Continued from the previous post regarding words and phrases found in the Book of Mormon that are often misunderstood or ignored by readers and theorists. In fact, theorists often read right past a statement from Mormon or one of the ancient writers of the Book of Mormon without considering its true meaning. As an example, which we have used before, is Nephi’s statement “For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed” (1 Nephi 1:4).
Most people reading this passage, “my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days,” as meaning Lehi lived in Jerusalem all his days,” however, that is not the meaning of this statement. As an example, the word “in” meanings within or inside, thus, such a statement would be lived within or inside the city of Jerusalem; however, “at” means outside and around—in this case, outside the city, or around the city of Jerusalem.
In 828 the American Dictionary of the English Language, listed:
1. “In” denotes present or inclosed, surrounded by limits; as in a house; in a fort; in a city
2. “At” denotes nearness” as at the house; or near the house, or toward the house.
Applying this to Nephi’s statement about his father, it shows that Lehi lived outside, but near, Jerusalem. It does not say he lived within the city! Yet, nearly every person, including most, if not all, of the theorists, interpret this statement to mean “within” or “inside” Jerusalem, which was a walled city at the time (1 Nephi 4:4-5; 24, 27). These walls existed between 3000 BC and 500 AD., and were 13,182 feet long (2.5 miles), 40 feet high and eight feet thick—a distinct walled area. Thus, people lived either inside the city or outside the city, not both. In 300 BC, a Greek geographer claims that the population of Jerusalem was 125,000 in a city area of 160 acres—about 150 households per acre.
Thus, someone living within Jerusalem at the time would have had a very small piece of property, completely covered by a house, with rooms opening off a central courtyard within the property’s walled peripheral. As such, they had no room for any unnecessary equipment or possessions. They would not have had room for the large tents of the day since they would take up a lot of storage area (each tent needed two donkeys or camels to carry them)—nor would they have had any need, since as they traveled within Palestine they slept the night in caves that existed throughout the area. In fact, many houses were built employing the “hillside strategy” that made use built up against the limestone rock face of hollowed out caves. Such structures were easy to build and there was a certain natural coolness to them.
Nor would they have had a place to plant, therefore they would have had no need for seeds, especially in the quantity needed to start a new life in the Land of Promise. Yet Nephi tells us that Lehi “took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 2:4), as well as “we had gathered together all manner of seeds of every kind, both of grain of every kind, and also of the seeds of fruit of every kind” (2 Nephi 8:1); also, once reaching the Land of Promise “we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem” (1 Nephi 18:24).
In addition, Lehi would have had need for sufficient donkeys to carry the tents and provisions, which would have amounted to at least 10 donkeys (six for the three tents—at least three tents, i.e., one for Lehi and his wife and small children, and at least two for his grown sons (1 Nephi 3:9), plus at least two or three for provisions, and one or two for the women (certainly one for Sariah).
No one living within Jerusalem would have had room for 10 donkeys and three large tents. The wealthy people within Jerusalem might have had two donkeys, one or two cows, and either a goat or sheep, which were kept within the grounds, and at night within a room in the ground-floor of the house with a floor of pounded earth—which would have been throughout the home of the poor, with the affluent or wealthy having pebbles or baked clay tiles, while the very wealthy had wood floors.
Another example of a word or phrase that is often ignored by the reader and theorists is “going up,” and “going down,” meaning elevation. This is seen in Lehi living outside the city is verified by Nephi describing his and his brothers’ traveling down to their ancestral home (Lehi‘s home) and up to Jerusalem. As shown in these verses, the first is spoken by Nephi when they were in the city of Jerusalem, “therefore let us go down to the land of our father's inheritance, for behold he left gold and silver, and all manner of riches” (1 Nephi 3:16, emphasis added). Spoken by Nephi when in his father’s home: “Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands” (1 Nephi 3:29, emphasis added). And “We journeyed in the wilderness up to the land of Jerusalem, to obtain the record of the Jews” (1 Nephi 5:6, emphasis added). Before the second journey, Lehi states: “Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands” (1 Nephi 3:29).
To show that the term “going up” and “going down,” as used in the direction from the house of Lehi to Jerusalem and back. Consequently, we need to know that these directions mean what Nephi said later.
Going up from the Red Sea where Lehi was encamped, Nephi states: “And it came to pass that when we had gone up to the land of Jerusalem, I and my brethren did consult one with another” (1 Nephi 3:10, emphasis added).
Going down to from Jerusalem to Lehi who was along the Red Sea, Nephi states: “But behold I said unto them that: As the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness until we have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us (1 Nephi 3:15 emphasis added). Note, going down is consistent with the other uses of “going down.”
It seems correct to read “up in direction” or “down in direction,” as meaning up and down in reference to altitude, when reading those words “up” and “down” in the scriptural record. As an example, the words “up to” are used here when people are in the Land of Zarahemla going to the Land of Nephi: “we said unto our brethren in the land of Zarahemla, we go up to the land of Nephi, to preach unto our brethren, the Lamanites, and they laughed us to scorn?” (Alma 26:23), and “but my joy is more full because of the success of my brethren, who have been up to the land of Nephi” (Alma 29:14), and “departed into the wilderness with their numbers which they had selected, to go up to the land of Nephi, to preach the word of God unto the Lamanites (Alma 17:8).
Or the words “down to” are used here when people are in the Land of Nephi going to the Land of Zarahemla: “Ammon and his brethren saw this great work of destruction, they were moved with compassion, and they said unto the king: Let us gather together this people of the Lord, and let us go down to the land of Zarahemla to our brethren the Nephites, and flee out of the hands of our enemies, that we be not destroyed. (Alma 27:4-5), “Amalickiah had gathered together a wonderfully great army, insomuch that he feared not to come down to the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 51:11), and “Therefore it became expedient for us, that we should put an end to their lives, or guard them, sword in hand, down to the land of Zarahemla…we did resolve to send them down to the land of Zarahemla; therefore, we selected a part of our men, and gave them charge over our prisoners to go down to the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 57:15-16).
Down is going north in Egypt and wherever the elevation, or the rivers flow to. I had always assumed that Zarahemla was by the sea because the Sidon river flows north or so I understood. So going down to a Nephite would be going north or so I have always thought. But that is why (or so I supposed) that many of the early brethren assumed the Magdalena river was the river Sidon. But as I have commented before it does not matter to me too much, unless someone makes it a matter of faith. Or if they make false dna claims about the bloodlines of the Lamanites which some have unwisely done.
ReplyDelete