Jerusalem/jerusalem.....nahom/nhm....bountiful/dhofar

[Olavarria]

Nahom

Bountiful

DCP

Teryl Givens

http://books.google.com/books?id=a5OgaD3gl...esult#PPA120,M1

So, its often said in some circles "If I wanna go on vacation to Jerusalem, I can go there. If I wanna go on vacation to Rome, I can do that to. But If I wanna go to a BoM locale...I cant cuz it doesnt exist".

Well, Nephi described his desert journey, the directions he took, down to the place names. If I want to reinact Nephi's Journey the way I would reiact a civil war battle, I could. Why? Because those places and route do exist.

Teryl Givens considers this the first actual archeological evidence for the historicity of the BoM.

What do you say?

[Zakuska]

I agree...

http://www.nephiproject.com

[Luigi]

Nahom

Bountiful

DCP

Teryl Givens

http://books.google.com/books?id=a5OgaD3gl...esult#PPA120,M1

So, its often said in some circles "If I wanna go on vacation to Jerusalem, I can go there. If I wanna go on vacation to Rome, I can do that to. But If I wanna go to a BoM locale...I cant cuz it doesnt exist".

Well, Nephi described his desert journey, the directions he took, down to the place names. If I want to reinact Nephi's Journey the way I would reiact a civil war battle, I could. Why? Because those places and route do exist.

Teryl Givens considers this the first actual archeological evidence for the historicity of the BoM.

What do you say?

Evidence yes, compelling evidence, no.

[Olavarria]

Evidence yes, compelling evidence, no.

What would constitute compelling evidence?

Zerahemla?

[jadams_4242]

Nahom

Bountiful

DCP

Teryl Givens

http://books.google.com/books?id=a5OgaD3gl...esult#PPA120,M1

So, its often said in some circles "If I wanna go on vacation to Jerusalem, I can go there. If I wanna go on vacation to Rome, I can do that to. But If I wanna go to a BoM locale...I cant cuz it doesnt exist".

Well, Nephi described his desert journey, the directions he took, down to the place names. If I want to reinact Nephi's Journey the way I would reiact a civil war battle, I could. Why? Because those places and route do exist.

Teryl Givens considers this the first actual archeological evidence for the historicity of the BoM.

What do you say?

There is no doubt as to the intergrity of the route they traveled; the only issue i always wonder about is just where did they get water traveling across that vast expanse of desert?

[Zakuska]

There is no doubt as to the intergrity of the route they traveled; the only issue i always wonder about is just where did they get water traveling across that vast expanse of desert?

Especially since Watering holes where usually guarded by a garison and armed guards. Potter and others suppose they traded (teaching) for water and goods.

[Luigi]

What would constitute compelling evidence?

Zerahemla?

The discovery of ancient Mesoamerican city named Zarahemla would be more compelling than Nahom but insufficient. If you claimed to have a translation of an ancient manuscript and you were unwilling or unable to provide a copy of the original characters for evaluation by scholars and you had never demonstrated this ability to translate the particular language in question to the satisfaction of scholars in that language then your story would be viewed with incredulity until such time as virtually every detail of your account matched the evidence for that time and place and it was unlikely if not impossible for you to have that information through other sources.

The accessibility of a map for Joseph Smith with the location "Nehem" was unlikely, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility. On another thread I also pointed out at least one book which describes portions of Oman and Yemen which have some matches to the land of 'Bountiful'. Again, I think it unlikely Joseph Smith had access to these materials (or those that had read them who could have given him some information on the area) but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. This makes the evidence in the Old World relatively less compelling than potential evidence in the New World, such as a Zarahemla find you suggest, but it would require much more evidence than even the discovery of a city named Zarahemla to make the case for the Book of Mormon compelling.

[jadams_4242]

Especially since Watering holes where usually guarded by a garison and armed guards. Potter and others suppose they traded (teaching) for water and goods.

But theb only problem with that would be there were no other people anywhere within probably hundreds of miles and nothing but sand,sand,sand.

[Zakuska]

But the only problem with that would be there were no other people anywhere within probably hundreds of miles and nothing but sand,sand,sand.

Argument from silence alert.

If they where following the frankensens trail as the BOM clearly shows they where. You think they never met anyone along the way?

Nahom blows that idea out of the water. Since it was already named when they got there.

PS. The more furtile parts have been inhabited for thousands of years.

[Olavarria]

The discovery of ancient Mesoamerican city named Zarahemla would be more compelling than Nahom but insufficient.

hmmmm

but it would require much more evidence than even the discovery of a city named Zarahemla to make the case for the Book of Mormon compelling.

Hmmmm.

Even if you did find a Mayan "Tzalahemla" who is to say that it is the BoM's Zerahemla? The problem is we may never now, through archeological means, the original names of San Lorenzo, La Venta, Tres Zapotes, El Mirador, Santa Rosa, Teotihuahcan or Kaminaljuyu.

Nephi's trail proves that Nephi's trail was real. Was Nephi real? Archeology can't prove that one way or the other.