tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post8732989040494706228..comments2024-03-26T10:31:54.453-07:00Comments on Book of Mormon setting: Fun with John E. Clark--Encyclopedia of Mormonismjonathan3dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05379975395372054926noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-38372204886503123402016-05-03T21:54:30.190-07:002016-05-03T21:54:30.190-07:00Russ: ' First, "sea" is the English ...Russ: ' First, "sea" is the English translation of the Hebrew word "yam," '<br><br>Where do we find the Hebrew word "yam" in the BoM?<br><br>Or am I totally misunderstanding what you're saying here?malkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10620568715773842591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-21223858771738534292016-04-16T21:01:03.236-07:002016-04-16T21:01:03.236-07:00"Travel distance can be standardized to a deg..."Travel distance can be standardized to a degree by controlling, where possible, for the nature of the terrain (e.g., mountains versus plains) and the relative velocity (e.g., an army's March versus travel with children or animals). The elementary internal geography presented below is based on an interpretation of distances thus standardized and directions based on the text."<br>In this case, I can appreciate that he at least acknowledges the need for a standard, control case, for any sort of normalization so we can understand something foreign to us. The problem here is he's attempting to quantify something with insufficient data. In this case, insufficient data is an understatement. <br>This whole argument breaks down with relativity. <br>There are a myriad of other variables which one can speculate. It's not safe to make assumptions on any real or physical distance, quantity, or feature without the proper data to support it. If there is not constant defined by a direction with speed, monitoring its change over time, there can't be anyway to conclude any sort of terrain. It's all about constants, pins on map, and the clincher-- quantifiable data over time-- which we don't have. If it's about finding patterns in real existing geography, gotta have data. <br><br>That being said, one thing that caught my imagination was the idea that a common average speed points more to the existence of a common roadway, highway, river way, or a combination of all of them. Unknown terrains, expeditions, and new paths forged by a Nephite can't be any sort of average of anything unless it's been traveled enough to gauge a common finite distance over time.RJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464871210618980262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-70768359159572088802016-04-16T20:58:07.250-07:002016-04-16T20:58:07.250-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.This comment has been removed by the author.RJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464871210618980262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-17479773663489271392016-04-15T17:03:26.692-07:002016-04-15T17:03:26.692-07:00I'd also like to note that, in my opinion, Cla...I'd also like to note that, in my opinion, Clark's "Hypothesized Locations of Book of Mormon Lands" article is very well done. And I think if we could all do a better job emphasizing this article, there would be less rancor in what you've identified on this blog as the "Book of Mormon Wars."Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05263912077675667154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-67323872930373741322016-04-15T16:51:46.898-07:002016-04-15T16:51:46.898-07:00Second, I think one of the biggest problems with p...Second, I think one of the biggest problems with proposed Book of Mormon geographies is the requirement that the "seas" be identified with the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. First, "sea" is the English translation of the Hebrew word "yam," which essentially means a body of standing water. It doesn't tell us the size of that body of water. Second, even if the seas *can* be identified with specific oceans, there is no such *requirement* in the text. In fact, such identifications would have seemed nonsensical to ancient peoples: To them there was one ocean, not multiple oceans.<br><br>Nephi refers to the ocean as the "Great Deep" and as "Irreantum," and does not distinguish between the two. The Jaredites' "Ripliankum" may also refer to the ocean. Nowhere in the text are these bodies of water explicitly identified with any of the seas (north, south, east, west, west sea south, etc.).<br><br>The closest passage is Alma 22:28, which seems to say that Lehi's land of first inheritance was near a seashore and west of the principal lands. But it doesn't say that Lehi's land of first inheritance was on the Pacific Ocean (nor on any ocean). And such an interpretation would read out of the text both Nephi's introductory statement that they "cross[ed] the large waters into the promised land" -- not merely "to," but "into" -- and 1 Nephi 18:23-25, which suggests that once they reached the New World they again traveled in the wilderness. How long and far did they journey? I don't know; four verses in chapter 17, after all, take them across Arabia. But wherever they arrived after that "journey[] in the wilderness" is the place Lehi identified as his land of inheritance (2 Nephi 1). And that's not necessarily the same place where they docked the boat.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05263912077675667154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6275804374019732213.post-48532834544140900612016-04-15T16:02:39.707-07:002016-04-15T16:02:39.707-07:00There's a couple things to unpack here; first ...There's a couple things to unpack here; first is this: <br><br>"Dissimilarities among them stem from differences in ... (3) initial assumptions concerning the text and traditional LDS identification of certain features mentioned (especially the hill Cumorah and the 'narrow neck of land,' which figure prominently in the text)."<br><br>That statement is not "fair enough." First, as you correctly note later, the "narrow neck of land" is, in fact, only mentioned once (Ether 10:20). A "narrow neck of land" (whatever that implies -- and there are multiple possible interpretations) does not "figure prominently" in the text, but rather must be read into several passages (i.e., Alma 22:32; 50:34; 52:9; Hel. 4:7; Morm. 3:5).<br><br>Personally, I'm not certain that the "narrow pass" of Alma (see Alma 50:34 and 52:9), far from being the same feature as the "narrow neck of land," doesn't refer to a waterway. If it does, it may well refer to the Nipissing Great Lakes (really just one great lake, fully navigable through narrow passes that would have allowed people to sale north across the extent of our modern Lake Superior), which still existed during the time period.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05263912077675667154noreply@blogger.com