Book Of Mormon Proven Wrong

[consiglieri]

"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.

Then by this definition there is nothing that would ever prove anything with respect to divine authorship. I am unable to accept so restrictive a position.

(At this point, you are supposed to come up with a piece of evidence that hasn't been found yet and say that if it were found, it would constitute evidence of the Book of Mormon.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

Then by this definition there is nothing that would ever prove anything with respect to divine authorship. I am unable to accept so restrictive a position.

(At this point, you are supposed to come up with a piece of evidence that hasn't been found yet and say that if it were found, it would constitute evidence of the Book of Mormon.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And then when we rise to the occasion, there go the goal posts again.

The one thing about NotQuiteme's position of Possible evidence. People have been studying this and Nahom for 10 years. Nothing is going to be accepted as evidence until we find a grave stone marked... "Here lies our beloved father Ismael, 640BC - 608BC" Of course a "Nephi was hear" wouldn't be that bad either. Or heres Lehi's Gold. And then even then they will still deny it.

Them d*** Mormons forged it.

[AndyOne]

One of the problems in accepting any single piece of evidence is simply the mountain of other issues that remain unresolved. However, there are certainly evidences that would be harder to dismiss - or more exciting to discover - depending on your view. Evidence of Christian worship and a region living in peace for decades following Christ's visit to the Americas would be nice. Find me some steel swords and I'll get pretty excited. Near-Eastern DNA - wow, that would be good too!

Ultimately, I'm still one of those scratching his head wondering how in the world we ended up in Mesoamerica - thousands of miles from where the plates were found.

I tell you what, though, I would love for the pieces of evidence to all fall more neatly into place - that would make my life much easier.

[Thunderfire]

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

Generally I try to stay out of discussion where we are forced to prove one another "right or wrong". Since much of the gospel teaches us to have "faith" in the words, I find that may of these conversations are really hidden attempts to prove the message as true or false by the "physical evidence" we find (or cannot find) in our day.

With that said, I can find a couple of reasons why we cannot find "rivers" in that area today. First, a earthquake (or a series of them over thousands of years) could have changed the georgraphy of the region in how water flows to the sea. Second, when they were traveling it "could" have been the rainy season in the mountains which would cause rivers to flow during certain times of the year. Either way, we have "evidence" of these types of things happening so it must be taken into account when physical proof is not found.

So simply because we cannot find a river today, does not make the account false as written thousands of years ago! But it has made for an interesting thread!

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

[Zakuska]

But thats the problem thunderfire... we have found a river in the area. It flows underground to the sea but a river/Mt stream none the less.

[Fortigurn]

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wadi

Fine with me:

1. the channel of a watercourse that is dry except during periods of rainfall.

[...]

A valley, gully, or streambed in northern Africa and southwest Asia that remains dry except during the rainy season.

Yes, it's the channel of a watercourse that is dry except during periods of rainfall. Yes, it's a streambed that remains dry except when it rains.

The pictures show it is a STREAM BED, an OASIS strewn with Date Palms, or a VALLEY.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that it is a streambed which is dry except when it rains, are you arguing that it is an oasis strewn with date palms, or are you arguing that it's a valley? Please choose one.

It meets every criteria except your notion of being dry... which some parts of the year even that isnt correct. To be a Wadi you have to have water at least part of the time, this particular Wadi has waater all of the time.

Can you demonstrate to me that it runs with water all of the time, identify its water source and triburtaries, and show where it empties into the Red Sea?

Waddi Tayyib al Isam is an Oasis with 3 kinds of date palsm, grains and wells. Just as Moses described in the Exodus.

Could you please decide if you want it to be an oasis or a river? Or a valley?

If you notice... even Your definition doesn't fit into the box your trying to draw for it.

This is speaking of the dry gullies above a river or stream that when it rains fill with water and feed the streams. The whole system is called a Watercourse. In english it would be one of those water ecosystem drawings that show the rain and the water returning to the sea through the streams, brooks and rivers. The whole thing would be a Wadi or watercourse. From the occasionally dry chasm, to the streams, to the roaring rivers with rapids into the sea.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. You seem to be arguing wadi = watercourse, river = watercourse, therefore this wadi is a river. The term 'watercourse' can be used to refer to 'the occasionally dry chasm, to the streams, to the roaring rivers with rapids into the sea', but the term 'wadi' cannot.

The rest of the definitions deal with the streams themselves below these dry areas. All of its a Wadi (watercourse) and all of it fits every definition you can through at it.

Unfortunately there's only one definition which fits. It's a dry riverbed through which water flows when it rains.

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.

What we have is a wadi in Arabia. There is no evidence that it is located in the site Lehi allegedly visited, and it is not a river.

Now you want to complain that this is only a wadi and not a river?

It was referred to explicitly as a wadi by Zakuska. It's even called a wadi by the local people. It's not a river. I really don't know how much simpler I can make this. If it was a river, we could move on to discussing whether or not it's the river allegedly visited by Lehi, but it's not even a river. Nor has any evidence been provided that it empties into the Red Sea.

The 'universally accepted wisdom' is looking good right now.

[AndyOne]

"Nor has any evidence been provided that it empties into the Red Sea."

The evidence actually would suggest that it doesn't. As to whether it did, it is suggested in Zak's source material that the ridge on which sits the "river" has risen some 400+ feet over the last 2600 years - and that at 400 feet lower, it did mouth at the Red Sea.

[Sargon]

What we have is a wadi in Arabia. There is no evidence that it is located in the site Lehi allegedly visited, and it is not a river.

No evidence....except that it is an extremely likely candidate, and one which Joseph Smith could not have possibly known, especially if he had followed the "conventional wisdom" of the day.

I dont think anyone claims there is physical evidence there that Lehi passed through, except that it is a close match to the Book of Mormon.

Did Joseph even know the word wadi? Its not a word used very much.

Oh, and welcome aboard Fortigurn, nice to see you. You will find there are people with more time on their hands, and much more informed than I on this topic here on this board. I hope to continue our discussion on the other board!

Sargon

[Fortigurn]

No evidence....except that it is an extremely likely candidate, and one which Joseph Smith could not have possibly known, especially if he had followed the "conventional wisdom" of the day.

The 'conventional wisdom' of the day was correct. It's still correct. It's not 'an extremely likely candidate', because it's not even a river, and it certainly doesn't empty into the Red Sea. The elevation is completely wrong in any case, if what AndyOne says is true then it's 400 feet above the Red Sea and couldn't empty into the Red Sea.

I dont think anyone claims there is physical evidence there that Lehi passed through, except that it is a close match to the Book of Mormon.

It would be a close match to the Book of Mormon if it was a river flowing into the Red Sea, and was verifiably where Lehi passed through.

Did Joseph even know the word wadi? Its not a word used very much.

Did he know the words 'dry riverbed', and 'occasional rainfall'?

Oh, and welcome aboard Fortigurn, nice to see you. You will find there are people with more time on their hands, and much more informed than I on this topic here on this board. I hope to continue our discussion on the other board!

Thanks, I'm currently debating whether or not to keep it on G&S or bring it here.

[Zakuska]

Can you demonstrate to me that it runs with water all of the time, identify its water source and triburtaries, and show where it empties into the Red Sea?

Already did. Eye witness accounts of people who have actually been there in every season of the year including the Dry season have proven it flows year round.

You also havent commented about how much debree is in the lower valley and canyon mouth. Satalite shows it filled in by water flow. The river flows into the gravelbed inside the granite canyon. Are you really suggesting that the Granite is soaking up all this water like a sponge? And not letting it get to the sea less than a mile away?

The tributaries are all the gullies and valleys above it for miles around this water flows under all the sand and creates an "UNDERGROUND RESEVOIR". This Resevoir peeks over the granite bedrock and pokes throung the ground in the upper canyon where it then flows into the canyon.

Could you please decide if you want it to be an oasis or a river? Or a valley?

Why are you trying to narrow the definition? It means all three.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. You seem to be arguing wadi = watercourse, river = watercourse, therefore this wadi is a river. The term 'watercourse' can be used to refer to 'the occasionally dry chasm, to the streams, to the roaring rivers with rapids into the sea', but the term 'wadi' cannot.

Wadi = watercourse, according to the dictionary definitionn which is made up of dry gullies and tributories in the upper mouths of the course, and in the lower course, Rivers, Brooks, and streams. Which cna flow all year round. That is what the dictionary definitions are saying.

Unfortunately there's only one definition which fits. It's a dry riverbed through which water flows when it rains.

Except for the fact that its the Arabian Goverment who has named the Oasis in the upper valley - Wadi Tayyib al ism. and not the actual stream of water its self. Im sorry, but Ill take their definitions and Knowleged of their own langauge over yours any day.

What we have is a wadi in Arabia. There is no evidence that it is located in the site Lehi allegedly visited, and it is not a river.

Thats a nice blanket statement... I hope it makes you feel all, warm and snuggly.

Yes we do have a watercourse in Arabia. Consisting of Dry upper wadi's feeding an underground resevoir that breaks into a contiually flowing year round stream including in the dry season. That flows into a gravel bed that has washed down the canyon over the years.

That you choose to blind your self is neither here nor there.

PS. You really need to work on reading comprehension.

It was referred to explicitly as a wadi by Zakuska. It's even called a wadi by the local people. It's not a river. I really don't know how much simpler I can make this. If it was a river, we could move on to discussing whether or not it's the river allegedly visited by Lehi, but it's not even a river. Nor has any evidence been provided that it empties into the Red Sea.

No the Upper valley oasis is called a WADI by the Local People. Not the river itself. You need to learn to keep your facts straight too.

So tell us where the water is going? Being sucked up by the granite gravel monster?

[Zakuska]

The 'conventional wisdom' of the day was correct. It's still correct. It's not 'an extremely likely candidate', because it's not even a river, and it certainly doesn't empty into the Red Sea. The elevation is completely wrong in any case, if what AndyOne says is true then it's 400 feet above the Red Sea and couldn't empty into the Red Sea.

Hmm so wheres all the water going? Into the belly of the 2000 foot Granite monster?

It would be a close match to the Book of Mormon if it was a river flowing into the Red Sea, and was verifiably where Lehi passed through.

Hmm so an ancient camping spot in the upper valley, identifed by local heritage maps as dating to the iron age complete with stone BBQ mound and a stone box vault to hide your treasures in doesn't count as plausible evidence?

[Zakuska]

Fortigurn continues to protest that this is not a river.

I propose we look the word 'river' up in the Webster's 1828 American Dictionary.

Why?

1) Because Joseph and his scribes would have been going off the latest and greatest definitions while translating.

2) Christian's nation wide lawd this as the most acurate dictionary to work from when trying to understand the Bible. (Don't beleive me? Try this Google search... Click Here, first link. )

It is reported that Noah Websterâ??s 1828 American Dictionary contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible".

So without further Adeui...

RI'VER, n. One who rives or splits.

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webst...s_web1828=river

Has not this river split this rock?

Ok so now looking at the words which contain 'river' in their defintion we come to 'stream'.

STREAM, n.

1. A current of water or other fluid; a liquid substance flowing in a line or course, either on the earth, as a river or brook, or from a vessel or other reservoir or fountain. Hence,

2. A river, brook or rivulet.

3. A current of water in the ocean; as the gulf stream.

4. A current of melted metal or other substance; as a stream of lead or iron flowing from a furnace; a stream of lava from a volcano.

5. Any thing issuing from a source and moving with a continued succession of parts; as a stream of words; a stream of sand.

A stream of beneficence.

6. A continued current of course; as a stream of weather. [Not used.]

The stream of his life.

7. A current of air or gas, or of light.

8. Current; drift; as of opinions or manners. It is difficult to oppose the stream of public opinion.

9. Water.

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webst..._web1828=stream

I vote this definately is a River, the very river Lehi Describes in the BOM.

You decide...

Should I turn this into a Poll Fortigurn? What sayest thou?

[osteotome]

All this talk about "wadi" reminded me of 1N2:6 . . . pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a RIVER of WATER..

For Fortiqurn: Could Nephi be describing a wadi with WATER??

Why would Joseph Smith say "River of Water" Don't all river beds in Up state NY have WATER. Now in the desert you will cross a river bed (wadi) with NO water in it. Seems Like he understood this Arabian Penisula wadi thing quite well (Nephi and Joseph)

[Zakuska]

I don't recall calling the river itself a Wadi. The Arabian government calls the Oasis in the upper valley - Wadi Tayyib al ism. But the river is inside the granite gully/valley. Theres no place for this water to go but the sea even if it is under a gravel bed.

[SolarPowered]

If I am not mistaken, is it not the case that pumping of the aquifer has already substantially reduced the flow of this river? Thus, in former times it had substantially greater flow than the already considerable flow we can see in the photos.

[Nevo]

"And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!" (1 Nephi 2:9)

Apparently Lehi meant to say, "O that thou mightest be like unto this, uh, watercourse, which even in the dry season trickles more or less continually into a gravel bed only a mile or so away from the Red Sea!"

BTW, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "river" as "a copious stream of water flowing in a channel towards the sea, a lake, or another stream."

[Fortigurn]

Already did. Eye witness accounts of people who have actually been there in every season of the year including the Dry season have proven it flows year round.

I went to Mr Potter's site, and despite reading the article in its entirety I found no evidence that the water 'flows year round'. In fact I didn't even find evidence that people have been there in every month of the year. I found a very carefully worded description by Mr Potter which explains how he infers that the water 'flows year round', but that's all.

You also havent commented about how much debree is in the lower valley and canyon mouth.

Why would I?

Satalite shows it filled in by water flow.

And? Surely you're not suggesting this little trickle of water did that?

The river flows into the gravelbed inside the granite canyon.

And there it stays.

Are you really suggesting that the Granite is soaking up all this water like a sponge? And not letting it get to the sea less than a mile away?

All what water? It's barely a trickle. It's amazing that it doesn't evaporate before it gets to the lower valley. I'm sure if you had any evidence that it ran continuously all the way to the sea (despite being 400 feet above the sea), you would have provided it.

The tributaries are all the gullies and valleys above it for miles around this water flows undr all the sand and creates an "UNDERGROUND RESEVOIR". This Resevoir peeks over the granite bedrock and pokes throung the ground in the upper canyon where it then flows into the canyon.

In other words, the wadi flows as a result of rainfall. The reason why it flows so regularly even in the absence of rain, is that it's a small leak in a large underground resovoir of rain water. The rain falls, the water collects in the resovoir, and it slowly leaks out over the next few months. It has no tributaries, it is simply fed by water running from rainfall in the local area. Mr Potter helpfully explains this in some detail on his site.

Why are you trying to narrow the definition? It means all three.

What, precisely, are you describing with 'all three' An oasis is not a valley or a wadi, a valley is not an oasis or a wadi, and a wadi is not an oasis or (necessarily), a valley.

Wadi = watercourse, according to the dictionary definitionn which is made up of dry gullies and tributories in the upper mouths of the course, and in the lower course, Rivers, Brooks, and streams. Which cna flow all year round. That is what the dictionary definitions are saying.

I'm sorry, but the 'dictionary definitions' say nothing about wadis flowing all year round. Quite the opposite in fact (that's what distinguishes a wadi from other watercourses).

Except for the fact that its the Arabian Goverment who has named the Oasis in the upper valley - Wadi Tayyib al ism. and not the actual stream of water its self. Im sorry, but Ill take their definitions and Knowleged of their own langauge over yours any day.

I am not disputing their definitions and knowledge of their own language. But Mr Potter refers to the entire valley as a wadi, not the oasis (and rightly), so I suggest you correct him immediately if you feel he is wrong.

Yes we do have a watercourse in Arabia. Consisting of Dry upper wadi's feeding an underground resevoir that breaks into a contiually flowing year round stream including in the dry season. That flows into a gravel bed that has washed down the canyon over the years.

We have wadis and a leaking resovoir which creates another wadi. That's what we have.

That you choose to blind your self is neither here nor there.

I don't believe I'm blinding myself. This is not a river:

You could step over that. You could walk through it and not get your ankles wet.

If I am blind, then I suggest I am in interesting company. It appears that Mr Chadwick of the BYU Maxwell Institute has also blinded himself. Having reviewed the work of Mr Potter and Mr Wellington, he arrives at the conclusion 'They're digging in the wrong place!'. I suggest you correct him when you have the time.

So tell us where the water is going? Being sucked up by the granite gravel monster?

Mr Potter helpfully informed us that it ends up in a local well almost half a mile away from the coast:

It is last seen as it reaches a gravel bed in the lower canyon about 3/8 mile from the gulf where it feeds a well used by the coast guard post a short distance away.

Next:

If I am not mistaken, is it not the case that pumping of the aquifer has already substantially reduced the flow of this river? Thus, in former times it had substantially greater flow than the already considerable flow we can see in the photos.

You call this a 'considerable flow'?

Next:

All this talk about "wadi" reminded me of 1N2:6 . . . pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a RIVER of WATER..

For Fortiqurn: Could Nephi be describing a wadi with WATER??

Why would Joseph Smith say "River of Water" Don't all river beds in Up state NY have WATER. Now in the desert you will cross a river bed (wadi) with NO water in it. Seems Like he understood this Arabian Penisula wadi thing quite well (Nephi and Joseph)

Why would he say 'river of water'? Well, given that it is very strange English, that's a good question. I wonder where he could have stumbled across that phrase?

Revelation 22:

1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

What he certainly did not say was 'a dry riverbed watered by a leaking resovoir', or 'an ancient riverbed now watered only by collected rainfall'. Contemporary 19th century readers certainly would not have gained such an understanding from the phrase 'river of water'.

[Mordecai]

I went to Mr Potter's site, and despite reading the article in its entirety I found no evidence that the water 'flows year round'. In fact I didn't even find evidence that people have been there in every month of the year. I found a very carefully worded description by Mr Potter which explains how he infers that the water 'flows year round', but that's all.

It's really quite simple. The reality is, Lehi could have called it a river, because it did split the mountain (or at least it might appear that it could have over time, since rainfall varies), could have seen a portion that more copious amounts of water and/or could merely have been taking poetic license (or Joseph Smith's translating was a bit liberal with the use of the word river.) The fact is, there is flowing water where the BoMormon indicates there would be flowing water. That's all you need to know to know that your arguments are merely drawing attention to the unlikely fact that "con-artist" Joseph Smith got that right. You just come across as desperate. What, did you get ex-communicated and are arguing out of fear of hell?

[cacheman]

How common are wadi's such as this one in the region? Is this an unusual find?

cacheman

[Fortigurn]

It's really quite simple. The reality is, Lehi could have called it a river, because it did split the mountain (or at least it might appear that it could have over time, since rainfall varies), could have seen a portion that more copious amounts of water and/or could merely have been taking poetic license (or Joseph Smith's translating was a bit liberal with the use of the word river.) The fact is, there is flowing water where the BoMormon indicates there would be flowing water. That's all you need to know to know that your arguments are merely drawing attention to the unlikely fact that "con-artist" Joseph Smith got that right. You just come across as desperate. What, did you get ex-communicated and are arguing out of fear of hell?

I'm not sure if this was a serious post or not.

[Sargon]

Why would he say 'river of water'? Well, given that it is very strange English, that's a good question. I wonder where he could have stumbled across that phrase?

QUOTE

Revelation 22:

1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb

You might contend this. But you are likely not going to convince anyone with this argument. What is the chance that Joseph arbitrarily chose this moment to look up Revelation 22 just to make sure he was using the exact wording "River of Water"? Why didnt he say "pure river of water", or "clear as crystal"? In making the analogy to his wicked son, Lehi didnt using phrasing very muchl like Rev. 22, though it should have if it had been taken from it.

Sargon

[cacheman]

It's really quite simple. The reality is, Lehi could have called it a river, because it did split the mountain (or at least it might appear that it could have over time, since rainfall varies), could have seen a portion that more copious amounts of water and/or could merely have been taking poetic license (or Joseph Smith's translating was a bit liberal with the use of the word river.) The fact is, there is flowing water where the BoMormon indicates there would be flowing water.

The only thing that you state as a fact is disputed even in LDS academic circles. Check out the FARMS article that Fortigurn referenced.

That's all you need to know to know that your arguments are merely drawing attention to the unlikely fact that "con-artist" Joseph Smith got that right. You just come across as desperate. What, did you get ex-communicated and are arguing out of fear of hell?

This is totally innapropriate. Even faithful LDS have argued against these claims.

cacheman

[Fortigurn]

You might contend this. But you are likely not going to convince anyone with this argument. What is the chance that Joseph arbitrarily chose this moment to look up Revelation 22 just to make sure he was using the exact wording "River of Water"? Why didnt he say "pure river of water", or "clear as crystal"? In making the analogy to his wicked son, Lehi didnt using phrasing very muchl like Rev. 22, though it should have if it had been taken from it.

The question was asked why Smith used the phrase 'river of water'. It was suggested that this was a significant phrase, the syntax of which referred to a particular kind of watercourse.

I pointed out that this was untrue, and that the phrase occurs in Revelation 22:1 with the simple meaning 'river'. The phrase 'rivers of water' occurs several times in the Old Testament. There is no need to suggest that Smith looked this up to make sure he was using the exact wording.

Whilst I believe that Smith was responsible for a good deal of the Book of Mormon, I don't believe he was particularly careful at all times in his choice of wording. In this case think he seized on a 'Bible sounding' phrase for a river, without even a thought as to which part of the Bible it was from.

If you don't think that 'river of water' is phrasing very much like 'river of water', then what do you suggest would sound more like it?

The only thing that you state as a fact is disputed even in LDS academic circles. Check out the FARMS article that Fortigurn referenced.

This is totally innapropriate. Even faithful LDS have argued against these claims.

Is Mordecai LDS? Was that post serious?

[jeffC]

I don't know, could be.

All, I recieved permishion from Brother Potter to share the google earth file. If you'd like it just PM me. (Ill try to keep my in box emptied).

I did not realize this but you can actually 3 Dimensionally drive the trail Potter does in the movies! Which means you can actually visit the topographical map and follow Nephi on his journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful. 3 Dimensionally walk down the granite Canyon- Valley of Lemual. see the 70 date opalsm and the wells of moses.

This program rocks!

Zakuska,

I don't have enough posts to be able to PM, but I'd love a copy of Bro. Potter's google earth file.

Thanks!

[Zakuska]

If I am not mistaken, is it not the case that pumping of the aquifer has already substantially reduced the flow of this river? Thus, in former times it had substantially greater flow than the already considerable flow we can see in the photos.

Correct you are. This stream of water has been flowing for quite some time. Errosion in the solid granite shows a much heavier water flow. In years past. And yes the pumping in the upper valley by the Bedoins is effecting its flow.