The Evidence Thread

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: The Evidence Thread

Post by _Res Ipsa »

The CCC wrote:
Sorry for the delay. Again my natural laxness.


Don't sweat the delay. Respond in your own time. Or don't. It's really not a big deal.

The CCC wrote: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.


I'm curious how you know which maps were "available" to Joseph Smith. The fact that Nehem appears on several maps in the relevant time period and that Smith referred to a "Nahom" that, given the vague account of Lehi's journey, could have been located near Nehem on the maps is just as much evidence that Smith in fact saw such a map as it is that Nephi is a real person who went to a place named NMH and called it "Nahom"

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


What is your evidence for this?
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: The Evidence Thread

Post by _Themis »

The CCC wrote:Sorry for the delay. Again my natural laxness.


Not a problem.

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.


As long as we all know what you mean by the term.

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


I think this is an area I don't really know what you are getting at. Bountiful is of course a name supposedly given by Lehi's group so would not correlate to any name on a map. We know from the text only a few details which include a coastal area. Res asked a good question about how much coast line can we look for sites that one might one to fit into some vague descriptions. How does the Book of Mormon give any specific information that can correlate to any known place? The Book of Mormon text gives no claims for a location so I don't see how this translates to good evidence. These maps show that people would not have thought of the coast as one big desert with no rivers.

I see that same problem for Nahom. I don't get what you are trying to claim by saying their is no correlation to any map available. The text gives no detail as to a location that doesn't include a very large area. No site has shown to be Nahom. NHM is not a location but a tribal name of the person not a place. The one map with Nehem was one of the first apologetic sites suggested as a possible location of Nahom. perhaps you could give more detail on what you mean.

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


I also wonder what you evidence for this is. Even if there is low interest religiously it doesn't mean there is not other interest that results in stories and claims being passed around.
42
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: The Evidence Thread

Post by _Themis »

Exiled wrote:Isn't NHM a long way away from Nahom? Couldn't it be Nihm? Nooham? Nyhum? Etc.?


Yup, and they don't translate the inscription as Nahom.

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.


It's jumping to very big assumptions based on almost nothing. Then when you look at the lack of evidence that should exist, including evidence against it's a safe conclusion the Book of Mormon is a fictional tale. Then there is that pesky Book of Abraham issue which rises to the level of the smoking gun.

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.


DNA is very damaging, and in my opinion is the biggest piece of evidence against the Book of Mormon being historical. Problem is that most don't understand enough of the subject to understand just how devastating it is.
42
Post Reply