The Evidence Thread

[_Bret Ripley]

Then, there are ancient records inscribed on precious metal plates, deposited in stone.

As a bit of an aside: I stumbled across a paper published in 1983 titled "Ancient Burials of Metallic Foundation Documents in Stone Boxes." I thought you may enjoy it, hagoth7.

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/3826/gslisoccasionalpv00000i00157.pdf?sequence=1

[_The CCC]

Thanks, CCC. I hope you and yours had a great Christmas.

For me, this is the point where the argument starts to get a little sticky. Let's peek ahead for a second. If we give God the day off, can we reasonably conclude from your Bountiful evidence that the Book of Mormon is a bona fide historical record? In other words, to make the evidence relevant to option number 1, aren't we forced to assume the existence and actions of God? Can we avoid playing the Trump card?

It was great. My sister, and her friend, Kids, Grandkids, nieces, nephews, and more came. We had Peking Duck, roast pork, roasted beef, and more sides than I can count.

Bountiful is evidence. Because science can't posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. The LDS must present other evidences than what have been presented so far because of provenance issues. I remain optimistic that such will be found, but don't expect it any time soon. I believe it to be an ancient document because of my faith, not because of any/all evidences.

[_Themis]

We have to get very specific here exactly who in America of 1830 knew much of anything about Saudi Arabia. I find it unlikely that a untraveled young man living in semi-rural New York of the 1820's would know such. Not impossible, but unlikely.

The original proposition was that Joseph and others would think it was just a big sand pit. To establish this we would need to see evidence from history that everyone thought this. It's another to say people didn't know much about the area. If Joseph was just ignorant of the area why would Joseph assuming some fertile areas not be realistic? Being that this region is important to Christianity why would they not be many stories, myths and such?

There are no vowels in written ancient Hebrew.
http://www.historyinsidepictures.com/Pa ... owels.aspx

I am aware of this, but it is not relevant. Nahom is used as a place name. The inscription NHM is not. It is being used to identify the tribe of the person who donated the particular alter. It is not being used to say the place is called NHM. "Bi‘athtar, son of Sawad, son of Naw‘an, the Nihmite"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

[_The CCC]

We have to get very specific here exactly who in America of 1830 knew much of anything about Saudi Arabia. I find it unlikely that a untraveled young man living in semi-rural New York of the 1820's would know such. Not impossible, but unlikely.

The original proposition was that Joseph and others would think it was just a big sand pit. To establish this we would need to see evidence from history that everyone thought this. It's another to say people didn't know much about the area. If Joseph was just ignorant of the area why would Joseph assuming some fertile areas not be realistic? Being that this region is important to Christianity why would they not be many stories, myths and such?

There are no vowels in written ancient Hebrew.
http://www.historyinsidepictures.com/Pa ... owels.aspx

I am aware of this, but it is not relevant. Nahom is used as a place name. The inscription NHM is not. It is being used to identify the tribe of the person who donated the particular alter. It is not being used to say the place is called NHM. "Bi‘athtar, son of Sawad, son of Naw‘an, the Nihmite"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Here is what was thought in much of America in 1830 about Saudi Arabia.
https://books.google.com/books?id=m7mo6 ... 0.&f=false

I didn't say that no one knew. It is entirely possible that some did. I just find it unlikely that an untraveled young man from rural Upstate New York of the 1820's would know such.

Lower Saudi Arabia was of little importance to Christianity. There is no mention of it in the Old Testament or the New Testament. NHM is well outside the Fertile Crescent.

That NHM is a place name, in all likelihood unknown to Joseph Smith of the 1820's is evidence. Whatever weight you give to that evidence is up to you.

Anywho; Bountiful is much better evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient than MHM.
SEE Lehi in the Wilderness by Potter and Wellington and
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

[_Themis]

Here is what was thought in much of America in 1830 about Saudi Arabia.
https://books.google.com/books?id=m7mo6 ... 0.&f=false

Sorry but there is nothing there to back up what people thought. You are just referencing another apologist and his assertions. In order to understand what Joseph would have thought, the best is seeing if he says anything about it. Then look at those he knows around them and then at society as a whole. You have not shown anything to suggest people all thought it was just a big sand pit. The best you might be able to do is argue he had little to no knowledge of the areas climate. We know there were maps.

I didn't say that no one knew. It is entirely possible that some did. I just find it unlikely that an untraveled young man from rural Upstate New York of the 1820's would know such.

People learn an awful lot, correct or not, about other places they have never visited.

Lower Saudi Arabia was of little importance to Christianity. There is no mention of it in the Old Testament or the New Testament.

So the best you might be able to hope for is ignorance. I don't see why Joseph would conclude the whole area was just a sand pit. The Book of Mormon descriptions of bountiful are vague and left to a lot of interpretation of the story as well as the apologists who have only looked for sites that will fit their biased narrative. I have seen disagreement even within the apologetic community on bountiful. I don't think it reasonably rising to being good evidence.

That NHM is a place name, in all likelihood unknown to Joseph Smith of the 1820's is evidence. Whatever weight you give to that evidence is up to you.

No it is not. I have shown specific evidence here when I quoted the translation of the Alter. NHM is being used as part of identifying the person who provided the alter. If you have some evidence, provide it, but provide the specific evidence and not just links to books or articles. I gave you very specific reference and quoted the important part.

[Guest]

Here is what was thought in much of America in 1830 about Saudi Arabia.
https://books.google.com/books?id=m7mo6 ... 0.&f=false

Sorry but there is nothing there to back up what people thought. You are just referencing another apologist and his assertions. In order to understand what Joseph would have thought, the best is seeing if he says anything about it. Then look at those he knows around them and then at society as a whole. You have not shown anything to suggest people all thought it was just a big sand pit. The best you might be able to do is argue he had little to no knowledge of the areas climate. We know there were maps.

I didn't say that no one knew. It is entirely possible that some did. I just find it unlikely that an untraveled young man from rural Upstate New York of the 1820's would know such.

People learn an awful lot, correct or not, about other places they have never visited.

Lower Saudi Arabia was of little importance to Christianity. There is no mention of it in the Old Testament or the New Testament.

So the best you might be able to hope for is ignorance. I don't see why Joseph would conclude the whole area was just a sand pit. The Book of Mormon descriptions of bountiful are vague and left to a lot of interpretation of the story as well as the apologists who have only looked for sites that will fit their biased narrative. I have seen disagreement even within the apologetic community on bountiful. I don't think it reasonably rising to being good evidence.

That NHM is a place name, in all likelihood unknown to Joseph Smith of the 1820's is evidence. Whatever weight you give to that evidence is up to you.

No it is not. I have shown specific evidence here when I quoted the translation of the Alter. NHM is being used as part of identifying the person who provided the alter. If you have some evidence, provide it, but provide the specific evidence and not just links to books or articles. I gave you very specific reference and quoted the important part.

Here is a map of what was known of Saudi Arabia in 1820's America. Please point out NHM.
http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/timurid.jpeg

Again I didn't say that Joseph Smith couldn't have known. Just that it is unlikely he did. His own wife pointed out that he didn't know that Jerusalem was a walled city. So it is unlikely that he knew about NHM. by the way Pennsylvania is named after William Penn. Which would be highly unlikely for someone who died before Penn was born to have called that state Pennsylvania.

As far as ignorance goes. Prior to 1492 Indians and a few Vikings knew about Vineland. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but few knew about it.

[_MissTish]

. by the way Pennsylvania is named after William Penn. Which would be highly unlikely for someone who died before Penn was born to have called that state Pennsylvania.

This is tangential, but it was named for Admiral William Penn, not the son William Penn who founded it, as most Americans think.

Carry on

[_Themis]

Here is a map of what was known of Saudi Arabia in 1820's America. Please point out NHM.
http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/timurid.jpeg

Again I didn't say that Joseph Smith couldn't have known. Just that it is unlikely he didn't. His own wife pointed out that he didn't know that Jerusalem was a walled city. So it is unlikely that he knew about NHM. by the way Pennsylvania is named after William Penn. Which would be highly unlikely for someone who died before Penn was born to have called that state Pennsylvania.

As far as ignorance goes. Prior to 1492 Indians and a few Vikings knew about Vineland. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but few knew about it.

Huh? You are making no sense. I have established that the inscription NHM is not being used as a place name, so Joseph not knowing anything about it is not relevant to anything here. NHM can be used for a whole lot of different words. In this case it is the name of a tribe, not a location. The tribal name is only being used here to identify the person who donated the alter. It is highly unlikely it would translate into Nahom, but it would not matter since it is not used as a place name. The Book of Mormon could be true, and if so, this location could be Nahom and this inscription would still not be evidence for a real place in the Book of Mormon.

[_ludwigm]

NHM can be used for a whole lot of different words.

That omnipotent and omniscient - and caring - god should have taught his chosen nation to write...


True, proper medical treatment is more important:

4. Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
5. And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
6. As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:7. And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

13. And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest's, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy:
14. And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot

(not a word about washing hands of the doctor)

[_hagoth7]

Huh? You are making no sense. I have established that the inscription NHM is not being used as a place name, so Joseph not knowing anything about it is not relevant to anything here. NHM can be used for a whole lot of different words. In this case it is the name of a tribe, not a location....

Themis,
You didn't bring your A game this time. You're unfortunately the one that's not being sensible.

Saxons lived in...the region of Saxony.
Angles lived in....the region of Anglia.
Lombards lived in....the region of Lombardy.
Elves lived in....the region surrounding the Elbe.
Northumbrians lived in.....the region north of the Humber
Americans live in....America.
Canadians live in....Canada.
and so on, and so on...

So despite your assertion above, peoples/tribes have given their name to regions...and visa versa...for millennia.


(This message brought to you by the Eh Team.)