Perished if they had remained

[GaleG]

Hello,
 
Would you help me understand this verse.

2 Nephi 1:4 says "For, behold, said he, I have seen a vision, in which I know that
Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have
perished".

Do you think Lehi was aware of the Lord's revelation to Jeremiah that the good figs
(chapter 24, verses 5-8) represented the people who remained in Jerusalem and were
taken and preserved by the Lord in Babylon?

Thank you,

Gale

[Traveler]

28 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Hello,
 
Would you help me understand this verse.

2 Nephi 1:4 says "For, behold, said he, I have seen a vision, in which I know that
Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have
perished".

Do you think Lehi was aware of the Lord's revelation to Jeremiah that the good figs
(chapter 24, verses 5-8) represented the people who remained in Jerusalem and were
taken and preserved by the Lord in Babylon?

Thank you,

Gale

Your thought may have some merit.  However, I am inclined to think this particular reference in Nephi to be more literal for several reasons.

#1 The family of Lehi was commanded to leave Jerusalem

#2. The conflict that brought about the fall of Jerusalem and the removal of its citizens was bitter and most (over 50%) of Israel was killed in the process.  

#3. Lehi was wealthy and would have been specifically targeted for his wealth.

#4. Lehi was a merchant that likely had trading ties with Egypt (the two oldest sons had Egyptian names) and would have been targeted for his foreign ties to the greatest enemy of the Babylonian empire.

I am quite sure that had they remained - they would not have survived.

 

The Traveler

[SilentOne]

35 minutes ago, Traveler said:

(the two oldest sons had Egyptian names)

I thought it was the two younger (Sam and Nephi) who had Egyptian names.

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

I thought it was the two younger (Sam and Nephi) who had Egyptian names.

Yes. Both "Laman" and "Lemuel" were Semitic names used in Arabic. "Nephi" and "Sam" are not Semitic, but do both appear to be Egyptian. (If you take "Sam" as a shortened form of "Samuel", you could argue that it is Hebrew, but I don't know of any reference for ancient Hebrews called "Sam". But it's a perfectly good transliteration of an Egyptian name.) "Jacob" and "Joseph" are, of course, pure Hebrew names. Interesting that Lehi named both of his youngest sons, born in the wilderness, with religious ancestral names. Living for years in the desert can give a man some religion.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

"Jacob" and "Joseph" are, of course, pure Hebrew names. Interesting that Lehi named both of his youngest sons, born in the wilderness, with religious ancestral names. Living for years in the desert can give a man some religion.

I have a co-worker who is a part of the Allred Group (mormon polygamist off shoot) that uses this as one of his examples of evidence that plural marriage existed during Lehi’s time. Clearly the difference in name origin signifies he had a desperate wife with these two (amongst other evidences he shared). 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Fether

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

I have a co-worker who is a part of the Alred Group (morning polygamist off shoot) that uses this as one of his examples of evidence that plural marriage existed during Lehi’s time. Clearly the difference in name origin signifies he had a desperate wife with these two (amongst other evidences he shared). 

Uh-huh. I'm  an Allred, so that guy would be my cousin. So my reply is, Sorry, Cuz, but that's weak sauce.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

Your thought may have some merit.  However, I am inclined to think this particular reference in Nephi to be more literal for several reasons.

#1 The family of Lehi was commanded to leave Jerusalem

#2. The conflict that brought about the fall of Jerusalem and the removal of its citizens was bitter and most (over 50%) of Israel was killed in the process.  

#3. Lehi was wealthy and would have been specifically targeted for his wealth.

#4. Lehi was a merchant that likely had trading ties with Egypt (the two oldest sons had Egyptian names) and would have been targeted for his foreign ties to the greatest enemy of the Babylonian empire.

I am quite sure that had they remained - they would not have survived.

 

The Traveler

That, and the OP’s interpretation suggests that she buys into a sort of prosperity gospel where nothing catastrophically bad ever happens to anyone good.

There may have been an overall trend where the less-wicked element of Judah wound up in Babylon (but take that with a grain of salt—we get the book of Jeremiah, along with most of the rest of the OT, via the very scribes and rabbis who wound up in Babylon; and they had a rather high opinion of themselves compared to the Judahite hillbillies who weren’t prominent enough for the Babylonians to want to carry off).  

But to take that trend as an absolute truth and use it to work backwards to determine who was righteous and who was not—or who would have survived the destruction of Jerusalem had they only stuck around—shows a lack of faith in the Jesus who taught that God sends rain upon the just and the unjust alike.  

Edited August 23, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[mikbone]

Lehi actually had a vision wherein he saw Jerusalem destroyed.  

Edited August 23, 2019 by mikbone

[CV75]

15 hours ago, GaleG said:

Hello,
 
Would you help me understand this verse.

2 Nephi 1:4 says "For, behold, said he, I have seen a vision, in which I know that
Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have
perished".

Do you think Lehi was aware of the Lord's revelation to Jeremiah that the good figs
(chapter 24, verses 5-8) represented the people who remained in Jerusalem and were
taken and preserved by the Lord in Babylon?

Thank you,

Gale

The good figs of Lehi's family may have been dragged down by Laban and Lemuel had they not obeyed the Lord's revelation to move out, which was Laman and Lemuel's only last hope for repentance, granted for the faith and righteousness of Lehi.

[Anddenex]

On 8/22/2019 at 3:07 PM, GaleG said:

Hello,
 
Would you help me understand this verse.

2 Nephi 1:4 says "For, behold, said he, I have seen a vision, in which I know that
Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have
perished".

Do you think Lehi was aware of the Lord's revelation to Jeremiah that the good figs
(chapter 24, verses 5-8) represented the people who remained in Jerusalem and were
taken and preserved by the Lord in Babylon?

Thank you,

Gale

Outside of what is mentioned in the Book of Mormon any other thought will be speculation pertaining to Lehi's knowledge. Here are two scriptures to consider in relation to your question:

1. "And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah." (1 Nephi 5:13)

2. "For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison. And they have sought to take away the life of my father, insomuch that they have driven him out of the land." (1 Nephi 7:14)

From this information we can accept the following:

1. It appears Lehi was well aware of who Jeremiah was and that Jeremiah had been thrown in prison.

2. They were aware of Jeremiah's prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem.

3. We know the record they had also contained words spoken from the mouth of Jeremiah. The term is "many" prophecies from Jeremiah, which can exclude "all" prophecies.

Was then Lehi aware of the Lord's revelation to Jeremiah regarding the "good figs" and the "naughty figs"?

From the records we have we can't confirm this was the case; however, the "Olive Tree Allegory" found in Jacob does give witness that the Lord will graft the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob throughout many nations. Does this then confirm that Lehi, Nephi, and Sam new of the "good figs" and "naughty figs" revelation? They may have.

The Lord specifically shows unto Lehi that if they had stayed they would have perished. If so, then someone would then have to assume that the only people killed during the destruction of Israel would have been "naughty figs" and the only people spared would have been "good figs."

[GaleG]

On 8/26/2019 at 3:38 PM, Anddenex said:

2. "For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison. And they have sought to take away the life of my father, insomuch that they have driven him out of the land." (1 Nephi 7:14)

Thank you Anddenex.

Was Lehi driven out of the land by his enemies or commanded by God to leave (1 Nephi 2:2-3)?

Gale

[Anddenex]

13 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Thank you Anddenex.

Was Lehi driven out of the land by his enemies or commanded by God to leave (1 Nephi 2:2-3)?

Gale

Great question. We can see from the record that the answer is both. If not for the wickedness of those who were seeking to take his life the Lord wouldn't have commanded him to leave. So, in this light, I would call this, a combining of two events.

1) The people of Jerusalem sought to take his life

2) The Lord knew this and forewarned Lehi and commanded him to leave with a promise of a promised land.

Thus, the wickedness of the people drove him out of the land.

[theplains]

On 8/30/2019 at 12:45 PM, Anddenex said:

Great question. We can see from the record that the answer is both. If not for the wickedness of those who were seeking to take his life the Lord wouldn't have commanded him to leave. So, in this light, I would call this, a combining of two events.

1) The people of Jerusalem sought to take his life

2) The Lord knew this and forewarned Lehi and commanded him to leave with a promise of a promised land.

Thus, the wickedness of the people drove him out of the land.

Is 2 Nephi 1:4 a vision of Lehi expecting to lose his life by the hands of the wicked Israelites in
Jerusalem or by the Babylonians?

Thanks,
Jim

[Anddenex]

6 minutes ago, theplains said:

Is 2 Nephi 1:4 a vision of Lehi expecting to lose his life by the hands of the wicked Israelites in
Jerusalem or by the Babylonians?

Thanks,
Jim

The verse provided states the following, "For, behold, said he, I have seen a vision, in which I know that Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have perished."

The vision is about Lehi witnessing the destruction of Jerusalem. The vision appears to also add an additional witness confirming to Lehi that had they (his family) remained in Jerusalem they would have perished. So, this wasn't a vision of Lehi "expecting to lose his life" as it what a vision to witness the destruction of Jerusalem.

This vision really is irrelevant as to whether or not Lehi would have lost his life to the Babylonians. Remember, we have already been informed, in the beginning of the Book of Mormon, that the Israelites (Jews) would have killed Lehi before the destruction of Jerusalem. As we can read here, "And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away..." (emphasis mine)

By which the next verse is the Lord's words to Lehi, "Blessed art thou Lehi, because of the things which thou hast done; and because thou hast been faithful and declared unto this people the things which I commanded thee, behold, they seek to take away thy life."

If Lehi remained in Jerusalem, his life would have been taken by the Jews (Israelites) in Jerusalem long before Babylonians came to conquer to Jerusalem.  His family though, according to Nephi and Lehi, would have perished in Jerusalem most likely by the conquering army - Babylonians.

[theplains]

On 9/2/2019 at 4:27 PM, Anddenex said:

If Lehi remained in Jerusalem, his life would have been taken by the Jews (Israelites) in Jerusalem long before Babylonians came to conquer to Jerusalem.  His family though, according to Nephi and Lehi, would have perished in Jerusalem most likely by the conquering army - Babylonians

From 2 Kings 23, I see that Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years and then his son Jehoiachin became king.  
He reigned in Jerusalem for 3 months (2 Kings 24:8) and then Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged 
the city of Jerusalem, took away many captive to Babylon, and plundered the house of the Lord (verses
13 and 14, before Zedekiah was made king).  Lehi was supposedly still in Jerusalem (as the Babylonians
had already come to conquer Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiachin).

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

From 2 Kings 23, I see that Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years and then his son Jehoiachin became king.  
He reigned in Jerusalem for 3 months (2 Kings 24:8) and then Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged 
the city of Jerusalem, took away many captive to Babylon, and plundered the house of the Lord (verses
13 and 14, before Zedekiah was made king).  Lehi was supposedly still in Jerusalem (as the Babylonians
had already come to conquer Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiachin).

Naturally, the fact that a Jerusalemite survived the first Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem was no surefire guarantee that the Jerusalemite would survive the second Babylonian invasion of the city.  

It’s not like Nebuchadnezzar told his troops not to kill, enslave, rape, or maim anyone who could prove they’d resided in Jerusalem for at least eight years . . .

[Jersey Boy]

 

4 hours ago, theplains said:

From 2 Kings 23, I see that Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years and then his son Jehoiachin became king.  
He reigned in Jerusalem for 3 months (2 Kings 24:8) and then Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged 
the city of Jerusalem, took away many captive to Babylon, and plundered the house of the Lord (verses
13 and 14, before Zedekiah was made king).  Lehi was supposedly still in Jerusalem (as the Babylonians
had already come to conquer Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiachin).

If you had approached this subject with a more open and enquiring mind, instead of immediately jumping at the chance to find fault in order to invalidate the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, you may have caught the mistakes you made in the above post before you hit ‘Submit Reply.’

If you had bothered to read Lehi’s prophetic warning in the first chapter of the Book of Mormon, you may have realized he didn’t prophesy that Jerusalem was going to, once again, be attacked and pillaged, but his warning was that the next time the Babylonians attacked the city of Jerusalem and the holy temple were going to be “DESTROYED.” The following excerpt is from the Wikipedia article on the subject:

“Despite warnings by Jeremiah and others of the pro-Babylonian party, Zedekiah revolted against Babylon and entered into an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra . Nebuchadnezzar returned, defeated the Egyptians, and again besieged Jerusalem, resulting in the city's destruction in 587 BCE.”

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Jersey Boy

[Anddenex]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

From 2 Kings 23, I see that Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years and then his son Jehoiachin became king.  
He reigned in Jerusalem for 3 months (2 Kings 24:8) and then Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged 
the city of Jerusalem, took away many captive to Babylon, and plundered the house of the Lord (verses
13 and 14, before Zedekiah was made king).  Lehi was supposedly still in Jerusalem (as the Babylonians
had already come to conquer Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiachin).

And?

[theplains]

On 9/8/2019 at 8:22 PM, Anddenex said:

And?

In relation to Zedekiah's years of rulership, when was Jerusalem destroyed?

Thanks,
Jim

[GaleG]

On 9/8/2019 at 7:14 PM, Jersey Boy said:

If you had bothered to read Lehi’s prophetic warning in the first chapter of the Book of Mormon, you may have realized he didn’t prophesy that Jerusalem was going to, once again, be attacked and pillaged, but his warning was that the next time the Babylonians attacked the city of Jerusalem and the holy temple were going to be “DESTROYED.”

Sorry to intrude.

I read the first chapter of 1 Nephi but don't see your reference to a 'next time'.  Can you be
more specific?

I see that the church mentions in the notes section of 3 Nephi 1 that Jerusalem was
destroyed immediately after Lehi left Jerusalem; possibly using 2 Nephi 25:10 as a
supporting scripture.  Also taught in the church manual in chapter 12, page 92.

Do you believe instead that this destruction was not immediately after Lehi departed but
rather some time after Jeremiah was imprisoned (after the tenth year of Zedekiah's reign;
Jeremiah 32)?

Thank you,

Gale

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, GaleG said:

I read the first chapter of 1 Nephi but don't see your reference to a 'next time'.  Can you be
more specific?

Jerusalem was (is) at a crossroads of great nations. It had been repeatedly conquered and sacked. Jerusalem being conquered was not a matter of if, but of when.

[Just_A_Guy]

44 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Sorry to intrude.

I read the first chapter of 1 Nephi but don't see your reference to a 'next time'.  Can you be
more specific?

I see that the church mentions in the notes section of 3 Nephi 1 that Jerusalem was
destroyed immediately after Lehi left Jerusalem; possibly using 2 Nephi 25:10 as a
supporting scripture.  Also taught in the church manual in chapter 12, page 92.

Do you believe instead that this destruction was not immediately after Lehi departed but
rather some time after Jeremiah was imprisoned (after the tenth year of Zedekiah's reign;
Jeremiah 32)?

Thank you,

Gale

In 1 Ne 17:43 (tentatively dated around 592 BC), he states he doesn’t know whether Jerusalem has been destroyed yet.  In 2 Ne 1:4, dated around 588 BC, Lehi announces that it has indeed been destroyed.  Nephi’s use of “immediately” in 2 Ne 25:10 (dating to 559 BC at the earliest) should be granted the latitude we’d ordinarily give to someone rehashing a thirty-year-old memory.

I don’t see a reference to Jerusalem’s “immediate” destruction either at late 92 of the manual you cite, or the chapter heading to 3 Nephi 1.  But we know it wasn’t “immediate”, because the boys went back to Jerusalem twice after Lehi left and apparently found business was going on as usual. 

By the way, Gale, I notice you tend to pick up on threads started by @theplains a lot, and either repeat or expand on his arguments/implications.  Are you two acquainted?

Edited September 18, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

By the way, Gale, I notice you tend to pick up on threads started by @theplains a lot, and either repeat or expand on his arguments/implications.  Are you two acquainted?

"Just what are you saying, Mister JAG?"

[Jersey Boy]

9 hours ago, GaleG said:

Sorry to intrude.

I read the first chapter of 1 Nephi but don't see your reference to a 'next time'.  Can you be
more specific?

I see that the church mentions in the notes section of 3 Nephi 1 that Jerusalem was
destroyed immediately after Lehi left Jerusalem; possibly using 2 Nephi 25:10 as a
supporting scripture.  Also taught in the church manual in chapter 12, page 92.

Do you believe instead that this destruction was not immediately after Lehi departed but
rather some time after Jeremiah was imprisoned (after the tenth year of Zedekiah's reign;
Jeremiah 32)?

Thank you,

Gale

The words “next time” were my words. When Lehi prophesied that the city of Jerusalem was about to be destroyed, the citizens of that city were painfully well aware of the fact that it had recently been attacked and pillaged by the Babylonians. So Lehi didn’t have to use the precise words “next time” because if Jerusalem was going to be attached a second time, that means it would be just as correct to say it’s going to be destroyed the next time the Babylonians attack. In other words, in this instance the expressions ‘next time” and “second time” mean the same thing. 

As to your second point, the Book of Mormon says that Lehi was well aware of the imprisonment of Jeremiah, an event that took place toward the end of Zedekiah’s reign. So that means Jerusalem was destroyed less than a year after Lehi’s departure. In historical terms,, a span of less than a year of time seems to fit well with the the expression immediately.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Jersey Boy

[GaleG]

On 9/17/2019 at 9:53 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t see a reference to Jerusalem’s “immediate” destruction either at late 92 of the manual you cite, or the chapter heading to 3 Nephi 1.  But we know it wasn’t “immediate”, because the boys went back to Jerusalem twice after Lehi left and apparently found business was going on as usual. 

By the way, Gale, I notice you tend to pick up on threads started by @theplains a lot, and either repeat or expand on his arguments/implications.  Are you two acquainted

The manual on page 92 (see attached) seems to supplement the teaching
that the destruction of Jerusalem occured immediately after Lehi left; as it
references 2 Nephi 25:10 - Wherefore, it hath been told them concerning the
destruction which  should come upon them, immediately after my father left
Jerusalem;  nevertheless, they hardened their hearts; and according to my
prophecy  they have been destroyed, save it be those which are carried away
captive  into Babylon.
 
The introductory notes for 3 Nephi 1 says "And Helaman was the son of  
Helaman, who was the son of Alma, who was the son of Alma, being a  
descendant of Nephi who was the son of Lehi, who came out of Jerusalem  
in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, the king of Judah."
 
If you don't believe this, it would help if you could explain your toughts on what
year in Zedekiah's reign was Jerusalem destroyed and when he was carried away
captive to Babylon.

I don't know Jim but on the surface he appears to be ex-LDS.
 
Thank you,
 
Gale