even of the later Greeks
(Ionian Islands), the fact of the matter is there is no record, hint, or
suggestive connection that would link the Jaredites to this movement in any way.
Simply because, after many generations in the land of promise, the earlier
righteous people degenerated into warring tribes may suggest a connection to
Hugh Nibley, it seems like a huge stretch to me with no supportive connection
in distance, time, or location.
What it suggests more readily, is that
Satan with his evil enterprises is alive and well in all parts of the world and
has been in all periods of time. Robber Bands are less isolated to a people, it
would seem, than to the evil nature of many types of people for they have existed in numerous areas and among numerous peoples over the course of history.
Jarom, the great-grandson of
Lehi, the grandson of Jacob, and son of Enos, is given the plates by his father
and told to update the record. Was it necessary for him to go into detail like
his father or grandfather had before him? He had a few observations that were
brief, succinct and to the point as he wrote down:
1. Behold it is expedient that
much should be done among this people because of the hardness of their hearts,
and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the
stiffness of their necks.
2. God is exceedingly merciful
unto them and has not as yet swept them off form the face of the land.
3. There are many among us who
have many revelations.
4. They are not all
stiff-necked, and have faith, as well as have communion with the Holy Spirit.
5. After 200 years, the people
have become strong in the land, observe
the Law of Moses, keep the Sabbath Day holy, neither profane nor blaspheme.
6. There are twice as many Lamanites as Nephites scattered
on the face of the land, and the laws are very strict.
7. Jarom did not write down his own prophecies and
revelations, for they were the same as those of his father and grandfather, for
what more could be written.
8. My fathers have revealed the plan
of salvation and that sufficeth me.
9. We have many times
withstood the Lamanites and swept
them away out of our lands, and began to fortify our cities, or whatsoever
place of our inheritance.
10. We have multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face
of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in
precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in
machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner
of tools of every kind to till the ground, as well as weapons of war.
11. And thus being prepared to meet the Lamanites, they did
not prosper against us. But the word of the Lord was verified, which he spake
unto our fathers, saying that: Inasmuch as ye will keep my commandments ye shall
prosper in the land.
12. The prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of
Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the
commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from
off the face of the land.
13. Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the
teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to
diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given;
persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as
though he already had.
14. After 238 years and many wars, contentions and
dissensions, the prophets were continually stirring the people up unto
repentance.
15. I, Jarom, do not write more, for the plates are small.
But behold, my brethren, ye can go to the other plates of Nephi; for behold,
upon them the records of our wars are engraven, according to the writings of
the kings, or those which they caused to be written, and I deliver these plates
into the hands of my son Omni, that they may be kept according to the
commandments of my fathers.
Obviously, the Lamanites were far
more numerous than the Nephites, and loved murder, coming many times against
the Nephites in battle, the latter only able to arm and defend themselves. The
Nephite kings and leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord, teaching
the people the ways of the Lord. Once having removed the Lamanites from their
land, the Nephites began fortifying their cities.
Throughout Nephite history until
the very end (when grace had left the Nephites), all battles took place on
Nephite territory. In fact, at the end, Mormon told the Nephites: “it was
because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began
to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power
over them. Behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by
the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the
hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed“ (Mormon 4:4).
The Nephites in Jarom’s time
prepared for war—they were very proficient in building, making things, working
with metal, including machines for war—but being armed did not provide them
with security, only a means of not being overrun and destroyed. It was keeping
the commandments that saved them as a people and as a nation, right up to the
end when they violated the very precepts of righteousness and attacked their
neighbor.
And
it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi,
according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but
should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of
the land. To keep the people in line, “the prophets of the Lord did threaten
the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep
the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed
from off the face of the land” (Jarom 1:10).
Jarom
seems to be one of those quiet men of history, fervent in his testimony, and valiant
in his defense of his country and its beliefs. He wrote little, depending upon
the words of previous prophets to his own, and reminding the people of who they
were and what they already had been told and about what they had been warned.
He
understood the value of his heritage and of the prophets of his day preaching
that heritage to the Nephites.
Unfortunately,
for the Nephites, Jarom’s son, Omni, though a patriot himself, was a
self-proclaimed “wicked man,” who did not live up to the commandments of the
Lord. It is easy to see that Jarom teaches us to look to the commandments, i.e., what the prophets have already preached, to follow the prophets, and not be trying to state or restate what is already known. From a geographical point, Jarom teaches us to follow the simple statements of the prophets and not try to come up with wild, new, and controversial ideas of our own--but to stay the course and pay attention to what we have been told.
What Peleg teaches us is that:
1) The Bible and scriptural
record are accurate;
2) The time frame of Moses is
accurate;
3) The Earth is not as old as
scientists want us to believe.
The lesson for us to learn is simply this: The Bible is
accurate.
Whether secular
reconstructions of history agree with it or not does not change the accuracy of
the Bible. We should use the biblical chronologies to determine where the
secularists have gone astray and we should not amend the Bible to fit the
latest secular speculations on history. This research area has largely been
ignored by Christians in the last hundred years or so as they scramble to
manipulate the Bible to conform to the latest secular reconstructions of man's
history.
We even find members
of the Church trying to do this because of the pressure of the sectarian world,
the time-frames taught by science, and the upbringing in public schools.
In recent years, some Christians have done an excellent job
of restoring the authority of Genesis 1–4, 6–9. However, the genealogies in
Genesis 5,10, and 11 (and the chronological portions in Kings and Chronicles)
have been quietly surrendered to the domain of secular historians.
Their destructive work on these chronologies has overthrown
the faith of many. It is about time that the Moses time frame of Genesis and
Moses of the Pearl of Great Price, are reclaimed. After all, if one cannot
trust the numbers in the chronologies of the Bible, why should one trust the
words between the numbers? What limits should a person place on their unbelief?
In fact, we find far too many today who say, “I will accept
this, but not that,” in their so-called pursuit of truth. “I can agree with
that, but not this.”
When we look at the Bible and its
chronology, it is true the Bible has been translated inaccurately at timers and
difficulties do exist—it should be kept in mind as Latter-day Saints, we have the writing of Moses in the Pearl of
Great Price, as well as Abraham who give support to and authenticate the dates
found, in Genesis of the Bible.
There
are three errors common in biblical chronology today. First, there are those who
have a low view of the Bible and ignore its chronological data altogether.
Numerous ancient secular writers can be cited on this and often are in articles
about the Earth being 4.55 billion years old. However, there are numerous other
writings of scientists as well as religious leaders who counter this secular
view. As an example, when it comes to the Bible and Genesis, we also have Moses
in the Pearl of Great Price, the latter writing showing us the Earth is about
13,000 years old. For more on this, see the book Scientific Fallacies & Other Myths.
Part
of the problem in this battle is the fact that the great disparity between 4.55
billion and 13,000 is so great, it is not even considered possible. How could
science speak in billions while religionists speak in thousands—so immediately,
we have a believability gap.
This
issue becomes critically important when we look for common ground to discuss
the Book of Mormon, which is based on the accurate framework of Moses as found
in Genesis and Moses (Pearl of Great Price). Once this common ground of dates
can be accepted—which, by the way, is the same time frame used by Joseph Smith in his teaching of the
second session he taught in the School of the Prophets.
However,
this acceptance comes only after a great deal of study, comparison, and
understanding of what is being learned. This was so important to Joseph Smith,
that he used the dates of the early Patriarchs as the basis for his second
lesson in the School of the Prophets. A revelation in December 1832
specifically directed Joseph and the elders of the Church in Kirtland to
establish the school. Their instruction was to include both sacred and secular
topics. Joseph presided over the school. In the second lesson, Joseph not only
taught the birth and dates of the early patriarchs from Adam down to Noah and
from Noah to Abraham, but afterward tested the school participants on the
knowledge they had learned, and specifically on the dates.
Joseph
obviously felt this knowledge was that important for the early Church leaders
to know and understand. Perhaps one of the reasons is that the Book of Mormon,
and especially its geographical setting, cannot be proven by the Bible when one
approaches the geological setting of a 4.55 billion year old world. This is why
we often say true science supports true religion and visa versa. We cannot
approach true religion with biblical or scientific myths. We need to compare
truth with truth, not truth with fallacy.
One
of the things that Peleg teaches us is the correct founding of the first great
nations and, once understanding that, the placement of nation building after
the Flood, within the early centuries of the Earth. As an example, there are
those who would shorten the period of the divided kingdom. This is found in E.
Thiele’s The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Kregel, Grand
Rapids, MI, 1994), where he adjusted the Hebrew numbers to make them conform to
Assyrian chronology and ignored making Assyrian chronology fit the biblical
chronology, which it does just as well.
Thus, Thiele uses the fragmentary
Assyrian chronology of the divided kingdom period by about 50 years, to fit the
conjectured dates from Assyria. But this would mean that Babylon would have
been founded way before Peleg and the Tower of Babel! Third, there are those
who would lengthen the biblical chronology. One of the earliest were those
rabbis in Egypt who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek to produce the
Septuagint (LXX) in the third century B.C. They arbitrarily added about 700
years to the biblical chronology for the period between Noah and Abraham, to
make it agree with the works of Manetho. If what they had done was correct,
then Peleg would be dead and gone (as would most of the leaders of the division
of the nations) before the Tower of Babel happened.
Many modern biblical
archaeologists, like the translators of the LXX, are just as guilty of the same
thing today. Just as the LXX's translators listened to the fairy tales the
Egyptian priests told them, most modern biblical scholars follow the just so
stories told by secular historians and archaeologists who push the founding of
Babylon and Egypt back thousands of years. As an example, Merrill
F. Unger (Archaeology and the Old Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
MI, 1954), who states (p84) that Egypt dates back to about 5000 B.C., but later
states (p97) that Susa near Babylon dates back to about 4000 B.C. Since the
biblical date for the Flood is 2344 BC, how long could these people tread
water? Although this book was published in 1954, its opinions are reflected in
newer works dealing with biblical archaeology. If anything the situation has
become worse, not better, in the last fifty years. Unger is a very conservative
and well-respected Bible scholar. If he could be deceived, how much more
careful should we be today when so many more errors are afoot?
What do we learn from Peleg? His
name appears only once in the Old Testament (Genesis 10:25), the word origin
appearing three times (Genesis 10:25; Job 38:25; Psalm 55:9). The name is close
to the Hebrew word Palag, meaning “division,” and is considered by most
scholars as the meaning of the actual name given, Peleg.
Naturally, Moses draws that
parallel, for he writes: “And unto Eber
were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg for in his days was the earth
divided” (Genesis 10:25).
“In the Days of Peleg” have
become synonymous with several changes, including a previous article we wrote
here about the division of the Priesthood between the Old World (Jews) and the
New World (Jared). ‘When we follow that line of thinking, we find the story of
Jared where it begins in the Old Terstament and begins the Book of Mormon. We
also find that ancient documents
in the days of Peleg are consistent with the total accuracy of the Bible’s chronology.
As an example, four generations after the Flood, and
six generations from Noah, Moses records the birth of
Peleg. Some suggest the continents of the earth were divided at this time,
while others feel this is unlikely, as such a process would have had to occur
within a very confined time period (of course, nothing is too difficult for the
Lord), believing that the resultant geological violence would be overwhelmingly
catastrophic—like another Noahic Flood all over again.
Whether
the Flood and the division occurred at the same time, or one followed the
other, is a matter of another article (see the book Scientific Fallacies & Other Myths for a scholarly
explanation). The point is, these events occurred. One thing is for certain,
that about this time, with the Tower of Babel disbursement and the scattering
of the people, continents were divided and nations established.
Amidst
this period, then, the Jaredite nation came into being, their language was not
confounded, and they were led to a land of promise—that same Land of Promise
later given to Lehi. Now the placement
of Jared within this time frame is one of speculation, however, the overall
timing can be closely determined by the events described in Genesis and those in Ether.
The Jaredites were between the
establishment of the Tower at Babylon and the forming of Egypt after the
disbursement
At what point did the
nations become established?
According to the biblical
chronology as deduced by Archbishop Ussher, the Flood occurred in 2349–2348 BC,
and Peleg was born in 2247 BC about a hundred years later. According to our
interpretation of Moses in Genesis, following the births of the Patriarchs, the
Flood occurred in 2344-2343 B.C., about five years later.
As we look at the historical
writers of the past, we find a resounding agreement with these dates generally,
beginning with the establishment of the first settlement of which we know and
that is Babylon
In the year 331 B.C. After
Alexander the Great had defeated Darius at Gaugmela near Arbela, he journeyed
to Babylon. Here he received 1903 years of astronomical observations from the
Chaldeans, which they claimed dated back to the founding of Babylon. If this
was so, then that would place the founding of Babylon in 2234 BC, or about
thirteen years after the birth of Peleg. This was recorded in the sixth book of
De Caelo (“About the heavens”) by Simplicius, a Latin writer in the 6th
century AD. Porphyry (an anti-Christian Greek philosopher, c. 234–305 AD).
Following Babylon, we find that
historically Egypt emerged. The Byzantine chronicler Constantinus Manasses (d.
1187) wrote that the Egyptian state lasted 1663 years. If correct, then
counting backward from the time that Cambyses, king of Persia, conquered Egypt
in 526 BC, gives us the year of 2188 B.C. for the founding of Egypt, which is
about 60 years after the birth of Peleg. About this time Mizraim, the son of
Ham, led his colony into Egypt. Hence the Hebrew word for Egypt is Mizraim,
sometimes referred to as “the land of Ham” (Psalm 105:23, 27). In fact, even
today Egyptians call their country Mizr, sometimes referring to Cairo as Mizr; and
Egyptians are called Mizrim (Augustin Calmet, Dicitonary of the Holy Bible by Charles Taylor, Holdsworth and
Ball, 1832).
Next came Greece. According to the
4th Century bishop and historian Eusebius of Caesarea, Egialeus,
king of the Greek city of Sicyon, west of Corinth in Peloponnesus, began his
reign in 2089 B.C., 1313 years before the first Olympiad in 776 BC. (J. Ussher,
Annales Veteris Testamenti, Flesher and Sadler, London, p. 6, or
paragraph 54 in the revised work, 1654).
If Eusebius is correct, then this
king started to reign about 160 years after the birth of Peleg.
Note that Babylon, Egypt, and
Greece each spoke a different language. These ancient historians have
unwittingly confirmed the extreme accuracy of the biblical genealogies as found
in the Hebrew scriptures. The Tower of Babel would have had to have occurred
before the founding of these other three kingdoms. Babel (Babylon), being in
the same region as the Tower, would have been one of the earliest kingdoms, of
course, as the confounding of the languages drove people away from one another and scattered them abroad.
Of the other kingdoms, the ones
most distant from Babel would have been founded the latest. This is exactly
what these writers have described. First Babylon, then Egypt, and then Greece
were founded.
1=Ark landed; 2=Rebellious settled in Babylon, where their language was
confounded and the first settlement after the confusion of tongues took place;
3; Egypt was the second settlement after the confusion of tongues; 4=Greece was
the third settlement after the confusion of tongues. Note the increasing
distances from the Tower
Another point is also shown here, and that is about human nature. After the Tower of Babel, people were forced to split
into groups according to their new language. Humans are basically lazy. They
would have moved away only as far from Babel as they had to in order to live in
peace. However, population pressure, military force, or the desire to search
for “greener pastures” would have induced them to move out further and further.
So civilization would have slowly spread by periodic migrations from its center
at Babel.
Although secular historians
ignore the events of Babel and the Flood, they assume civilization started in
the Middle East, likely near Babylon, and spread out slowly from there.
However, they use a time frame much earlier than the time deduced from the
biblical chronologies.
Manetho (Manethos), the 3rd
Century B.C. writer of Aegyptiaca
(History of Egypt), which has been used by Egyptologists to establish the
reigns of the pharaohs, also connects the Flood with Peleg, claiming that the
Tower was built five years after Peleg’s birth. (Manetho,
The Book of Sothis, Harvard Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 239. (Loeb
Classical Library 350).
If
this is correct, then it would be confirmed that the migrations recorded in Genesis 10 occurred over a period of
time, for the apparent leaders of many of these national groups would have been
very young children when the confusion of languages occurred. In fact, J. Ussher
deduced that the division of the earth at the time of Peleg’s birth was Noah
dividing the land among his grandchildren, which is most likely part of this
event, though it may not be the only part of the division. Some of these
divisions moved to Shinar, where they conspired to hinder this dispersion of
them as commanded by God and begun by Noah, building the city and tower of
Babylon (Babel). God frustrated this project with the confusion of languages,
which was then followed by the dispersion of nations.
Continuing from the
last post regarding the continuing process of how speculation by the
Theorists paint a completely inaccurate and misleading picture of the Nephites
and any others in the Land of Promise. As we saw from the last sentence of the
previous post, Sorenson’s misleading comment that 2 Nephi
5:22-23, had to do with other people living in the Land of Promise at
the time of Lehi’s arrival, as opposed to events between the Nephites and
Lamanites, is completely inaccurate.
The Lamanites,
Nephi’s brothers and their seed, separated themselves from Nephi and the Lord.
This separation brought about a cursing of dark skin, idleness, mischief and subtlety
on the Lamanites, which lasted with them, and was added to those who joined
them, from that point onward.
In an interesting parallel of
Sorenson misunderstanding the scriptural record, he earlier said of the area of
first landing (p140): “As Nephi tells the story, the Lamanites down in the hot
lowlands were nomadic hunters, bloodthirsty. The circumstances of life in that
environment could account for some of those characteristics.” However, the
scriptural record tells us a more accurate reason for the Lamanite condition. “And
because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people,
full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of
prey” (2 Nephi 5:24).
It
is true we live in a politically correct world today, and that our society
demands a softening of attitudes toward rebellion and outright evil. It is not
considered fitting today to call "a Spade a Spade," but to deflect the direct
for the indirect, the soft for the hard. Even in Lehi’s day, we find Laman and
Lemuel saying much the same thing. Lehi first tells us that his two older sons
“murmured, saying it was a hard thing which he had required of them” (1 Nephi
3:5), then, they themselves, add to this by saying, “Thou hast declared unto us
hard things, more than we are able to bear” (1 Nephi 16:1).
Whatever
Sorenson’s reason, whether to deflect the hard for the softer tones, or
whatever, he certainly wants to paint a much more acceptable view of the
Lamanites by claiming the Nephites were prejudiced toward them and spoke
harshly about them.
Keep
in mind that the Nephites always refer to the Lamanites as “their brethren” or
“my brethren,” beginning with Nephi talking about his three brothers: (1 Nephi
3:9, 10, 14, 21), which soon became the separation of these two groups (1 Nephi
7:16, 17, 18 19) and continuing down through the thousand years to Moroni at
the close of his record (Moroni 1:4). The Lamanites were not referred to as the
“evil empire,” but were always part of Lehi’s family and their brothers
(Helaman 15:4), as were those in general and those of the Church so referred
(Mosiah 2:15; Alma 5:14).
Lehi
knew from the beginning that there must be an opposition in all things. As he
taught Jacob, his first-born son in the wilderness: “For it must needs be, that
there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the
wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness,
neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad.
Wherefore,
all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body
it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor
incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore,
it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would
have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must
needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power,
and the mercy, and the justice of God” (2 Nephi 2:11-12).
Regarding
this, Jacob added, “Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are
free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of
eternal life” (2 Nephi 10:23). However, it was President Ezra Taft Benson who tied
it together when he said, “We are free to choose, but we are not free to alter
the consequences of those choices” (Come Unto Christ, p40). Dallin Oaks made it
clearer that we cannot be deprived of our God-given free agency to choose, but
that in the circumstances of mortality freedom is always qualified. You can
hang from a catwalk and choose to let go and fall, but you cannot choose to
will yourself into a soft landing.”
It
was Jacob’s son, Nephi’s nephew, who said, “I, Enos, had heard these words, my
faith began to be unshaken in the Lord; and I prayed unto him with many long
strugglings for my brethren, the Lamanites” (Enos 1:11), and “And I bear record
that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the
true faith in God” (Enos 1:20). His son, Jarom writes for the “intent of the
benefit of our brethren the Lamananites—he didn’t write for the benefit of the
Nephites, but for the benefit of the Lamanites (Jarom 1:2).
Then
along comes Sorenson who wrote of this controversy between Nephites and
Lamanites (p90): “The scripture is clear that the Nephites were prejudiced
against the Lamanites,” and adds, (p91): “The question is how great the
difference was: we may doubt that it was as dramatic as the Nephite
record keepers made out.” However, the Lord sees it quite different: “And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be
a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as
they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them
even unto destruction” (2 Nephi 5:25).
Whatever
dramatic results occurred, it is apparent and needs no further discussion, that
the Lamanites (Laman and Lemuel and their children, as well as the sons of
Ishamel and their families), separated themselves from Nephi and the Lord,
bringing about their own damnation and the future destruction of their people.
We can find many a theorist who
may have a different view, and some will build volumes, maps and come armed
with a myriad of information that sounds authentic and accurate—but the fact
is, if it does not agree with the writings of the prophets and Mormon’s
abridgement, it is nothing more than a theory and will, when trying to find
support in cross-scriptural references, be doomed to failure. Unfortunately,
most theorists will not let their erroneous ideas fail—they will simply restate
them and attack the scriptural accuracy from a different point of view.
Each theorist as the free agency
to choose his own path, and make his own stand on those views—but the
scriptural record should be the pattern of that stand, not the point of attack.
And as long as theorists choose to attack the scriptural record and try to
change it to mean something Mormon and the others didn’t intend, they will be faced
with the consequences of their fallacious views.
