What is so hard to understand about
that?
The Land of Nephi, the Narrow Strip of Wilderness and the Land of
Zarahemla ran in basically a straight line from the East Sea to the West Sea
Yet, Brandley, in his description of
the River Sidon, claims: 1) The narrow strip of wilderness runs east and west
around about on the edge of the seashore; 2) Manti is near the narrow strip of
wilderness, that is by the sea; 3)
The head of the river Sidon is by the narrow strip of wilderness, that is by the sea. Conclusion: As rivers run to the sea, the river Sidon
runs from Zarahemla south to Manti, and through the east/west narrow strip of
wilderness to the “head of the river Sidon” near the sea.
Contrary to
Brandley’s comment, the Sidon River does not run from “Zarahemla south to
Manti, and through the east/west narrow strip of wilderness to the “head of the
river Sidon” near the sea.”
After all,
south of Zarahemla is the Land of Nephi, which was in much higher ground that
that of Zarahemla, which not only was in the lowlands, but probably near sea
level. At least we know that the Land of Zarahemla, through which the River
Sidon flowed, was at a lower level than the Land of Nephi, as attributed to
numerous scriptures which point out that the Lamanites contiunually “went down”
to attack the Nephites in the land of Zarahemla.
However,
Brandley continually tries to point out that the Sidon River flowed north to
south to the sea. This is, of course, necessary for his Land of Promise model, since
he uses the Mississippi River as his River Sidon which, obviously, flows from
the north to the south.
The
scripture in question is: “And it came to pass that the king sent
a proclamation throughout all the land, amongst all his people who were in all
his land, who were in all the regions round about, which was bordering even to
the sea, on the east and on the west, and which was divided from the land of
Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to
the sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders
of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the
borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards
the west -- and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided” (Alma 22:27).
In considering this statement, it
should be kept in mind that its purpose is to describe the Land, not the river Sidon. The Land in this case was a narrow strip
of wilderness between the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla. This land
“ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about on the borders of
the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the
land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river
Sidon, running from the east towards the west.” The parenthetical inclusion of
the river Sidon is of secondary import to this sentence. In other words, the sentence
could be rendered: “ran from the sea east even to the sea west, and round about
on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on
the north by the land of Zarahemla, through the borders of Manti, running from
the east towards the west.” The inclusion of the parenthetical inclusion of “by
the head of the river Sidon,” is meant only to convey where the narrow strip of
wilderness was located—or, stated differently, that the narrow strip of
wilderness ran “by the head of the River Sidon.”
However, Brandley wants to claim that
the import of the River Sidon here iust to tell us that the river ran by the
sea, when Mormon is describing the Narrow Strip of Wilderness which ran from
Sea to Sea!
He confuses the issue when he tries to
tell us that the narrow strip of wilderness ran along the Sea, and not from Sea to
Sea. However, when we use Mormon’s exact words, we find that the narrow strip of
wilderness, which “ran from the sea east even to the sea west,” also curved up
along both seashores as shown in the image below:
The Narrow Strip of Wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the
sea west, and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of
the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla
Thus, Mormon
wrote: “and round about on the borders of the
seashore.” Thus, with this curved border which encroached into the Land of
Zarahemla, and inhabited by Lamanites, caused Mormon to add: “And thus the
Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had
taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the
wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round
about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land
which they called Bountiful” (Alma 22:27,29).
On the other hand, the River Sidon had
its “head” in or by this narrow strip of wilderness, which would have been in
the highlands of the Land of Nephi, and flowed NORTH toward Zarahemla and “ran
by the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 2:15). Since the bodies of the dead were thrown
into the River Sidon (Alma 3:3), and that battle took place near the Wilderness
of Hermounts, which was to the north and west of Zarahemla (Alma 2:34-37), we
can accurately assume that the Sidon River flowed not only past Zarahemla from
the South, up in the narrow strip of wilderness, but northward across the Land
of Zarahemla, for Alma tells us that the last part of this battle “was beyond
the borders of the land” (Alma 2:36).
The trouble Brandley has with this is because he is convince the Land of Promise was in North America and that the Mississippi River was the River Sidon. In so doing, he has to try and fit the scripture into his model, which is the wrong way to go about scriptural support. Obviously, one MUST start with the scripture, not a place. He, like almost all Book of Mormon historians, have made this classical mistake. When starting with a land, the scripture must be made to fit the land chosen. When starting with the scripture, a land can be found that fits the scripture. Obviously, Brandley's map DOES NOT fit the scripture!
The trouble Brandley has with this is because he is convince the Land of Promise was in North America and that the Mississippi River was the River Sidon. In so doing, he has to try and fit the scripture into his model, which is the wrong way to go about scriptural support. Obviously, one MUST start with the scripture, not a place. He, like almost all Book of Mormon historians, have made this classical mistake. When starting with a land, the scripture must be made to fit the land chosen. When starting with the scripture, a land can be found that fits the scripture. Obviously, Brandley's map DOES NOT fit the scripture!
(See the next post, “Brandley’s
Map – Another Useless Shot in the Dark, Part VII,” for an understanding of a
river’s head (headwaters) and its mouth, which Brandley tries to obscure with
meaningless explanations)
No comments:
Post a Comment