Continuing with the
article one of our readers sent in about several points regarding someone else’s view
of developing an internal model, and asked us what we thought of it. The first five points were answered in the previous post, the following points are
answered here:
6. “If there is insufficient information in the
Book of Mormon to put a place in relation to other places, then the location is
identified as having insufficient information to establish a location.
They are placed on the map according to Occam’s Razor – to minimize the number
of assumptions about their placement and also to prevent their locations from
interfering with the locations of known places.”
Response: This is
foolish. Of all the place names in the scriptural record, maybe two or three
can be understood sufficiently enough to place on a map. As an example, while
we know that several Nephite cities were along the East Sea coast, from Moroni
in the south to Mulek in the north of the Land Southward, there is no way of
knowing how far form the coast they were, how far apart they were, if there
were other, unnamed lands and cities between them, etc., etc., etc. What
happened to being exact? The trouble with placing something on a map is that it
becomes institutionalized after that point and is impossible to relocate later
based on clearer information or understanding.
7. “The lands should be capable of meeting
requirements of polities (areas of political control, organization, and
identity). Human history is the basis for this hypothesis. Human history
concerning geography is simply a matter of what area a group of people
controlled. A group of people typically does not control the same area
that is controlled by another group. Disputes over territories are
disputes over who will control the area. This means that lands in the
Book of Mormon would not overlap unless an area was contested. This
hypothesis does not preclude contested areas of overlaps between lands.
The corollary to this hypothesis is if there was a conflict over an area
between two lands, then the two lands were next to each other in order for both
lands to claim the disputed area.”
In comparatively flat country, borders may
well meet, but in topography of mountains, canyons, valleys, etc., divisions
are not that clear cut. In these examples, the actual mountain may not be part
of a government’s land designation, but just the valley between
Response: The problem
with this thinking, though it sounds good on the surface, is that lands do not
always join one another in ancient times, especially in hilly, mountainous or
desert areas. Even today there are numerous borders which are relatively
unknown, and only vaguely understood. Take the borders of Yemen and Oman, and
Oman and Saudia Arabia. These borders run through an uninhabited sand desert
with few, if any landmarks. Neither of these governments claim an exact
location, nor are they concerned about it. Unless there was a river, canyon,
mountain range, etc., a border was generally flexible until surveying and later
GPS came into being. And some disputes over land anciently was not to see who
controlled the land in question, but from a legitimate misunderstanding or misunderstanding over where that boundary lay. Just because Morianton and his
people were aggressively trying to control a portion of Lehi’s land (Alma
50:25) does not mean that all disagreements were of such a nature. Wanting an
area of land is not necessarily based on a desire to control it, as much as a
commitment to a population, the resources involved, water rights, or age-old
claims. Also, it is entirely possible that two adjoining governments could
claim the same strip along a border without even knowing it until some contention
of people moving in later, etc., occurred. Nor did lands always run along a
common border. Take, for instance, the narrow strip of wilderness between the
Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla (Alma 22:27). There is always danger in
making claims that are not that commonly accepted or practiced. Borders have
been quite flexible over time until the last few centuries.
8. “The sizes and spacing of the polities need
to be consistent with the size references provided within the Book of Mormon.”
This is another
good-sounding comment, however, it is entirely impractical since distances are
never mentioned, though in a few places time is discussed. The only exception
to this is that in the day and a half journey for a Nephite across the narrow
neck of land (Alma 22:32). As an example, we neither know the distance
north-to-south of the Land of Zarahemla, or from east-to-west. And the same can
be said of every land mentioned in the scriptural record. There is no way to
know how large a polity controlled, claimed, or laid out. When it comes to
distances, there are a few areas where common sense might prevail, such as how
far a Nephite could walk in a day and a half, but there are not many of these.
When Nephi fled from his brothers, he traveled for “many days” but nothing
further is suggested in distance or time. The same is true when Mosiah I fled
the city of Nephi. And we are never even given a hint as to the distance from
Zarahemla to Bountiful, etc.
The narrow neck of land in the Bay of Guayaquil in Ecuador, South
America, before the Andes Mountains arose, which did so where the East Sea is
shown, retaining the narrow passage, with the narrow strip approximately 26
miles across
9. “Since Lehi left Jerusalem around 600 BCE,
the books in the Bible and other Hebrew texts that dated from before 600 BCE
could be used as a reference to help understand grammar, idioms, and
colloquialisms in the Book of Mormon only if the Book of Mormon was unclear about
the specific meaning of the phrase.”
Response: Only four
people left Jerusalem around this time that could have been involved in writing
of the record: Lehi, Sam, Nephi, and Zoram. Now it is unlikely we have any
record involving Zoram and Sam, therefore, we are limited to only Lehi and
Nephi. Whatever grammar, idioms and colloquialisms involved would, therefore,
be extremely limited. And once we leave Nephi’s writings, no one, especially
not Mormon, who was born around 900 years later and who would not have known
any of these points of the language from direct contact with Hebrew speaking
people of Jerusalem, would be using Hebrew as it had been altered over the 900
years before his birth (Mormon 9:33), who was the person who abridged, and used
his own writing in many instances. In fact, the Nephites carried no records of Hebrew with them--only the Brass Plates which were written in Egyptian. Academicians obviously place far too much
emphasis on original Hebrew under these circumstances.
10. “These books of
that Hebrew period in the Bible, written before 600 BCE, are Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel,
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obidiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Zephiniah, Habakkuk, and Zephiniah.”
Response: In all
reality, the only one among the Book of Mormon peoples who would have known and
understood the writings of such people would be Lehi, who, himself, was also a
prophet and called the Jews to repentance in Jerusalem. How much Zoram knew
abut the ancient writings is unknown. Nephi, of course, would have been taught
by Lehi, and they all had the Brass Plates (left) obtained from Laban. But
again, this would have been of minimal use, and none would have contained the
meaning or origination of the Hebrew used, or anything in Hebrew with which to compare it.
11. “I certainly would not hold it against anyone
to compare the Book of Mormon with contemporary books. The premise for
the Book of Mormon is that it is a book written by people of Hebrew
descent. Therefore, it should show similarities to other books written by
Hebrews from the same area and time.”
Response: Actually,
the only Hebrew used that would be contemporary with Lehi would be the writings
of Jeremiah, and moving backward, a few other prophets, perhaps back to Isaiah,
more than 100 years before they left Jerusalem. It is doubtful how that would
have been much help unless there were people who studied the Egyptian on the Brass Plates with
the intent of teaching the language as we see today.
(See the next post, “Developing
an Internal Model – Part III,” for more on this article and our responses)
No comments:
Post a Comment