Book Of Mormon Proven Wrong

[Zakuska]

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.

Is this what you found? Apparently you skimmed the article.

The River Runs Continuously

The question we posed while standing in the canyon of granite was: Does this desert river flow â??continuallyâ? as 1 Nephi 2:9 says? Does it flow night and day, 365 days a year?[xii] I could answer affirmatively only after our third excursion to the valley in November 1996. It had just rained for six straight days before our arrival â?? a freak storm, the heaviest in years. But this storm provided a reverse key of sorts.

On our first and second visits we witnessed the river during and just after the winter rainy season. But in November 1996, after a seven-month dry spell, we were finally able to ascertain that the stream does flow constantly. The key came not from the flow at the moment we were there, which could have come from the recent rains, but from the flora in and around the river. We had earlier discovered the riverâ??s source to be a spring some 600 feet down the canyon of granite from the upper valley. On our prior two visits, the grass, weeds and herbs surrounding the springhead had been a lush green. On our third visit, they were still green even after seven months of no rain. This vegetation could not have survived those seven months unless the spring were feeding the river â??continually.â?

I have now visited the valley in the months of April, May, November, December and most recently, January. Colleagues have visited in July and August. We have observed that the volume of water in the river seems rather constant throughout the year (even though from 1995 to 1999 the volume seems to be decreased perhaps 50 percent due to the continued effects of pumping the water in the upper valley). We have also observed throughout the year that vegetation flourishes in the canyon where the river runs, and moss and algae line the banks of the stream.

The spring that feeds the river comes from an underground reservoir system. Dr. Wes Garner,[xiii] our consulting geologist, painted the following picture of the system: When the occasional rains fall in the long wadi to the north, they are trapped in the sands. This watershed of sand runs southward for 20 miles until its downward course to the sea is blocked by the granite underpinnings of the towering cliffs to the west. (Richard Wellington, my writing and exploring companion, has estimated the size of the watershed to be approximately 105 square miles). This subterranean rock runs deep beneath the surface forming a dam. The subsurface waters are thus trapped at the upper end of the canyon in an underground reservoir. The canyon and its stream run westward from the area of this underground reservoir for 3

[consiglieri]

Dear Zakuska,

Fortigurn is not likely to get his facts straight anytime soon.

On another thread, he cannot even make up his mind whether he has ever heard of Margaret Barker before, or whether he is intimately acquainted with her work.

He posted the one last night, and the other this morning.

If Fortigurn can't even get his own facts straight, how can we expect him to get straight the facts about a river of running water in Arabia?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Fortigurn]

Is this what you found? Apparently you skimmed the article.

No, I read it. Nothing you quoted showed any more than what I have already cited.

Please note this:

There are at least two indications that a substantial river has flowed in the canyon for a very long time. First, there is evidence of significant erosion of rocks and the lower canyon walls. Second, water-laid calcite deposits that are found on the valley floor are at times 15 to 20 feet wide, much wider than the stream bed. At places in the canyon, one can find such deposits that have formed at higher layers of the rocks. We have measured these deposits 11 inches higher on the rocks than the level of the stream today. These observations point to the flow of a larger stream in the past, evidently long before the pumps were installed.

It is patently evident that the 'substantial river' which did this is not the trickle we see today. Not only that, but it is also evident (from Mr Potter's helpful site itself), that whatever river did this must have existed thousands of years ago:

It might be thought that the climate was wetter in Lehi's time. But that notion runs against both what little we know about the region from the Bible (e.g., Exodus 3:1) and the known meteorological history of the Near East.[iv] Scientists say of Arabia: â??The past 6000 years have been marked by... arid conditions, similar to those of the pre

[Zakuska]

Hmmm... the Coast Guard sure must drink a lot of water!

How deep is the well? Ground water tables would be close to sea water levels at this point.

The water reachs the sea.

And If Im not mistaken the coast Guard Station to which George eludes is on the beach You can see it from the Satelite.

PS.

During the 2,600 years since Lehi camped in the area, the canyon floor has risen out of the Red Sea, perhaps as much as 200 to 400 feet. Thus, not so long ago, the flat lower part of the canyon would have been below sea level. Therefore if the river flowed at the same rate in Lehi’s time as it does today, it would have reached all the way to the waters of the Red Sea. In the lower part of the canyon, the smooth stony floor of the canyon and the eroded cavelike undercuttings of the cliff seem to confirm that the lower part was once a sea floor rather than a river bed [erosion cause by wave action]. The ancient river, carrying a significantly higher volume of water, would have run the entire distance to the Red Sea.

200 to 400 feet.

[flavo]

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)

My two cents worth. By using the term river of water, it was during the rainy season. The term river means it is a dry river bed. So the fact is they saw a river whether it had water or not.

[Not quite me]

My two cents worth. By using the term river of water, it was during the rainy season. The term river means it is a dry river bed. So the fact is they saw a river whether it had water or not.

I always read it as slightly sarcastic, as if Lehi was wishing that his son might only be as constant as a wadi, which would be an improvement. I think I once said that either here or on a.r.m. back when I was on the other side, and I was roundly ridiculed. Oh, well. I still think it's a reasonable interpretation, and it has the added benefit that you don't have to argue about which water goes where at what time of the year.

[Fortigurn]

Hmmm... the Coast Guard sure must drink a lot of water!

Not necessarily. Only a trickle is getting to the well.

How deep is the well? Ground water tables would be close to sea water levels at this point.

Really? At 400 feet above the sea?

The water reachs the sea.

The water does not reach the sea. Mr Potter very helpfully pointed out that it stops almost half a mile from the coast.

200 to 400 feet.

He claims that 'During the 2,600 years since Lehi camped in the area, the canyon floor has risen out of the Red Sea, perhaps as much as 200 to 400 feet'. There is no geological evidence for this whatsoever. This does not change the fact that the canyon floor is currently 400 feet above the sea.

I suggest you read Mr Chadwick's review of this 'river', here and the Maxwell Institute of BYU:

This book is a remarkable read. From the outset, however, it was clear that theories proposed by the authors run counter to textual descriptions in Nephi's own record. In my opinion, entire chapters of Lehi in the Wilderness are unreliable efforts at mapping out the movements of Lehi's party after leaving Jerusalem. In spite of their best efforts and noble intentions, Potter and Wellington miss the mark in terms of some of the most important places Nephi described. Quite simply, "they're digging in the wrong place."

[Zakuska]

Not necessarily. Only a trickle is getting to the well.

Really? At 400 feet above the sea?

The water does not reach the sea. Mr Potter very helpfully pointed out that it stops almost half a mile from the coast.

He claims that 'During the 2,600 years since Lehi camped in the area, the canyon floor has risen out of the Red Sea, perhaps as much as 200 to 400 feet'. There is no geological evidence for this whatsoever. This does not change the fact that the canyon floor is currently 400 feet above the sea.

I suggest you read Mr Chadwick's review of this 'river', here and the Maxwell Institute of BYU:

You didn't read my last post did you? : rolleyes:

Dr. Petersen... the Editor of the Farms Article you linked ("There digging in the wrong place")... Disagrees with its conclusions. heres some of his notes from the Editors section of Volume 17.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=582

George Potter has, in my opinion, almost certainly located Lehi's "river of Laman"â??a "river of water" that, "continually running," "emptied into the Red Sea." And anybody who has seen photographs of the sheer granite cliffs that loom over narrow portions of the Wadi Tayyib al-Ism, through which it runs, will have no difficulty imagining why Lehi would term this valley, which he named "Lemuel," "firm and steadfast, and immovable."45 How did Joseph Smith know about the Wadi Tayyib al-Ism? Even in our information-rich contemporary environment, what could most of us say about it?

Furthermore, the recent publication of inscriptions from three limestone altars that have been found in the ancient temple of Marib, in the Yemen, demonstrates quite unmistakably that the tribal name NHM existed in precisely the right area of Arabia, at exactly the right time that 1 Nephi places the toponym Nahom there.46 Says one of them, for instance: "Bi'athar, son of Sawad, son of Naw'an, the Nihmite, has consecrated to [the god] Almaqah [the person of] Fari'at." This seems remarkable in itself, but, strikingly, the Lehite party's turn due east at Nahom, diverging from their generally southward direction to that point, coincides with the now-demonstrated fact that all roads turned east in the region of NHM, including the famous Arabian incense trail and the "shortcuts" across the Ramlat Sab'atayn desert. How did Joseph Smith know this? (The "eastward turn" does not appear in any known ancient source, not even in Pliny the Elder's famous description of the incense-growing lands of Arabia Felix. As Kent Brown has written, "No one knew of this eastward turn in the incense trail except persons who had traveled it.")

[Fortigurn]

You didn't read my last post did you?

Yes I did. If you read my post, you will see that I addressed it directly.

Dr. Petersen... the Editor of the Farms Article you linked ("There digging in the wrong place")... Disagrees with its conclusions. heres some of his notes from the Editors section of Volume 17.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=582

It is not news to me that Mormon apologists do not always agree with each other's findings and arguments. The very fact that the entire geography/archaeology issue is fraught with disagreement among Mormon apologetics just shows how damaging the entire field is to LDS dogma.

[Hammer]

Dear Zakuska,

Fortigurn is not likely to get his facts straight anytime soon.

On another thread, he cannot even make up his mind whether he has ever heard of Margaret Barker before, or whether he is intimately acquainted with her work.

He posted the one last night, and the other this morning.

If Fortigurn can't even get his own facts straight, how can we expect him to get straight the facts about a river of running water in Arabia?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It is what is called 'running blind'.

Yes I did. If you read my post, you will see that I addressed it directly.

It is not news to me that Mormon apologists do not always agree with each other's findings and arguments. The very fact that the entire geography/archaeology issue is fraught with disagreement among Mormon apologetics just shows how damaging the entire field is to LDS dogma.

What damage? I see no damage.

[Fortigurn]

What damage? I see no damage.

It is what is called 'running blind'.

[Platypus Man]

When I first saw the pictures, I was thinking, "that's not a river, that's a stream". I kind of thought that this was nothing more than a TBM making a lot out of nothing. And then a thought hit me.

I wouldn't consider that a river because when I think of a river, I think of the Colorade, or Mississippi or a multitude of other rivers that dot the locations I have experienced life.

In the case of someone living their life in the dry arid deserts of the Middle East, water, and specifically running water I'm sure is very rare. Add to that the fact that there was no plumbing or aquaducts and even a small stream was extremely important for survival in such an environment. I'm banking that a stream of running water, regardless of its size would have been much more impressive/important to them than we view it as being. But that's what comes from trying to analyze something so far removed from our context.

So all in all, I guess a stream would be a pretty important site, and despite what a poster said earlier (a comment which got me thinking about this) I don't really think that Laman needed to have "low expectations" for Lehi to name the river/stream (whatever you want to call it) after him.

BTW, is there any good evidence about what this site was like 2600 years ago?

[Hammer]

You put two quotes of my statements up Fortigurn and leave without a word? So ?

And?

[Hammer]

When I first saw the pictures, I was thinking, "that's not a river, that's a stream". I kind of thought that this was nothing more than a TBM making a lot out of nothing. And then a thought hit me.

I wouldn't consider that a river because when I think of a river, I think of the Colorade, or Mississippi or a multitude of other rivers that dot the locations I have experienced life.

In the case of someone living their life in the dry arid deserts of the Middle East, water, and specifically running water I'm sure is very rare. Add to that the fact that there was no plumbing or aquaducts and even a small stream was extremely important for survival in such an environment. I'm banking that a stream of running water, regardless of its size would have been much more impressive/important to them than we view it as being. But that's what comes from trying to analyze something so far removed from our context.

So all in all, I guess a stream would be a pretty important site, and despite what a poster said earlier (a comment which got me thinking about this) I don't really think that Laman needed to have "low expectations" for Lehi to name the river/stream (whatever you want to call it) after him.

BTW, is there any good evidence about what this site was like 2600 years ago?

Good point, one I thought of as well.

There is the 11 inches of calcium deposits.

[Fortigurn]

When I first saw the pictures, I was thinking, "that's not a river, that's a stream". I kind of thought that this was nothing more than a TBM making a lot out of nothing. And then a thought hit me.

I wouldn't consider that a river because when I think of a river, I think of the Colorade, or Mississippi or a multitude of other rivers that dot the locations I have experienced life.

In the case of someone living their life in the dry arid deserts of the Middle East, water, and specifically running water I'm sure is very rare. Add to that the fact that there was no plumbing or aquaducts and even a small stream was extremely important for survival in such an environment. I'm banking that a stream of running water, regardless of its size would have been much more impressive/important to them than we view it as being. But that's what comes from trying to analyze something so far removed from our context.

People living in these areas knew the difference between a river and a stream. A river was something the size of Jordan. Lehi certainly knew the difference between Jordan and this trickle. Having seen Jordan, I doubt that he would have referred to something this size as a 'river'.

BTW, is there any good evidence about what this site was like 2600 years ago?

Yes. Geological evidence.

You put two quotes of my statements up Fortigurn and leave without a word? So ?

And?

I thought they complemented each other well.

There is the 11 inches of calcium deposits.

These have been addressed.

[Hammer]

I thought they complemented each other well.

Here is the context. Your trick was exactly and procisely Sandra Tannerish.

QUOTE(consiglieri @ Feb 2 2007, 09:18 AM)

Dear Zakuska,

Fortigurn is not likely to get his facts straight anytime soon.

On another thread, he cannot even make up his mind whether he has ever heard of Margaret Barker before, or whether he is intimately acquainted with her work.

He posted the one last night, and the other this morning.

If Fortigurn can't even get his own facts straight, how can we expect him to get straight the facts about a river of running water in Arabia?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It is what is called 'running blind'.

QUOTE(Fortigurn @ Feb 2 2007, 11:12 PM)

Yes I did. If you read my post, you will see that I addressed it directly.

It is not news to me that Mormon apologists do not always agree with each other's findings and arguments. The very fact that the entire geography/archaeology issue is fraught with disagreement among Mormon apologetics just shows how damaging the entire field is to LDS dogma.

What damage? I see no damage.

[Zakuska]

When I first saw the pictures, I was thinking, "that's not a river, that's a stream". I kind of thought that this was nothing more than a TBM making a lot out of nothing. And then a thought hit me.

I wouldn't consider that a river because when I think of a river, I think of the Colorade, or Mississippi or a multitude of other rivers that dot the locations I have experienced life.

In the case of someone living their life in the dry arid deserts of the Middle East, water, and specifically running water I'm sure is very rare. Add to that the fact that there was no plumbing or aquaducts and even a small stream was extremely important for survival in such an environment. I'm banking that a stream of running water, regardless of its size would have been much more impressive/important to them than we view it as being. But that's what comes from trying to analyze something so far removed from our context.

So all in all, I guess a stream would be a pretty important site, and despite what a poster said earlier (a comment which got me thinking about this) I don't really think that Laman needed to have "low expectations" for Lehi to name the river/stream (whatever you want to call it) after him.

BTW, is there any good evidence about what this site was like 2600 years ago?

Ive also shown where River Stream Brook according to the hebrew lexicon are all the same thing. But fortigurn wont listen.

[Fortigurn]

Ive also shown where River Stream Brook according to the hebrew lexicon are all the same thing. But fortigurn wont listen.

It's irrelevant what river/stream/brook are in the Hebrew lexicon. We're talking about an inspired translation which says that the word Lehi used means 'river'. If you want to contest the inspired translation, I suggest you talk to God.

A while ago you were yourself insisting that it means 'river', and referred me (inaccurately), to a 19th century dictionary for the meaning of the word. Now you want to downgrade the 'river' to a 'stream' or 'brook', on the basis of a Hebrew lexicon which is totally irrelevant.

[Catholic Guy]

It's irrelevant what river/stream/brook are in the Hebrew lexicon. We're talking about an inspired translation which says that the word Lehi used means 'river'. If you want to contest the inspired translation, I suggest you talk to God.

A while ago you were yourself insisting that it means 'river', and referred me (inaccurately), to a 19th century dictionary for the meaning of the word. Now you want to downgrade the 'river' to a 'stream' or 'brook', on the basis of a Hebrew lexicon which is totally irrelevant.

Come on Fortigurn, donâ??t you think "A Wadi Runs Through It" would make a great book and movie title?

Catholic Guy

[consiglieri]

It is not news to me that Mormon apologists do not always agree with each other's findings and arguments. The very fact that the entire geography/archaeology issue is fraught with disagreement among Mormon apologetics just shows how damaging the entire field is to LDS dogma.

Let's tweak this quote just a bit, shall we?

It is not news to me that Mormon critics do not always agree with each other's finding and arguments.

The very fact that the entire issue of how the Book of Mormon was written is fraught with disagreement among Mormon critics just shows how damaging the entire field is to anti-Mormons.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[why me]

Let's tweak this quote just a bit, shall we?

It is not news to me that Mormon critics do not always agree with each other's finding and arguments.

The very fact that the entire issue of how the Book of Mormon was written is fraught with disagreement among Mormon critics just shows how damaging the entire field is to anti-Mormons.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That was great Consiglieri!

[charity]

platypus man, you make a good point. I have a friend who took a tour of the Holy Lands some time back. She said until she did that, she had not understood why so many of the parables are about water, and never being thirsty again. We live in the Pacific Northwest where the joke is that if you look up at the sky you will likely drown. But she said she was thirsty almost all the time there. Water was expensive, too. It sure made the parables more meaningful.

[Fortigurn]

Let's tweak this quote just a bit, shall we?

It is not news to me that Mormon critics do not always agree with each other's finding and arguments.

The very fact that the entire issue of how the Book of Mormon was written is fraught with disagreement among Mormon critics just shows how damaging the entire field is to anti-Mormons.

I'm sorry, but parodying my words won't change the facts. It only makes your case weaker. If you believe what you've written here, then you have to acknowledge it applies to the Book of Mormon.

As it happens, disagreements among critics of the Book of Mormon as to how the Book of Mormon was written do not damage their entire case. On the contrary, they only reveal the many possible sources of the Book of Mormon, and how plausible alternatives are to the story told by the LDS church.

[Zakuska]

Come on Fortigurn, donâ??t you think "A Wadi Runs Through It" would make a great book and movie title?

Catholic Guy

The King James version of the Bible translates the hebrew word for wadi as 'river' or 'rivers' 50 times. Why can't Joseph?

[Scott Gordon]

As one who lives on the banks of the mighty Sacramento River, I remember my thoughts the first time I saw the Provo River. "Why that is just about the same size as Clear Creek!" Those who live near the Mississippi would probably think the same of the Sacramento.

I think we have to be careful when we impose our experience and beliefs on others.