Is the Internet Confounding the Revision of History

[_ludwigm]

- more than half the sites have been identified. Why can't they find those other 40%?
In fact, I am not a bible-defender. If more than 60% of the sites are at present not located - as You wrote it before -, or more than half the sites have been identified, is all the same for me. The essence is that many site, person and event was identified by extra-biblical source. This doesn't make the flood or the Noah-in-the-whale valid, but validates a lot of biblical story as historical. Civilisations, cultures don't exist in vacuum. They have partners, neighbours. If we read on a mesopotamian sherd about biblical kings of Israel, or in Egypt have ruled pharaohs mentioned in the Bible, then something became more clear.

And exactly where did the Children of Israel live in Egypt?

------ I don't care with Children of Israel in Egypt. I wrote above words as "a lot of story", "something" - not "everything". I am not interested in unidentified biblical persons and places at all. I were interested in identified Book of Mormon persons and places if there were any.

OK, hitherto the nephites wasn't found. Where are their neighbours?

I don't understand this question, unless you are meaning to say why don't we have Olmec or Mayan records that say, " and there was this bunch of funny people over there that called themselves Nephites."

------ Kings or other rulers handle their neighbours courteously, even in war or trade. I think of real type records, not jokes. As they exist in real history -and can be found by archeology - elsewhere in the real world.

- In the New World, we don't have a starting point. We don't know where they landed.
The starting point is the scripture. Read it. Call the HG. Ask the prophets & seers.
Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann had a scripture, the Ilias written by Homeros. He has found Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns.

Which is why when the scripture gives directions from a known starting place we can locate it. But the scripture says they landed in the New World somewhere. The Holy Ghost doesn't bother himself with ridiculous questions. The prophets and seers have other business to do than to provide longitude and lattitudes for the curious.

------ Is the Book of Mormon historicity a ridiculous question? Is it not important for the church? Isn't it the keystone? (Was the "other business" for example the counting of the earrings?) And please don't forget, it is not me who want to find the grab of two million warrior or Zarahemla.

- Now take Book of Mormon archeology. There are Old World sites which have been identified as Book of Mormon sites.
If I may use singular, please name one.

Nahom. Bountiful. That's two.

------ Where are they? In Mesoamerica? In one state of US? Madagascar? What are the towns or villages in the vicinity? If they can be found in any real map, weren't they the best starting place to seek the others?

[_charity]

------ I don't care with Children of Israel in Egypt. I wrote above words as "a lot of story", "something" - not "everything". I am not interested in unidentified biblical persons and places at all. I were interested in identified Book of Mormon persons and places if there were any.

You are implying that it should be easy to find traces of a civilization. There were over 2 million of the Children of Israel in Egypt, in a very good envirnoment for discovering ruins, etc. and in a limited general area. And yet we don't know where those 2 million lived for centuries. So why do you expect to find a similar civilization somewhere else? In a worse envirnoment and NOT knowing the general area? I am trying to understand you thought processes on this.

OK, hitherto the nephites wasn't found. Where are their neighbours?

I don't understand this question, unless you are meaning to say why don't we have Olmec or Mayan records that say, " and there was this bunch of funny people over there that called themselves Nephites."

------ Kings or other rulers handle their neighbours courteously, even in war or trade. I think of real type records, not jokes. As they exist in real history -and can be found by archeology - elsewhere in the real world. [/quote]

Although you don't want to talk about the Children of Israel, there are no contemporary records of them in Egyptian records, although they were a significant slave population. 2 million people is hard to overlook. You should find that instructive. Kings and rulers often think other people are so lowly as to be beneath mention.

- In the New World, we don't have a starting point. We don't know where they landed.
The starting point is the scripture. Read it. Call the HG. Ask the prophets & seers.
Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann had a scripture, the Ilias written by Homeros. He has found Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns.

Which is why when the scripture gives directions from a known starting place we can locate it. But the scripture says they landed in the New World somewhere. The Holy Ghost doesn't bother himself with ridiculous questions. The prophets and seers have other business to do than to provide longitude and lattitudes for the curious.

------ Is the Book of Mormon historicity a ridiculous question? Is it not important for the church? Isn't it the keystone? (Was the "other business" for example the counting of the earrings?) And please don't forget, it is not me who want to find the grab of two million warrior or Zarahemla. [/quote]

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not ridiculous. It is just unimportant. The message of the book is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter where it happened. If Zarahemla is found, there won't be a sudden rush of converts. The sites of many Bible events have been discovered. That does not mean that people are converted to the Gospel of Christ.

- Now take Book of Mormon archeology. There are Old World sites which have been identified as Book of Mormon sites.
If I may use singular, please name one.

Nahom. Bountiful. That's two.

------ Where are they? In Mesoamerica? In one state of US? Madagascar? What are the towns or villages in the vicinity? If they can be found in any real map, weren't they the best starting place to seek the others?

[/quote][/quote]

Nahom and Bountiful are both Old World Sites. In Yemen. That's because we had a starting place, Jerusalem. That is why it is so hard to locate New World sites. There is no starting place.

[_charity]

This became so confusing with quotes I am going to add color. I am responding in red.

------ I don't care with Children of Israel in Egypt. I wrote above words as "a lot of story", "something" - not "everything". I am not interested in unidentified biblical persons and places at all. I were interested in identified Book of Mormon persons and places if there were any.

You are implying that it should be easy to find traces of a civilization. There were over 2 million of the Children of Israel in Egypt, in a very good envirnoment for discovering ruins, etc. and in a limited general area. And yet we don't know where those 2 million lived for centuries. So why do you expect to find a similar civilization somewhere else? In a worse envirnoment and NOT knowing the general area? I am trying to understand you thought processes on this.

OK, hitherto the nephites wasn't found. Where are their neighbours?

I don't understand this question, unless you are meaning to say why don't we have Olmec or Mayan records that say, " and there was this bunch of funny people over there that called themselves Nephites."

------ Kings or other rulers handle their neighbours courteously, even in war or trade. I think of real type records, not jokes. As they exist in real history -and can be found by archeology - elsewhere in the real world.[/b]

Although you don't want to talk about the Children of Israel, there are no contemporary records of them in Egyptian records, although they were a significant slave population. 2 million people is hard to overlook. You should find that instructive. Kings and rulers often think other people are so lowly as to be beneath mention.

The starting point is the scripture. Read it. Call the HG. Ask the prophets & seers.
Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann had a scripture, the Ilias written by Homeros. He has found Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns.

Which is why when the scripture gives directions from a known starting place we can locate it. But the scripture says they landed in the New World somewhere. The Holy Ghost doesn't bother himself with ridiculous questions. The prophets and seers have other business to do than to provide longitude and lattitudes for the curious.

------ Is the Book of Mormon historicity a ridiculous question? Is it not important for the church? Isn't it the keystone? (Was the "other business" for example the counting of the earrings?) And please don't forget, it is not me who want to find the grab of two million warrior or Zarahemla. [/quote]

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not ridiculous. It is just unimportant. The message of the book is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter where it happened. If Zarahemla is found, there won't be a sudden rush of converts. The sites of many Bible events have been discovered. That does not mean that people are converted to the Gospel of Christ.

- Now take Book of Mormon archeology. There are Old World sites which have been identified as Book of Mormon sites.
If I may use singular, please name one.

Nahom. Bountiful. That's two.

------ Where are they? In Mesoamerica? In one state of US? Madagascar? What are the towns or villages in the vicinity? If they can be found in any real map, weren't they the best starting place to seek the others?
[/quote]

Nahom and Bountiful are both Old World Sites. In Yemen. That's because we had a starting place, Jerusalem. That is why it is so hard to locate New World sites. There is no starting place.

[_Brackite]

Hello all here,

Here is some interesting information about 'Nahom' that is mentioned in the Book of 1 Nephi, in the Book of Mormon, From Wikipedia:

Nahom is a place referenced in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 16:34) as one of the stops on the Old World segment of Lehi's journey. This location is referred to as the place where Ishmael is laid to rest. It was also at this location that the path of Lehi's journey changed from a southern to an eastern direction before continuing toward the coast and the land (1 Nephi 17:1) Bountiful. (See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.)

Some archaeologists believe that they have located the site of Nahom as a settlement and tribal area known anciently and still today as NHM. Critics doubt the link between Nahom and NHM, as well as having other criticisms.

...

In 1 Nephi 16, Lehi receives the Liahona and his group departs from the Valley of Lemuel. After traveling for four days in "nearly a south-southeast direction" they make camp in a place they name "Shazer." They continue to travel in the "same direction" for "many days" with the Liahona as a guide (1 Nephi 16). Verses 34 and 35 read:

And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.
And it came to pass that the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly, because of the loss of their father, and because of their afflictions in the wilderness; and they did murmur against my father, because he had brought them out of the land of Jerusalem, saying: Our father is dead; yea, and we have wandered much in the wilderness, and we have suffered much affliction, hunger, thirst, and fatigue; and after all these sufferings we must perish in the wilderness with hunger.

In the next four verses, the dissenters plot to kill Lehi and Nephi, but the threat is not carried out. The next verse reports that Lehi's group has resumed their journey and changed the direction of their travel "eastward" (1 Nephi 17:1).

LDS scholars have proposed locations for Nahom based on archaeological evidences. Others give reasons for which the proposed locations do not match the archaeological evidences and descriptions given in the Book of Mormon.

Some scholars believe that Lehi's group followed the ancient frankincense trails in the northern part of Yemen at times during the initial leg of their journey (Reynolds 1997).[1] The location of NHM is near the main junction of these ancient trails at a point where the trails veer to the east.[2] According to the Book of Mormon, prior to their arrival at Nahom, the travelers had been moving in a "south-southeast" direction (1 Nephi 16:13). It was at this location "Nahom" that the Book of Mormon states that the travelers made a significant change in direction "eastward" before continuing their journey toward the coast.[3] The location of NHM and the eastward change in direction have been used by LDS scholars to assist in determining a plausible location for the coastal location referred to by Nephi as Bountiful.

In 1976, it was originally speculated by Lynn Hilton that Nahom might correlate with the location of the village of Al Qunfudhah in Saudi Arabia (Hilton & Hilton 1976). In 1978 Ross T. Christensen noted the existence of a location in Yemen called "Nehhm" on an early map produced by Carsten Niebuhr as the result of a scientific expedition sent out by King Frederick V of Denmark (Christensen 1978, p. 73). After doing extensive research over several years at the site in Yemen, the location of Nahom was associated with the existing location and tribal name NHM (usually vocalised as NIHM or NEHEM or NAHM) by Warren and Michaela Aston in 1994 (Aston & Aston 1994). LDS scholars now consider the location and tribal area of NHM in the Jawf Valley in Yemen to be the only plausible location for the place referred to as Nahom in the Book of Mormon. This conclusion was significantly reinforced by the 1999 discovery of three inscribed altars bearing the name at this location.[4]

LDS Scholars consider NHM to be one of the locations in the Arabian peninsula that they believe confirms Book of Mormon historicity in the Old World (Givens 2002, pp. 120-21). Givens states that the discovery of the altars "may thus be said to constitute the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon."

...

The Bar'an temple in Marib (70 miles east of San'a in Yemen) was excavated by a German archaeological team led by Burkhard Vogt. Before excavation began, all that was visible at the Bar'an site were six columns projecting above the sand. The temple structure and many of the altars were found to be well preserved by the sand and desert climate (Aston 2001). One of the artifacts discovered at this location was an inscribed altar which has been dated to the seventh or sixth centuries BC. According to the inscription, the altar was donated to the temple by "Bi‘athtar, son of Sawad, son of Naw‘an, the Nihmite" (Brown 1999). The first altar discovered was removed from the Bar'an site and placed in a traveling exhibit which began touring Europe in October 1997. Since that time, two additional altars bearing the same inscription mentioning NHM have been identified at the same temple site (Aston 2001).

Each of the altars is constructed of solid limestone. All three contain a dedication inscription, which is carved around all four sides of the altars in the South Arabian script of that period, and each bears the name of their donor: Bi'athar (Aston 2001). The first altar was dated to between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C by French researcher Christian Robin (Robin 1997, p. 144). Since Naw'um of the tribe of Nihm was the grandfather of Bi'athar, it is estimated that the Nihm tribal name must be at least two generations older than the altars themselves (Aston 2001).

Vowels in Hebrew are spoken but not written.[5] Therefore, roots in Semitic languages such as Hebrew or Arabic utilize only the consonants and not the vowels (Roper 1997, pp. 87-145).[6] Some of the variant names based upon the Semitic root NHM found in both Arabic and Hebrew texts are Nahum, Naham, Nihm, Nehem and Nahm (Reynolds 1997, p. 380). The root NHM has different meanings. The South Arabian root NHM is related to stone cutting. The Hebrew root NHM is found repeatedly in the Bible and relates to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning (Damrosch 1987, pp. 128-29).[7] Scholars consider this root appropriate when used to refer to a place of burial and the expression of mourning (Goff, Sorenson & Thorne 1991, pp. 92-9). This theory is corroborated by a huge area of ancient burial tombs at 'Alam, Ruwayk, and Jidran about 25 miles north of Marib that were examined by a French team at approximately the same time that the Bar'an excavation was completed. This burial complex is the largest such burial area known anywhere in Arabia (Aston 2001).

The name NHM denotes both a tribal region and a location in the southern part of Arabia (Brown 2001). In 1763 a German surveyor and mapmaker named Carsten Niebuhr produced a map which contained the place name "Nehhm" at a location approximately twenty-five miles northeast of the Yemen capital Sana'a (Aston & Aston 1994, p. 5). In 1792 Robert Heron published a two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s first work titled Niebuhr’s Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East Brown 2001. There is no evidence, however, that Joseph Smith had access to these materials before the publication of the Book of Mormon (Roper 1997).[8]

Known criticisms include the following (Vogel 2004, p. 609):

The fact that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention contact with outsiders during Lehi's journey.
It is suggested that the pronunciation of NHM is unknown and may not relate to Nahom at all.
It has been suggested that Joseph Smith simply created the name Nahom as a variant of the Biblical names Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Ne. 7:7) and Nahum (Na. 1:1), although this fails to account for the plausible placement of the actual location of NHM relative to the description of Lehi's journey in the Book of Mormon narrative.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom )

[_harmony]

------ I don't care with Children of Israel in Egypt. I wrote above words as "a lot of story", "something" - not "everything". I am not interested in unidentified biblical persons and places at all. I were interested in identified Book of Mormon persons and places if there were any.

You are implying that it should be easy to find traces of a civilization. There were over 2 million of the Children of Israel in Egypt, in a very good envirnoment for discovering ruins, etc. and in a limited general area. And yet we don't know where those 2 million lived for centuries. So why do you expect to find a similar civilization somewhere else? In a worse envirnoment and NOT knowing the general area? I am trying to understand you thought processes on this.

How do you know any of this? What is your source?

[_ludwigm]

Although you don't want to talk about the Children of Israel

I don't, really.

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not ridiculous. It is just unimportant. The message of the book is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter where it happened

As I see, for many people it doesn't matter if it is happened at all.
The modern audience will not listen the message without material proof. The majority of them.
The minority? Yes, there are millions who accept it after six half-hour lesson. What do You think, why do 80% of them leave in the first year? No, they are not sinners, they are not offended. Simply they look behind the show-window and see those unimportant things.

Once again:

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not ridiculous. It is just unimportant.

Unimportant? ?? ???
I can't find the proper words to answer this. I must quote:

In a famous comment made in November 1841, the Prophet Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as "the keystone of our religion." A keystone, of course, is the center stone of an arch. If it is removed, the arch will collapse. If it is in place, and if the arch is properly built, the structure will stand even without cement or mortar.
In what sense is the Book of Mormon "the keystone of our religion"? In many senses, of course. But it should be obvious that, if the Book of Mormon were false, little or nothing that is distinctive to our faith would stand. Joseph Smith's prophetic mission and all of the other revelations that came through him would be called into question.

What does "false" mean in the case of a book, which is called a sacred record of peoples in ancient America?

What did a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air said to Joseph Smith?
- He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang

Do You call the historicity of such sacred record, the historicity of such account unimportant?

[_charity]

You are implying that it should be easy to find traces of a civilization. There were over 2 million of the Children of Israel in Egypt, in a very good envirnoment for discovering ruins, etc. and in a limited general area. And yet we don't know where those 2 million lived for centuries. So why do you expect to find a similar civilization somewhere else? In a worse envirnoment and NOT knowing the general area? I am trying to understand you thought processes on this.

How do you know any of this? What is your source?

The children of Israel lived in Egypt 400 years. (Bible)

Look as hard as you can, and you cannot find any legitimate source which identifies the land of Goshen. In addition, no archeologists can locate any trace of such a population in Sinai. The source for this is the absense of information. I know absense of evidence of not evidence of absense. My point exactly. I believe they existed, but there is not archeological confirmation of that belief.

The Bible in several places states that 600,000 adult males left Egypt in the exodus. Population experts then extrapolate that to mean with women and children about 2 million. (Mattis Kantor. "The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia" Jason Aronson Inc.. This is quoted in wiki.)

[_charity]

The modern audience will not listen the message without material proof. The majority of them.
The minority? Yes, there are millions who accept it after six half-hour lesson. What do You think, why do 80% of them leave in the first year? No, they are not sinners, they are not offended. Simply they look behind the show-window and see those unimportant things.

The Book of Mormon is about the message of the Gospel. It isn't a geography book. People should be joining the Church because the Holy Spirit testifies to them of the truth of the Gospel of Christ. Not for any other reason. If they have that witness and join why do they leave? Because some people join for the wrong reasons. Because it takes work and effort to maintain a a testimony, and some people lose theirs. Because some sin. Because some become offended. Because some can't leave the pride of the world. Lots of reasons. And none of them have anything to do with where a physical location of a Book of Mormon site is.

Once again:

The historicity of the Book of Mormon is not ridiculous. It is just unimportant.

Unimportant? ?? ???
I can't find the proper words to answer this. I must quote:

In a famous comment made in November 1841, the Prophet Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as "the keystone of our religion." A keystone, of course, is the center stone of an arch. If it is removed, the arch will collapse. If it is in place, and if the arch is properly built, the structure will stand even without cement or mortar.
In what sense is the Book of Mormon "the keystone of our religion"? In many senses, of course. But it should be obvious that, if the Book of Mormon were false, little or nothing that is distinctive to our faith would stand. Joseph Smith's prophetic mission and all of the other revelations that came through him would be called into question.

What you said is true. I have recently been reading an article which says there are only two choices. The Book of Mormon is either Historic or a Hoax. But the only way a person can know which is not by reading journals of archeology, but by the Spirit. When the person has a testimony that it is true, there is simply no reason to require scientific proof of it.

What does "false" mean in the case of a book, which is called a sacred record of peoples in ancient America?

False means it isn't historic.

What did a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air said to Joseph Smith?
- He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Do You call the historicity of such sacred record, the historicity of such account unimportant?

Not the historicity, but the means of determining what that history is. A person who has the Spirit testify to him/her that the Book of a sacred record tranlsated by the power of God reads the book and accepts the historicity. They don't need archeologists to prove it to them. The Spirit is the best proof there is.

[_harmony]

You are implying that it should be easy to find traces of a civilization. There were over 2 million of the Children of Israel in Egypt, in a very good envirnoment for discovering ruins, etc. and in a limited general area. And yet we don't know where those 2 million lived for centuries. So why do you expect to find a similar civilization somewhere else? In a worse envirnoment and NOT knowing the general area? I am trying to understand you thought processes on this.

How do you know any of this? What is your source?

The children of Israel lived in Egypt 400 years. (Bible)

Look as hard as you can, and you cannot find any legitimate source which identifies the land of Goshen. In addition, no archeologists can locate any trace of such a population in Sinai. The source for this is the absense of information. I know absense of evidence of not evidence of absense. My point exactly. I believe they existed, but there is not archeological confirmation of that belief.

The Bible in several places states that 600,000 adult males left Egypt in the exodus. Population experts then extrapolate that to mean with women and children about 2 million. (Mattis Kantor. "The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia" Jason Aronson Inc.. This is quoted in wiki.)

Your entire argument rests on the Old Testament? Perhaps the reason no archeologists have found any confirmation is that there was no confirmation to be found... it is a myth?

[_charity]

Your entire argument rests on the Old Testament? Perhaps the reason no archeologists have found any confirmation is that there was no confirmation to be found... it is a myth?

No. This particular part of the story is only found in the Bible. But the Exodus is confirmed in the Book of Moses. There may be mythic elements, but I believe the general story to be based in actual history.

If I wanted to disbelieve the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc. There is no basis for Christianity at all.