Ancient "non-utilitarian" metal bow found in Arabian Peninsula

[Nevo]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On Nahom, you may now have noticed the reply to RT by Kent Brown, “Nice Try, But No Cigar: A Response to Three Patheos Posts on Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34),” Interpreter, 19 (2016): 149-152, online at  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/nice-try-but-no-cigar-a-response-to-three-patheos-posts-on-nahom-1-nephi-1634/ .

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was initially pleased to see that Kent Brown had responded but soon found myself asking "where's the rest of it?" It was a disappointing performance to say the least. Hopefully the Interpreter will post further responses in the coming months. Because, as I said earlier, I find RT's cumulative case to be pretty devastating.

One of Brown's objections is that "no modern map of Arabia shows the belt of green vegetation in southern Oman that Nephi describes in his narrative as one possessing 'much fruit,' 'wild honey' and 'timbers' (1 Nephi 17:5; 18:1–2)"—the implication being that Joseph would have had no way to know about this. But, as Dan Vogel has pointed out, the 1801 edition of Jedediah Morse's American Universal Geography specifically states that "the southern part of Arabia, deservedly called the Happy, is blessed with an excellent soil, and, in general, is very fertile. There the cultivated lands, which are chiefly about the towns near the sea-coast, produce balm of Gilead, manna, myrrh, caffia, aloes, frankincense, spikenard, and other valuable gums; cinnamon, pepper, cardamum, oranges, lemons, pomegranates, figs, and other fruits; honey and wax in plenty, with a small quantity of corn and wine."

Morse_American Universal Geography (1801).pdf

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was initially pleased to see that Kent Brown had responded but soon found myself asking "where's the rest of it?" It was a disappointing performance to say the least. Hopefully the Interpreter will post further responses in the coming months. Because, as I said earlier, I find RT's cumulative case to be pretty devastating.

I don't know whether it is any particular publication's responsibility to reply to RT's book-length manuscript, and we should not expect instant responses to something which was years in preparation in any case.  This applies as well to the extensive work of Dan Vogel and others who theorize a modern environmental explanation for everything in the Book of Mormon.  Having spent a generation looking closely at the issue myself (beginning long before Vogel ever got around to it), I remain unconvinced that such facile explanation is in any way adequate.

One of Brown's objections is that "no modern map of Arabia shows the belt of green vegetation in southern Oman that Nephi describes in his narrative as one possessing 'much fruit,' 'wild honey' and 'timbers' (1 Nephi 17:5; 18:1–2)"—the implication being that Joseph would have had no way to know about this. But, as Dan Vogel has pointed out, the 1801 edition of Jedediah Morse's American Universal Geography specifically states that "the southern part of Arabia, deservedly called the Happy, is blessed with an excellent soil, and, in general, is very fertile. There the cultivated lands, which are chiefly about the towns near the sea-coast, produce balm of Gilead, manna, myrrh, caffia, aloes, frankincense, spikenard, and other valuable gums; cinnamon, pepper, cardamum, oranges, lemons, pomegranates, figs, and other fruits; honey and wax in plenty, with a small quantity of corn and wine."

Morse_American Universal Geography (1801).pdf 

Even though his point was that no early map showed a green belt along the coast, you should bring that citation and quote to Kent's attention in the Interpreter comment section.  I never hesitate to do so.  Scholarship is not a contest, but a communal effort.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Jeff Lindsay, “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Map: Part 1,” Interpreter, 19 (2016): 153-239, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dream-map-part-1-of-2/ ,

Abstract: The Arabian Peninsula has provided a significant body of evidence related to the plausibility of Nephi’s account of the ancient journey made by Lehi’s family across Arabia. Relatively few critics have seriously considered the evidence, generally nitpicking at details and insisting that the evidences are insignificant. Recently more meaningful responses have been offered by well educated writers showing familiarity with the Arabian evidences and the Book of Mormon. They argue that Nephi’s account is not historical and any apparent evidence in its favor can be attributed to weak LDS apologetics coupled with Joseph’s use of modern sources such as a detailed map of Arabia that could provide the name Nahom, for example. Further, the entire body of Arabian evidence for the Book of Mormon is said to be irrelevant because Nephi’s subtle and pervasive incorporation of Exodus themes in his account proves the Book of Mormon is fiction. On this point we are to trust modern Bible scholarship (“Higher Criticism”) which allegedly shows that the book of Exodus wasn’t written until long after Nephi’s day and, in fact, tells a story that is mere pious fiction, fabricated during or after the Exile.
 

[Okrahomer]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jeff Lindsay, “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Map: Part 1,” Interpreter, 19 (2016): 153-239, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dream-map-part-1-of-2/ ,

Abstract: The Arabian Peninsula has provided a significant body of evidence related to the plausibility of Nephi’s account of the ancient journey made by Lehi’s family across Arabia. Relatively few critics have seriously considered the evidence, generally nitpicking at details and insisting that the evidences are insignificant. Recently more meaningful responses have been offered by well educated writers showing familiarity with the Arabian evidences and the Book of Mormon. They argue that Nephi’s account is not historical and any apparent evidence in its favor can be attributed to weak LDS apologetics coupled with Joseph’s use of modern sources such as a detailed map of Arabia that could provide the name Nahom, for example. Further, the entire body of Arabian evidence for the Book of Mormon is said to be irrelevant because Nephi’s subtle and pervasive incorporation of Exodus themes in his account proves the Book of Mormon is fiction. On this point we are to trust modern Bible scholarship (“Higher Criticism”) which allegedly shows that the book of Exodus wasn’t written until long after Nephi’s day and, in fact, tells a story that is mere pious fiction, fabricated during or after the Exile.
 

Thank you for the link!  I went through the article last night.  It is very informative.  Jeff Lindsay's summary approach to the numerous criticisms was especially helpful and appreciated.  It will be interesting to see the reaponse(s).