Another Jaredite torpedo against the Book of Mormon ...

[_bcspace]

Get this - just like he argued that the story of Noah's flood has to be read as a local event (because I guess Hebrew eretz can mean 'territory' as well as 'earth' in the sense of 'all the earth') he is now setting out to save the sense of the Tower of Babel story by redefining it as a purely local event.

I am not arguing that it has to be any local. I am arguing that local is a possibility and a good one.

There is of course no motivation at all for these reinterpretations other than the hope that they might make Smith look less ludicrous for basing his Book of Mormon stories on a literal understanding of what he found in Genesis.

Joseph Smith is looking better and better all the time because you are taking some isolated statements and not factoring in all that Joseph Smith believed and said as illustrated in the other thread.

This is, according to bcspace, just 'a little local difficulty' in Genesis 11, and 'the earth' just means the local territory:

Here chap is just carping because the Hebrew admits other possibilities in this area.

Yeah right. bcspace's interpretation is really plausible, isn't it? Some people live together in a small local space ('the earth/territory') in which they all speak the same language. Then God is really upset when they build a tower, and he SCATTTERS them ... over ALL .... (wait for it) the small local space.

Does anybody out there find this remotely plausible? Remember that apart from the geographical silliness, all these people in a small area suddenly start speaking different languages!

Why not? And what if the languages were not new and they were scattered towards those areas that spoken their language. You have to remeber that if the nations and languages in Genesis 10 already exist (one possible reading), then God is not mad all all humanity, just Babylon. In that case, how is it unreasonable that only they are confounded and scattered?

It's just a reasonable possibility. I could go either way on existing or new languages.

Ho hum. One should never try to reason someone out of a position that they never reasoned their way into. And of course one does not argue these points to convert the committed, but for the benefit of the silent lookers on.

Somehow I doubt that bcspace is persuading any of those ...

Well, I certainly don't expect chap to abandon his narrow and untennable view since he's invested much of his apologetic reputation on it. But I've debated along these lines before and I am quite comfortable taking a stand here.

[_beastie]

I have been predicting for a while that apologists will eventually deal with the Jaredites by calling it a Nephite myth, more or less. I'm pretty sure I have read at least one apologist on MAD begin to do so, but can't quote him.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I have been predicting for a while that apologists will eventually deal with the Jaredites by calling it a Nephite myth, more or less. I'm pretty sure I have read at least one apologist on MAD begin to do so, but can't quote him.

Would that be Ben?

[_bcspace]

I have been predicting for a while that apologists will eventually deal with the Jaredites by calling it a Nephite myth, more or less. I'm pretty sure I have read at least one apologist on MAD begin to do so, but can't quote him.

I've had hints that some apologists might accept that the Book of Mormon is not historical, but I hold that the Book of Mormon must be historical in some way or another; the details being intepreted the same, or differently, or there are too few details to pin down certain events.

I would be so bold as to say that any LDS person who accepts the notion that the Book of Mormon is not historical is on the road towards complete unbelief in the Church as it now is. I would say the same about any Christian regarding the flood or the garden etc. And this simply because of the fact that they are presented historically. There might be some nit picky items (such as Job) that might not be historical, but too much is riding on these others for them not to be historical.

[_beastie]

Would that be Ben?

Maybe, although I was actually thinking it was brant. But I really can't remember, I just remember the sense of satisfaction I had when reading it. Yeah, I'm petty. heh heh heh

[_beastie]

I've had hints that some apologists might accept that the Book of Mormon is not historical, but I hold that the Book of Mormon must be historical in some way or another; the details being intepreted the same, or differently, or there are too few details to pin down certain events.

I would be so bold as to say that any LDS person who accepts the notion that the Book of Mormon is not historical is on the road towards complete unbelief in the Church as it now is. I would say the same about any Christian regarding the flood or the garden etc. And this simply because of the fact that they are presented historically. There might be some nit picky items (such as Job) that might not be historical, but too much is riding on these others for them not to be historical.

No, you misunderstand the theory. The theory is that the ancient Nephites still did write the Book of Mormon, but they, like the ancient people of the Bible, at times shared myths about their own origins. The story of the Jaredites is one such myth that the NEPHITES told to explain the mysterious ancient civilization. See? It's perfect. In one fell swoop, you eliminate all the nasty problems the Jaredites otherwise entail (and the OP barely scratched the surface, let's just say that all the problems of the later Nephite story could be multiplied by a hundredfold for the Jaredites), and yet still retain the precious historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[_bcspace]

The theory is that the ancient Nephites still did write the Book of Mormon, but they, like the ancient people of the Bible, at times shared myths about their own origins. The story of the Jaredites is one such myth that the NEPHITES told to explain the mysterious ancient civilization. See? It's perfect. In one fell swoop, you eliminate all the nasty problems the Jaredites otherwise entail (and the OP barely scratched the surface, let's just say that all the problems of the later Nephite story could be multiplied by a hundredfold for the Jaredites), and yet still retain the precious historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I would have to say that the Jaredites must be historical because that is how they are presented. As far as I can tell, there are no nasty problems to cause one to think such a shift is warranted.

[_beastie]

I would have to say that the Jaredites must be historical because that is how they are presented. As far as I can tell, there are no nasty problems to cause one to think such a shift is warranted.

If you think there are no nasty problems, it's either due to deep denial or deep ignorance.

Second, do you believe that everything presented in the Bible as "historical" has to be accepted as historical?

[_Canucklehead]

Why not? And what if the languages were not new and they were scattered towards those areas that spoken their language. You have to remeber that if the nations and languages in Genesis 10 already exist (one possible reading), then God is not mad all all humanity, just Babylon. In that case, how is it unreasonable that only they are confounded and scattered?

It's just a reasonable possibility. I could go either way on existing or new languages.

So did God reach down and erase the Babylonian neurons in which they had all their Sumerian stored and replace them with neurons that speak some other language? Did these neurons have the language pre-loaded like a Dell desktop pc comes with Windows Vista?

[_Chap]

bcspace say he is 'comfortable' with his position on the Tower of Babel story. That tells us more about him than about the position, I am afraid.

There doesn't even seem to be a position there in any case, just a mental tic that consists of saying 'the text could perfectly well be read as meaning <insert perverse and unmotivated speculation>.'

Does bcspace think that the Confusion of Tongues involved a real historical event in which the inhabitants of Babylon around 2250 BC all starting to speak different languages? It would be good if bcspace could suggest where there is any archeological evidence at all of this extraordinary event taking place.

bcspace mentions Genesis 10. Mistake. After enumerating all the nations known to the writer - not all of which can be identified, but which include places ranging from Sidon (on the Mediterranean) to Ophir (which some scholars have identified as being as far away as India), Nineveh and Cush (which some put in Africa), the text says:

These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

So here 'eretz' means pretty well the widest area the writer can conceive of - 'the world', not merely 'our local area'.

Immediately after that (there were no chapter divisions in the original Hebrew) the text continues:

Gen 11:1

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

So in one sentence 'earth' refers to a huge area containing all known peoples, and in the next sentence it means 'a small local area'? Not plausible, is it?

With luck bcspace will now bear his testimony and cease to embarrass himself further.