Array

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/River runs into fountain: Difference between revisions

(mod)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
#REDIRECT [[Question: Is the description in the Book of Mormon of a "river running into a fountain" absurd?]]
{{Resource Title|Critics claims that description of "a river’s running into a fountain" in 1 Nephi is absurd}}
 
=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics claims that description of "a river’s running into a ''fountain''" in 1 Nephi is absurd.{{ref|bachelor.1}}
 
{{CriticalSources}}
 
=={{Conclusion label}}==
 
The criticism is based on a shallow reading of the text.
 
== ==
{{Response label}}
 
[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=fountain&do=Search All instances] of "fountain" in 1 Nephi describe either:
* the Red Sea (rivers surely run to the sea)
* the fountain near the Tree of Life in Lehi's dream, from which the river flows.
 
Paul Hoskisson explains,
<blockquote>
Finally, in an unusual passage in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 2:9,
Lehi noted that the river which he named after his son Laman “emptied
into the fountain of the Red Sea.” Does a river empty into a fountain?
Is it not the other way around? That the passage is problematical is
indicated by the attempt to explain fountain in a footnote in the 1981
edition of the Book of Mormon. The problem fades, however, when
ancient Near Eastern lexical and cosmological considerations are taken
into account. In the ancient Near East there were two great bodies of
water, the saltwater oceans and the subterranean sweet waters, both of
which were thought by the ancients “to be the source of rivers and
streams.”[30] These “fountains of the great deep” (a phrase used by
the translators of the King James Bible in Genesis 7:11), as U.
Cassuto explained in commenting on the Hebrew word thwm, refer
“undoubtedly to the subterranean waters, which are the source of the
springs that flow upon the ground.”[31] The Hebrews shared this
Canaanite concept of the subterranean waters being the source of
springs.[32]
<br><br>
These subterranean and oceanic waters then are actually the source of
all rivers, streams, and springs. The ancient Semites did not conceive
of this, however, as we currently do, namely, through the chain of
evaporation, cloud formation, condensation, and precipitation. (No
doubt they also had some understanding of this process, but they did
not limit their perceptions to this one process.) It was S. N. Kramer
who, when first pointing out the remarkable and unusual ancient Near
East perception that the source of rivers is the oceanic waters, said:
<br><br>
The Sumerian “mouth” of the rivers, while it coincides geographically
with the actual mouth of the rivers as we understand it today, is
nevertheless not to be understood in terms of our modern usage, as the
place where the rivers “empty” their water (into the Persian Gulf) but
rather as the place where they “drink” the waters (from the Persian
Gulf). In the light of this conception, the “mouth” of the Tigris and
Euphrates may well be designated as their source, but not the real
source, i.e., in the mountains of Armenia, but the source as conceived
by the Sumerians.[33]
<br><br>
That is to say, the source of the rivers was the oceanic waters, not
in an ultimate sense as we conceive it, but in a more immediate sense,
in that the rivers drew directly either from the seas as springs, or
from the oceans through their mouths, depending on whether the
Canaanite concept or S. N. Kramer’s Sumero-Akkadian example applies.
<br><br>
Returning now to 1 Nephi 2:9, it is the statement that the river flows
into the fountain that is disturbing. As was just explained, in the
ancient Near East the fountain of a river was conceived of as being
the oceanic waters, the river actually drawing from the ocean or
fountain in a sense that is not clear to our occidental and empirical
understanding. Our Book of Mormon is in authentic ancient Near Eastern
tradition on this point; and the Prophet Joseph Smith could not have
known about it. This then seems to become sufficient evidence. {{ref|hoskisson}}
</blockquote>
 
=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|bachelor.1}} {{CriticalWork:Bachelor:Mormonism Exposed|pages=9}}
#{{note|hoskisson}} Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Textual Evidences for the Book of Mormon,” in First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988), 283–95. {{link|url=https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-first-nephi-doctrinal-foundation/19-textual-evidences-book-mormon}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
 
[[fr:Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/River runs into fountain]]

Latest revision as of 02:38, 11 April 2017