Narrow neck of land

[_LCD2YOU]

LCD2YOU, thank you for demonstrating what oftens happens iwth critics. They don't read carefully, and then make unwarranted assumptions.

Ah, you can read and note errors and assumptions.

See I was worried and I left it in. I actually caught myself making that assumption but I left it in.

Why? To see if you could be critical.

This is the passage from Alma that you are thinking of. Please note bolded section.

Alma 22: 32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

"Journey" says nothing about the method of travel. It certainly does not limit the method to walking.

Ok. Now I want to see you be critical of that section. You speak of "unwarrented assumptions".

The whole thing you posted to is full of them.

So if they "use a boat", that's great when travelling downstream. But what about upstream? Also, what about water for drinking? Please don't tell me they used horses. Horses died out in the Americas 15,000 years ago and were re-introduced by the Spanish in 1492. The "unwarrented assumption" you make here is that it was a simple trip because an apologist says so and you want to believe them.

Another thing, you make a big assumption here:

John L. Sorenson has documented examples of native Mexican runners traveling distances of up to 100 miles in a day.

That is from here:

1. See John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 1992, 393-94.

Where did he get this? One of the first thing apologists do is find other sources that agree with them and quote from there. This is nothing more than a third hand account at best.

There are many things you should be critical about in that sentence.

1: Where do these Mexican runners run? I doubt if it is anywhere in the jungle. What I think Sorenson has done is confuse the issue here. See this link:

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/tarahum4.htm

Those are the Mexicans who ran 100miles a day. Please note they are from Northern Mexico, and in the desert where the trails are good for running.

2: Why did the author quote from a source that would be completely biased?

So, you are complaining that critics make unwarrented assumptions. Isn't it not the same error that you hae made from that very same line? You assumed that Sorenson was refering to Mexicans from the jungles. You then assumed that it nobody would check up on it. You assumed that the authors were actually interested in presenting relevant facts.

Seems as if you've made a whole slew of unwarrented assumptions.

Would you like me to point out even more places in that link you posted that are spurious at best?

One other question, do you know what the avearge speed is for a human, even a fit and trained human with little gear, to go through jungle terrain?

[_charity]

So many ad hominems, so little discussion.

Charity,

Why is it an ad hom for me to point out you often don't read carefully, but it's not for you to make that generalization about critics?

There is not one comment I made on that thread that was not tied to the OP or a specific poster's material. Ad hominems are shots out of the blue only about the person. If I point out a misreading of a text, and say the person didn't read it correclty, that is not ad hominem.

[_beastie]

There is not one comment I made on that thread that was not tied to the OP or a specific poster's material. Ad hominems are shots out of the blue only about the person. If I point out a misreading of a text, and say the person didn't read it correclty, that is not ad hominem.

charity,

I've made it abundantly clear what constitutes the ad hom:

Why is it an ad hom for me to point out you often don't read carefully, but it's not for you to make that generalization about critics?

Your ad hom bolded:

LCD2YOU, thank you for demonstrating what oftens happens iwth critics. They don't read carefully, and then make unwarranted assumptions.

There is a difference between pointing out that LCD misread the text and asserting that this "often" happens with "critics".

And, in fact, you once again misread my post by acting as if I said that pointing out a misreading constitutes an ad hom.

[_charity]

LCD2YOU, thank you for demonstrating what oftens happens iwth critics. They don't read carefully, and then make unwarranted assumptions.

Ah, you can read and note errors and assumptions.

See I was worried and I left it in. I actually caught myself making that assumption but I left it in. Why? To see if you could be critical.

Critical as in seeing that you made mistakes? Or critical as in calling you on it?

Ok. Now I want to see you be critical of that section. You speak of "unwarrented assumptions".

The whole thing you posted to is full of them.

So if they "use a boat", that's great when travelling downstream. But what about upstream? Also, what about water for drinking? Please don't tell me they used horses. Horses died out in the Americas 15,000 years ago and were re-introduced by the Spanish in 1492. The "unwarrented assumption" you make here is that it was a simple trip because an apologist says so and you want to believe them.

I made no assumptions about boats. I posted a link to an aritcle which suggested some ideas to speculate on about what the text doesn't say. I didn't say if I agreed or didn't. You assumed I did. Naughty boy. Or girl.

Another thing, you make a big assumption here:

John L. Sorenson has documented examples of native Mexican runners traveling distances of up to 100 miles in a day.

That is from here:

1. See John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 1992, 393-94.

Where did he get this? One of the first thing apologists do is find other sources that agree with them and quote from there. This is nothing more than a third hand account at best. There are many things you should be critical about in that sentence.

1: Where do these Mexican runners run? I doubt if it is anywhere in the jungle. What I think Sorenson has done is confuse the issue here. See this link:

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/tarahum4.htm

Those are the Mexicans who ran 100miles a day. Please note they are from Northern Mexico, and in the desert where the trails are good for running.

You assumed that Northern Mexico was all desert? You stepped in it with this one. The Indians in the link you provided live in the Copper Canyon area. Check this link for a picture of those flat, desert running trails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Canyon

2: Why did the author quote from a source that would be completely biased?

You mean that completely biased Stanford trained antrhopologist Ross Hassig? Non-LDS guy?

So far, you are burying yourself under a load of assumptions.

So, you are complaining that critics make unwarrented assumptions. Isn't it not the same error that you hae made from that very same line? You assumed that Sorenson was refering to Mexicans from the jungles. You then assumed that it nobody would check up on it. You assumed that the authors were actually interested in presenting relevant facts.

I checked them out. It appears you are the one who didn't check out his material.

Would you like me to point out even more places in that link you posted that are spurious at best?

One other question, do you know what the avearge speed is for a human, even a fit and trained human with little gear, to go through jungle terrain?

I would hope you would spend more time checking out your own material before you attack anyone else's posts.

And about your question: Trails or not trails? Support stations or not? Good shoes or sandals? Deal with your assumptons first, then post back.

[_LCD2YOU]

LCD2YOU, thank you for demonstrating what oftens happens iwth critics. They don't read carefully, and then make unwarranted assumptions.

Ah, you can read and note errors and assumptions.

See I was worried and I left it in. I actually caught myself making that assumption but I left it in. Why? To see if you could be critical.

Critical as in seeing that you made mistakes? Or critical as in calling you on it?

No. Seeing if you could be critical and catch any mistake.

I hope that you'll start applying your critical eye to something that has far more glaring errors than my error - namely the Book of Mormon and Mormon Apologetics.

Ok. Now I want to see you be critical of that section. You speak of "unwarrented assumptions".

The whole thing you posted to is full of them.

So if they "use a boat", that's great when travelling downstream. But what about upstream? Also, what about water for drinking? Please don't tell me they used horses. Horses died out in the Americas 15,000 years ago and were re-introduced by the Spanish in 1492. The "unwarrented assumption" you make here is that it was a simple trip because an apologist says so and you want to believe them.

I made no assumptions about boats. I posted a link to an aritcle which suggested some ideas to speculate on about what the text doesn't say. I didn't say if I agreed or didn't. You assumed I did. Naughty boy. Or girl.

So you don't believe it? Seems that the whole premise of your link to support the idea of being able to go 125 miles in jungle terrain.

Or are you backing off of that link and saying that they are wrong for using boats?

If you are going to post evidence that you don't believe is correct let us know before hand please.

Another thing, you make a big assumption here:

John L. Sorenson has documented examples of native Mexican runners traveling distances of up to 100 miles in a day.

That is from here:

1. See John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, 1992, 393-94.

Where did he get this? One of the first thing apologists do is find other sources that agree with them and quote from there. This is nothing more than a third hand account at best. There are many things you should be critical about in that sentence.

1: Where do these Mexican runners run? I doubt if it is anywhere in the jungle. What I think Sorenson has done is confuse the issue here. See this link:

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/tarahum4.htm

Those are the Mexicans who ran 100miles a day. Please note they are from Northern Mexico, and in the desert where the trails are good for running.

You assumed that Northern Mexico was all desert?

I never said that. I was pointing to the area that the Indians I linked to are in a desert areas of Nothern Mexico.

You stepped in it with this one.

If you mean "all over your arguement" you are correct.

The Indians in the link you provided live in the Copper Canyon area. Check this link for a picture of those flat, desert running trails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Canyon

Wow that is beautiful land. Isn't it? It is also a place where once you do find a good trail you can run. Unlike the jungle where it can take hours just going one mile.

As for "flat", I stand by what I said. Please note that they people I linked to can run "up to 100 miles a day". Maybe I should have pointed out Sorrenson's omission that was under optimal conditions". So if you have a problem with 100 miles a day, get with Sorrenson.

Why don't you go get some pictures of Jungles and note just how a person can run through that stuff.

2: Why did the author quote from a source that would be completely biased?

You mean that completely biased Stanford trained antrhopologist Ross Hassig? Non-LDS guy?

I'm reffering to the LDS sources that circle make on other LDS sources.

So far, you are burying yourself under a load of assumptions.

So, you are complaining that critics make unwarrented assumptions. Isn't it not the same error that you hae made from that very same line? You assumed that Sorenson was refering to Mexicans from the jungles. You then assumed that it nobody would check up on it. You assumed that the authors were actually interested in presenting relevant facts.

I checked them out. It appears you are the one who didn't check out his material.

Oh yes I did. Check the sources for your sources again.

Would you like me to point out even more places in that link you posted that are spurious at best?

One other question, do you know what the avearge speed is for a human, even a fit and trained human with little gear, to go through jungle terrain?

I would hope you would spend more time checking out your own material before you attack anyone else's posts.

So you don't? Excellent. It averages about 1 mile an hours.

And about your question: Trails or not trails? Support stations or not? Good shoes or sandals? Deal with your assumptons first, then post back.

Trails in real jungles really don't exist. Shoes? You mean Sandals right? Support stations? They slow people down but make it more comfortable. And where would those be?

Remeber you are making stuff up to have it make what you want it to be, not what it is.

[_charity]

You actually believe that anyone here is fooled that you deliberately posted a mistake to see if you could catch me accepting your mistake? You mistake the nature of these posters. They will see it for what it is--an attempt to wiggle out of a mistake.

Or are you backing off of that link and saying that they are wrong for using boats?

If you had read the link you would know this was just an idea thrown out there. Speculation. We don't know what their method of travel had to be because it is never stated in the Book of Mormon. Scholars can suggest possibilities. They don't have to believe that it was necessarily the situation.

If you are going to post evidence that you don't believe is correct let us know before hand please.

This is a discussion board, for Pete's sake! We discuss ideas.

The Indians in the link you provided live in the Copper Canyon area. Check this link for a picture of those flat, desert running trails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Canyon

Wow that is beautiful land. Isn't it? It is also a place where once you do find a good trail you can run. Unlike the jungle where it can take hours just going one mile.

You are assuming there are no trails through the jungle? You are assuming they are whacking their way through the brush with a machete? What assumptions! There was extensive travel and trade in MesoAmerica. You assume it was all done by whacking through the brush?

Would you like me to point out even more places in that link you posted that are spurious at best?

Sure. But be sure you read them first.

One other question, do you know what the avearge speed is for a human, even a fit and trained human with little gear, to go through jungle terrain?

I would hope you would spend more time checking out your own material before you attack anyone else's posts.[/quote]So you don't? Excellent. It averages about 1 mile an hours.

And about your question: Trails or not trails? Support stations or not? Good shoes or sandals? Deal with your assumptons first, then post back.

Trails in real jungles really don't exist. Shoes? You mean Sandals right? Support stations? They slow people down but make it more comfortable. And where would those be? [/quote]

So what is a "real" jungle? What kind of footwear did the Nephites have? Assumptions here? Support stations? A place to get new footwear, whatever it was, if needed. Water, food so they didn't have to carry anything with them? You tell me all the conditions. You see, I don't assume. And you, who keep talking about not making assumptions, keep doing it.

Remeber you are making stuff up to have it make what you want it to be, not what it is.

You are the one who looks at the picture of those wild up and down walls of Copper Canyon and talk about how easy it is to follow a trail and run a 100 miles in a day.

[_beastie]

I've never intensely studied the Narrow Neck issue in particular, because there are so many other - in my opinion - more significant problems for the placement of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. But I have picked up some information about it along the way. The Isthmus was used as a transportation route, mainly along the coast. Yes, it was dense jungle, but there were some ancient polities in the area that would have broken up the jungle. What Mesoamerica looks like today does not equate what it looked like anciently. The jungle has taken back over many areas that had been cleared anciently. So I'm not contesting that it could have been used as a transportation route by ancient people. Whether or not it could have been done in one and a half days, I seriously doubt. I don't remember ever reading anything about that in particular, but some of my books do discuss travel rates in ancient Mesoamerica, and I can probably locate some citations on that. These statements were not made about the Isthmus, but Mesoamerica in general, so we can safely assume that any travel rate for the Isthmus would have been slower.

One of the problems I see with the Isthmus as the narrow neck is that I doubt that a people who did not have aerial photography would have thought of it as a narrow neck. Book of Mormon apologists have tried to compensate for that by saying they really meant the "narrow pass" along the coast, which could be seen, on land, as narrow - but even that is embedded within the larger "narrow neck". So I think that is a significant problem. However, they may be assuming they called it a narrow neck because one could travel between coasts quickly, which, of course, links it back to the travel rates, so I will see what I can find on that. I'm on break right now and can find some time to do it.

[_LCD2YOU]

Beastie is correct. A "narrow" anything again depends on how far away one looks at it. A narrow neck of land from a ground based observation point would be one where you could see the water on either side. To see about 62.5 miles means you'd have to be pretty high up, about 2500-2600ft. Quite a feat in a tropical rainforest. The problem is that there are no high mountains inbetween and it is more rolling hills for about 20 miles in the middle. Those hills will block the line of sight from one direction or the other.

[_charity]

I appreciate your input here. I notice your caution in describing travel rates. Please remember, the description in the Book of Mormon about "a day and half" for a Nephite, does not imply anything like a trade caravan. The single descriptor would indicate that this could have been a courier type. If it were the usual, trade activity the designation would have been Nephites, plural.

One of the problems I see with the Isthmus as the narrow neck is that I doubt that a people who did not have aerial photography would have thought of it as a narrow neck. Book of Mormon apologists have tried to compensate for that by saying they really meant the "narrow pass" along the coast, which could be seen, on land, as narrow - but even that is embedded within the larger "narrow neck". So I think that is a significant problem. However, they may be assuming they called it a narrow neck because one could travel between coasts quickly, which, of course, links it back to the travel rates, so I will see what I can find on that. I'm on break right now and can find some time to do it.

You must assume that people in this time didn't have mapping. I don't know that this is a valid assumption. We certainly had maps that established the Isthmus of Darien as a "narrow neck" long before aerial photography was available. After all, the first attempt to build a canal there was in 1880 which pre-dates flight and photography by quite a few years.

[_beastie]

It was relatively easy for me to find the average rates of travel in ancient Mesoamerica since I remembered which book referenced it. It is “Maya Political Science” by Prudence Rice. She talks about the rate of travel because this is one way that anthropologists figure out the relationships between polities – how fast armies, or individuals, or groups, can travel between certain polities. Logically, the distances between related polities tends to be the distance one could travel in a day. Longer distances would present problems in terms of control and influence – it would just take too long to get there to intervene in some way. On page 35 of her text, she states that:

The distances between sites in the lowlands generally range from 20 to 32 kilometers, or 12 to 20 miles, roughly the distance that could be walked in a day.

She also references the aforementioned Ross Hassig.

Distances between sites would have been limited by the logistics of defending territory; thus sites should ideally be located some 120 kilometers apart, as 60 kilometers is an average “military marching distance” (Hassig 1992)

Note that this reference does not mean that the military marched 60 km in one day, but it is reasonable to assume that the military would move more quickly, and individual runners faster yet. But the problem is that even if we triple the rate that A Nephite (a runner) could travel in one day, we’re still left at about 36-60 miles. And, of course, the above citations are from the lowlands, which did not have the geographical challenges of the Isthmus of T.

Here’s a link to an interactive map which shows the Isthmus, along with the river that could be utilized. Note that the river quickly reaches the more mountainous terrain of the Isthmus. At this point, it would no longer be useful. So the Nephite in question would be forced to move on foot again – through more mountainous terrain.

http://encarta.msn.com/map_701520855/Coatzacoalcos.html