Once Again: The Nahom-Bountiful/Nehem-Wadi Sayq Complex

[altersteve]

No prophet has ever claimed that NHM was Nahom.

And that means it's not?

[Honorentheos]

My point still stands, though. If Joseph Smith did not have a Bible or any other book or document with him when he was translating, how, for example, was he able to dictate to his scribes the several portions quoted from the Book of Isaiah? I hope you won't suggest that he had memorized the whole thing. That would be absurd. This is the biggest hole, I think, in the critical argument that Joseph Smith used the Bible in "writing" the Book of Mormon. I've never seen a critic adequately explain this.

Anyway, you have yet to respond to the fact that the Book of Mormon tells us that it does not contain everything involved in Lehi's party's travels. So I think your criticisms in this area are useless.

First, while a tangent I think the evidence against JS having additional material is weak. My personal opinion is that both Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were privy to the fraud we call the BoM and that there is no reason to accept either's testimony at face value. I also believe that Emma Smith's last testimony is not trustworthy as it was published post-mortem by her son. I've made the case before that her testimony includes strong denial of Joseph's involvement in polygamy which we know is either a lie on her part, or her statement was modified by the leadership of the RLDS church prior to publication. I don't think it's a big mystery how JS could quote long passages from the bible.

As to the later point, what it does tell us is still problematic. What do you think is missing that might counter my points?

To answer your other question, however, I do believe that since they were required by the Lord to travel by night, and since the Lord did not allow them to make fires, avoiding contact with others was probably important for at least a good portion of their journey.

I missed the verse where they were required to travel by night. Would you mind sharing it?

[altersteve]

First, while a tangent I think the evidence against JS having additional material is weak. My personal opinion is that both Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were privy to the fraud we call the BoM and that there is no reason to accept either's testimony at face value. I also believe that Emma Smith's last testimony is not trustworthy as it was published post-mortem by her son. I've made the case before that her testimony includes strong denial of Joseph's involvement in polygamy which we know is either a lie on her part, or her statement was modified by the leadership of the RLDS church prior to publication. I don't think it's a big mystery how JS could quote long passages from the bible.

Well, this is all for a different topic altogether. If you wish to talk about this, feel free to start a new topic. If you do so, you'll have to explain how you think Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were in on the fraud and how history supports this idea. You'll also have to tell us how you think the evidence against Joseph having additional material with him is weak, especially in light of the fact that he was definitely no bookworm. In fact, his mother said that he to be the least likely out of all her children to read books, and instead was "far more given to meditation and deep study." This is inconsistent with the idea that he would write, much less read, anything at all. So it's not the fact that there's evidence against Joseph Smith having other materials with him, it's that there is no real evidence for it. Joseph having materials, including the King James Bible, with him is inconsistent with 1) the fact that he was not interested in literature (and this, of course, is also completely contradictory to the entire critical argument that he would even want to write something like the Book of Mormon for any reason); 2) the fact that he might not have even owned a Bible during the time; 3) his relative lack of formal education; and 4) with what eyewitnesses observing the translation process had unanimously reported.

As to the later point, what it does tell us is still problematic. What do you think is missing that might counter my points?

Well, since I don't know what is missing (otherwise it wouldn't be missing, now would it?), I can't answer that question. I'm not an expert in this situation, but there are many who are. But you're making the mistake of assuming that there is nothing missing that will counter your arguments. Of course, since you believe the Book of Mormon is a fraud anyway, you don't believe there is any missing material, so we'll just end up talking past each other. Regardless, I still fail to see how anything it tells us is problematic. You've put forth some arguments, based on some unfounded assumptions, but you don't seem to have gotten your point across very well.

I missed the verse where they were required to travel by night. Would you mind sharing it?

Weird, I thought there was one. I was thinking of a different verse that is talking about something else. I guess I've always been under the assumption that they did. Nevertheless, I think for several reasons that Nephi's account implies that they tried to avoid other people as much as they could, for at least part of the journey. Completely avoiding other people would be impossible, as others here have said, some having put forth the reasonable possibility of enslavement, but still, to me, it implies that they were to try to avoid others when possible.

[Honorentheos]

it implies that they were to try to avoid others when possible.

Exactly. Yet for the NHM evidence to be accurate it would place the Lehi Party in the most fertile parts along the Red Sea along a major trade route. Your own point is WHY the NHM evidence begins to create more problems for the Book of Mormon than it resolves.

[altersteve]

Exactly. Yet for the NHM evidence to be accurate it would place the Lehi Party in the most fertile parts along the Red Sea along a major trade route. Your own point is WHY the NHM evidence begins to create more problems for the Book of Mormon than it resolves.

Notice how I said "when possible," and "for at least part of their journey."

[thesometimesaint]

Honorentheos:

Just when we need a more furtile part. Up pops the Vallley of Lemuel.

http://www.jefflinds...es.shtml#lemuel

Ps. None of ths PROVES the BoM. It is still a religious book not a science text book. It does however lend plausibility to its substantve claims.

Edited December 5, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Honorentheos]

TSS -

I believe you are mischaracterizing the opposing argument. I am not denying that a place like the one linked to could exist. I am arguing that the 1 Nephi narrative that takes the Lehi Party to these locations also describes them traveling in a manner inconsistent with that time and place.

The most fertile parts along the east side of the Red Sea that would take Lehi to Marib happen to be along a significant trade route. It's inconsistent to claim the narrative requires Lehi and his family to travel along this route yet also be in the wilderness, living as subsistance hunters/gatherers as if no one else were around. My contention is simple - to make the NHM evidence work, one has to ignore the historical setting along the route that would have brought Lehi and co. to that location. Your link is, again, an attempt to prove one point but in contradiction to the text of the BoM itself. Tayyib al-Ism is along the trade route in question.

It still seems more likely that JS was adapting the description of the tribes of Israel wandering in the desert rather than an author from 600 BCE in the area around Jerusalem describing that context.

[rodheadlee]

I've often thought that the reason it took so long to travel by boat was because they must have stopped along the way for provisioning, recuperation, repairs, etc.

My wife and I have left Annapolis on November 9th, bound for Los Angeles, CA, presently we are in New Bern, NC on Dec 6th. We have no plans to leave for at least 2 more weeks as we finish some projects. We stopped along the way each day to do repairs that popped up, wait for better weather and to aquire provisions. We are in a modern vessel with sails and a 55 hp engine..So far we have covered only about 340 miles. By the time we leave our average will be well under 10 miles per day

[thesometimesaint]

Honorentheos:

The BoM doesn't claim that there were no other people. It specifically claims Lehi's group tried to avoid others.

http://nabataea.net/sarabia.html

[altersteve]

TSS -

I believe you are mischaracterizing the opposing argument. I am not denying that a place like the one linked to could exist. I am arguing that the 1 Nephi narrative that takes the Lehi Party to these locations also describes them traveling in a manner inconsistent with that time and place.

The most fertile parts along the east side of the Red Sea that would take Lehi to Marib happen to be along a significant trade route. It's inconsistent to claim the narrative requires Lehi and his family to travel along this route yet also be in the wilderness, living as subsistance hunters/gatherers as if no one else were around. My contention is simple - to make the NHM evidence work, one has to ignore the historical setting along the route that would have brought Lehi and co. to that location. Your link is, again, an attempt to prove one point but in contradiction to the text of the BoM itself. Tayyib al-Ism is along the trade route in question.

It still seems more likely that JS was adapting the description of the tribes of Israel wandering in the desert rather than an author from 600 BCE in the area around Jerusalem describing that context.

The Book of Mormon never says that there was no one else around, that Lehi's group were "subsistance hunter/gatherers," or even that they traveled through the most fertile parts at all. That is my point when I say that the Book of Mormon doesn't tell us everything. All it says is that they traveled through the "wilderness" to a place called Nahom, and it implies that they tried to avoid other people as much as possible. Stop making so many assumptions and inserting your own agenda into the Book of Mormon text, and you'll realize that the Book of Mormon presents no problem at all.

[Calm]

The "raw meat" episode is suggestive of subsistence level living and a hunting/gathering lifestyle. However there is also a verse stating they took along "seeds" and there is no limitation to suggest these were only for when they reached their final destination. This suggests to me their style of living changed as needed or desired thus requiring the reader to limit descriptions to a more or less specific time period and not apply them to the whole journey.

My memory says they were not aware of the specifics of their final destination. If so, this may have implications for how they chose to travel (even assuming the Liahona pointed direction out and gave advice, there is no indication it gave exact information about how much time should be spent traveling every day, when and where to make or break camp, etc.)

Edited December 6, 2011 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

If we allow for an extended travel time (which the BoM does). Then a couple of handfulls of grain planted during the growing seasons would provide all the grains a small(less than 20 in Lehi's group) would need and still allow for storage/use during travel. I feel that this is where the Valley of Lemuel comes in as a steady supply of water for drinking and for crops.

[Calm]

Agreed.