Book Of Mormon Proven Wrong

[Zakuska]

cdowis can speak for him/her self.

But I think thats how its supposed to go. Yes.

But again as the Good Dr. has just shown that wasn't the original argument.

We have shown that Alma was a sutable "Male" name in 7BC Judah.

[consiglieri]

The name Alma was both a female and male name in NY during JS time period.

For example, I found these on family search:

1. Alma Rodgers - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 18 JUN 1836 Genesee, , Genesee, New York

6. Alma Lane - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 04 APR 1847 New Hudson, , Allegany, New York

Another apologetic argument bites the dust.

Before it completely bites the dust, are we certain that these two males, named after the formation of the LDS Church, were not named for the prophets Alma in the Book of Mormon? I mean, they are both in New York.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

Little late on the post consig.

[consiglieri]

Little late on the post consig.

Hey, I'm busy! Okay?!

All the Best!

(Now where is that "blush" icon?)

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

OK so about that nonexistant river?

Has anyone looked at Google earth yet?

Br. Potter emailed me a google earth file with there suggested points for location of things. If he gives permision. PM me and Ill send it.

[cdowis]

OK, I'm still not following this. The existence of a man named "Alma" in NY somehow proves that the "Alma" in the BoM was ficticious?

Edit to add: I see that you edited you post to say that you don't get it, either.

It demonstrates that the appearance of the name Alma for a male in the BOM proves absolutely nothing. Trying to prove the BOM is very difficult.

[Zakuska]

You forgot... the appearance of the name in ancient history was what was originally disputed.

[Doctor Steuss]

It demonstrates that the appearance of the name Alma for a male in the BOM proves absolutely nothing. Trying to prove the BOM is very difficult.

I see the point you were getting at before (my apologies for it taking a whileâ?¦ I blame extensive drug use).

I wonder if the finding of an ancient Hebrew male named â??Almaâ? would have been worth writing about in LDS circles if there werenâ??t criticisms being circled about its use in the BoM. Unfortunately we will never know. It made a good criticism against the historicity, but unfortunately finding the name doesnâ??t contain the same weight as evidence â??forâ? as the lack of the name once provided â??against.â?

Perhaps that is the best we can hope for in â??provingâ? the BoM. Taking criticisms and slowly widdling away at them until the day when there just arenâ??t any more. But, even then, none of the debunked criticisms will act as substantial evidence. I guess the only evidence that will ever stand as a testament to the authenticity of the BoM is the intangible proof set forth by Moroni.

[Tarski]

Does it need to? Nahom was obvisouly previously named and settled. To survive in this "wilderness" without water would have been quite the Miracle.

What? Now you don't believe in miracles?

[Zakuska]

How did Moses find water in the same Wilderness?

[jeffC]

2007 knowledge shows that the Incense Trail follows the route down the western part of Arabia, past a river of flowing water, goes through "more fertile parts" that can actually be seen in Google Earth at the right time of the year, reaches "NHM", at which point turning left and traveling straight east will bring you to a plush paradise that also has a very rich vein of hematite ore, which is not found elsewhere in Arabia.

SolarPowered,

Do you (or does anyone) have a source that indicates that the hematite ore is not found elsewhere in Arabia?

Thanks

[SolarPowered]

SolarPowered,

Do you (or does anyone) have a source that indicates that the hematite ore is not found elsewhere in Arabia?

Thanks

It's been a while since I read about this, and I don't remember specifically where I read it. It might be in Potter and Wellington's book. I think there was also something from FARMS about it, I think in JBMS. A BYU professor went over there, and scraped about 50 pounds of ore out of the vein, which he brought back to BYU. There, he built a primitive bellows-drafted forge, and forged tools from it.

There was a description of the geology of the peninsula, and how the structure that contains the ore only comes to the surface in the Bountiful area.

Sorry that I don't remember the exact place I read these things.

[Zakuska]

I think that was the Video that DCP and Dr. Hamblin appear in as talking heads. "Journey of Faith"

Im not sure if its all of Arabia, but it is the only place in Bountiful. That particular point I felt was stronger than the wellington and potter ore deposit in the sand.

[SolarPowered]

There's an article in JBMS, vol. 9, no. 2, on page 36. It's here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

This isn't the same thing as I read before, so there is other material out there.

[Ray Agostini]

Leaving aside the fact that your position makes next-to-no sense to me personally,

Addition to former reply: What makes no sense is how an ancient text can have such modernisms, modern Christian concepts going all the way back to the Jaredites in 2,000 BC. This is what apologetics is about, trying to make an impossible picture fit when there's no historical precedent for it. If anything, it's not my view that should confuse you, but the BoM itself. Forget about rivers, explain how full blown 19th century Christianity was known to people living 2,000 years before Christ, and Christ himself was not known as a "Christian", this was a term added later, and sometimes used pejoratively, like "Mormon" was first used pejoratively.

[Zakuska]

Well since this thread is about non-existant rivers... perhaps you should start your own thread. Just a thought.

[TJane]

Addition to former reply: What makes no sense is how an ancient text can have such modernisms, modern Christian concepts going all the way back to the Jaredites in 2,000 BC. This is what apologetics is about, trying to make an impossible picture fit when there's no historical precedent for it. If anything, it's not my view that should confuse you, but the BoM itself. Forget about rivers, explain how full blown 19th century Christianity was known to people living 2,000 years before Christ, and Christ himself was not known as a "Christian", this was a term added later, and sometimes used pejoratively, like "Mormon" was first used pejoratively.

I believe that Adam and Eve were given the gospel of Jesus Christ (or what is called Christianity today) in the there would be a Savior and an Atonement. So I don't have any problem believing that from then on, any righteous people would have "Christian" concepts. God is no respector of persons, thus if a group of people have enough faith, He'd reveal everything to them, no matter what time period we're talking about.

As far as them being called "Christians" in the Book of Mormon, well, when Joseph Smith translated the concept of a group of the followers of Christ, the Messiah, why shouldn't he use the most modern English word for it ... "Christians"? When I interpret English into American Sign Language, I use modern signs so that the deaf people understand me. What is so wrong about Joseph Smith using 'modern' words when he translated the ancient plates?

Jane

[Ray Agostini]

What is so wrong about Joseph Smith using 'modern' words when he translated the ancient plates?

Jane

So you're saying they weren't really Christians? Were they actually Jews whom Joseph referred to as Christians? Isn't this even more confusing? And if they practiced Christian ordinances, and had Christian beliefs, they weren't Christians? Terminology does not satisfactorily answer this, because along with the title "Christian" came very Christian beliefs and ordinances, in a time frame not accepted by any historians, particularly going back to Adam and Eve. This is the problem David Wright, as a biblical scholar, had with the BoM.

[TJane]

So you're saying they weren't really Christians? Were they actually Jews whom Joseph referred to as Christians? Isn't this even more confusing? And if they practiced Christian ordinances, and had Christian beliefs, they weren't Christians? Terminology does not satisfactorily answer this, because along with the title "Christian" came very Christian beliefs and ordinances, in a time frame not accepted by any historians, particularly going back to Adam and Eve. This is the problem David Wright, as a biblical scholar, had with the BoM.

No, I was saying that they were what we now call "Christians" because they believed in Jesus Christ as their Savior, no matter what they called themselves in their own language. When we translate Spanish into English, we use the word "Spanish" not "Espanol", right?

If a group of people believe that Jesus Christ is their Savior and practice His ordinances, of course they are "Christians". At least, that is my definition of a Christian. No matter when they lived.

I don't see any confusion. Adam and Eve were given the commandment to sacrifice animals in similitude of Christ's future sacrifice. Moses and the Children of Israel (and then the Jews) followed that tradition.

The Jarodites were from the Tower of Babel time period. They had their own prophets. We have a bit of what they were given in revelations. The Nephites/Lamanites came later and were of Jewish decent, so yes, they were Jews but were told that the Messiah's name would be "Jesus". Why is it so confusing to think that Jesus Christ, the Creator and Savior of the World, would tell His prophets what His name would be before He was born?

Sure, by the time Jesus was born among the Jews, the Law of Moses had, shall we say, been added unto so that Christ had to re-teach His gospel to that people. But if a group of His people elsewhere didn't fall away so badly, why is it so hard to understand that it would look like the true gospel of modern times- after all, truth is truth no matter when.

I don't see why 'any historians' need prove anything. Religion is not usually the forte of historians.

But then again, this thread is about rivers that do or don't exist. And historians might be able to help us there.

Jane

[Zakuska]

SOOOOO....

How about that non-existance Arabian river that was found?

[Zakuska]

RE: Nehhm

Heres the Ensign Article

In 1763 Carsten Niebuhr prepared a map of Yemen (South Arabia or â??Arabia Felixâ?) as a major project of the scientific expedition sent out by King Frederick V of Denmark. The name â??Nehhmâ? appears on that map. It was a small administrative district located among the mountain valleys some 100 miles east of Luhaiya and about 25 miles north of the capital, Sana. (See accompanying map; also Thorkild Hansen, Arabia Felix: the Danish Expedition of 1761â??1767 (1964), pp. 232â??33.)

So what are the odds of Joseph Smith getting hold of a Danish kings map less than 75 years later ?

Perhaps it was behind the counter at his public Library?

[jeffC]

There's an article in JBMS, vol. 9, no. 2, on page 36. It's here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

This isn't the same thing as I read before, so there is other material out there.

Thanks for the link. I've recently read Phillips article. If I understand him correctly, their group only searched in the immediate viscinity of Bountiful in the Dhofar. Another source I read recently said that iron ore was "previously undiscovered" in Oman, however it was not clear what prior surveying efforts had been undertaken. I'm also interested in the claim that hematite iron was a more rare find (since that iron could be extracted more easily).

Since the Bountiful area matches each of the criteria presented in the Book of Mormon, i've been trying for a while now to quantify probabilities ascociated with each criteria based on their frequency of occurence in Arabia generally and also in places of greater fertility. Which is why I asked about the ore, in case you were wondering.

[consiglieri]

I recall that what made the hematite vein in the area so unusual and so attractive is that it was actually on the surface of the earth and could be broken off relatively easily for use in smelting; instead of having to mine for it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SolarPowered]

From the third page of that article:

The Dhofar has no economic ore deposits capable of sustaining a metal industry. It is almost completely covered with a thick sequence of Cretaceous and Tertiary limestones, essentially devoid of concentrations of any metal. Only east of Mirbat are the limestones eroded away to expose a broad plain of the Precambrian â??basement complexâ? (i.e., very old igneous and metamorphic rocks). This represents an erosional window into the African-Arabian shield, about 60 kilometers long and 30 kilometers wide, lying between the Arabian Sea and the steep limestone face of Jabal Samhan.

I think this at least partially addresses the idea that the Bountiful area was at least unusual in having ore-bearing formations available. My memory is that elsewhere I have read that the area was unique in Arabia in that aspect, but I can't find a reference for that.

[why me]

RE: Nehhm

Heres the Ensign Article

So what are the odds of Joseph Smith getting hold of a Danish kings map less than 75 years later ?

Perhaps it was behind the counter at his public Library?

Well, according to some posters on this forum this should not matter. I am sure that somewhere in the world there was a map published that JS and Sidney got a hold of. We just need to wait and see. For you see, if there is a map published, JS or Sidney could of read it or saw it. I am quite amazed just how intelligent these two are. I almost feel like crying that they wasted such intelligence forming a religion...much more productive to be a professor of theology at that time.