Book Of Mormon Proven Wrong

[consiglieri]

Dear Zak,

Fortigurn seems unable to come to grips with evidence presented before his very eyes.

I think his response to the photos you posted deserves a place of honor on the "Bad Mormon Jokes" thread.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

Whats even funnier...

wa

[AndyOne]

"The river has to empty some where right?"

Are you aware of the assumptions that Potter and Wellington use to get the "River of Laman" to mouth into the Red Sea at the appropriate time?

[Not quite me]

Whats even funnier...

This Wadi even fits the second defintion. We've got them 2 to one.

It's this kind of "us vs them" mentality that drives me nuts. Sometimes I think this place is less about truth than it is about winning arguments.

[Zakuska]

Here's another definition from the same dictionary...

wa

[AndyOne]

"Do share... !?"

Why don't you read the book? Hint: Plate Tectonics ... it's been moving up steadily since the time of Lehi.

[Zakuska]

I have read the book... I own all the videos as well. What does that have to do with anything?

You are telling me that this water just runs over this granite and never reaches the sea? Its going to form quite a large under ground lake behind that and it has to burst the crevas somewhere to get out.

[AndyOne]

"You are telling me that this water just runs over this granite and never reaches the sea? Its going to form quite a large under ground lake behind that and it has to burst the crevas somewhere to get out."

So why did Potter and Wellington feel the need to explain away these silly concerns with plate tectonics? Maybe they should have just relied on your has to wind up somewhere explanation.

Are you aware of the distance from the proposed River of Laman to the Red Sea?

[cacheman]

It's this kind of "us vs them" mentality that drives me nuts. Sometimes I think this place is less about truth than it is about winning arguments.

I've come to that same conclusion.

cacheman

[Zakuska]

"You are telling me that this water just runs over this granite and never reaches the sea? Its going to form quite a large under ground lake behind that and it has to burst the crevas somewhere to get out."

So why did Potter and Wellington feel the need to explain away these silly concerns with plate tectonics? Maybe they should have just relied on your has to wind up somewhere explanation.

Because it is a plausible explanation Which would push sea water clear up the canyon.

Are you aware of the distance from the proposed River of Laman to the Red Sea?

No more than five miles.

The water is flowing underground, if the granite where holding it back we would be calling this Lake Laman instead of a stream/river, Which infact is another observation Potter and Wellington make.

Where is all the water coming from that is being pumped out of the wells in the upper valley?

The whole area is an underground resevoir. In this particular spot it just happens that the ground water level spills over the top of the granite on the surface.

[AndyOne]

"Because it is a plausible explanation Which would push sea water clear up the canyon."

It's not plausible because populated sites in the area known to have existed at the time would have to have been under water in order for their theory to work.

[Zakuska]

I can see the problem that you perceive. However... if there werent for so many cracks in those rocks right there. I mean, somethings pushing up from underneath [sp] for this soild granite to split in two like that. Its something big.

[AndyOne]

Take some time to read an alternate view - start with FARMS. The roots of the tree your barking up aren't very strong.

[Zakuska]

I have studied the FARMS material. Like I said ealier... the proposed site for the ore by FARMS is a much stronger case. Than presented by Potter and Wellington.

[Pahoran]

My question was merely why the photos and footage were not included in a particular DVD.

And I gave you the answer.

The answer? How much more pretentious can you get?

You gave a hostile and evidence-free accusation. This provides "the answer" to nothing but the question, "does Fortigurn have any scruples in his anti-Mormon agenda?"

And the answer is no.

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen evidence for any such thing. I've seen some people talking about Wadi Tayyib al-ism. Is that what you had in mind? A dry riverbed occasionally filled with rainfall runoff?

So that's your evidence? Someone reports that he has walked over the ground at various seasons of the year and seen water flowing; you retort by opening a dictionary.

See this? Show me the river in that picture which runs into the Red Sea. There's nothing inland there but rock and dry sand, as far as the eye can see.

How many times did you have to tweak the resolution until the water disappeared?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cold Steel]

alright, someone fill me in on the joke here.

I'm guessing that other evidence was found that makes this man's claims sound really silly-but since i've never heard about any of this yet i'm not exactly following the point of the thread.

Maybe i'm the only one confused....

Understood. Yes, it is a joke. The Nephi Project used the Book of Mormon as a guide and it led not only to a place called NHM, thought by many to be the Nahom mentioned by Nephi, but to a giant canyon and a river of water. Nephi said they reached this spot after three days out of Jerusalem. He also mentioned an oasis and that his company erected an "altar of stones."

Not only was NHM found, but it was discovered to be a burial site in 1996. Since this was where they buried Ishmael, this was a major hit for Joseph Smith. The huge granite canyon and a "river of water" was another hit. But, said the critics, this river did not, in fact, empty into the Red Sea. And it's quite small. The answer is that the term "river of water" almost exclusively referred to streams of water, not large rivers. Also, the river in the canyon once was substantially larger and could very well have emptied into the Red Sea, judging from the riverbed, which had been etched by water anciently.

But what about the oasis? The Nephi Project found the oasis just before they got to the canyon beyond. It was very much as Nephi described. It had all three types of dates, grains and plenty of water. They even found ancient altars of stones, or at least they appeared to be altars. Someone had hauled many stones to create a large pile. (In fact, I believe they found two such altars.)

The Book of Mormon seems to have hit a lot of bullseyes here, though you won't see many concessions; and that's the joke.

[Fortigurn]

Why Becuase you say so?

No, because:

* It's a wadi

* Your photos show it's not a river

* The satellite photos show it's not a river

Well first its a wadi... which means valley.

I'm sorry, but it 'wadi' does not simply mean 'valley'. If you want to call this a valley, you have to ignore the water and just call it a valley. But you are trying to make a specific point of the water because you want to call it a river, so you have to acknowledge that it's a wadi. It's a dry river bed which is occasionally filled with rainwater runoff. It's not a river.

Thats not the only self serving defintion. (See above)

That is the standard definition, and is the definition which applies in this case.

Why because you say so... have you been there?

No not because I say so, but because that's what it has been called, and that is what I can see it is from your helpful photos and the satellite imagery.

The canyon itself shows heavy errosion in the granite walls so the river flowed much stronger in years past. Strong enough to fill itself up with sand and pebbles.

As I said, it's a dry riverbed, so of course it shows these characteristics. What is evident, however, is that it's not a river.

That doesn't mean that the river doesn't still flow underground... over the top of the bedrock and under the deposited rubble all the way to the red sea.

If you are now appealing to an (invisible), underground river, then there's no point in showing me pictures of wadi.

The river has to empty some where right?

What river? Wadis don't have to go anywhere near the sea. The run until the limited supply of water from the rain runs out, and they simply dry up again.

You gave a hostile and evidence-free accusation. This provides "the answer" to nothing but the question, "does Fortigurn have any scruples in his anti-Mormon agenda?"

I provided plenty of evidence in my answer, the key pieces being:

* It's a wadi, not a river

* It doesn't empty into the Red Sea

* It's invisible even on high definition satellite images

So that's your evidence? Someone reports that he has walked over the ground at various seasons of the year and seen water flowing; you retort by opening a dictionary.

I don't mind at all that someone has walked over the ground at various seasons of the year and seen water flowing. I expect to see water flowing in a wadi. But this doesn't prove that it's a river. You seem to be making some important point about me 'opening a dictionary'. The site in question is specifically called a wadi, and this term has been used by several of the Mormon posters in this thread. They are correct, it is a wadi. All I did was explain what 'wadi' means, so that they understand it's not a river.

How many times did you have to tweak the resolution until the water disappeared?

The image was provided by one of the Mormon posters in this thread:

For those who do not want to download anything...

Heres the picture... Warning: Its kind of Big.

Granite Canyon - Valley of Lemuel, River Laman, Wadi Tayyib al-ism

I suggest you address your question to Zakuska. For the record, I do not believe that Zakuska manipulated the image 'until the water disappeared', but you can make up your own mind.

[Zakuska]

To see the water and the location the pictures where taken from you have to zoom in alot futher than that picture. And that requires loading the free google earth software. I have the google earth data file from the Nephi Project that allows you to fly through the terrain in 3D.

[Fortigurn]

To see the water and the location the pictures where taken from you have to zoom in alot futher than that picture.

You most certainly do. It's only a trickle even in the photos taken by people standing right in the wadi. But that's why it's called a wadi, not a river.

[Zakuska]

No, because:

* It's a wadi

* Your photos show it's not a river

* The satellite photos show it's not a river

Since your so big on playing symantec word games lets post the dictionary up again.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

wa

[consiglieri]

Dear Fortigurn,

I think you are straining to avoid the obvious on this issue. The Book of Mormon said there was a river in a valley three-days' journey from Jerusalem in a southwest direction, which would put it in Arabia. This declaration was made in spite of the fact that the universally accepted wisdom was (and continues to be) that there are no rivers in Arabia. And yet here we have water flowing in a location three days' journey from Jerusalem, just as the Book of Mormon says. Not only that, it appears to have been much bigger anciently.

Now you want to complain that this is only a wadi and not a river? It makes no difference what you call it. It still amounts to remarkable evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

NotQuiteMe has admitted this appears to be a "dead on bull's-eye for the Book of Mormon."

Why can't you?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Catholic Guy]

Now you want to complain that this is only a wadi and not a river? It makes no difference what you call it. It still amounts to remarkable evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Remarkable evidence? Seems to me that it would be possible evidence.

Pax Christi,

Catholic Guy

[AndyOne]

"It still amounts to remarkable evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon."

Except that it doesn't fit the BoM description of the River of Laman - according to some of friends at FARMS. Also, was Joseph Smith aware of the conventional wisdom regarding the absence of rivers in the area? Did he intentionally defy that wisdom? If anything, the existence of a river fitting the description in the BoM would take away an anti argument, but doesn't really prove anything with respect to divine authorship.

[Zakuska]

"It still amounts to remarkable evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon."

Except that it doesn't fit the BoM description of the River of Laman - according to some of friends at FARMS. Also, was Joseph Smith aware of the conventional wisdom regarding the absence of rivers in the area? Did he intentionally defy that wisdom? If anything, the existence of a river fitting the description in the BoM would take away an anti argument, but doesn't really prove anything with respect to divine authorship.

It also takes away the argument that there is nothinbg in the dirt to support the Book of Mormon. Thus those who would fein claim NO Archological evidence are stepping on eggshells.

[consiglieri]

Remarkable evidence? Seems to me that it would be possible evidence.

Pax Christi,

Catholic Guy

Here we disagree. It is evidence. If we were only conjecturing about the existence of a river in the location described in the Book of Mormon, it would be "possible evidence."

But we are not. We are talking about an actual river that actually exists in the actual location actually described in the Book of Mormon.

In my book, that is actual evidence.

Pax Mormon,

--Consiglieri