Were There Volcanoes Involved in the Destruction of 3 Nephi? – Part IV

Continuing with the previous three posts regarding the descriptions about the three days of darkness in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion, and the disagreement over volcano eruptions between Mesoamericanists and the Great Lakes/Eastern U.S./Heartland theorists. 
    In the previous post, we discussed “inventions” that, in all reality, we have no idea, even today, as to what they were or how they worked or what damage they did, nor do we know how far they shot whatever payload they hurled, how large were the “arrows” and “stones” involved, etc. The purpose of the inventions is said to be to “shoot arrows and hurl large stones.” The word translated as “shoot” and “hurl” is the Hebrew verb yarah, which is used many times to describe a bow shooting an arrow. But it is also used in 2 Samuel 11:20-24, in which Jonah reports that the defenders of the wall “shot from off the wall upon thy servants and some of the king’s servants were killed (including Uriah).” And Joab told the messenger: “And if so be that the king’s wrath arise, and he say unto thee, Wherefore approached ye so nigh unto the city when ye did fight? knew ye not that they would shoot from the wall?”

The obvious explanation of all of this is that these devices were catapults. But this merely raises another question. The generally accepted history of the catapult holds that it was first invented in the Greek city-state of Syracuse on the island of Sicily in 399 B.C. The Syracusan general Dionysius I had led a military coup in 405 B.C. that overthrew Syracuse’s democratically elected government and installed himself as a dictator. His first acts were to put Syracuse’s society and economy on a war footing in preparation for attacking Carthage, who controlled the western half of Sicily, and seize total control of the island. In order to do this, Dionysius brought in engineers from around the Greek world to work on inventing new weapons. The Greeks in Italy had previously invented an early crossbow called the gastraphetes, which could shoot an arrow further than a bow. Dionysius’ engineers took this a step further and created the idea of using levers, springs and torque to fling even larger arrows and boulder-throwing machines for attacking Carthaginian fortifications.

However, Uzziah was king five hundred years before Dionysius. Yet, in the mid eighth century, at the same time as Uzziah, a text from Egypt describing the Egyptian Pharaoh Piye’s siege of Hermopolis states that the attacking Egyptian army included “hurlers” made out of wood. Unfortunately, that is all we know—a “hurler” was something made of wood that evidently hurled things (Alan R. Schulman, “Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol. I, ed. by Jack Sasson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 298-299)
    The point of all of this is to suggest that writers with limited vocabulary of futuristic things to them were difficult to write about. How the disciple Nephi wrote about volcanoes and three days of darkness would be interesting to know for certain, but we do not know what caused the three days of darkness unless it was the volcanoes, volcanic ash, etc., as has been suggested here. Because a writer of the past did not use a word we would know today does not necessarily mean he did not intend such a word, but that it was simply unknown to him. The point remains, however, and cannot be dismissed merely because a known word of today was not used in the past to describe such an event. As has been pointed out in this series, ancient writers were often left to describe futuristic events in ancient terminology that was not self-explanatory—but the events did happen. Something caused three days of darkness and we cannot just chalk it up to the Lord did it and be satisfied when a very plausible explanation exists—and has happened time and again over history and in the present time frame, i.e., volcanoes and volcanic ash turning bright sunlight into night.

As stated in the first post of this series, the word “volcano” did not exist in the Hebrew language of antiquity. In fact, the word was relatively unknown, originally coming from the name of the Roman god Vulcan (Volcānus or Vulcānus;), the god of fire, who was said to have made tools and weapons for the other gods in his workshop at Olympus. Throughout history, volcanoes have frequently been identified with Vulcan and other mythological figures. Scientists now know that the "smoke" from volcanoes, once attributed by poets to be from Vulcan's forge, is actually volcanic gas naturally released from both active and many inactive volcanoes. As the God of Fire, Vulcan was depicted with a blacksmith’s hammer and said to wield power over the fires emanating from mountains—in Greek mythology he was Hephaestus, the god of fire and smithery, and the Etruscan religion identified him as Sethians. And what fires emanate from mountains other than volcanoes?

Vulcan was first mentioned by Marcus Terentius Varro (between 116 B.C. and 27 B.C.), sometimes called Varro Reatinus, in his list of a series of deities. A shrine is claimed to have been identified with Vulcan dated to 214 B.C., according to Archaic Roman Religion: Volume One. trans. Philip Krapp. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.1996 [1966] pp. 320–321. 
    While the name origin is debated, it is claimed to have been associated with the Latin words connected to lighting (fujlgur, gulgere, fulmen) which in turn was thought of as related to flames, and Vulcan’s oldest shrine is thought to be Vulcanal where Romulus and Tatius concluded the peace treaty between the two tribes known as the Latins. Later the statue or shrine was dedicated there sometime prior to 9 A.D.
    All of this, of course, suggests that the Vulcan god did not exist in 600 B.C. when Lehi left, was not part of the wordage that eventually became known as "volcano," and was unknown in any language prior to some 500 years later. Thus, when the disciple Nephi and later Mormon wrote of 3 Nephi 8, there was no singular word or phrase that meant “volcano” in either Hebrew or Egyptian as we have shown earlier. Thus, when Great Lakes theorists write: “The premise, of course, is that 3 Nephi describes volcanoes. Somehow Mormon supposedly described all the things a volcano did but didn't think to simply write, "Volcanoes erupted." That's no problem when you read the text with the Mesoamerican spectacles, though; the word is apparently on every page, invisible to anyone not wearing these specs.”
    Once again, Mormon had no word for “volcano” as we have pointed out. Vulcan, from which volcano comes to us, was not even a word in 600 B.C. when Lehi left Jerusalem—was coined about 400 years later. Yet, something caused the three days of darkness and was associated with the trembling of the earth (“it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder”) for 3 hours, sharp lightenings (“never had been known in all the land”) and thunder (3 Nephi 8:6-7). Whatever it was, Mormon did not have a singular word or phrase to describe it, so we are left with the description, but not the wordage.
    In another rather humorous comment, the Great Lakes theorist writes: “Research has shown that there are no volcanoes east of the Rocky Mountains in North America, aside from four extremely ancient ones (dating between 65 million and 1.5 billion years ago) In other words, research has shown that North America, east of the Rocky Mountains, is just like the place the Book of Mormon text describes—no volcanoes in the time frame during which the Nephites and Lamanites inhabited the land.”
    Response: First of all, not as single lake is mentioned in all of the scriptural record; the Book of Mormon makes no claim there is more than one river in the entire Land Southward of the Land of Promise, and no more than the Waters of Mormon and Sebus besides the Waters of Sidon, does that mean there was no other water in the entire Land Southward? One might wonder how the Nephites and Lamanites subsided on such limited water resources if this type of thinking is accurate. According to the scriptural record, the Nephites were involved in the building of ships and shipping, yet we know of only one port, and that was where Hagoth built his ships. Were there no other shipbuilders, shipyards or ports, which would be odd for a people involved in shipping and ship building.
    Secondly, the scriptural record makes several comments about mountains in the Land of Promise, some of which, if not all, “whose height is great,” yet our theorist conveniently neglects to mention that in his “just like the place the Book of Mormon text describes.” As an example: “And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah that in the place of the city there became a great mountain” (3 Nephi 8:10). I would invite our theorist to show us one single mountain anywhere in the Great Lakes Western New York area claimed to be the Land of Promise—a single mountain that could be called “great.” In fact, I’ll even settle for hills as in “and made hills and valleys in the places thereof” (3 Nephi 9:8) since there are no hills in western New York since the entire claimed Land  of Promise area does not rise anywhere above 1300 feet from the shoreline of about an aveage of 500 feet, or rises more than 800 feet in a gradual rise. But I would prefer to be shown all the mountains that rose up from valleys “whose height is great” (Helaman 14:23).
    Obviously, the area of the Great Lakes is NOT like the "text of the Book of Mormon" describes—not at all!

The word hurricane was coined by Spanish conquerors in the 16^th century from an Arawak word in the “Taino” language from the Carib Indians of the West Indies: “huracan” meaning “storm.” It was taken from “hunraken” the name of the Mayan storm god. It is difficult to say when such storms were separated into hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones, but whichever word described, the wordage of Mormon when he says that “there were some who were carried away in the whirlwind; and whither they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away” (3 Nephi 8:16). Now what would a “whirlwind” of such force be?
(See the next post, ”Were There Volcanoes Involved in the Destruction of 3 Nephi? – Part V,” as we continue with the descriptions about the three days of darkness in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion, and the disagreement over volcano eruptions between Mesoamericanists and the Great Lakes/Eastern U.S./Heartland theorists)

For more information regarding the website, click here

Were There Volcanoes Involved in the Destruction of 3 Nephi? – Part III

Continuing with the previous two posts regarding the descriptions about the three days of darkness in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion, and the disagreement over volcano eruptions between Mesoamericanists and the Great Lakes/Eastern U.S./Heartland theorists. 
    Again, one cannot fault the quoted theorist’s frustration with how Mesoamerican attitudes (see last post) have completely taken over FARMS, Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Deseret Book, and most non-Church doctrinal comments about geography and the Book of Mormon, but at the same time, that does not excuse someone from trying to foster their views simply because they are not in Mesoamerica.

Most of us, however, expect any theorists to have a pair of clear scriptural glasses and look through those lens when reading the Book of Mormon, not this theory or that theory lens.
    After all, we know from very authoritative means—the scriptural record itself—that the Land of Promise was filled with mountains “whose height was great” to such an extent that volcanoes would certainly be part of that land if the Land of Promise is in the western coastal region of the Western Hemisphere because of the very accurate and easily documented Ring of Fire that accompanies nearly every part of that coastal region.
    Since Mormon gives us irrefutable evidence that Lehi landed on the Sea West in the Land of Nephi (Alma 22:28), we can easily apply the theorists' complaint against Mesoamericanists to his own problem in seeing through Great Lakes lenses, i.e., seeing no mountains, no west coast landing, etc., when the scriptural record clearly points out that Lehi landed where there would likely be volcanoes.
    Here is his view of Mesoamericanist lense viewing:
1. Assume a Mesoamerican setting because of the anonymous 1842 Times and Seasons articles.

2. Put on the Mesoamerican lens (or eyeglasses, or spectacles, or Urim and Thummim).
3. "See" a hill in Mesoamerica that "fits" the text. Reject the New York Cumorah (along with David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Joseph Smith, because they were merely relying on a folk tradition started by unknown Mormons, they were unreliable people anyway, and they didn't have the Mesoamerican lenses that would have given them the correct understanding that modern scholars have achieved.
    However, here is the Great Lakes approach:
1. Assume a Great Lakes setting because of the location of the hill Cumorah and Letter VII that Oliver Cowdery wrote to W.W. Phelps.

2. Put on the Great Lakers lens (or eyeglasses, or spectacles, or Urim and Thummim).
3. "See" the hill Cumorah in which Joseph Smith found the plates and claim it "fits" the text of the hill Cumorah in the Land of Promise.
4. Reject the numerous descriptions written by Mormon of the hill Cumorah that do not fit the hill Cumorah in New York.
5. Rely on Letter VII that Oliver Cowdery wrote W.W. Phelps and claim it is the doctrine and stance of the Church; and claim Joseph Smith helped Oliver Cowdery write it for his own (Joseph’s) history, without explaining that Letter VII also includes the history of Joseph Smith finding the plates in the New York hill and that was his interest in the Cowdery explanations.
    It does not matter whether one wears Mesoamericna lenses, or wears Great Lakes lenses—as long as those lenses distract from and allow the ignoring of the scriptural record and uses personal views and modern day leader’s personal views to offset and replace the actual scriptural record.
    Great Lakes theorists claim that Mesoaemricanists mistranslated “a historical mistake from 1842,” as the means of their view; however, it can be said of Great Lakes theorists that their misunderstanding of Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII as being only his opinion and neither Church doctrine nor any stated view of Joseph Smith merely because he helped Oliver craft the information regarding his (Joseph’s) involvement in finding the plates on the hill Cumorah in New York.
    Had both Mesoamericanists and Great Lakes theorists relied solely on the Book of Mormon scriptural record, neither of these views could hold any claim to Church or leader support whatever.
    Another error is that of Great Lakes theorists using Joseph Fielding Smith’s claim that there were not two Cumorahs as a Church stance on the matter, even though years later, as President of the Church he referenced his earlier remark about being his opinion.
    As this theorist stated: “For years, I've been told about volcanoes in the Book of Mormon. I always respond to this by asking where is the evidence of volcanic activity in the Book of Mormon? The people supposedly lived in Central America for 1,000 years and never once mentioned volcanoes?” to which a response is easily suggested in the fact that numerous things are not mentioned in the record, yet we know they took place—however, when they are mentioned specifically, like mountains rising out of valleys to a “height which is great” (Helaman 14:23), it is denied by Great Lakes theorists whose location in western New York is basically a land that is flat as we’ve pointed out here and where no mountains of any kind are located.

Samuel the Lamanite said that in the Land of Promise “…and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great” (Helaman 14:23). It is amazing how the Great Lakes Lens screen out that particular scripture and its so clearly obvious meaning
    It is not a matter of what the scriptural record says is or isn’t there—to theorists, it is a matter of what they agree with or disagree with that exists in the Land of Promise. Mesoamerica has mountains and volcanoes, therefore they read volcanoes and mountains in 3 Nephi 8; on the other hand, Great Lakes theorists do not have any mountains, let alone volcanoes in their model in western New York, therefore they see no description of volcanoes in 3 Nephi 8. However, that does not dispel the fact that volcanic action is the most plausible explanation of 3 Nephi 8 and the three days of darkness.
    So what are we to make of 3 Nephi 8 where it describes the stifling darkness that began, then spread until it was dark for three days amidst the thundering and lightening. For an example, let’s take a look at the story of Uzziah in Kings and Chronicles. The biblical Kings lists Uzziah as reigning 52 years over Judah, and besides that it has precious little to say about him except to note that he “did right in the eyes of YHWH,” did not remove the high places, and eventually contracted leprosy and spent the last years of his reign as a figurehead while his son did the actual work of governing the kingdom (2 Kings 15:1-7). However, Chronicles contains a whole host of details about Uzziah’s reign which portray him as the head of a powerful kingdom, defeating the Philistines and the Arabs, extending Judah’s territory as far south as Eilat, placing Ammon under tribute, and maintaining a large army (2 Chronicles 26:1-15, 22).
    Among this list of accomplishments is a more enigmatic statement “And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal” (2 Chronicles 26:15. In this Hebrew, three related words are used to make a phrase that cannot easily be rendered into English—the things built on the towers are called hishbonot mahashebet hosheb. All three nouns come from the same consonantal root. A loose translation would be something like “little inventions of inventions of inventors.” It’s a literary device, and being used to describe something new that the writer didn’t have the vocabulary to describe. The second half of the description mentions that these devices were installed in the migdalim (towers) and pinnot (“corners,” probably towers at the corners of the wall) and somehow enabled the shooting of stones and arrows.
(See the next post, ”Were There Volcanoes Involved in the Destruction of 3 Nephi? – Part IV,” as we continue with the descriptions about the three days of darkness in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion, and the disagreement over volcano eruptions between Mesoamericanists and the Great Lakes/Eastern U.S./Heartland theorists)

For more information regarding the website www.nephicode.com

Were There Volcanoes Involved in the Destruction of 3 Nephi? – Part II

Continuing with the previous post regarding the descriptions about the three days of darkness in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion, and the disagreement over volcano eruptions between Mesoamericanists and the Great Lakes/Eastern U.S./Heartland theorists.

Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and ash (pulverized rock and pumice) into the stratosphere to heights of ten to twenty miles  above the Earth's surface.
    The most significant impacts from these injections come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sufate aerosols. It is worth mentioning that the SO₂ emissions alone of two different eruptions are sufficient to compare their potential climatic impact. The aerosols increase the Earth's albedo—its reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, and thus cool the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit) for periods of one to three years.
Coarse particles of volcanic ash look and feel like grains of sand, while very fine particles are powdery. Particles are sometimes called tephra—which actually refers to all solid material ejected by volcanoes. Ash is a product of explosive volcanic eruptions. Volcanic ash deposits tend to be thicker and have larger particles closer to the eruption site. As distance from the volcano increases, the deposit tends to thin out. The 1994 double eruption of Vulcan and Tavurvur in Papua New Guinea covered the nearby city of Rabaul in a layer of ash about 2 feet deep, while areas closer to the volcanoes were buried under 5-7 feet of ash.

However, it should be noted the plumes of volcanic ash can spread over large areas of sky, turning daylight into complete darkness and drastically reducing visibility. These enormous and menacing clouds are often accompanied by thunder and lightning. Volcanic lightning is a unique phenomenon and scientists continue to debate the way it works. Many scientists think that the sheer energy of a volcanic explosion charges its ash particles with electricity. Positively charged particles meet up with negatively charged particles, either in the cooler atmosphere or in the volcanic debris itself. Lightning bolts then occur as a means of balancing these charge distributions.

Volcanic ash and gases can sometimes reach the stratosphere, the upper layer in Earth’s atmosphere. This volcanic debris can reflect incoming solar radiation and absorb outgoing land radiation, leading to a cooling of the Earth’s temperature. In extreme cases, these “volcanic winters” can affect weather patterns across the globe. The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, Indonesia, the largest eruption in recorded history, ejected an estimated 150 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of debris into the air. The average global temperature cooled by as much as 5.4° Fahrenheit, causing extreme weather around the world for a period of three years. As a result of Mount Tambora’s volcanic ash, North America and Europe experienced the “Year Without a Summer” in 1816. This year was characterized by widespread crop failure, deadly famine, and disease. 
    If inhaled, volcanic ash can cause breathing problems and damage the lungs. Inhaling large amounts of ash and volcanic gases can cause a person to suffocate. Suffocation is the most common cause of death from a volcano. 
    Now, given all this information, if you were the prophet Nephite wriiting in 34 A.D. how would you write and describe the events in 3 Nephi regarding the destruction and three days of darkness and its cause?
    “And the people began to look with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Lamanite, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of three days over the face of the land” (3 Nephi 8:3). Or “And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease -- for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours -- and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land” (3 Nephi 8:19). And finally, “there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could feel the vapor of darkness; And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all; And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land. And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen” (3 Nephi 8:20-23).
    Without using the words: “volcano,” “lava,” “volcanic ash,” the author of 3 Nephi was about as accurate in describing several volcanoes erupting at the same time, filling the entire area with the gases of eruption that covered the sky and blocked out every bit of sunlight until it was blanketed in absolute nighttime darkness for the space of three days.

Now I realize that the Great Lakes theorists object vehemently to volcanic eruption as a cause of the events in 3 Nephi, since there are no volcanoes or even mountains basically in the eastern United States within the areas different theorists have placed the Land of Promise, centering around western New York. And, according to them, there is no mention of "volcano," "ash," or "lava," therefore it could not be a volcano eruption being written about.
   So granted the words of a volcano eruption are not used in the scriptural record, as described earlier, the words associated with volcanoes were not coined in Hebrew and would not have been in Egyptian, where volcanoes never erupted, but the results of such an eruption are clearly given and described by the disciple Nephi and abridged by Mormon (however, it should be added that in 2007, Egyptian archaeologists found what they believe are traces of solidified lava on the northern coast of Sinai Peninsula that date to around 1650-1550 B.C. supporting accounts that ancient Egyptian settlements were buried by a massive volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean where the Nile Delta meets the Sinai peninsula. According to Zahi Hawass, the lava and ash hail from Santorini, an eastern Mediterranean volcano that has been linked to the myth of Atlantis. Other experts doubt the origin in Egypt, but believe that the lava was carried in by regular ocean currents).
    As the BYU Daily Universe stated: “There has been a shift more recently to finding Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of finding the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica,” which is an excellent point; however, one must understand what is actually written and being described. It is one thing to say that the darkness in 3 Nephi is not from a volcano, but we know it is from something. Did the Lord just up and cause it because he wanted it dark as in mourning his death? Of course he could have since he can do anything as we’ve often described. However, it is doubtful he did that without it being from some natural occurrence, such as the volcano the description so aptly fits.
    Here, then, we see the Great Lakes theorist looking at the Book of Mormon through Great Lakes lens, complaining that the Mesoamericanists are looking through Mesoamerican lens.

Whether you wear Mesoamerican Lens or Great Lakes Lens, or any other lens of one theory or another, you are bound to have already made up your mind, or are at least leaning in that direction and tend to interpret what you hear, read, and see through the lens you are wearing
    As the above theorist added, “Once you start looking at the Book of Mormon through a Mesoamerican lens, you can’t unsee it.” On the other hand, the same is true for the Great Lakes lens—if you look through that, you cannot unsee that, either.
    The sad thing is, neither one can see that they are looking through tinted lens—Instead, they and we should be wearing scriptural reference lens and seeing what is actually written and not what we want to be written. If we do that, we can see tht what is being described sounds a lot like a series of volcanoes--so the questions should be, if not volcanoes, what then? Something caused the three days of darkness!
    In an effort to make his point, but not see that he is describing his own error at the same time, the author of the website adds: “Thanks to a historical mistake from 1842, millions of people have been indoctrinated to read the Book of Mormon through a Mesoamerican lens and now they "can't unsee it. They're stuck. And so they produce new translations that reflect what they "see" through the Mesoamerican lens. (Maybe we should go ahead and call it the Mesoamerican Urim and Thummim, because that's how authoritative these new translations have become).”
(See the next post, ”Were There Volcanoes Involved in the Destruction of 3 Nephi? – Part III,” as we continue with the descriptions about the three days of darkness in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion, and the disagreement over volcano eruptions between Mesoamericanists and the Great Lakes/Eastern U.S./Heartland theorists).

Were There Volcanoes Involved in the Destruction of 3 Nephi? – Part I

There seems to be a strong disagreement going on between some Mesoamerican and Great Lakes theorists, with the one claiming that the descriptions mentioned in 3 Nephi depict volcanic actions, and the other group claiming they did not and the word volcano is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Since the descriptions in 3 Nephi are so specific, and Joseph Smith never experienced a volcano or earthquake to our knowledge, and the word volcano did not exist in the Middle East before Lehi left, nor was it a word in ancient Hebrew, it seems of interest to take a look at this argument, since it has a lot to do with how people tend to see the scriptural record and how people can lean toward different views regarding the location of the Land of Promise.
    First of all, as indicated, in Hebrew, there is no such ancient word for “volcano,” though today the word הַר גַעַשׁ, serephah, which comes from “cremation,” and means “a burning” is used by Strong’s Concordance as a word for “volcano.” Also: הַר גַעַשׁ and הַר פְּרָצִים are used for volcano, with שריפה meaning “fire.” However, this word, serephah, is used 13 times in the Old Testament does not relate to a volcano, but to things meaning “burned.”
    In Genesis, it is used to mean thoroughly burned brick; In Leviticus it had to do with unauthorized fire being lit in the sacrificial censer and the Lord caused a great flame to consume the errant priests; again about the censer fires in Numbers; also in Numbers about a fire burning the sacrificial heifer; in Deuteronomy being about the Lord threatening to rain down fire and brimstone because of idolatry; they made a great fire in the tomb Asa made for himself in Chronicles; both Temples were burned up with fire in Isaiah; the fall and ruin of Babylon in Jeremiah; an earthquake is described in Amos causing widespread destruction, convulsions of nature, and either their houses were burned or their bodies consumed by fire from heaven, refers to a ‘firebrand from God.”
    Thus, with one possible exception in Amos, the use of serephah is not used in conjunction with volcanoes in the Bible. So what word or words would have been used to describe such an experience?
    There was not one, so rather than a word, the idea would have been conveyed by what went on and what happened, rather than an all inclusive word like “volcanoes erupting.”

Secondly, one of the problems with language is trying to find a word that conveys the meaning sought. “Baseball” is not a word that existed prior to 1700, when Anglican bishop Thomas Wilson expressed his disapproval of ”Morris-dancing, cudgel-playing, baseball and cricket” on Sundays.
    So if you were tasked to write about the future ten years ago, how would you describe: Kindle, locavorism, hashtag, e-book, millennials, New Media, IOS Development, Android Developer, Zumba Instructor, Big Data Architect, the Cloud, User Experience Director; or what about twenty years ago how would you describe: iPhone, blog, LOL, selfie, app, bromance, homeland security, flash drive, terabyte, cyberstalking, paywall, Pay Pal, muggles, staycation, upcycle, binge-watch; or 50 years ago, what would you have called a cellphone, MRI, emoticon, Star Trek; networking, gigabyte, Baby Boomer, Google, Apple, web site, software, compact disc, video, spyware, microwave, emoticon, blog, cat scan, bar codes, sat dish? Or what about 100 years ago: Teflon, paperback, kilabyte, fast-food, email, nanotechnology, hoodie, supersize, podcast, Tupperware, lip gloss, online, polyester?
    Vocabulary is always an interesting study, since its existence to whatever degree it is, limits how one can word their meanings. Take the prophet Joel being limited to not having words for helicopter (used chariots 2:5), sting ray missiles (fire that leaps 2:5), door-to-door battles (run to and fro in the city 2:9); 2:10 talks about an earthquake that will accompany the return of the 10 tribes—even then earthquakes and volcanic mists were difficult to describe); all faces shall gather blackness (the people will be in mourning 2:6); there will be so many that they will not have to “break their ranks” (invincible in fighting power 2:8), and the “blood and fire and pillars of smoke” (from the bombs 2:30) shall turn the world dark before the Lord appears.

Drones that can fly indefinitely and charged by Lasers are now being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense

    And in Revelations, when John wrote about seeing swarms of locusts that came out from the smoke caused when the bottomless pit is opened to release the devil—could he have seen these swarms  of locusts whose shape was like unto horses prepared unto battle to be unmanned drones that are now being prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense in their Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap to fight in “swarms” that can choose their own targets?

Top Left: Tiny MAV (Micro Air Vehicle) inspired by the insect world, can fly in swarms and perform tasks with limited air control support. DOD plans to have unlimited self-controlled MAVs in the air within twenty-five years. They already have operational “bioreactive taggants” capability; Others: Tiny insect inspired spy drones

    With all the fighting going on around Israel with Gog having an army of 200,000,000, America (called Zion 2:23), for whatever reason will not be involved in the fighting and will benefit from rains and her fields will be full of wheat (2:24). Like the Church being spared from the Civil War that Joseph Smith clearly saw, their movement to Salt Lake City, seen at the time of being force and driven out of their homes was actually a godsend. Evidently so will this country’s lack of involvement be in the final battles in Israel.

As for a volcano, how would you describe a volcano to someone who had never seen one before, never experience one, and had no idea about mountains, lava, volcanic ash, etc.? A volcano, of course, is a rupture in the crust of the Earth, that allows hot lava, volcanic ash, and gases to escape from a magma chamber below the surface. Earth's volcanoes occur because its crust is broken into 17 major, rigid tectonic plates that float on a hotter, softer layer in its mantle. Therefore, volcanoes are generally found where tectonic plates are diverging or converging, such as along the mid-Atlantic ridge where plates are pulling apart, or the Pacific Ring of Fire, which has volcanoes caused by convergent tectonic plates coming together. Volcanism away from plate boundaries has also been explained as mantle plumes called “hotspots,” such as in Hawaii. Volcanoes are usually not created where two tectonic plates slide past one another.
    Throughout history, ash produced by the explosive eruption of stratovolcanoes has posed the greatest volcanic hazard to civilizations. Not only do stratovolcanoes have greater pressure build up from the underlying lava flow than shield volcanoes, but their fissure vents and monogenetic volcanic fields (volcanic cones) have more powerful eruptions, as they are many times under extension. They are also steeper than shield volcanoes, with slopes of 30–35° compared to slopes of generally 5–10°, and their loose tephra are material for dangerous lahars (mudflow or debris flow, such as what flows down from the volcano, typically along a river valley). Large pieces of tephra are called volcanic, which can measure more than 4 feet across and weigh several tons.
    Volcanic ash, which is probably the most noticeable and recognized part of volcanic eruption other than magma flow, which consists of fragments of pulverized rock, minerals and volcanic glass, created during volcanic eruptions and measuring less than 2 mm (0.079 inches) in diameter, is formed during explosive volcanic eruptions when dissolved gases in magma expand and escape violently into the atmosphere. The force of the escaping gas shatters the magma and propels it into the atmosphere where it solidifies into fragments of volcanic rock and glass. Ash is also produced when magma comes into contact with water during phreatomagmatic eruptions, causing the water to explosively flash to steam leading to shattering of magma. Once in the air, ash is transported by wind up to thousands of miles away. In 2008, an eruption in Chaitén volcano in Chile, sending an ash cloud across the continent  at Patagonia from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans.

    Due to its wide dispersal, powdery ash can have a number of impacts on society, including human and animal health, disruption to aviation, and critical infrastructure of the electrical power supply system, telecommunications, water and waste-water networks, buildings and structures. In fact, the concentrations of different volcanic gases can vary considerably from one volcano to the next. Water vapor is typically the most abundant volcanic gas, followed by carbon and sulfur dioxide. 
    Other principal volcanic gases include hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride, and a large number of trace gases such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, halocarbons, organic compounds, and volatile metal chlorides.
(See the next post, ”Were There Volcanoes Involved in the Destruction of 3 Nephi? – Part II,” as we continue with the descriptions about the three days of darkness in 3 Nephi at the time of the crucifixion, and the disagreement over volcano eruptions between Mesoamericanists and the Great Lakes/Eastern U.S./Heartland theorists)

The Gulf Stream - Part II

Continuing from the previous post regarding a question asked us from a reader regarding the Gulf Stream and if it was affected by the onetime Panama Throughway before the Panama Isthmus rose to its present position. 

We also need to keep in mind that the Gulf Stream is a comparatively new area of knowledge, and wasn’t even known before 1513, when Juan Ponce de León (left), who was a close friend and neighbor to Vasco de Gama and may have accompanied Columbus on his second voyage, discovered it quite by accident while exploring the coast of what he named Florida (meaning “flowery”)—a very strong, warm ocean current that would help future Spanish ships maneuver their way home from the New World.
    A summary of de León's voyage log, on April 22, 1513, noted, "A current such that, although they had great wind, they could not proceed forward, but backward and it seems that they were proceeding well; at the end it was known that the current was more powerful than the wind.” However it was the Italian historian, Peter Martyr d’Anghiera who was the first to realize the significance of it, making his “Decades” of great value in the history of geography and discovery. It was learned that the stream is a powerful current in the Atlantic Ocean, starting in the Gulf of Mexico and flows into the Atlantic at the tip of Florida, accelerating along the eastern coastlines of the United States and Newfoundland.  It is part of the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre, one of the five major oceanic gyres, which are large systems of circular currents and powerful winds.
    The Gulf Stream is a western boundary current with its movement determined by the North American coastline. Trade winds from Africa drive water in the Atlantic westward until it hits the coastline and gets pushed northward. In turn, the Gulf Stream affects the climate of the areas closest to the current by transferring tropical heat toward the northern latitudes. There is a consensus among scientists that the climate of Western and Northern Europe is warmer than it would be otherwise because of the North Atlantic Current, one of the branches of the Gulf Stream.

It was not until Anton de Alaminos (left), however, who had sailed with Columbus on his last voyage, and was the chief pilot aboard Ponce de Leon’s ship on his earlier trip, who six years later set sail for Spain from Vera Cruz, Mexico, using the Gulf Stream by following the Florida coastline before turning eastward to Europe. His route was then followed by all the other European mariners sailing form the New World back to Europe. Thus the Gulf Stream was instrumental in the colonization of the Americas, for it altered sailing patterns and shaved time off a typically long and treacherous trip. Most sea voyages to Virginia southward, as an example, chose the southern route across the Atlantic pioneered by Columbus, even though it was 2000 miles to 3000 miles out of the way, but the returning voyages took Alaminos’ route saving that distance and speeding their journey.
    It was Benjamin Franklin, in his role as deputy postmaster of the British American colonies, who had a keen interest in the North Atlantic Ocean circulation patterns as a way to streamline communication between the colonies and England. 

During a 1768 visit to England, Franklin (left) discovered that it took British packets several weeks longer to reach New York from England than it took an average American merchant ship to reach Newport, Rhode Island. Franklin’s cousin Timothy Folger, a Nantucket whaling captain, explained that merchant ships routinely crossed the then-unnamed Gulf Stream while the mail packet captains ran against it. The merchant ships tracked whale behavior, measurement of the water's temperature and the speed of bubbles on its surface and changes in the water's color to follow the speedier route.
    Franklin worked with Folger and other experienced ship captains to chart the Gulf Stream and giving it the name by which it is still known today.  His Gulf Stream chart was published in 1770 in England—where it was ignored—and subsequent versions were printed in France in 1778 and the United States in 1786.
    It was years before the British finally took Franklin's advice on navigating the current but once they did, they were able to shave two weeks off the sailing time between Europe and the United States.
    Another important factor that only recently has been discovered is that the waters feeding into the Gulf Stream begin flowing off the west coast of Northern Africa, and not just from the Gulf of Mexico as earlier thought. While the Gulf Stream is classified as a western boundary current, it literally means that the current is affected by the coastline of North America (United States and Canada), not so much by the Gulf of Mexico, though that it where it gets its warmth.

The Gulf Stream as it originates off the coast of West Africa (red arrows) and flows across the Atlantic toward Florida, up the coast of North America and back across the Atlantic and up the coast of England toward Norway, where it feeds the Norwegian Current and moves the relatively warm water along the west coast of Europe. The impact of the Gulf of Mexico is minimal

    As the current flows across the Atlantic, coming off the South Atlantic Gyre into the North Atlantic Gyre, it reaches the American continents where it splits into two currents, one of which is the Antilles Current. These currents are then funneled through the islands of the Caribbean and through the Yucatan Channel between Mexico and Cuba, and the other is the Gulf Stream current that flows northward along the North American eastern coast.
    Because these areas are often very narrow, the current is able to compress and gather strength. As it does so, it begins circulating in the Gulf of Mexico’s warm waters. Once it gains enough strength after circulating in the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf Stream then moves east, rejoins the Antilles Current, and exits the area through the Straits of Florida. It is here that the Gulf Stream becomes noticeably visible on satellite images so it is said that the current originates in this area; however it actually originates along the western shores of Africa.
    In any event, these warm currents mix with the African current, heating up the waters that then are forced eastward around Florida and pick up the other half of the current, the Gulf Stream. Here, the Gulf Stream is a powerful underwater river that transports water at a rate of 30 million cubic meters per second (30 Sverdrups). It then flows parallel to the east coast of the United States and later flows into the open ocean near Cape Hatteras but continues moving north. While flowing in this deeper ocean water, the Gulf Stream is its most powerful (at about 150 Sverdrups), forms large meanders, and splits into several currents, the largest of which is the North Atlantic Current.

If the Gulf was not enclosed, as it is now, the currents moving into the Gulf of Mexico from the Panama Throughway would merely force the Gulf waters into the Gulf Stream in an even faster current, moving upward and eventually back across the Atlantic toward Great Britain in a somewhat faster current than now occurs, since the current now, once it turns eastward, begins to slow down considerably

    The Gulf Stream, like all other ocean currents is mainly caused by wind as it creates friction when moving over the water. This friction then forces the water to move in the same direction. Because it is a western boundary current, the presence of land along the Gulf Stream’s edges also aids in its movement. The northern branch of the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic Current, is deeper and is caused by thermohaline circulation resulting from density differences in the water.
    Because ocean currents circulate water of different temperatures all over the globe, they often have a significant impact on the world’s climate and weather patterns. The Gulf Stream is one of the most important currents in this regard since its waters mix with the warm tropical waters of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. As such, it keeps sea surface temperatures warm, causing the areas around it to be warm and more hospitable. Florida and much of the Southeastern United States for instance is mild all year round as a result of this Gulf Stream.

The temperature of the Gulf Stream cools as it crosses the Atlantic and moves up the coast of Europe; however, it still remains warmer than the surrounding waters and effectively warms the European coastal areas

    The greatest impact, however, that the Gulf Stream has on climate is found in Europe. Since it flows into the North Atlantic Current, it too is warmed (though at this latitude the sea surface temperatures are cooled considerably), and it is believed that it helps keep places like Ireland and England much warmer than they would otherwise be at such a high latitude. For example, the average low in London in December is 42°F while in St. John’s, Newfoundland, the average is 27°F. The Gulf Stream and its warm winds are also responsible for keeping northern Norway’s coast free of ice and snow.
    So we see, that even with the Panama Throughway, this current coming off western Africa would still flow in he same manner and accomplish the same purpose it now does. And the currents coming up the west coast of South America, the Humbolt Current, would still act the same way since the west coast shelf would still be sufficiently raised both above and beneath the surface as to direct these currents. The bulge of Peru would still direct the current back out into the Pacific in the South Pacific Gyre, and the throughway would have little impact on anything other than currents immediately within the Gulf of Mexico, between Central America and Cuba.

The Gulf Stream - Part I

From time to time we get questions or comments that require more space then within our comments sections, so we try to answer them in a complete article, such as this one. 
    This question had to do with an article we wrote recently about “When Did South America East of the Andes Develop?” and specifically about the Gulf Stream.
    Comment: “I am quite curious about this. Is there any data showing the Gulf Stream did not exist prior to 34 AD? Was the European climate much colder prior to that?
As a tangent to this, how large was the Atlantic/Pacific connection through Central America? Was it large enough to allow the Atlantic Equatorial currents to pass though, or would some (or most) of it be redirected through the Gulf and up the eastern coast?” Michael R.

Response: Looking out at the ocean, one often sees a seemingly infinite series of waves, as far as the eye can see, transporting water from one place to the next. This is an optical illusion, since waves actually do not travel like that, but move about in a circular motion, much like a buoy or seabird floating on the surface, and when it encounters a surface object, it appears to lurch forward and upward with the wave, but then falls down and back in an orbital rotation as the wave continues by, ending up in the same position as before the wave passed. However, if one imagines a wave of water itself following this same pattern, it is easier to understand ocean waves as simply the outward manifestation of kinetic energy propagating through seawater. In reality, the water in waves doesn’t travel much at all. The only thing waves do transmit across the sea is energy.
    In addition, where waves are clearly seen crashing down dramatically onto shore, it is nothing more than the wave’s orbital motion being disturbed by the seafloor. As a wave passes through water, not only does the surface water follow an orbital motion, but a column of water below it completes the same movement. The approach of the bottom in shallow areas causes the lower portion of the wave to slow down and compress, forcing the wave’s crest higher in the air. Eventually this imbalance in the wave reaches a breaking point, and the crest comes crashing down as wave energy is dissipated into the surf.

So where does a wave's energy come from? There are a few types of ocean waves and they are generally classified by the energy source that creates them. Most common are surface waves, caused by wind blowing along the air-water interface, creating a disturbance that steadily builds as wind continues to blow and the wave crest rises. Surface waves occur constantly all over the globe, and are the waves you see at the beach under normal conditions and are the currents that drive movement across the seas, including those that allow for such things as “drift voyages.”
    Adverse weather or natural events often produce larger and potentially hazardous waves. Severe storms moving inland often create a storm surge, a long wave caused by high winds and a continued low pressure area. Storm surges are a minor disturbance in deep water, often less than one meter high, but intensify as they move into shallower water. Submarine earthquakes or landslides can displace a large amount of water very quickly, creating a series of very long waves called tsunamis. Storm surges and tsunamis do not create a typical crashing wave, but rather a massive sea-level rise upon reaching shore and can be extremely destructive to coastal environments as well as human settlements.

In fluid dynamics, wind waves, or wind-generated waves, are surface waves that occur on the free surface of oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, and canals or even on small puddles and ponds. They result from the wind blowing over an area of fluid surface

    What is important in understanding the currents affected by the throughway (passage) in the Panama Isthmus area is that: 1) Many submerged landfalls, shoals, reefs, even islands, can alter the flow of the water, creating undersea currents even though the surface water appears unchanged; and 2) A surface flow over an extended shallow area, no matter how large, does not alter the kinetic energy passing over this submerged area since it picks up and continues once past the submerged area. Since the depth of the water being affected does not extend below about 9 or 10 feet, if the submerged area is no higher than that, the water would appear unchanged, though the strength of the surface movement will be affected in two ways: 1) the deeper area is altered to move according to what obstruction blocks or alters its path, and 2) the surface area continues on as though nothing is happening beneath the surface even though the movement of the current is slowed and altered to some degree. 
    Thus we have the Humboldt Current, bringing cold water northward along the west coast of South America, the bulge of Peru pushing that current seaward or to the west, and completing what is called the South Pacific Gyre (South Equatorial Current) which moves in a counter-clockwise direction; the same thing is happening in the north, with the North Pacific Gyre (North Equatorial Current) moving clockwise, both nearly joining, and moving westward around the equator toward the west.
The Gulf Stream, on the other hand, was not affected so much by the water flowing through the Panama area or passage, since the Yucatan, Cuba, Haiti/Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, etc., all tended to block that movement of water into the Caribbean Sea through the passage and direct it down into the northeastern area of South America, which at the time, would have been a large opening (Yellow Arrow) in what is now Eastern Colombia and Western Venezuela, which was then underwater, and into the Pabasian Sea,which would have passed out into the Atlantic around today’s Amazon Sea mouth, and/or into the Paranense Sea, helping to keep that central and eastern part of South America submerged.
    This, by the way, when cut off, i.e., when Panama rose upward to block this passage of water, the source of the Pebesian Sea, Paranense Sea and Paranan Sea would have been diminished. On the other hand, any of those waters coming in through the passage escaping the movement (Yellow Arrow) into the Pebasian Sea would have been caught in the northward movement between the Yucatan and Cuba into the Gulf, bent around Apolochee Bay and back down around the tip of Florida through the Straits of Florida and into the Gulf Stream, which begins upstream of Cape Hatteras (well out to sea off the North Carolina coast and beyond the Pamlico Sound (a 70-mile-long sand bank that begins at Cape Lookout and curves eastward out into the Atlantic to Hatteras Island, then turns back and runs to Virginia Beach) into the North Atlantic Drift (along the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre) moving, according to the Mariano Global Surface Velocity Analysis a significant amount of warm water poleward (toward the North Pole) in a meandering 2 mile per second current—actually, as the Gulf Stream reaches Cape Hatteras, the cold Labrador Current that flows from the north separates it from the coast. At this confluence, the warm Gulf Stream waters combine with the cold winds accompanying the Labrador Current, forming one of the densest concentrations of fog in the world.

The bottom line is, the Gulf Stream’s warmth would not have been affected, nor would it’s course, though before the passage was cut off,  it might well have moved faster with the extra current pouring into the south current; however, no such records would be available of that prior to the crucifixion of Christ. Whether or not Leif Erickson’s Iceland and Greenland were warmer than after the crucifixion, or England, Norway or beyond is unknown.
(See the next post, "The Gulf Stream-Part II," for more of the stream itself and how it was affected, if at all, by the earlier existence of the Panama Throughway).