PeterPear Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) When studying the Limited Geography Theory, you can learn a lot about whether its proponents know the scriptures. For example, did you know that Nephi took sailing lessons before leaving the Land Bountiful for the Land of Promise? "Even with the inspiration of the Lord, it was simply impossible for Nephi to have sailed to the New World without training."http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1414&index=5 The same article claims:Nephi needed a crew, and he needed to acquire the skills to train them. It takes years to learn and practice the skills needed to control a sailing ship at sea. The same article claims Nephi purchsed timbers for his ship. And the question is asked, how did Nephi pay for his sailing lessons and timber? While we suggest that the things Nephi needed to build his ship were available at the time at Khor Rori, could Nephi have afforded the imported goods? There would have been a number of funding options for Lehi: selling his camels, exchanging his services as a scribe and merchant, or perhaps even arranging to have his property sold in Jerusalem. But of course Lehi didn't have camels, because Dr. John Sorenson said he did not. "no animals are mentioned in Nephi's Old World record (it is purely speculation that they utilized camels or any other animals in their trek from Jerusalem to Bountiful)" - When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?, John L. Sorenson Yes, one can learn a lot of strange things which contradict themselves and the scriptures, when studying a Mesoamerica Theory for the Book of Mormon. Edited July 4, 2015 by PeterPear
The Nehor Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Yes, one can learn a lot of strange things which contradict themselves and the scriptures, when studying a Mesoamerica Theory for the Book of Mormon. I have found that all the various geography theories of the Book of Mormon attract bad reasoning. Not sure why this one piece has you convinced this one theory is bad. 3
canard78 Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) Suggesting John Sorenson is a poor scriptorian makes me assume that you've not actually bothered reading his books. If you had you'd know this insinuation is nonsense. If you carry on with this tone I give you a week at most. Edited July 4, 2015 by canard78 1
Recommended Posts