How could Lehi and Nephi know that the scripture (the old testament) was engraved on plates of brass

[rameumptom]

Oky, just want to know about the scripture, were they engraved on the plates or on the scroll.

When Moses wrote all the words of the Lord...Ex 24:4, ... he wrote it in the book, ...the book of the covenant ...Ex 24:6... Did he wrote on the scroll or on the plates ?

What does the word ''the book'' mean, the plates or the scroll ?

The Hebrew word Etz means "wood" and can mean many things, depending on the usage. If you sit on an Etz, it is a chair. If an Etz grows, it is a tree. If you write/read, it is a book. Some etz used by Israel and other Middle Eastern groups was wood with wax on it, and they would write on the wax. So, it wasn't always completely wood we are talking about.

Second, according to the Documentary Hypothesis, the Bible as we have it today did not come directly from Moses. Instead, it was oral for centuries, and then various portions were written by different people/groups (J, E, D, P, R) and combined after the Diaspora (530BC). The Brass Plates of Laban, being from the line of Joseph, was probably written in Northern Israel and brought to Jerusalem just prior to Northern Israel's destruction by the Assyrians. Some scholars have suggested that the Brass Plates of Laban could be the source for E, and I tend to agree from the evidence.

So, it has nothing directly to do with what Moses wrote himself, as those writings probably were in the Ark of the Covenant and lost with it, or lost/decayed before hand, leaving mostly an oral tradition behind. Note that it was a big deal when the book of Deuteronomy was found within the temple in King Josiah's day, showing that some of Moses' writings were not in their possession for a period of time.

You can read more about the Documentary Hypothesis here:

http://www.lds.net/forums/book-mormon/44043-book-mormon-gospel-doctrine-lesson-1-keystone-our-religion.html

Edited July 25, 2012 by rameumptom

[Finrock]

I think it is clear that we are dealing with a language barrier. I believe I have misunderstood OP's original question. I believe he is trying to show that scripture and reason support the notion that important ancient religious text were written upon plates of metal or stone.

Perhaps the original question was more of a question to start a discussion as to the validity of the use of plates to record scripture?

Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!

hat they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever! Job 19:23-24

Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: Isaiah 30:8

And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. Habakkuk 2:2

In the scriptures are some verses that give us a hint that they also write with ''iron pen'' !

Thank you

The King James Version bible translators did a great job. But we should not take the text literally to the extent that we ignore what Hebrew words were being used. To the best of our capability.

HiJolly

[rameumptom]

If that is the case, then there is lots of evidence for ancient metal writings. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls was found the Copper Scroll, containing a list of treasure.

In the last century, we've found ancient metal plates (gold, silver, copper, lead, etc) in many places, including Persia, South Korea, and the Levant. Hugh Nibley discusses it briefly in An Approach to the Book of Mormon, chapter 2.

In fact, at Millennial Star blog, we'll be discussing this chapter beginning Sunday. I've already prepared the post, and it will go online very early that morning.

[Gerasim]

I think it is clear that we are dealing with a language barrier. I believe I have misunderstood OP's original question. I believe he is trying to show that scripture and reason support the notion that important ancient religious text were written upon plates of metal or stone.

Perhaps the original question was more of a question to start a discussion as to the validity of the use of plates to record scripture?

Regards,

Finrock

Thank you for this words ... I believe he is trying to show that scripture and reason support the notion that important ancient religious text were written upon plates of metal ... Yes, that's my point !

Thank you

[grauchy123]

Or better yet, How could Laban's book have even been made of Brass to begin with given that it's a relatively new alloy and didn't come into use in that region until the Roman Empire brought the technology into the region.

[Vort]

Or better yet, How could Laban's book have even been made of Brass to begin with given that it's a relatively new alloy and didn't come into use in that region until the Roman Empire brought the technology into the region.

Seriously?

The word "brass" was used in early English scriptural translations to refer to a metal that we now call "bronze". The Book of Mormon obviously continues this tradition. Bronze has been known since, well, the Bronze Age.

It just is not that difficult to understand using a term for one copper alloy in referring to another. To question the veracity of scripture because of this is simply silly.

[Just_A_Guy]

Or better yet, How could Laban's book have even been made of Brass to begin with given that it's a relatively new alloy and didn't come into use in that region until the Roman Empire brought the technology into the region.

Same way Moses made a "brazen" (i.e. "brass") serpent and the Tabernacle included a "brazen" (i.e. "brass") sea, many hundreds of years before Laban and Nephi.

[grauchy123]

Seriously?

The word "brass" was used in early English scriptural translations to refer to a metal that we now call "bronze". The Book of Mormon obviously continues this tradition. Bronze has been known since, well, the Bronze Age.

It just is not that difficult to understand using a term for one copper alloy in referring to another. To question the veracity of scripture because of this is simply silly.

Ah ok, it was just a question that bugged me. If Brass means Bronze I wonder why it doesn't just say Bronze then. I wasn't questioning the veracity of scripture with this question. It was just that a question.

Thank you.

[Vort]

If Brass means Bronze I wonder why it doesn't just say Bronze then.

Just my guess, but I suppose it is because those who compiled the King James Bible used "brass", so it was terminology familiar to the Prophet Joseph Smith (who, I assume, was no metallurgist).

Please forgive me for snapping at you.

[annewandering]

Ah ok, it was just a question that bugged me. If Brass means Bronze I wonder why it doesn't just say Bronze then. I wasn't questioning the veracity of scripture with this question. It was just that a question.

Thank you.

There are a lot of things that have changed names over time. Sadly those dimwits back then didnt know what we wanted to call things so they just named them what they thought they should call them. Too bad they got it wrong so often.

[Maureen]

Just my guess, but I suppose it is because those who compiled the King James Bible used "brass", so it was terminology familiar to the Prophet Joseph Smith (who, I assume, was no metallurgist)...

As far as I understand biblical manuscripts both Old and New Testament were made from papyrus, parchment and eventually paper. I don't think I've ever read or heard of a biblical manuscript made from brass plates. Can anyone supply sources for this?

M.

[volgadon]

The King James Version bible translators did a great job. But we should not take the text literally to the extent that we ignore what Hebrew words were being used. To the best of our capability.

HiJolly

Sefer, that is, book, primarily meant "scroll."

[skalenfehl]

Laban and Lehi were likely cousins (Cleon Skousen, Treasures from the Book of Mormon), both being descended from Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Laban was likely descended directly, hence his charge to keep the record of the Jews. I am quite sure Laban and Lehi knew each other well, gave each other audience and their families, which is reasonable as Laban allowed his nephews into his home (despite being a powerful man who commanded armies), though he did not hesitate to kill them as robbers or steal Lehi's wealth. Had he not been killed by Nephi, he would likely have died in the purge against the armies of Babylon and his ill gotten wealth (Lehi's gold, silver, etc) falling into Babylonian hands.

Notice the record was as current as the present day. Jeremiah's prophecies were included. Whether or not they believed the prophets (obviously they didn't), they were still diligent in their "outward performances" and thus keeping an accurate record was upheld. Laban wasn't the sole guardian of the records of the Jews and the law, but obviously maintained a copy as did other families, sects, etc lawyers, etc of the time. The fact that the record survived the city's purge, despite a copy of it making its way to America is proof alone. Furthermore each copy included/excluded the works of various other prophets. The copy that the Jews continued to maintain, excluded the works of Zenos, Zenock and Neum, or at the very least, they were omitted by those who compiled what we have today as the Holy Bible. Many more works were excluded from what we call today "The Bible", and to name only a few:

Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

There are many more books, prophecies, acts, etc that are mentioned in today's Bible that are not in the Bible. We only have what scribes, translators and compilers wanted us to have. This is why the Lord sent us "another testament" (also known as covenant), The Book of Mormon as we call it.

Edited July 25, 2012 by skalenfehl

[Dravin]

As far as I understand biblical manuscripts both Old and New Testament were made from papyrus, parchment and eventually paper. I don't think I've ever read or heard of a biblical manuscript made from brass plates. Can anyone supply sources for this?

M.

He's saying that those who compiled and translated the KJV used the word brass (as opposed to some possibly more metallurgically accurate term), not that the KJV compilers wrote/dealt with manuscripts of brass.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Dravin

[Vort]

As far as I understand biblical manuscripts both Old and New Testament were made from papyrus, parchment and eventually paper. I don't think I've ever read or heard of a biblical manuscript made from brass plates. Can anyone supply sources for this?

1 Nephi 3:12

:)

[rameumptom]

Maureen, that is a non sequitur question. Just because no specific Bible writing has been found on metal, does not mean some did not exist anciently. The Dead Sea Scrolls included some copper scrolls. They were not the Bible, but OT manuscripts were found among them.

[volgadon]

This comes from a credible, relatively recent eyewitness, the largest metal codice that I know of. Rather hefty!

P. ix of Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley's "The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People," Oxford University Press, 2002.

The priest fetched several Mandaean books and scrolls to show us, all in their individual white cloth bags. He also gave me a paper copy of the imprint on the Mandaean skandola, the ritual iron ring with an iron chain. This is used to seal newborn babies on

their navels, and it also seals graves. Sheikh Abdullah showed us his ring and explained that the four animals depicted on the seal—the lion, the wasp, the scorpion, and the encircling snake—were “the elements of life.”

Then he began to tug at something under his cushion. We helped him pull out a large cloth bag, like the others, but this one was heavy as a rock. It was an archetypal book, The Book of John, made entirely of lead, inscribed with stylus on lead pages bound together like a regular book. No wonder it was heavy. Its edges were frayed and worn. We leafed through it reverently. C. G. Jung might have fantasized about a tome like this. There is probably not its like in the world. Sheikh Abdullah told us that the book was 2,053 years old and written by John the Baptist himself. There and then, it seemed a likely view.

More information on the book is given in p. 13.

The Book of John.

Much cherished by Mandaeans but hardly studied at all by scholars, this conglomerate document, named for the chief Mandaean prophet, occupies an important place in the religion. A leaden copy of this book was shown to me in Ahwaz in 1973, as noted in my preface. The only translation remains Lidzbarski’s from 1915,47 which, in the latter half of the book includes his own Mandaic transcription in stunningly beautiful calligraphy. Like the Ginza and the liturgies—though unlike many other Mandaean texts—John is always in book, that is, codex, form. Its age, in terms of colophonic information, can be assigned to early Islamic times, though John undoubtedly retains much material that is considerably older. Lidzbarski divides the text into thirty-seven tractates and bestows on them titles according to content. Here we find, despite the title of the book, a focus on John the Baptist mainly confined to the lengthy sixth tractate of the book. This deals with John’s miraculous birth and preaching and includes the prophet’s polemical conversations with a defensive Jesus. Most of the sections in this tractate begin with the mysterious formula “Yahia preached in the nights; Yohana in the evenings of the night,” which retains both the Aramaic and the Arabic forms of John’s name.

[Vort]

It was an archetypal book, The Book of John, made entirely of lead, inscribed with stylus on lead pages bound together like a regular book. No wonder it was heavy. Its edges were frayed and worn. We leafed through it reverently. C. G. Jung might have fantasized about a tome like this. There is probably not its like in the world. Sheikh Abdullah told us that the book was 2,053 years old and written by John the Baptist himself. There and then, it seemed a likely view.

Except that the age given was about 50 years or so before John was born.

[volgadon]

Except that the age given was about 50 years or so before John was born.

The Mandaeans have different traditions about John the Baptist.

[pam]

Laban was Lehis brother. Don't you know what your brother own's?

I've never heard that they were brothers. Only that they had a shared ancestry. Just for my own curiosity...could you provide a source?

[Maureen]

Maureen, that is a non sequitur question. Just because no specific Bible writing has been found on metal, does not mean some did not exist anciently....

ram, for one thing I misunderstood Vort's post but even so, my question was logical. I was only asking if anyone could provide a source showing a manuscript created out of brass; but of course any type of metal would be helpful. And both you and volgadon have provided some information.

M.

[volgadon]

ram, for one thing I misunderstood Vort's post but even so, my question was logical. I was only asking if anyone could provide a source showing a manuscript created out of brass; but of course any type of metal would be helpful. And both you and volgadon have provided some information.

M.

I should also mention that dating from the Pre-Exilic period, the Priests' Blessing has been found engraved on metal, but the pieces are tiny.

[Blackmarch]

The question is '' How could Lehi and Nephi know ...''

I'd imagine seeing at least a part of said recorded histories would give a lot of credence to the rest of the statement.

...supposing the book of mormon be true and so on and so forth