Jump to content

Jaredites and their animal cargo, elephants, etc?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Theories placing the BOM events anywhere other than Asia are also impossible to reconcile with the fact that open ocean voyages in vessels large enough to carry groups as large as the Jaredites, Mulekites and Lehites from the Middle East to the Americas weren't possible until 1492.

How large were each of these groups?  The Lehites were two families.  Large by today's standards, but still only two. 

 

There is no mention in the Book of Mormon of how large the Mulekite group was.

 

Ether 6:14-16 seems to be the best  indication of how large a group the Jaredites were, but it seems to be referring to them after reaching the promised land.  I'm not aware of a mention as to how many people were in the group before they left.

14And Jared had four asons; and they were called Jacom, and Gilgah, and Mahah, and Orihah.

15 And the brother of Jared also begat sons and daughters.

16 And the afriends of Jared and his brother were in number about twenty and two souls; and they also begat sons and daughters before they came to the promised land;

If they numbered around 100 (and I think this is an upward estimate) that would be 10-15 per barge.

 

I don't see any of the three groups being over 25 per boat.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Palestine is located in Asia. 

I don't think Rajah is referencing Palestine, though.

I dunno.  He has a weird theory (he himself having called it "absurd"), but I've expressed a willingness to listen.  It would be nice if he just laid it out, instead of behaving like Rod Meldrum and Jonathan Neville.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Also need to factor in divine help from God on  both the construction of the barges and providing a wind that pushed them to their destination.
Similar to the way Samson received help and strength to kill a thousand men by himself:

"And he found a new jawbone of an ***, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.
 And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ***, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an *** have I slain a thousand men." (Judges 15: 15-16)

Normally no one could do that without the help from God. 

1 Nephi 17:8

8 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt construct a ship, after the manner which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters.

1 Nephi 18: 1-2

1 And it came to pass that they did worship the Lord, and did go forth with me; and we did work timbers of curious workmanship. And the Lord did show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the ship.

2 Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.

 

Link to post
33 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

1 Nephi 17:8

8 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt construct a ship, after the manner which I shall show thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters.

1 Nephi 18: 1-2

1 And it came to pass that they did worship the Lord, and did go forth with me; and we did work timbers of curious workmanship. And the Lord did show me from time to time after what manner I should work the timbers of the ship.

2 Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.

 

Yes, I think we can assume God gave the Jaredites the same kind of help.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think Rajah is referencing Palestine, though.

I dunno.  He has a weird theory (he himself having called it "absurd"), but I've expressed a willingness to listen.  It would be nice if he just laid it out, instead of behaving like Rod Meldrum and Jonathan Neville.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're right, he's not, I just get kind of pedantic about geography at times.

Link to post
1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

You're right, he's not, I just get kind of pedantic about geography at times.

I guess his theory is that Lehi and Mulek left Jerusalem, sailed to and settled in Malaysia, such that all the events described in the Book of Mormon took place there rather than in the Americas.  Then Moroni somehow sailed from Malaysia to the Americas and wandered to New York State and buried the Plates there.

Well, okay.  This seems a bit hard to swallow (and follow), even for - particularly for - Latter-day Saints who are otherwise open to miraculous and amazing narratives about pre-Columbian migrations.

I don't know who "Rajah" is (IRL), but in 2013 Brandt Gardner assessed Ralph A. Olsen's The Malay Peninsula as the Setting for the Book of Mormon.  To his credit, Gardner evaluated this theory under the assumption "that it could be valid" and proceeds to utilize "various types of convergences to test its strength as a possible location for the Book of Mormon," including geospatial, cultural and other types of convergences. Gardner concluded that "{t}he result of a careful analysis of the Malay Hypothesis finds nothing more than general connections to the Book of Mormon texts, with significant counter-indications."

Having read this article, and given Rajah's behavior here, I have no particular interest in examining his Malaysia theory.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess his theory is that Lehi and Mulek left Jerusalem, sailed to and settled in Malaysia, such that all the events described in the Book of Mormon took place there rather than in the Americas.  Then Moroni somehow sailed from Malaysia to the Americas and wandered to New York State and buried the Plates there.

Yes, this is accurate. But its misleading to say Malaysia as the events recorded took place in what was then called Kamara, what is now known as Myanmar and Thailand. 

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  This seems a bit hard to swallow (and follow), even for - particularly for - Latter-day Saints who are otherwise open to miraculous and amazing narratives about pre-Columbian migrations.

Miraculous and amazing narratives are different than the evidence-based reasoning you have called for.

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know who "Rajah" is (IRL), but in 2013 Brandt Gardner assessed Ralph A. Olsen's The Malay Peninsula as the Setting for the Book of Mormon.  To his credit, Gardner evaluated this theory under the assumption "that it could be valid" and proceeds to utilize "various types of convergences to test its strength as a possible location for the Book of Mormon," including geospatial, cultural and other types of convergences. Gardner concluded that "{t}he result of a careful analysis of the Malay Hypothesis finds nothing more than general connections to the Book of Mormon texts, with significant counter-indications."

It's an entirely different model in an entirely different location. I've said this a few times, and Dr. Gardner has acknowledged it is a different model, but you continue to post this out. Its a lazy counter-argument.

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Having read this article, and given Rajah's behavior here, I have no particular interest in examining his Malaysia theory.

My behaviour here? Another lazy counter-argument. Why not address the evidence instead? 

There were migrations of Israelites into the Indian Ocean from 600 BC. I've provided evidence for this.

There's no evidence that any Middle Eastern vessels managed to pass the Malay Peninsula previous to 420 AD. The burden of evidence is on those that claim otherwise. That's you. Don't be lazy. Don't shift the topic.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

neither did I build the ship after the manner of men

In your opinion,rodheadlee, how far could a barge, no sails , be pushed by the wind ( talking Jaredites here ) over the course of nearly a year? Taking into account the fact that they were " driven back " by the seas and wind and may have had to stop to replenish  supplies occasionally ( although the record says nothing about that ) , what would be a reasonable range ??? 

Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

would be nice if he just laid it out, instead of behaving like Rod Meldrum and Jonathan Neville.

I am pretty sure he has at least once, possibly a couple of times. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 11/22/2020 at 3:09 PM, CV75 said:

image.png.e9bae340a2b3ca7fa8123dfa0c4f0846.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 11/23/2020 at 2:24 AM, rodheadlee said:

Somewhere back in the archives we did a calculation on the size of the barges and what they could carry. Perhaps somebody good at searching to find it.

mlRkq93.pngI couldn't find it in here, but iirc that conversation was sparked by Clark Goble's article on Times & Seasons. We miss you Clark. 

His opinion was that Jaredite barges could have had a relationship with early Polynesian/Austronesian boat forms. Austronesians, throughout the Book of Mormon time period, were the only people capable of crossing oceans. There's evidence of Austronesian influence from Mozambique to Madagascar to Oman to the Cook Islands deep into the Pacific Ocean. This year it was determined that Austronesians/Polynesians were in contact with Native Americans. 

At the same time the Jaredites were launching barges from the coast of China into the Pacific Ocean the Austronesians were doing the same, in the same place, heading in the same direction. There's also evidence that seafaring Austronesians were present in the Dhofar region while the Lehites built their ship.

In my opinion, the Austronesians (known anciently as the Kumr) were Jaredites. In fitting fashion, some of these Jaredites (Kumr) had settled in the Dhofar region of Oman. The Lehites, having heard their accounts of their Kingdom of Kamara, set sail on a boat modelled after their massive kolandia or djongs.

Its rather simple, the Lehites sailed to Kamara (the land of gold) in a massive junk.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Ha ha it looks like Bingo (Banana Splits, second from left) had a side job :)

image.png.df474b198d779038664afc06b0fce663.png

These are the evolutionary descendants of elephant, curelom and cumom inbreeding. Except for Bingo, a pure Sasquatchite.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

In your opinion,rodheadlee, how far could a barge, no sails , be pushed by the wind ( talking Jaredites here ) over the course of nearly a year? Taking into account the fact that they were " driven back " by the seas and wind and may have had to stop to replenish  supplies occasionally ( although the record says nothing about that ) , what would be a reasonable range ??? 

The current wound be the driving force. The range would be unlimited. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

ocean-systems-world.jpg

Dang.

All you have to do is get on the train at the right station ;)

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

ocean-systems-world.jpg

We have historical insight into the Jaredite voyage. If we accept that they departed Shandong area (as Nibley has suggested) then we can look to the voyages of the Austronesians as an example of what was possible.

At the same time Mohonri Moriancumr was launching his barges into the East China Sea, he would have likely encountered the Austronesians (known anciently as kumr) doing the same thing. 

Once the austronesians hit the Kirushio Current from the Yellow Sea or the East China Sea, they were looped down to the Pacific South Equatorial Current and looped back into Micronesia, the Phillippines and the Malay Archipelago. Is there any reason to suspect the Jaredites would not have gone the same direction?

What conditions would have been necessary for a Jaredite barge without rudder or sail to catch the North Pacific Current? Wouldn't they have to launch from Japan?

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We have historical insight into the Jaredite voyage. If we accept that they departed Shandong area (as Nibley has suggested) then we can look to the voyages of the Austronesians as an example of what was possible.

At the same time Mohonri Moriancumr was launching his barges into the East China Sea, he would have likely encountered the Austronesians (known anciently as kumr) doing the same thing. 

Once the austronesians hit the Kirushio Current from the Yellow Sea or the East China Sea, they were looped down to the Pacific South Equatorial Current and looped back into Micronesia, the Phillippines and the Malay Archipelago. Is there any reason to suspect the Jaredites would not have gone the same direction?

What conditions would have been necessary for a Jaredite barge without rudder or sail to catch the North Pacific Current? Wouldn't they have to launch from Japan?

This would be irrelevant according to the scriptures:

"And it came to pass that the Lord God caused that there should be a furious wind blow upon the face of the waters, towards the promised land;
and thus they were tossed upon the waves of the sea before the wind.
And it came to pass that the wind did never cease to blow towards the promised land while they were upon the waters; and thus they were driven forth before the wind." (Ether 6:5,  )

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We have historical insight into the Jaredite voyage. If we accept that they departed Shandong area (as Nibley has suggested) then we can look to the voyages of the Austronesians as an example of what was possible.

At the same time Mohonri Moriancumr was launching his barges into the East China Sea, he would have likely encountered the Austronesians (known anciently as kumr) doing the same thing. 

Once the austronesians hit the Kirushio Current from the Yellow Sea or the East China Sea, they were looped down to the Pacific South Equatorial Current and looped back into Micronesia, the Phillippines and the Malay Archipelago. Is there any reason to suspect the Jaredites would not have gone the same direction?

What conditions would have been necessary for a Jaredite barge without rudder or sail to catch the North Pacific Current? Wouldn't they have to launch from Japan?

That would depend on the current in that bay that we don't have a chart for for. The local Coastal currents are frequently different/opposing than the offshore currents. 

We had a guy in a sailboat Breakdown off Catalina Island and he wound up in Costa Rica before they found him. So it's quite possible to catch the Kuroshio current to the North Pacific current to the California current to Mexico. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 11/23/2020 at 5:23 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

mlRkq93.pngI couldn't find it in here, but iirc that conversation was sparked by Clark Goble's article on Times & Seasons. We miss you Clark. 

His opinion was that Jaredite barges could have had a relationship with early Polynesian/Austronesian boat forms. Austronesians, throughout the Book of Mormon time period, were the only people capable of crossing oceans. There's evidence of Austronesian influence from Mozambique to Madagascar to Oman to the Cook Islands deep into the Pacific Ocean. This year it was determined that Austronesians/Polynesians were in contact with Native Americans. 

At the same time the Jaredites were launching barges from the coast of China into the Pacific Ocean the Austronesians were doing the same, in the same place, heading in the same direction. There's also evidence that seafaring Austronesians were present in the Dhofar region while the Lehites built their ship.

In my opinion, the Austronesians (known anciently as the Kumr) were Jaredites. In fitting fashion, some of these Jaredites (Kumr) had settled in the Dhofar region of Oman. The Lehites, having heard their accounts of their Kingdom of Kamara, set sail on a boat modelled after their massive kolandia or djongs.

Its rather simple, the Lehites sailed to Kamara (the land of gold) in a massive junk.

Then all the references to the “Land of Promise” in the BoM and their interpretations over two centuries by the Church have been misapplied to the Americas?

Link to post
On 11/23/2020 at 3:46 PM, Rajah Manchou said:
Quote

I guess his theory is that Lehi and Mulek left Jerusalem, sailed to and settled in Malaysia, such that all the events described in the Book of Mormon took place there rather than in the Americas.  Then Moroni somehow sailed from Malaysia to the Americas and wandered to New York State and buried the Plates there.

Yes, this is accurate. But its misleading to say Malaysia as the events recorded took place in what was then called Kamara, what is now known as Myanmar and Thailand. 

I stand corrected (as to the particulars of your theory).  You have elsewhere characterized your theory as placing the BOM events on the "Malay peninsula."  I haven't been paying much attention to it.

Quote
Quote

Well, okay.  This seems a bit hard to swallow (and follow), even for - particularly for - Latter-day Saints who are otherwise open to miraculous and amazing narratives about pre-Columbian migrations.

Miraculous and amazing narratives are different than the evidence-based reasoning you have called for.

Well, no.

Quote
Quote

I don't know who "Rajah" is (IRL), but in 2013 Brandt Gardner assessed Ralph A. Olsen's The Malay Peninsula as the Setting for the Book of Mormon.  To his credit, Gardner evaluated this theory under the assumption "that it could be valid" and proceeds to utilize "various types of convergences to test its strength as a possible location for the Book of Mormon," including geospatial, cultural and other types of convergences. Gardner concluded that "{t}he result of a careful analysis of the Malay Hypothesis finds nothing more than general connections to the Book of Mormon texts, with significant counter-indications."

It's an entirely different model in an entirely different location. I've said this a few times, and Dr. Gardner has acknowledged it is a different model, but you continue to post this out. Its a lazy counter-argument.

I haven't paid much attention to your model.  I don't know if you have presented it in any systematized way.

Quote
Quote

Having read this article, and given Rajah's behavior here, I have no particular interest in examining his Malaysia theory.

My behaviour here? Another lazy counter-argument. Why not address the evidence instead? 

If you have laid out your theory somewhere, I'll give it a read.

If you have the truth, I certainly want to receive it.  But you don't seem to want to give it.  Instead, you're pugnacious.  You call your own theory "absurd," even "absurd and ridiculous ... {and} preposterous," but then seem to bristle when others agree with that assessment.  You seem to want to share your theories with others, but then you insult and denigrate those who express skepticism about it or otherwise critique it.  You have a my-way-or-the-highway attitude about your theory that just doesn't work well.  Your responses to the JS-H 1:34 and "New Jerusalem" issues came across as flippant and unserious.  And you apparently haven't presented your theory in any sort of systematized way, despite repeated requests.

Quote

There were migrations of Israelites into the Indian Ocean from 600 BC. I've provided evidence for this.

There's no evidence that any Middle Eastern vessels managed to pass the Malay Peninsula previous to 420 AD. The burden of evidence is on those that claim otherwise. That's you. Don't be lazy. Don't shift the topic.

I'd like to take your theory seriously, but you haven't presented it seriously, and you haven't behaved seriously.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 11/23/2020 at 4:45 PM, Calm said:

I am pretty sure he has at least once, possibly a couple of times. 

Could you point me to it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you point me to it?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, I remember a conversation I think with Robert Smith, but I don't know the key words or names he would have used for that to do a search.  I have read his descriptions, but have not memorized names. If he wants to give me a couple he would have used solely for a detailed explanation and not the partial references he does at times, I can search then.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

Could you point me to it?

No, I remember a conversation I think with Robert Smith, but I don't know the key words or names he would have used for that to do a search.  

"Malay Peninsula," perhaps?

In this discussion Robert indicated that Rajah hasn't published anything ("Seems to me that your work is now ready for prime time.  When are you going to present in public?"), but he (Robert) also references YouTube videos (these, perhaps?). 

In this post (now more than three years old), Rajah states that his model's purpose "is not to prove that the Book of Mormon took place anywhere in particular."  And yet by June 2019 he is proposing that "the Book of Mormon does begin to appear as a historical document of {the Malay Archipelago}," and as of November 2020 has moved into apparent certainty ("the events recorded {in The Book of Mormon} took place in what was then called Kamara, what is now known as Myanmar and Thailand").  Well, okay.  I'd like to see what Rajah has that supports such bold pronouncements.

 

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have read his descriptions, but have not memorized names. 

I suspect he hasn't put pen to paper.  I'm open to correction, though.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If he wants to give me a couple he would have used solely for a detailed explanation and not the partial references he does at times, I can search then.

Or he could just post a link.  

Rajah has said he has "identified hundreds of ... correspondences."  I would like to see them.

It seems that I may have misread Rajah.  I took his comments about his own theory ("absurd and ridiculous ... {and} preposterous") as, well, an admission.  That his theory is unserious.  That, in addition to other factors (his online handle, his braggadocio about his theory coupled with the near total lack of any actual explanation of it, his dismissiveness about substantive questions, etc.) has caused me to put his proposal in the "unserious" and/or "just trying to stir the pot" categories.

But if it's a serious proposal, with substantive and coherent and meaningful argument, reasoning, evidence, and so on to back it up, well, I'll read it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Then all the references to the “Land of Promise” in the BoM and their interpretations over two centuries by the Church have been misapplied to the Americas?

There are multiple lands of promise. Take for example those that endorse Mesoamerica as the Land of Promise, yet also New York as the Land of Promise. Or those that endorse all of the Americas as the Land of Promise. The Austronesian Kumr (Jaredites in the model I propose) were the among the first to settle in much of the New World. They departed from East Asia around 2500 BC and populated all the islands through the Pacific and were in contact with the Americas, also much of the uninhabited world as far west as Africa. They were the true New World explorers and colonzers. A quick glance to a map of the Austronesian world says it all.

2880px-Austronesia_with_hypothetical_greatest_expansion_extent_(Blench,_2009)_01.png

The Austronesian Kumr were the Jaredites and they populated all the New World and the islands of the sea, from Africa to Southeast Asia to the Americas. The Book of Mormon is their account. If you have any doubts, just look up all the quotes from apostles and prophets confirming that Polynesians are of Lehite blood. This is why the Lehites acknowledged their brothers scattered throughout the isles of the sea, in the 6th century BC. 

This model is simple. Its only decades of attachment to the Hemispheric, Mesoamerican and Heartland Models that makes it difficult to grasp.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
  • Like 1
Link to post

Now irrelevant- thanks for the explanation above

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Thanks 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...