The Evidence Thread

[_Res Ipsa]

So, CCC, are you interested in continuing?

If so, upthread you posted a couple of maps as evidence of what was known (or more to the point, not known) about the Arabian peninsula using maps. Why did you choose those particular maps?

[_Zakuska]

The Book of Mormon, is the end product of ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL! Yes, the book eludes that different men wrote down various things; however, all that actually exists is what Joseph Smith edited himself. It would seem odd that portions of the Bible appear word for word as from a King James translation of what should have been a conglomeration of corrupt Egyptian and Hebrew incorporating perhaps even some native Indian terms. It would seem odd that God would use only one man to reestablish those books, in the book Mormon, when such is not the case for the books of the Bible. And it seems odd that with all the discoveries God has allowed to ratify the Bible, the very physical evidence that is said by Mr. Smith to have existed is removed according to Mr. Smith and not allowed to stand as a testimony.

Again, people have been saved by the hand of God prior to the "revealed" literature found in the Book of Mormon. One might simply ask, "Why the wait? What is the relevance to the Bible? What portion of the Bible was written down simply to be hidden. All revelations of God seem to have been presented immediately to anyone willing to study it from the beginning... The Book of Mormon was at best a candle hidden under a basket. And God through His Word reveals otherwise!

Not a single original manuscript of the Bible exists. The oldest manuscript we have is at least a second generation copy. So the Bible suffers from the same fault you claim the Book of Mormon has.

[_The CCC]

So, CCC, are you interested in continuing?

If so, upthread you posted a couple of maps as evidence of what was known (or more to the point, not known) about the Arabian peninsula using maps. Why did you choose those particular maps?

Sorry for the delay. Just my natural laxness I'm afraid.

Just the first one that came up in my very brief search. I'm sure there are others. But to the best of my knowledge none show any evidence for NHM let alone Bountiful on the Arabian Peninsula.

[_Res Ipsa]

So, CCC, are you interested in continuing?

If so, upthread you posted a couple of maps as evidence of what was known (or more to the point, not known) about the Arabian peninsula using maps. Why did you choose those particular maps?

Sorry for the delay. Just my natural laxness I'm afraid.

Just the first one that came up in my very brief search. I'm sure there are others. But to the best of my knowledge none show any evidence for NHM let alone Bountiful on the Arabian Peninsula.

No sweat on the speed of responses. I'm not in any sort of hurry and we've all got real lives to attend to.

So, let's look at some maps.

Here's one from Portugal created about 200 years before Smith produced (is that a neutral enough term?) the Book of Mormon:

https://www.wdl.org/en/item/16195/view/1/1/

Here's what I think is significant about this map. First, it does not depict the Arabian peninsula as anything like a "sandpit." In fact, it shows lots of cities on the western coast, where Lehi's group traveled. Second, all one would need to describe Lehi's journey is a map like this. If one looked at this map, one could see that traveling SSE along the populated coast and then turning "nearly east" would lead across a "wilderness" to any number of rivers shown on the map.

[_The CCC]

Nothing even remotely resembling NHM let alone Bountiful. Continuously flowing rivers in Saudi Arabia are rare.
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Saudi_Arabia

[_Themis]

Nothing even remotely resembling NHM let alone Bountiful. Continuously flowing rivers in Saudi Arabia are rare.

Not sure what you mean here. The Book of Mormon gives no descriptions of the place other then to say it's name is Nahom. I have seen names similar to this on old maps. NHM is not used as a place name, and there was more then one proposed location. The translation is "Bi‘athtar, son of Sawad, son of Naw‘an, the Nihmite". Where does it say Nihmite is the name of the location and not the name of the tribe of the person who donated the alter? Forgetting that it does not translate to Nahom.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/06/the-nahom-follies/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

How is this really evidence for Joseph's Nahom in the Book of Mormon?

If you read your own link you will see it is not just one big desert today. You may not be aware that it was more fertile in the past then it is today.

One question I don't recall you addressing is the one about how much coast line do we have to look at when looking for bountiful. This is Res Ipsa question you never answered "With reference to my last post, do you agree that, based solely on the text of the 1 Nephi and a modern map that Bountiful could be located anywhere along the coasts of modern Oman, Yemen, and the UAE?".

[_Res Ipsa]

Nothing even remotely resembling NHM let alone Bountiful. Continuously flowing rivers in Saudi Arabia are rare.
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Saudi_Arabia

True. But I'm not suggesting Smith copied from this map. I'm not suggesting the map accurately reflects what is known about the Arabian Peninsula today. (Note, we are talking about the entire peninsula, not just Saudi Arabia. The proposed locations for Bountiful are not in Saudi Arabia.) You offered a map in support of the notion that not much was known about the Arabian peninsula in Smith's day. I'm saying, let's look at some actual maps in the right period as some evidence of what was known about the Arabian peninsula in the early 1800s.

More specifically, I'm trying to take seriously the step that I think apologists don't take seriously: considering whether the correspondence between the text of the Book of Mormon and features in the real world is due to some combination of knowledge and chance. Upthread, you argued against this by saying something to the effect that in Smith's time the Arabian Peninsula was considered to be a giant sandpit. If the evidence really showed that, I think that would be a substantive argument against the knowledge/chance hypothesis. I'm taking a look at evidence to the contrary.

So, let's look at another map. This one is from 1794. Map

So, this one is much closer to Smith's time. Again, note that the vague text of the Book of Mormon would allow one to come out at any of a number of coastal rivers shown on the map. In particular, it shows a number of rivers on modern day Oman. This map also marks routes of some kind along the Red Sea where the early part of the journey was.

One additional feature shown by the map. The name "Nehem" shown in fairly large letters. The map doesn't explain what that is supposed to represent. It is clearly not a city. If it's supposed to be an area, we don't know how big it was supposed to be. But if we went nearly east from it, we would come out on the coast of Oman at what is marked on the map as the Prim River.

One interesting note. The coast nearly east of Nehem on the map is located in the region of the peninsula referred to as "Arabia Felix." The Greeks divided the peninsula up into three parts. Felix Arabia was by no means considered a sand pit. http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/19 ... .felix.htm

Keep in mind, I'm not claiming anything about how well the map corresponds to the actual geography. I'm looking at it to see what a person who looked at a map of the Arabian peninsula in the early 1800s would see and how that corresponds to the text of the Book of Mormon.

[_Themis]

True. But I'm not suggesting Smith copied from this map. I'm not suggesting the map accurately reflects what is known about the Arabian Peninsula today. (Note, we are talking about the entire peninsula, not just Saudi Arabia. The proposed locations for Bountiful are not in Saudi Arabia.) You offered a map in support of the notion that not much was known about the Arabian peninsula in Smith's day. I'm saying, let's look at some actual maps in the right period as some evidence of what was known about the Arabian peninsula in the early 1800s.

More specifically, I'm trying to take seriously the step that I think apologists don't take seriously: considering whether the correspondence between the text of the Book of Mormon and features in the real world is due to some combination of knowledge and chance. Upthread, you argued against this by saying something to the effect that in Smith's time the Arabian Peninsula was considered to be a giant sandpit. If the evidence really showed that, I think that would be a substantive argument against the knowledge/chance hypothesis. I'm taking a look at evidence to the contrary.

So, let's look at another map. This one is from 1794. Map

So, this one is much closer to Smith's time. Again, note that the vague text of the Book of Mormon would allow one to come out at any of a number of coastal rivers shown on the map. In particular, it shows a number of rivers on modern day Oman. This map also marks routes of some kind along the Red Sea where the early part of the journey was.

It appears CCC has lost interest in the subject of evidence, especially ones he believes support the Book of Mormon as historical. I don't blame him. It's hard to have to admit that they may not be as good as hoped. I know from personal experience of being a believer. I remember finding quite a few maps of the region like this one that have quite a bit of detail that show anything but just a sand pit. These maps existed in Joseph's time and place. We have no idea of who may have owned what, or who said what. One of the best ways information traveled was word of mouth. It's also one of the hardest to record. The Book of Mormon is not very detailed so there is little to go on. CCC never did answer your question about how large of an area do we have to look potential sites along a very long coastal areas in the southern section of the peninsula.

One interesting note. The coast nearly east of Nehem on the map is located in the region of the peninsula referred to as "Arabia Felix." The Greeks divided the peninsula up into three parts. Felix Arabia was by no means considered a sand pit.

I have seen maps with other variants of NHM as well. In fact we find quite a lot of different names on these maps and other areas of history of the area. If I made up a name how likely is it to find some variant of that name somewhere in this large area that apologists for Themis could say maybe this was the site? Same goes for bountiful, which has no name but very vague descriptions.

Keep in mind, I'm not claiming anything about how well the map corresponds to the actual geography. I'm looking at it to see what a person who looked at a map of the Arabian peninsula in the early 1800s would see and how that corresponds to the text of the Book of Mormon.

Most of the maps I have seen don't do a bad job of showing vague details of how the area was shaped. Compare your 1794 map to google maps and it's quite good. One important thing is it shows a number of rivers, so would the better assumption be that people who were looking at these maps believe there were some rivers? In the end it's not reasonable to argue Joseph could not have gained information, correct or not, about an area that held interest to the Christian world.

[_The CCC]

True. But I'm not suggesting Smith copied from this map. I'm not suggesting the map accurately reflects what is known about the Arabian Peninsula today. (Note, we are talking about the entire peninsula, not just Saudi Arabia. The proposed locations for Bountiful are not in Saudi Arabia.) You offered a map in support of the notion that not much was known about the Arabian peninsula in Smith's day. I'm saying, let's look at some actual maps in the right period as some evidence of what was known about the Arabian peninsula in the early 1800s.

More specifically, I'm trying to take seriously the step that I think apologists don't take seriously: considering whether the correspondence between the text of the Book of Mormon and features in the real world is due to some combination of knowledge and chance. Upthread, you argued against this by saying something to the effect that in Smith's time the Arabian Peninsula was considered to be a giant sandpit. If the evidence really showed that, I think that would be a substantive argument against the knowledge/chance hypothesis. I'm taking a look at evidence to the contrary.

So, let's look at another map. This one is from 1794. Map

So, this one is much closer to Smith's time. Again, note that the vague text of the Book of Mormon would allow one to come out at any of a number of coastal rivers shown on the map. In particular, it shows a number of rivers on modern day Oman. This map also marks routes of some kind along the Red Sea where the early part of the journey was.

It appears CCC has lost interest in the subject of evidence, especially ones he believes support the Book of Mormon as historical. I don't blame him. It's hard to have to admit that they may not be as good as hoped. I know from personal experience of being a believer. I remember finding quite a few maps of the region like this one that have quite a bit of detail that show anything but just a sand pit. These maps existed in Joseph's time and place. We have no idea of who may have owned what, or who said what. One of the best ways information traveled was word of mouth. It's also one of the hardest to record. The Book of Mormon is not very detailed so there is little to go on. CCC never did answer your question about how large of an area do we have to look potential sites along a very long coastal areas in the southern section of the peninsula.

One interesting note. The coast nearly east of Nehem on the map is located in the region of the peninsula referred to as "Arabia Felix." The Greeks divided the peninsula up into three parts. Felix Arabia was by no means considered a sand pit.

I have seen maps with other variants of NHM as well. In fact we find quite a lot of different names on these maps and other areas of history of the area. If I made up a name how likely is it to find some variant of that name somewhere in this large area that apologists for Themis could say maybe this was the site? Same goes for bountiful, which has no name but very vague descriptions.

Keep in mind, I'm not claiming anything about how well the map corresponds to the actual geography. I'm looking at it to see what a person who looked at a map of the Arabian peninsula in the early 1800s would see and how that corresponds to the text of the Book of Mormon.

Most of the maps I have seen don't do a bad job of showing vague details of how the area was shaped. Compare your 1794 map to google maps and it's quite good. One important thing is it shows a number of rivers, so would the better assumption be that people who were looking at these maps believe there were some rivers? In the end it's not reasonable to argue Joseph could not have gained information, correct or not, about an area that held interest to the Christian world.

Sorry for the delay. Again my natural laxness.

Saudi Arabia as a country didn't exist in 1830, that was 1932. For ease Saudi Arabia refers to the Saudi Peninsula which includes Yemen and Oman.

NHM and particularly Bountiful have no correlation to any map available to Joseph Smith.

The Christian World had little, to no interest, in the area's well south of the Fertile Crescent.

[_Dr Exiled]

Isn't NHM a long way away from Nahom? Couldn't it be Nihm? Nooham? Nyhum? Etc.? It seems like the NHM "evidence" is just wishful thinking on the part of apologists who must be tired of a total lack of anthropological, archeological or linguistic evidence in the americas to support the Book of Mormon historicity. Also, don't forget the kill shot in the form of DNA. The O.J. Simpson jury may have discounted it way back in its infancy but this evidence has big huge teeth that cannot be discounted or explained away as a disappearing act. Therefore, given this, NHM proving some connection with the Book of Mormon must be discounted as mere cognitive bias.