Joseph's visions of the Nephite Civilization...

[Brant Gardner]

Your approach on the geography is convoluted, I assume it is for the "translation" process as well - unable to take things at face value.

Please remember that when I asked you how you discerned between literal and metaphorical, you suggested that it was simple. If you couldn't find it, it was metaphorical. I submit that is hardly a testable methodology.

As long as your definition of geography depends entirely upon what you believe fits the text, and while you adamantly refuse to consider the next important step in a geogpraphy (comparing it to known populations and historical trends), then I will not feel too heavily criticized when it is you telling me that my approach is convoluted. You should also know that I am not the author of any geographic correlation. I usually follow Sorenson, but there is much in Poulsen's revisions that I find important. My field is comparing those geographies to the real people who lived at the appropriate times. If Sorenson's geography couldn't fit with the times and peoples, I would reject it. However, it fits extremely well.

When I compare that kind of data against the same information for the geography you are proposing, I cannot find the same connections and rather find several significant difficulties. I believe that when one creates a purely hypothetical geography and then finds a location in the world where it might fit, one can discover several possibilities. That is the reason that we see so many geographies, including South America and the Malay peninsula, or Baja California. The problem with all of these is that the rest of the human story doesn't work. No matter how well one thinks a geographical theory fits a particular region, unless it also fits the human element of the Book of Mormon, it is the wrong place.

To be clear, you agree that the U&T/Seer Stone was used to see an already translated text. Is that your position?

No. That is Skousen's position, and I don't think it is an explanation at all. It simply moves the problem from Joseph to some unknown divine who translated into English that oddly represented phrases coming directly from Joseph's experience with revival camps. As a theory it cannot account for too much of the available data. A good theory of the translation must be able to account for nearly all of the facets of the translation, all the way from the best indicators of plate text features that survived the translation to the "copying" of KJV passages (not only the Isaiah passages) to the particular types of revisions we see in the Isaiah passages and the vocabulary that can be traced to the revivalist camps. There is a lot of data available, and a good theory will have to generate all of it.

As I said, I believe that Joseph translated. Of course, you are now wondering how I get that "convoluted" conclusion. Unfortunately, you'll have to await the book.

[Brant Gardner]

Well, the implications of this are what is at issue. Where in the process do you see the errors creeping in? Through Joseph Smith? Through the scribes? Both?

I believe Joseph was the translator. Skousen's best estimation from the manuscript evidence is that they were reasonably faithful to what they heard. However, there were some types of mistakes in what they heard that did make it through to print. So, I see Joseph as responsible for the bulk of the text, with some transcription errors on the part of the scribes.

If it is true that Joseph saw the English translation in front of him (interesting choice of words on your part, by the way, when you say "visualize"),

And, as you perceived, quite intentional.

then it is completely understandable to me that people would say that the translation was God's, not Joseph's.

Of course. I think that this quite reasonable understanding is a misunderstanding of the process.

Of course, we can get into phenomenological and other arguments to pick apart the different possibilities, but it is difficult to deny the power of the image of God's translation of the book. Other explanations will naturally be less appealing.

Since I believe that it is also clear that Joseph was not translating in the same way we expect a modern translator to work, there is not only room for God in the process, God's participation is indispensible. Of course, that would be true even if Joseph were pouring over the plates and interpreting the writing directly into English (which the evidence says he wasn't).

Of course, all of this presumes that it is a translation. However, I see that as a very different question. Accepting that it is a translation, the issue is what kind of translation and how it was done.

Except that D&C 9 was a revelation given to Oliver Cowdery, not Joseph Smith. It is not clear to me that Smith and Cowdery possessed precisely the same gifts, and that the method of translation they used would thus have been the same. I think it requires more evidence to justify conflating the method described in D&C 9 with Joseph's.

You are correct that we have to be careful when we read this. Part of the problem is that we also have to have some idea of how Joseph received and presented revelations. Frankly, I see much of the same process being involved, resulting in an English text that represents Joseph's language overlaid on the divine meaning (which I think could explain pretty much any prophet's revelations in any language). In this case, I think Joseph didn't really know how he did it and he was genuinely surprised that Oliver couldn't. There is some indication here of a process that was required, but I don't think it is any more a model for the translation that any other that we have. The only thing that I think it says is that the one translating was part of the process. That much I believe applied to Joseph as well as Oliver. I hope to explain Oliver's failure in more detail as part of the discussion of how Joseph translated.

I apologize for the necessary obscurity. I have to same something for the book .

[BOMG]

I'm no geologist so I can't really CFR you on this, but according to this website:

http://www.ohiodnr.c...29/Default.aspx

"About 5,000 years ago, the lake stood about 46 feet lower"

Appreciate the interest. It's in the dating. See this page for a pic of those higher level times:

http://bookofmormongeography.org/book-of-mormon-geography-lake-tonawanda

So you're saying they went arctic? and coastal hopped Iceland, Greenland and the North American coast and then upriver at the St Lawrence?

You're on the right track IMO. What are your thoughts?

[Brant Gardner]

CFR, I'm sorry but the most common route for a westerly course is between 25* N and 4* N, where the winds are NE. Your proposed course has them battling westerlies and the Gulf Stream. I'm on a dial up connection right now or I'd post a tradewind map/currentmap.

For us poor landlubbers, where does that more common route tend to take a sailor? Of course we know that Columbus headed west - was his course determined heavily by winds and currents?

[BOMG]

You are correct that we have to be careful when we read this.

Part of the problem is that we also have to have some idea of how Joseph received and presented revelations. Frankly, I see much of the same process being involved

I apologize for the necessary obscurity. I have to same something for the book .

And the truth comes out.

I'll guess there's a Book of Mormon geography book in the works also??? Of the two spirits we are guided by, which do you feel is guiding you against Skousen's work?

For the purpose of educating others, beware of mistake #2 as cited by Gardner, this is the "new and improved" explanation for how it was done:

"Take the description of how Joseph received revelation (later on without the Urim and Thummim or a Seer Stone), extract its component parts, apply those back onto how the Book of Mormon was "translated."

For those who missed mistake#1 , that was the long held D&C 9 approach, now debunked thanks to the work of Royal Skousen.

[Brant Gardner]

And the truth comes out.

Certainly not in the way you have described anything about what I think.

I'll guess there's a Book of Mormon geography book in the works also???

You might have answered that by actually reading what I wrote. No, I don't do geography. As I stated, I follow Sorenson's basic correspondence, and with Poulsen's. They happen to agree on the places where I can test their theories against history and culture.

Of the two spirits we are guided by, which do you feel is guiding you against Skousen's work?

That is a bit of a snippy question. Skousen is a scholar. Scholars disagree. When they do, it is incumbent to do so on the basis of evidence. I would have it no other way. Although both of us certainly claim faithfulness, I doubt that either of us claim to be "guided by" a particular spirit (other than acceptable scholarship).

For the purpose of educating others, beware of mistake #2 as cited by Gardner, this is the "new and improved" explanation for how it was done:

"Take the description of how Joseph received revelation (later on without the Urim and Thummim or a Seer Stone), extract its component parts, apply those back onto how the Book of Mormon was "translated."

For those reading this, please don't assume that BOMG's descriptions of what I think to have any bearing on reality.

For those who missed mistake#1 , that was the long held D&C 9 approach, now debunked thanks to the work of Royal Skousen.

I disagree, and disagree with evidence.

BOMG - our conversation has passed the point where there is any value in it. You clearly have your opinions and I mine. I don't intend to discuss your opinions of geography or translation past this post.

Hyrum Page, I will continue to discuss with you, if you are interested.

[Hyrum Page]

Of course. I think that this quite reasonable understanding is a misunderstanding of the process.

Well, I would have to see your argument in full. I hesitate to call it a misunderstanding so much as a different understanding until I am persuaded otherwise.

Since I believe that it is also clear that Joseph was not translating in the same way we expect a modern translator to work, there is not only room for God in the process, God's participation is indispensible. Of course, that would be true even if Joseph were pouring over the plates and interpreting the writing directly into English (which the evidence says he wasn't).

OK, but it really isn't clear to me what you see as the different contributions of God and Joseph Smith. The witnesses seem to be emphasizing God's role, whereas your emphasis is more on Joseph's. Although I can imagine what kind of argument you might make, I prefer to wait until I see the argument itself.

Of course, all of this presumes that it is a translation. However, I see that as a very different question. Accepting that it is a translation, the issue is what kind of translation and how it was done.

The sense in which the word "translation" is being used is one of the thornier problems.

You are correct that we have to be careful when we read this. Part of the problem is that we also have to have some idea of how Joseph received and presented revelations.

Is it really just a matter of understanding how Joseph generally "received and presented revelations"? From the text of the Book of Mormon and descriptions of the translation process, I get the impression that the "interpreters" were concieved of as being an important tool to do a specific job. Why should we necessarily think that the use of such interpreters would result in precisely the same revelatory and presentation process Joseph used in every other instance? Is this "translation" or "transcription" process the same process behind all of Joseph Smith's revelations, or was it different? These questions have not been answered to my satisfaction.

I am inclined to see this process as something set apart from other "gifts"("gift" is the very word used to describe it). It is not clear that the "gift" of translation is the same as every other "gift" possessed by the seer. Note too that the keys of full priesthood authority include "translator" as a distinct key.

In this case, I think Joseph didn't really know how he did it and he was genuinely surprised that Oliver couldn't. There is some indication here of a process that was required, but I don't think it is any more a model for the translation that any other that we have. The only thing that I think it says is that the one translating was part of the process. That much I believe applied to Joseph as well as Oliver. I hope to explain Oliver's failure in more detail as part of the discussion of how Joseph translated.

Well, one thing that may have set them apart was their tools. Joseph was a seer and Oliver was a rodsman. The rod, as far as I know, did not work according to the same principles as a seerstone. The rod's operation seems to me to be more consistent with the translation instructions given in D&C 9. So, I would see the two as apples and oranges, with the desription in D&C 9 having questionable value for understanding how the seerstone was used in translation.

I apologize for the necessary obscurity. I have to same something for the book .

I'll be interested to read what you have to say.

[Hyrum Page]

Hyrum Page, I will continue to discuss with you, if you are interested.

Thanks for the discussion thus far, Brant. I appreciate your willingness to engage with your usual thoughtfulness and mild manner. If you have any further thoughts, I would be interested in reading them, but I do not want you to run up against the problem of "spoilers" when it sounds like you have a book or article coming out in the future. When might I expect it and where should I look for it?

[Cold Steel]

This posting by Cold Steel surmises the inability to learn. Every attack made is a lie ... There are maps by both Olive (http://bookofmormonlands.com/) and Aston (http://onecumorah.com/)

Oh, yes. Like these from Olive's site? They're very helpful.

And now here is another of Olive's maps compared with a Google Earth map of the same area:

One sees that her "narrow neck" is now covered by water, after enduring for generations. All she has to do is find some Ameramerican ruins, declare them to be Nephite and she has successfully rammed a square peg into a round hole, hammer and all! Now all she has to do is find a deadly polar snake that can live in such an era and doesn't hibernate and she's in business. But I forgot...you said the weather was warmer. Actually, it wasn't. We're in a so-called warming trend now, so if anything, it was a bit colder.

But that's the problem. If one starts off assuming that Cumorah is the New York drumlin, all one has to do is find the missing "narrow neck," change the weather patterns and make it fit. This is the map she proposes, and I had to go to Wiki to find it:

Olive notes: "Those who have read the original work, The Lost Lands of the Book of Mormon, will notice a few changes have been made in the placement of the narrow neck of land. As research continued and new discoveries were made, the Batavia Moraine, which lay a few miles further east, fit the scriptural descriptions of the narrow neck more precisely. Then, when I discovered that Nephite type fortifications lay nearby, I felt it was important to make the change. This is a work in progress, and a few more refinements will no doubt be made as the work continues...." Yes, I'm afraid her work is fated for even more revisions until she moves considerably to the south.

If America is the "Promise Land" they must allow for "Promised Lands" outside of Mesoamerica.

Absolutely. The Western Hemisphere is the land of Joseph. But that doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon lands run through both North and South America. And as for your 900 drumlins, only one of them is Cumorah, not all 900 of them. Or do you consider them all to be Cumorah?

You're seriously picking fights, when you know I have more geography hits than any other model.

Show me the map. Don't just make general statements. If you think the land was warmer, show me. If you have a type of snake that can be deadly all year long, show me. In Mesoamerica, the weather is just about the same all year long. You can get a bad snake bite in June or January. In this topic we can make no general assumptions. I'm not a geographic scholar on the Book of Mormon, but I do know a bit about snakes and snake oil.

.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh, yes. Like these from Olive's site? They're very helpful.

I'm not a geographic scholar on the Book of Mormon, but I do know a bit about snakes and snake oil.

.

The narrow neck of land (or claimed narrow neck of land) looks to be too narrow. Meaning it would probably take 1 hour to cross it not a day. So far jsut by looking at the propsed sites from this person it does not seem to fit.

And Ripliancum means to "exceed all".

The great lakes or Lake Ontario do not fit that bill. I could see Lake Superior fitting the bill if the context was the great lakes for it is the largest of the 5 lakes.

Ether 15: 8

8 And it came to pass that he came to the waters of Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all;

[Brant Gardner]

When might I expect it and where should I look for it?

I am expecting that it will be ready before the Book of Mormon comes around on the schedule again. That is when LDS buyers get interested in the Book of Mormon;). As for where, that is always the question with Kofford Books. The best place seems to be the FAIR bookstore. They appear to be the only place that can consistently get copies. As for how you might know it is out, I suspect that I will announce it here, just to make sure someone knows it has been published.

[Hyrum Page]

I am expecting that it will be ready before the Book of Mormon comes around on the schedule again. That is when LDS buyers get interested in the Book of Mormon;). As for where, that is always the question with Kofford Books. The best place seems to be the FAIR bookstore. They appear to be the only place that can consistently get copies. As for how you might know it is out, I suspect that I will announce it here, just to make sure someone knows it has been published.

Well, I'll keep my eye out for it. Of course, I still need to read your massive Book of Mormon commentary.

[BOMG]

O B F U S C A T I O N

Sorry, was there an apology or retraction in there somewhere???

[Brant Gardner]

From the text of the Book of Mormon and descriptions of the translation process, I get the impression that the "interpreters" were concieved of as being an important tool to do a specific job. Why should we necessarily think that the use of such interpreters would result in precisely the same revelatory and presentation process Joseph used in every other instance? Is this "translation" or "transcription" process the same process behind all of Joseph Smith's revelations, or was it different? These questions have not been answered to my satisfaction.

This is actually one of the things I have spent time on. Why the interpreters and how did they work? I think I know, and the short answer is that Joseph "worked" and not the interpreters.

In think that they were important in letting Joseph understand that he could translate and to allow him to perform the translation, but I don't think they were actually essential to the process. For example, I use a computer to write, but although it is involved in the process, it isn't essential to the process (OK, anyone who has tried to read my handwriting will disagree--strenuously).

That is why I see Joseph as the translator, not the interpreters. Nevertheless, they were involved in the process and the description is always that Joseph "sees" in them. I think that is a clue, not a definition.

Well, one thing that may have set them apart was their tools. Joseph was a seer and Oliver was a rodsman. The rod, as far as I know, did not work according to the same principles as a seerstone. The rod's operation seems to me to be more consistent with the translation instructions given in D&C 9.

I agree and disagree. I think that their methods were different. Joseph appears to have believed that Oliver could translate. There doesn't seem to be any real hesitation in allowing him to attempt. I think Joseph thought that because Oliver could use the rod for supernatural information, that it could be used for this translation. I think that the nature of their talents made all of the difference, and Joseph didn't know why--which is why we get the revelation. Again, I think they are more clues that final definitions.

[Brant Gardner]

Well, I'll keep my eye out for it. Of course, I still need to read your massive Book of Mormon commentary.

And when you do, you can increase the number of people who have actually read it to perhaps double digits (and that includes me, my editor, and my typesetter--I'm not even sure about the publisher!).

[rodheadlee]

For us poor landlubbers, where does that more common route tend to take a sailor? Of course we know that Columbus headed west - was his course determined heavily by winds and currents?

Yes, Columbus had a fair current and the trade winds at his stern. A Landfall using his course would be anywhere from Florida south to the Caribbean Islands or perhaps the east coast of Mexico/Central America. A return trip would be up the Gulf stream offshore of the US east coast and crossing to the Azores and then across to Spain.

Some theories have a Southern Arabia peninsula departure. This would require a southerly course during the proper monsoon season to around 30*S lat where the westerlies could be picked up for an unimpeded ride to offshore of Chile, rounding the South Pacific High and heading north with favorable winds and currents for a landfall in Central America or Mexico along the west coast.

The Pilot Charts for the worlds oceans can be found on the NOAA website. These are a compilation of historical records for weather and sea conditions. Sorry I don't have a link.

[Hyrum Page]

This is actually one of the things I have spent time on. Why the interpreters and how did they work? I think I know, and the short answer is that Joseph "worked" and not the interpreters.

I'll be interested to see your argument in full. The Book of Mormon seems to point to the interpreters being an important tool for the seer to use in translating the record. Obviously, it takes a seer to use the tool for the translation to be effected, but I still get the impression that either the interpreters or the seer stone were somehow important in the process. And, I am very struck by the descriptions. Without such tools, would he have still "seen" the translation in the same way?

In think that they were important in letting Joseph understand that he could translate and to allow him to perform the translation, but I don't think they were actually essential to the process. For example, I use a computer to write, but although it is involved in the process, it isn't essential to the process (OK, anyone who has tried to read my handwriting will disagree--strenuously).

I suppose it might not be attractive to imagine a kind of divine technology that was somehow crucial to the process, but one wonders why the Jaredites preserved them with the record, the Nephites held onto them for centuries, and they left them for Joseph Smith to recover. But the problem as I envision it is not the technology per se, but the interface between the Divine and human minds. I can't help but think that the descriptions that emphasize Joseph seeing the English were persuasive in building faith among those who might have reason to question the learned translations and multiple manuscripts of the Bible. If the emphasis on God's agency were not so clear, then such persuasion would be diminished.

I agree and disagree. I think that their methods were different. Joseph appears to have believed that Oliver could translate. There doesn't seem to be any real hesitation in allowing him to attempt. I think Joseph thought that because Oliver could use the rod for supernatural information, that it could be used for this translation. I think that the nature of their talents made all of the difference, and Joseph didn't know why--which is why we get the revelation. Again, I think they are more clues that final definitions.

Yes, Joseph believed Oliver could translate. The revelation does not contradict this, but suggests a method that I think is rather accommodating of the limitations of the rodsman's methods. If Oliver's use of the rod was usually geared more toward yes-no guidance, or directions toward lost objects, water, precious metal, and the like, translation would present a new kind of challenge. These instructions may not, on the other hand, give us much insight into the translation methods of a seer who uses a stone. Just a thought.

[BOMG]

No, I don't do geography...

How does that square with your books exactly?

...places where I can test their theories against history and culture...

Which have little bearing on seas or lands.

That is a bit of a snippy question. Skousen is a scholar. Scholars disagree.

It's more than that. Clear statements by witnesses were set aside for decades. You're not fighting against the work of Skousen, you're fighting against them, and what the scriptures say how revelation comes. (not the D&C, look further before embarrassing yourself - no offense)

For those reading this, please don't assume that BOMG's descriptions of what I think to have any bearing on reality...BOMG - our conversation has passed the point where there is any value in it.

That's your prerogative, but you did indeed proceed as I said:

This is actually one of the things I have spent time on. Why the interpreters and how did they work? I think I know, and the short answer is that Joseph "worked" and not the interpreters.

In think that they were important in letting Joseph understand that he could translate and to allow him to perform the translation, but I don't think they were actually essential to the process.

Instead of moving to how he "received revelations" after the Urim and Thummim was taken from him, you should be investigating how Joseph "could see" other places BEFORE he began the BoM project to gain further insight for why him.

For example, I use a computer to write, but although it is involved in the process, it isn't essential to the process

That analogy is not pertinent to the process of "seeing" or "perceiving" by a urim and thummim or seer stone.

For those reading this thread late, Brant denies literal readings of the geography text because of his view of how it was translated. In order to consider models outside of Mesoamerica, he must be swayed to accept the testimony of witnesses who saw the process and/or the work of Royal Skousen:

http://bomchristian.com/c/en/the-translation-process

http://whitmercollege.com/dictated

[Anijen]

I will try not to be snarky. BOMG you truly compliment our patience.

BOMG

Lehi and the Mulekites left Lebanon where there was ore and wood for ship building. Spain was known in Biblical times (perhaps further areas), thus they sailed out the Mediterranean Sea and ventured north following the coast line before heading west. This was a common route for mariners.

This is BOMG MO by stating his opinion as absolute facts yet he attacks others whom might have a different opinion.

BOMG

Prior to that, yes, the St. Lawrence and the Niagara gorge were navigable.

Yet even after a CFR he did not cite any evidence other than an anecdotal non-scientific web site that confirms only his viewpoint. Again part of his MO is to cherry pick opinions that only support his and attacks any that differ.

BOMG

View PostMola Ram Suda Ram, on 04 February 2010 - 08:05 AM, said:

For me there seems to be a disconnect.

The original fact is: A New Jerusalem will be built on Book of Mormon lands.

BOMG

It flies against the current LDS mindset of a New Jerusalem yet to be built in Independence Missouri.

I provide the following quote, sorry I forget who wrote it or I would credit them.

IS MISSOURI THE LAND OF PROMISE?

Missouri is certainly a land of promise. The prophets and apostles have consistently been

clear, however, that Missouri is not the only land of promise, nor the only area to which

Book of Mormon promises apply. Meldrum is not keeping company with the apostles and

prophets when he asserts that because Zion is in Missouri, and Missouri is a land of

promise, then Missouri is the only promised land in the Americas (and, thus, the promised

land of the Nephites). Consider a few examples:

Joseph Smith:

[Anijen]

BOMG

You're seriously picking fights, when you know I have more geography hits than any other model.

Oh please, this is ridiculously laughable. I will call your bluff, please list all your hits with evidence to back them up

Cold Steel, on 04 February 2010 - 09:24 PM, said:

Although I lean heavily on the Mesoamerican side, it's not an article of faith with me.

Really, who'd a guessed? How about some respect for those who died for THEIR FAITH!

This is just a mean statement. Cold steel is in no way disparaging those who died for their faith. He is simply saying if he found out that the Mesoamerican model is false it would not affect his faith a view I happen to share with him.

BOMG

You don't understand the Spiritual Geography at all. I feel sorry for you, and every other mesotheorists who disregard the land prophecies and promises.

My guess is that those who subscribe to a Mesoamerican model do not feel they are disregarding any prophecies or promises. And to say we do not understand the Spiritual Geography at all seems to be insulting and unnecessary. However to give you some credit, I don't understand what you mean when you say "Spiritual Geography."

BOMG

Clark has been dealt with and like with Sorenson found limited in their understanding. "Cookie cutters" is what they are. Get's boring after 70 models.

Really? Who has dealt with them and found them limited in their understanding? These are credible scholars it seems your view is like a lemonade stand on your neighborhood street corner telling Coca-Cola they do not know what they are doing.

calmoriah, on 04 February 2010 - 10:23 PM, said:

Israel is described as a "promised land". Why would it be strange that there would be more than one?

The Book of Mormon "Promised Land" references are specific. We respect their promises, on their lands. For example, there would be no kings/queens. They would be owned by white Gentiles. The BoM would come forth on it. It would become greater than all other nations. Jesus would be their king of it. God would led people to it. People would flee their captive nations to go to it. Their mother countries would come to battle against them, on the land and the sea. All fulfilled in Western New York, but impossible in Mesoamerica.

Again see the quote above regarding this. calmoriah is correct.

rodheadlee, on 05 February 2010 - 07:09 AM, said:

I'm no geologist so I can't really CFR you on this, but according to this website:

http://www.ohiodnr.c...29/Default.aspx

"About 5,000 years ago, the lake stood about 46 feet lower"

Appreciate the interest. It's in the dating. See this page for a pic of those higher level times:

http://bookofmormong...-lake-tonawanda

Notice rodheadlee quotes a scholar an expert in this area and BOMG quotes a mormon geography site that just so happens to support his view. Note to rodheadlee you do not have to be a geologist or any other type of expert to CFR someones claims.

Anijen

Ambassador of the one true geography theory (this is sarcasm for those who might not know me)

I apologize if I was too snarky.

[Anijen]

And when you do, you can increase the number of people who have actually read it to perhaps double digits (and that includes me, my editor, and my typesetter--I'm not even sure about the publisher!).

I have read from cover to cover 1-5 and about a quarter the way through 6. Impressed I am.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I will try not to be snarky. BOMG you truly compliment our patience.

to be cont...

What is up with the 'tude that BOMG is giving?

It is tiresome. It almost sounds evangelical. That if some one holds to a LGT theory we are deluded and just can't see the facts.

[BOMG]

ColdSteal, your hack job on Olive's model is ridiculous. You admitted you're not "into geography" so take my advice, leave it alone or READ IT!

The following RED CIRCLES are not the same places, not even close. Your hack-job is a lie. She said "Batavia Moraine" so, go to google earth and type in "Batavia" then come back with a correctly placed RED CIRCLE.

Oh, yes. Like these from Olive's site? They're very helpful. And now here is another of Olive's maps compared with a Google Earth map of the same area:

One sees that her "narrow neck" is now covered by water, after enduring for generations...

The narrow neck of land (or claimed narrow neck of land) looks to be too narrow. Meaning it would probably take 1 hour to cross it not a day. So far jsut by looking at the propsed sites from this person it does not seem to fit.

The text says the Land Bountiful and Desolation were 1.5 days wide. "Narrow" from eye level, blockable by snakes would be what, 50-100 feet for the Narrow Neck?

And Ripliancum means to "exceed all".

The great lakes or Lake Ontario do not fit that bill. of Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all;

Wrong. If you stand where they did on the south shore of Lake Ontario, you cannot see its boundary anywhere, it appears to go forever!

[Anijen]

What is up with the 'tude that BOMG is giving?

It is tiresome. It almost sounds evangelical. That if some one holds to a LGT theory we are deluded and just can't see the facts.

Mola I am glad your getting that vibe from him too. I thought is it only me that this guy seems to be so condescending?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wrong. If you stand where they did on the south shore of Lake Ontario, you cannot see its boundary anywhere, it appears to go forever!

Wrong!!! Oooookkkkkaaaayyyyyy. You are grasping at straws here. "Large or to exceed all" does not describe Lake Ontario no matter how hard you try. I even gave 2 very good valid reason why that lake does not fit. The Pacific ocean makes a whole lot more sense that taht is Ripliancum, as that ocean is large or "to exceed all".

I tell you what, take yout 'tude some were else. I don't need it.