Holy Place of Worship at Khor Kharfot Oman

[nosmelone]

So Meridian Magazine has been graciously providing articles on the recent digs and archaeological findings taking place in Oman at Khor Kharfot which is one of the prominent places thought to be Nephi's Bountiful.  In this research they have discovered what appears to be a Holy Place of Worship with interesting configurations in this structure when compared with what we know about the measurements of  Solomon's Temple.  This is a recent work in progress with hopefully much more to come out of the expedition and its findings.  I find this very interesting but admit that this hypothesis that an ancient synagogue that may somehow date back to the time of Lehi and Nephi can be verified (at least to the time period not necessarily that it belong to or was used by the family of Lehi) would this be viewed as a legitimate archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon?

 

http://ldsmag.com/day-2-was-there-a-holy-place-of-worship-at-nephis-bountiful/

[thesometimesaint]

We'll have to wait and see.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, nosmelone said:

...[if] this hypothesis that an ancient synagogue that may somehow date back to the time of Lehi and Nephi can be verified (at least to the time period not necessarily that it belong to or was used by the family of Lehi) would this be viewed as a legitimate archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon?

If it could somehow be verified that this is an Israelite sanctuary from the early sixth century BCE, then I think it might lend credence to the Book of Mormon (even though the Book of Mormon doesn't mention such a structure). But I think it will be difficult/impossible to date since all the rocks are lying on the surface. The article mentions that they're planning to "dig test pits on the floor of the sanctuary to learn something of its age" but I don't see how that will make any difference. The rocks that supposedly constituted the sanctuary's "walls" (that may have stood three feet or more in height!) are obviously above the floor. According to Figure 1 in the article, the area where the alleged temple is located contains "numerous platforms, check dams, hut foundations, rock walls, ... diverse rock shelters and middens," so it isn't the only structure around. Does it resemble a scaled-down version of Solomon's temple? Not really. Basically, there's a rock slab, two large boulders, and a bunch of other rocks scattered about.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Nevo

[nosmelone]

@Nevo  I agree that they have their work cut out for them trying to date this structure.  I am assuming that the pit testing they are doing may also be in an attempt find possibly some pottery shards of some sort or relic that would allow a carbon date to be pulled.  I have ordered the Lehi in Arabia DVD to see if it offers any other insights or clarification.  I find the measurement scale comparison to Solomon's temple interesting but I think I would need a little more than that to assume this was a religious structure of the time period.  Hopefully this does lead to more finds  but until then we will have to wait and see.

[Rajah Manchou]

@nosmelone There is significant evidence that Hebrews migrated east around 600 BC towards the East Indies and also south reaching the east coast of Africa. The genetic evidence in the Lemba tribes of Zimbabawe and the Antaimorona in the Comoros Islands and Madagascar is unmistakable. Scholars suppose that these migrations departed from Oman and nearby Yemen.

I think the odds of finding traces of Hebrew and Arab traders along the coast of Oman, and possibly Khor Kharfot, are very high.

We might also expect evidence dating back as far as Solomon and the trade ships of Ophir. Archaeologists in Malaysia (considered by many scholars to be the ancient Ophir) have discovered ships buried in a riverbed dating back to the very beginnings of the iron trade between the Middle East and the Far East. It would be interesting to see if these ships are related to the flow of Jewish traders and exiles coming out of Oman and Yemen in 600 BC.

"The shipwrecks "hide tales of merchants sailing into an industrial town here populated by a mysterious culture in search of the most vital commodity for war at the time: iron," Mokhtar said that uncovering the wreckage would tell archaeologists where they had come from, saying that the existence of several jetties on the ancient river indicated that there was international demand for iron smelters based in the town. Knowing where the ships were from will give us another lead on who ran this town." He said OSL readings of the ruins "show that this town is about 2,500 years old and it thrived for many centuries, even before Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam spread to this region." (source)

Book of Mormon scholars suspect that Lehi was in the smelting trade, so it would make good sense that he followed the iron trade routes east, leading to the Malay Peninsula where there was an explosion of iron smelting activity and a high demand for iron smelters at precisely the time Lehi would have left Oman.

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[canard78]

Wait... we can @ mention people? Cool!

[Calm]

@canard78

Indeed we can, cool.

[canard78]

@Calm it might make me become a bit lazy with quoting... It does however mean I can quote and tag two or three others if I think they might be interested. 

[nosmelone]

wait we must....but there is a bit of progress.  It looks like they have found a pottery shard and small man made bead.  I don't know if these things can be radio carbon dated or not but hopefully they have success in more findings.

 

[CA Steve]

22 hours ago, Nevo said:

If it could somehow be verified that this is an Israelite sanctuary from the early sixth century BCE, then I think it might lend credence to the Book of Mormon (even though the Book of Mormon doesn't mention such a structure). But I think it will be difficult/impossible to date since all the rocks are lying on the surface. The article mentions that they're planning to "dig test pits on the floor of the sanctuary to learn something of its age" but I don't see how that will make any difference. The rocks that supposedly constituted the sanctuary's "walls" (that may have stood three feet or more in height!) are obviously above the floor. According to Figure 1 in the article, the area where the alleged temple is located contains "numerous platforms, check dams, hut foundations, rock walls, ... diverse rock shelters and middens," so it isn't the only structure around. Does it resemble a scaled-down version of Solomon's temple? Not really. Basically, there's a rock slab, two large boulders, and a bunch of other rocks scattered about.

I am far from an expert but I would expect the modern day floor level to be higher than it was in 600 BC if the area where the floor itself wasn't exposed to erosion. So the reason for the pit is to see if there is anything in the layers of dirt (floors) between where it is now and where it potentially was 600 years ago.

[mapman]

I don't know a lot about this stuff, but isn't it possible that the Arabians built temples similar to the Hebrew ones since they were both semetic peoples, and thus had related religious traditions?

It would be really interesting if this turns out to be an Israelite structure, though I'm not sure what it would mean since the Book of Mormon doesn't mention any buildings or other Israelites at Bountiful.

[CA Steve]

If we are going to accept Israelite evidence found at this location as supporting the Book of Mormon story, then don't we also have to accept the lack of it in the New World as evidence against?

[mfbukowski]

On 3/2/2016 at 8:40 AM, nosmelone said:

So Meridian Magazine has been graciously providing articles on the recent digs and archaeological findings taking place in Oman at Khor Kharfot which is one of the prominent places thought to be Nephi's Bountiful.  In this research they have discovered what appears to be a Holy Place of Worship with interesting configurations in this structure when compared with what we know about the measurements of  Solomon's Temple.  This is a recent work in progress with hopefully much more to come out of the expedition and its findings.  I find this very interesting but admit that this hypothesis that an ancient synagogue that may somehow date back to the time of Lehi and Nephi can be verified (at least to the time period not necessarily that it belong to or was used by the family of Lehi) would this be viewed as a legitimate archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon?

 

http://ldsmag.com/day-2-was-there-a-holy-place-of-worship-at-nephis-bountiful/

There are always a ton of interpretations for everything.  Every human has his own interpretation.  Even with eyewitnesses "what really happened" is open to conjecture.  That is why we have criminal trials- the alleged "evidence" of anything is always open to interpretation.

I personally have to be consistent and skeptical.  If I do not believe history proves the bible to be "true", I will also always believe it is not possible to prove the BOM "true" by historical evidence.

Just as because the known place Jerusalem exists, the events of the bible are not proven, the existence of Bountiful, even if proven beyond doubt (impossible) will not prove the BOM.  

This attitude has given us a good explanation for how we can believe the BOM to be "true" without evidence, and now we cannot reverse ourselves on the logic as more evidence appears.

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If we are going to accept Israelite evidence found at this location as supporting the Book of Mormon story, then don't we also have to accept the lack of it in the New World as evidence against?

Yep- it is definitely a two edged sword.

[volgadon]

50 minutes ago, mapman said:

I don't know a lot about this stuff, but isn't it possible that the Arabians built temples similar to the Hebrew ones since they were both semetic peoples, and thus had related religious traditions?

It would be really interesting if this turns out to be an Israelite structure, though I'm not sure what it would mean since the Book of Mormon doesn't mention any buildings or other Israelites at Bountiful.

The broadroom temple layout (of which Solomon's is an example) originated in the Black Sea steppes, was introduced into Syria-Phoenecia and from there to Israel.

[volgadon]

41 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If we are going to accept Israelite evidence found at this location as supporting the Book of Mormon story, then don't we also have to accept the lack of it in the New World as evidence against?

Why?

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited March 3, 2016 by mfbukowski

[nosmelone]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep- it is definitely a two edged sword.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

If we are going to accept Israelite evidence found at this location as supporting the Book of Mormon story, then don't we also have to accept the lack of it in the New World as evidence against?

Yes it can mean a lack of evidence as mfbukowski has stated, but he also stated that it is open to conjecture which is important considering the length that archaeology has been taking place in the middle east compared to the new world (specifically Mesoamerica).  Also take into consideration the way that the civilizations handled their predecessors.  I say that because in Mesoamerica the conquering civilization usually either destroyed or built upon the previous civilizations important places.  These two issues alone cause major concern for the new world archaeological situation......but with that said yes open to conjecture.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, nosmelone said:

Yes it can mean a lack of evidence as mfbukowski has stated, but he also stated that it is open to conjecture which is important considering the length that archaeology has been taking place in the middle east compared to the new world (specifically Mesoamerica).  Also take into consideration the way that the civilizations handled their predecessors.  I say that because in Mesoamerica the conquering civilization usually either destroyed or built upon the previous civilizations important places.  These two issues alone cause major concern for the new world archaeological situation......but with that said yes open to conjecture.

Yep, "open to conjecture" to me means that no conclusion is possible, which is just a big zero to me logically.  It could be this, it could be that, or nothing at all.  So it is almost worthless to even say it.  "Open to conjecture" to me essentially means "your guess is as good as mine" which doesn't even move the discussion forward.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, volgadon said:

Why?

An excellent question, and a perfectly valid way of seeing it.  We could accept this as evidence and yet simply believe that other evidence is yet to be discovered.

That is kind of the problem though as I see it.  It's all so inconclusive with so many interpretations possible that at least the way my skeptical mind works, it still ads up to being highly questionable either way.

That is quite honestly why I lean toward fideism-  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/ for those like me with a highly skeptical mind, since nothing can be "proven" it is all up in the air anyway so why not just face the facts that reason has nothing to do with spirituality, and forget about even worrying about "evidence".   To me, it is pointless.  If it is not as certain as the sun rising tomorrow, fergitaboutit. That's why scriptures define "faith" as "hope for things unseen"

Think about that- hope- wishes, for things UNSEEN.  In other words, no evidence.  You are wishing for something you have not seen.  So for me, "faith" is antithetical to "evidence".  Evidence is things which ARE seen!

[nosmelone]

I admit I do not have a highly skeptical mind and maybe that's a blessing.   I see scenarios like these as possibilities that make a breeding ground for faith as something more plausible.  But with that said I understand that there are those who see it exactly opposite of me.