Friday, May 10, 2019

A New Landing Site for Lehi – Part II

Continued from the previous post regarding additional coverage of the Heartland Theorists claim that the Chattanooga area of Tennessee being the city of Nephi and the area of Montrose, Iowa, being Zarahemla.
    These theorists go on to say: “Mosiah 11:12 relates that King Noah, Zeniff’s son, built ‘a very high tower, even so high that he could stand upon the top thereof and overlook the land of Shilom, and also the land of Shemlon, which was possessed by the Lamanites, and he could look over all the land round about.’ If Noah wanted to look over all the land round about, there could hardly be a better place to do so than Lookout Mountain which rises out of the river valley above Chattanooga to a height of almost 2,400 feet.”
    Jonathan Neville in Moroni’s America (p128) states that: “On clear days, mountains 100 miles away are visible from the summit [of Lookout Mountain]. The tower was near the temple, but there is no description of where the temple was. It may have been enclosed in walls within the city, or it may have been built on a high place, which would explain why Noah built his tower near the temple.”
Lookout Mountain overlooking the flat lands of Tennessee toward the northwest of Chattanooga. This single stone outcropping is surrounded by an unobstructed view; however, these flat lands do not match the scriptural descriptions of the city and land of Nephi

As stated earlier, Lookout Mountain is only about 1174-feet above the surrounding land, less than half of what they state. On the other hand, one of those 7 states that can be seen is Tennessee, ½ mile away; another is Georgia, which is less than a mile away just across the border; another is Alabama, 25 miles away. On a clear day, with a pair of binoculars, you can then see North Carolina 50 miles away; South Carolina 80 miles away; Kentucky 108 miles away; and also a mountain peak in Virginia, said to be 120 miles away. However, there is no question the land is basically flat for miles and miles around Chattanooga, which again, does not agree with the scriptural record of the Land of Nephi around the city of Nephi. One example is that the wilderness to the West of the land of Nephi was a seashore (Alma22:28)—there is no sea to the west of Chattanooga.
    In addition, there would be no narrow strip of wilderness between the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla on their map. Certainly no topography which could be considered a narrow strip that would preclude the Lamanites from crossing over to attack in the Land of Zarahemla.
    In addition, though a minor point, but speaking to inconsistent dates, or sloppy reporting of the facts, these theorists claim that Lehi left Jerusalem 599-600 BC, and then left from the Land of Bountiful 592 BC. Now according to Nephi’s record, they spent 8 years on their sojourn in the wilderness (1 Nephi 17:4), then arrived in Bountiful where Nephi was instructed how to build a ship and he and his brothers worked on the task for at least a year, though most shipwrights claim it would have taken at least two years or more. This means that they could not have left the Land of Bountiful in Nephi’s ship until at least 590 BC. In addition, as all Bible scholars have reported the first year of Zedekiah’s reign (1 Nephi 1:4) was in 597 BC, which means that Lehi left Jerusalem in 597 or 596 BC, spent 8 years in the desert, meaning he arrived in the Land of Bountiful in 589 or 588 BC, spent at least one year and probably two building the ship, thus they could not have left Bountiful until at least 588 or 586 BC. We have used the date of 587 BC, since it seems that is the earliest possible date, though it was more likely 586 or later, since it would have taken at least two years and probably more given the size and complexity of the ship and of Nephi having to obtain instructions, work on the construction, receive more instruction, work on the ship, etc.
    The theorist when on to state about Lehi’s people, “Joseph wrote, ‘They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph.’  It is possible that Joseph Smith was referring to Zoram after all, clarifying he was not a Jew.” Of course, all of the descendants of Jacob, who was renamed Israel (Genesis 32:28) would be Israelites, but the descendants of Jacob’s son Joseph would be either through Manesseh, the older son, or Ephraim, the younger son; however, since Zoram was a servant of Laban, with charge of his possessions and treasury, would have been a very trusted servant, likely a Jew in Jerusalem. But that is unknown. What is known is that Lehi, himself was not Jewish, but of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3), and his friend, Ishmael, whose daughters married Lehi’s sons (and Zoram) was of the tribe of Ephraim according to Joseph Smith, who obtained that information from the Book of Lehi and the 116 pages he translated and then were lost by Martin Harris (Franklin D. Richards, The Contributor, Vol. XVII, p425).
    Then the theorist stated of Zoram: “He may have been referring to those who accompanied the Mulekites (presumably Phoenicians).” Now there is no possible reason why Zoram would have been Phoenician and no suggestion of any kind leads to that conclusion, other than the erroneous belief that the Mulekites came to the Land of Promise on Phoenician ships. However, those who took charge of Mulek and brought him out of Jerusalem, for he would have been a child since his father, king Zedekiah was born in 618 BC and made king in 597 BC, at the age of 21, and 31 in 587 BC when Jerusalem finally fell and Zedekiah was captured by the Babylonians.
    Sometime in that ten year span, Mulek and the palace or royal members or retainers, spirited the child out of the city and to a place where they sailed to the Land of Promise. At the youngest, Mulek would have been about a year old, and at the oldest 9 or 10 years old. He would have had a cadre of people attending him within the palace, who were probably those who brought him to the Land of Promise—though we know nothing about any of this other than the years involved.
Ocean Currents in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico would preclude a ship “driven forth before the wind” from reaching the Apalachicola Coast near Tallahassee, Florida

Heartland theorist Jonathan Neville, in Moroni’s America, claims that “Lehi sailed south of Cuba to get to the Florida landing because of ocean currents and wind, but it’s interesting that Mulek, Lehi and Columbus converge on the same areas.” (Neville, Moroni's America: The North American setting for the Book of Mormon, CreateSpace Publishers, South Carolina, 2015). The problem with this scenario is that the currents around Cuba and in the Gulf of Mexico do not allow for sailing in that direction in 600 BC in a ship “driven forth before the wind.”
    In addition, these theorists claim there are several reasons why Lehi landed in Florida:
1. “Wind current routes across the Atlantic (in the fall when honey and fruits were available, and the natural currents in the fall take you west) would put them somewhere in the Caribbean. This route was proven to be possible by the Phoenicia Expedition of 2009.”
Response: Although the Greek historian Herodotus himself doubted it, his The Histories contains an observation which theorists and historians imply they rounded the Cape of Good Hope: “As they sailed on a westerly course…they had the sun on their right, to the northward of them.” The Phoenician voyage, a 3-year expedition said to be sponsored by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho in 600 BC, before the Portuguese sailed around the Cape and into the Indian Ocean. The replica of an ancient Phoenician ship departed from Syria in August 2008, to sail through the Suez Canal, around the Horn of Africa, down the east coast of the continent and around the southern Cape (Good Hope) and up the west coast of Africa and through the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Mediterranean to return to Syria. The ship, named Phoenicia, was 66 feet long and 20 feet in width; it was constructed at Arwad Island, an ancient Phoenician city state just off the Syrian coast, by Syrian shipwright Khalid Hammoud using traditional materials of Lebanon cedar, Aleppo pine, and olive wood tenons, and using traditional construction methods.
    On this journey, unlike any journey Lehi would have taken because of his wayward and rebellious older sons and the sons of Ishmael, the Phoenicia stopped at Port Sudan in Africa; Hobecah (Yemen) in the Red Sea; Aden and Salalah in Oman along the Sea of Arabia; Mayotte Island in the Comoros; Beira in Mozambique on the African coast; Richards Bay, Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, and Cape Town in South Africa; St. Helena Island and Ascension Island in the South Atlantic; and the Azores in the Atlantic before heading eastward through the Straits of Gibraltar and stopping there, then on to Tunisia for another stop, then Malta, and finally back to Syria.
    Such a voyage, heralded as proof of sailing around Africa from east to west in 600 BC, hardly duplicates a voyage Lehi would have made if he had taken that route—at least, there is no mention or even a single hint of any stops made once Lehi left the south coast of the Arabian Peninsula. In addition, the rebellion of Laman, Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael is described in some detail by Nephi—it is difficult to think he would have not mentioned any other rebellious efforts of these, or that Lehi would attempt a landing anywhere but the Land of Promise because of the chance of such rebellion from his older sons.
    Finally, the much heralded voyage of the Phoenicians around Africa in 600 BC took three years, with the crew stopping twice to plant and harvest crops along the voyage route, as well as setting in frequently to make repairs on their vessel, replenish supplies, and rest. This is no indication that Lehi would hve taken such a route across the Atlantic as these theorists claim.
(See the next post, “A New Landing Site for Lehi – Part II,” regarding additional coverage of the Heartland Theorists claims of the Chattanooga area of Tennessee being the city of Nephi and the area of Montrose, Iowa, being Zarahemla)

No comments:

Post a Comment