Sunday, July 1, 2018

Settling the Land of Promise - Part I The Jaredites

There seems to be some confusion when and how the Land of Promise was settled, and what parts of the land were occupied and at what time in the Jaredite/Nephite time-line. This becomes especially important when understanding Mormon’s insertion in Alma 22:27-34, which describes the land placement, which in turn tells us why certain areas were developed and settled before others, and to understand when theorists claim an area was settled out of sequence of the population movement as the Nephites expanded “from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east” (Helaman 3:8)—a parallel example of these directions and to suggest their meaning, would be in stating the settling of the United States—it would be correctly stated that it was settled from the east to the west and from the north to the south. Thus, we can assume that the Land of Promise was settled from the south to the north, from the west to the east.
    This also explains why there were “north countries,” since the major area of Nephite development and activities (Zarahemla) were in the west and south, and the Lamanite development (Land of Nephi) was even further south. Thus, the north was a distant area and most Nephites would never have traveled to that area. Thus, while the lands in the south (Zarahemla, Gideon, Minon, Manti, Moroni, Lehi, Morianton, Nephihah, Melek, Judea, Midian, Cumeni, Zeerom, Cueni, Antiparah, etc.), make up much of the events in the Nephite history, the northern lands and cities (Bountiful, Gid, Mulek, Josh, Gad, Gadiandi, Gadiomnah, etc.) are not often covered.
The “North Countries,” or “countries of the north,” separated from the rest of the Land Southward within the Land of Promise

Thus, we see why the “north countries” were differently indicated or set apart and the events there follow those and the development of the cities and lands in the south. The term “north countries” is not part of the Land North and the Land Northward designations, but meant to say, as it does, that there were countries, or lands, in the north.
    We know, as an example, that the Jaredites landed after the Flood, and after the “earth was divided,” meaning after the oceans and seas were located, and the lands were broken up into continents. They traveled in barges (Ether 2:16;6:4), and were “tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind” (Ether 6:5), sometimes submerged like a submarine (Ether 6:7), and sometimes on top of the water  (Ether 6:7). They were driven forth before the wind (Helaman 6:8), not by sails, but by the force of the wind-blown currents, causing them to take almost a year to reach the Land of Promise.
    Being driven along by the currents, they moved up the west coast of South America in the Peruvian or Humboldt Current. Eventually, they were driven ashore on the Saint Elena Peninsula, the furthest land extending into the Pacific where the currents often deposit drift material along the coast.
    The ancient Jaredite prophet wrote: “Which Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered” (Ether 1:33, emphasis added).
    Now, this is when all the people were scattered, that is they had been all one people with one language prior to this time (Genesis 11:1), but the Lord changed their language and scattered them abroad from thence (from that time forward) upon the face of all the earth (Genesis 11:8).
The Jaredites landed in the area of the Land Northward, and settled in an area they called “Moron, where the king dwelt, and was near the land which is called Desolation by the Nephites’ (Ether 7:5)
 
The Lord led the Jaredites into a land “which was choice above all other lands,” which God “had preserved for a righteous people” (Ether 2:7). The word “preserve” in the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, means “to keep or save, to defend from evil: to uphold, to sustain.” Thus, the Lord preserved the region of the Land of Promise after the Flood waters receded, from the evil contamination of other people prior to the Jaredites arrival.
    Consequently, it was a “land of promise” and the Lord God had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them” (Ether 2:8).
    Now, the Lord said “whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever” should serve Him or would be swept off. Now, “henceforth” means “from this time forward which should suggest to anyone that the Lord had “preserved” this land after the Flood, i.e., kept it free of people, for a “land of promise,” and that none had been led there before the Jaredites, and that all who come to this land, beginning with the Jaredites, and who would later come (Lehi/Nephties/Lamanites and the Mulekites) would be under command to serve God, or be “swept off” the land. Thus, we can conclude that no other people were involved in the land that was, first, promised to the Jaredites, and second, promised to Lehi’s posterity.
    This does not mean that elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere that other people may have been led to these shores from time to time under the Lord’s direction. It also doesn’t mean that they were. However, Jacob makes it quite clear after telling the Nephites in the temple during a two-day conference, that not only were they on an island in the midst of the sea, but that “wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren” (2 Nephi 10:21).
    Contrary to some theorists’ view of the time frame involved, Ether wrote, “we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:9, emphasis added).
To make sure this was fully understood, Ether added, “For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off” (Ether 2:10, emphasis added).
    Consequently, the results of inhabitants of this land to reap the results of their iniquity and lack of serving God will come when the Lord is ready and the people have reached the point where the Lord responds. With the Lamanites, that was about a thousand years, from around 400 AD when they completely wiped out the Nephites, who themselves had lost their grace (Mormon 2:15), to when the Europeans arrived and destroyed their descendants’ great and magnificent empires in the 15th/16th centuries.
    So the Jaredites arrived sometime around 2100 BC, about 240 years after the Flood, which occurred in 2343 BC. In biblical genealogy, Noah/Ham/Cush/Nimrod—which was three generations from Noah, and who built the tower; and Noah/Shem/Arphax/Eber/Joktan/Jared and his brother, which makes five generations from Noah. Upon their arrival, the Jaredites landed in the Land Northward, which they occupied throughout their history, never settling in the Land Southward, but after the incident with the poisonous serpents, reserved the Land Southward for a hunting preserve.
    As stated in the scriptural record: “in the days of Lib the poisonous serpents were destroyed. Wherefore they did go into the land southward, to hunt food for the people of the land, for the land was covered with animals of the forest…And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land. And they did preserve the land southward for a wilderness, to get game. And the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants” (Ether 10:19-21).
    Thus, any theorist and model that places the Jaredites settling in the Land Southward is simply inaccurate. Ether and Moroni made it very clear that the Jaredites did not settle in the Land Southward at any time.
Red Circle: Olmec Heartland; Yellow Dots: Olmec sites of importance—La Venta was the largest and most prominent, located in their Land Southward; Red Line: Their narrow neck of land, thus their largest settlement and other prominent settlements were in the Land Southward
(See the next post, “Settling the Land of Promise: Part II The Jaredites (Cont),” for additional information about the settling of the Land of Promise by the Jaredites.)

10 comments:

  1. As you (with other words) state many times, and I definitely agree, we must allow the scriptures to stand for themselves, and not try to fudge the scriptures into saying what we have already decided they should say because of theories.

    But what happens if we find out that the Bible itself has not been translated correctly in some point, as Joseph verified was possible?

    I have not been able to reject the evidence in the video I am linking to called "Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?" This places the flood around 3000 BC and gives significant evidence to support that claim.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In addition to flood strata being below the pyramids, there's better scriptural evidence for the flood happening around 3100 BC, +/-.

      The Masoretic text, which is what almost all bibles are based on now, has several errors in peoples ages from Shem to Abraham. These errors can be seen when comparing it to the Septuagint, the Samaritan pentateuch, and the writings of Josephus. All told, those errors add up to about a 650-year discrepancy.

      It's actually all a little complicated, and there are other inconsistencies amongst all those sources, but all told, the Masoretic text is missing several hundred years. Thus putting the flood back before 3000 BC.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, even church materials have not corrected these errors.

      Delete
    3. erichard, Although I agree that something is wrong with the ages of the patriarchs from Shem to Abraham as your link documents, there is still a problem with moving the time of the flood back 650 years or so. The problem is found in D&C 77:6-7 where it mentions the fact that the earth existence is divided into 1,000 year periods for a total of 7,000 years at the end of the Millennium. If you move the flood back 650 years you move the time of Adam back to 4,650 BC. That is contrary to this scripture. I don't know the answer and perhaps we won't know until we find out during the Millennium perhaps. It is interesting what has been figured out when it comes to Shem, but there are other problems with it that need to be resolved.

      Because of that I'll accept the 2348 BC for the flood until we get further light and knowledge. Interesting information however.

      Delete
  2. We posted a response to this some time ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it possible to post a link to your response, or even approximately when? I would like to read it but, not sure if I want to go through 9 years of posts.

      Delete
    2. Del, I don't recall you ever addressing the date disagreements between the SP, LXX, & Josephus with the Masoretic text--as they relate to the flood.

      Using the ~2340 BC date for the flood is on pretty weak footing. I'm surprised you haven't explored the Masoretic text shortcomings more openly and thoroughly.

      Delete
  3. Wonder Boy: We have discussed these areas in the past, though agreeably in a limited manner. Some of the problems I have with this difference is, and thus do not delve that deeply into it:
    1. Biblical experts of the rabbinate, that is rabbis who are involved in the interpretation of ancient scripture and ancient Jewish Law, is the problem found among the Jews since the beginning. They simply do not always follow the pattern of the Lord set down in the scriptural record in their path to knowledge of the past. Today, since no one knows the ancient language and its interpretation, several rabbis have written and preached different dogmas regarding it. Everything depends upon which rabbinical person, group or school you choose to follow. There are controversies over words, phrases, even doctrine of the ancient texts. Besides, if one was to study Hebrew, present and ancient, there is so much confusion over what is what that it is hard to reconcile differences unless you tie yourself to one particular rabbi and his course of thought;
    2. The ancient Hebrew language is barely known, and certainly not fully understood even by the most acceptable rabbinical authority today. Of course, each claims it is understood, but then will tell you in private that it is not (We wrote a short article on this in our May 26, 2010 blog);
    3. Modern Hebrew speakers do not, or do not fully, understand the Old Testament original Hebrew. According to some current rabbinical authorities, basic reading is becoming more and more challenging, as the students are not actually taught to read the vowels carefully. When reading aloud, they pronounce many words incorrectly (even if corrected for modern Israeli pronunciation; nobody even thinks about bothering with approximating the ancient sounds), and consequently they misunderstand them from the outset. Though the morphology is mostly the same, and so are a lot of words, if one actually reads the vowels correctly, they can understand a lot. The syntax is very different, but its most basic features, like the "reversed" tenses, can be familiarized; however, the advanced parts of the syntax are usually lost on Israelis who didn't receive particular training or didn't at least read a modern commentary. Even Amir E. Aharoni, who lives in Israel and is quite experienced in Hebrew translation and teaching states: “I don't pretend to understand all the intricacies of Biblical syntax, and I have a university degree in Hebrew language! My degree makes me better than an average Israeli in understanding the grammar, but deep-diving into Biblical grammar was not a requirement for graduation and I skipped it.
    (continuing)

    ReplyDelete
  4. (continued)
    4. The Old Testament books are very diverse in their styles and narratives, so while one can understand a particular book, it may be more difficult to understand another book;
    5. The profundity of the Torah (Chameesha Choomshey Torah), as it is called in Hebrew, is inaccessible without the accompanying Torah shel baal pe; (Torah Shebaal Peh) the oral tradition, which include laws, statutes, and legal interpretations that were not recorded in the Torah (five books of Moses). Such additions or changes are significant in understanding what has been written;
    6. Differences between the Gemara (the mastery and transmission of existing tradition, while Sevara, which means deriving of new results by logic)
    and the Mishnah (an authoritative collection of exegetical material embodying the oral tradition of Jewish law and forming the first part of the Talmud), which together makeup the Talmud. After the Mishnah (the first major written collection of the Jewish oral traditions known as the "Oral Torah.” Therefore, the contents of the Mishnah are the product of an ongoing process of elaborating and explaining the foundations, the details and the significance of the Torah's commandments.”
    It is also the first major work of Rabbinic literature, and was published in 200AD, at which time the work was studied exhaustively by several generations of rabbis in Babylonia and Israel and their discussions were written down in a series of books that became the Gemara. When combined with the core text of the Mishnah, they become the Talmud. However, since there are two rabbinical analysis of the commentary, there are two Gemaras, and therefore, there are two Talmuds.
    I am not criticizing any of these works or the tremendous work that has gone into the interpretation and dissemination of their contents. However, it should be observed from these simple comments that any given date or sequence of events is suspect, not the event, but the placement of it in open space.

    ReplyDelete