<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Nibley doesn't prove anything at all
Review: "Lehi in the Desert and World of the Jaredites" is Dr. Hugh Nibley's first book dealing with the Book of Mormon as an historical text, to analyze the book using every historical tool available. Part of the problem is that many of the critics of the Book of Mormon do not have the Mid-East historical, linguistic, or cultural background plus Ph.D. level historical training and experience to do a satisfactory peer-reviewed study and critic of the Book of Mormon. So what most Book of Mormon critics give instead of substance is heavily footnoted pap and opinion, or they treat the book as you would a Mark Twain novel, completely ignoring the book's truth claims.Dr. Nibley's premise is simple: the Book of Mormon claims to be the product of Mid-East culture-specifically Egyptian and Jewish cultures--so why not analyze the book as you would any other document that claims to be from a similar time period. It is so simple, it is pure genius! One of the fascinating evidences cited is the name evidence. Certain names become more popular during different time periods, and the names used in the Book of Mormon correspond to 600 BC. Along these lines is the name Paanchi, one of the pharaohs of Egypt, and masculine Alma, which appears on a recently discovered document. Another point he discusses is the word "Deseret," which is associated with honeybee worship in Egypt. This is a good read, with no advanced degree in history or special language skills required. The book of Mormon is one of those few books that people do not have to read to have an opinion, which is sad since so much is available on the book.
Rating:
Summary: Nibley doesn't prove anything at all
Review: First of all, Nibley is not an unbiased source of information at all. Cigarette companies hire their own researchers and scientists who provide evidence to indicate that cigarettes aren't harmful to your health. Look at who Nibley was working for when he wrote this book. I admit that Nibley has an encyclopedic knowledge of the ancient world of the middle east, but I disagree with his methodology. Nibley is very selective. Nibley examines a vast amount of information about the ancient world of the middle east, picks out the bits and pieces here and there which happen to support the Book of Mormon and ignores the rest. He lumps these bits and pieces together that happen to support the Book of Mormon and thus presents an inaccurate view of the ancient middle east. Nibley lacks intellectual honesty: he is not out to discover the truth, but to provide evidence, at all costs, that the Book of Mormon is true. The introduction page to the Book of Mormon states that the people in the Book of Mormon are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Then why does DNA evidence indicate that the American Indians are from Asia? Why isn't there an obvious relationship between Hebrew and American Indian languages just as there is an undeniably relationship between the ancient language Latin and its descendents: French, Spanish, and Italian?
Rating: 
Summary: If you are not Mormon, don't bother
Review: Hugh Nibley is (or was) the Church Historian of the Mormon Church. If you are Mormon you will find it faith promoting. If you are not you will find it utter nonsense.
Rating: 
Summary: Mind of a Scholar Heart of a Believer
Review: Hugh Nibley is revered by scholars and hobbyists of the Book of Mormon for good reason. His reputation for rigorous research and intellectual honesty are recognized by those who do not subscribe to the Christian precepts of the Book of Mormon as well as those who do. This book is a seminal work in the body collection of writing both for and against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Any person with an interest in the authenticity of that book ought to add this compendium of Nibley's early writing to his/her collection. What is remarkable about Nibley is his approach to studying the contextual clues found in the Book of Mormon. Any writer from any age will necessarily betray quite a lot about his background origin and beliefs by the things he chooses not to say and expound on as much as what he does say. Nibley draws our attention to phrases like "And my father dwelt in a tent" 1 Nephi 2:15 and "river of water" 1 Nephi 2:6. Seemingly odd phrases to a casual reader, but against the background of Nibley's vast knowledge of things Middle Eastern, they stand out as sharp evidence regarding the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I began writing this review in response to the two former reviews. Having come this far I am less interested in responding to them directly, however since there are a few glaring errors I feel compelled to take the time to correct them. First, the Book of Mormon introduction page does not "... state that the people in the Book of Mormon are the principal ancestors of the American Indians", nor anything of the kind. You may read it for yourself at .... if you have any questions. Secondly, while I am merely a hobbyist, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that Nibley's religion (the fact that he is LDS) is a testimony to his honesty rather than the converse. Consider how dishonest it would be for him to be a researcher that believed in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and was not LDS? The comparison to the Tobacco industry is a silly one as chemistry is a hard science dealing in things that can be quantified and archaeology by its nature is necessarily speculative. I am not 100% certain of this, but I have never heard any reference to Nibley as church historian, and I don't believe he ever has been. I also did several searches on Google and the only pages I find that have the words "Hugh Nibley" and "church historian" are ones that contain information about Leonard J. Arrington, church historian. Last, is the thought that Nibley picks and chooses only evidence that supports the Book of Mormon, I'd like to extend hearty congratulations to the reader from Provo UT for recognizing that there is archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, and would like to know since he posits its existence what "evidence" was ignored? The bottom line is that if you take seriously the question of the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon you will read this book. If you don't, the book isn't exactly a light read, so you might try something by John Grisham instead.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most intriguing books I've read
Review: I found this to be of value to anyone interested in the sagic tradition or heroic expression. Not much more can be written about the world of the Jaredites.
Rating:
Summary: response to Dec 7, 2002 review
Review: it is obvious that whoever wrote the review posted on Dec 7, 2002 has not read this book because Nibley answers all the questions the writer poses. I find it rather amusing that the writer of the review answers his own question with the same answer that Nibley gives, but nevertheless insists that Nibley is wrong.
I just finished reading an older version of this book and found it extremely interesting and informative.
<< 1 >>
| 
