Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[Tarquin]

I do believe that Catholics ought to cut Mormons some slack regarding the archaeological evidence for BOM.

After all, "A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as “a fruitless pursuit” …

You seem to be arguing that if I am about to fall off a cliff, it would be wrong to tell anyone else they are about to fall off a cliff. You seem to be arguing, if we cannot prove what we believe, it would not be “fair” to insist someone else prove what they believe. It certainly *is *fair. If the testimony of a witness in court is found to be unreliable or even incorrect or incomplete, that in no way justifies ignoring the testimony of another witness!

“Every claim stands on its own merits, not the lack of merits of other claims.”

Whether Christians or Buddhists can defend their beliefs is not the issue here. The issue here is “archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon,” and that is not qualified by the presence or absence of evidence for something else.. It is therefore proper to question alleged evidence for the Book of Mormon independently of evidence for other things.

If someone feels “belittled” by having their beliefs questioned, that should be inspiration to become further grounded in those beliefs, to find flaws or weaknesses and correct or strengthen them, to learn how to respond to sincere criticisms, or to abandon those beliefs. They should also find a way to build a little self esteem, and learn how to accept criticism maturely without feeling “belittled” by it.

 

[Tarquin]

You ignored my point about the Book of Nephi’s geography mapping perfectly to Saudi Arabia, including the Oasis Bountiful. So your statement’s false as to “anywhere at all.”

I believe that Jerusalem is also where he said it is.

The Book of Nephi’s geography does not map “perfectly to Saudi Arabia,” if I understand your words correctly. If you believe it does, provide the geographical description(s) in Nephi, and the perfectly corresponding sites in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Sabacthani]

The Book of Nephi’s geography does not map “perfectly to Saudi Arabia,” if I understand your words correctly. If you believe it does, provide the geographical description(s) in Nephi, and the perfectly corresponding sites in Saudi Arabia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful_%28Book_of_Mormon%29

Upon their arrival at the coast, the Book of Mormon states that Lehi’s group named the sea Irreantum, which is said to mean “many waters” (1 Nephi 17:5).[1] Anciently, the Arabian Sea was referred to by the Latin name Mare Erythraeum. LDS researchers Lynn and Hope Hilton point out the similarity between the words Irreantum and Erythraeum (Hilton & Hilton 1996, p. 21)

A few LDS scholars believe that the location of Bountiful can be correlated with any of several locations on Oman’s southern Dhofar coast on the Arabian peninsula. Locations that have been evaluated are Wadi Hajr (Yemen), Wadi Masilah (Yemen), Dhalqut (Oman), Rakhyut (Oman), Salalah (Oman) and Wadi Sayq/Kohr Kharfot (Oman) (Aston & Aston 1994, pp. 37–43). In order to match the characteristics outlined in the Book of Mormon, Aston suggests that there are 12 different requirements that a viable candidate for Bountiful must meet (Aston & Aston 1994, pp. 28–9):

Potential Locations for Bountiful

The location must lie nearly eastward of Nahom (1 Nephi 17:1).[3]
The coast must be accessible from the interior desert.
Both the general area and the location when the Lehites camped must be fertile and capable of producing crops.
It must be a coastal location (1 Nephi 17:5).
It must be very fertile, with "much fruit and also wild honey" and small game (1 Nephi 17:5-6).
Timber must be available with which to build a ship (1 Nephi 17:8).
Freshwater must be available year-round.
A mountain must be located nearby to account for Nephi's reference to going to a mountain to "pray oft" (1 Nephi 18:3).
Cliffs overlooking the ocean must be present to account for Nephi's brother's attempt to throw him "into the depths of the sea" (1 Nephi 17:48).
Ore and flint must be available with which to make fire and fabricate tools to build a ship" (1 Nephi 17:9)
No resident population at the time of the Lehite's arrival.
Wind and ocean currents capable of carrying a ship out into the ocean (1 Nephi 18:8)

After visiting and evaluating every site on the southern Arabian coast that might qualify as Bountiful, Aston concluded that all sites were found to be incapable of meeting every one of these requirements with the exception of Wadi Sayq/Khor Kharfot (Aston & Aston 1994, p. 43). One small group of researchers however favor the location of Khor Rori 40 kilometers to the east of Salalah.[4]
Wadi Sayq/Khor Kharfot

Aston concluded that the Wadi Sayq/Khor Kharfot site meets all of the requirements to qualify as Nephi’s Bountiful (Reynolds 1997, p. 383). Most LDS researchers now believe that the Wadi Sayq (River Valley) and Khor Kharfot (Fort Inlet or Port) site is the most viable candidate, and discount other potential sites as they lack key aspects of the “Bountiful” described by Nephi (Chadwick 2005). Reynolds describes how only this location meets the requirements described by Aston (Reynolds 1997, pp. 384–7):

Khor Kharfot is situated less than one degree from due east of Nehem (Nahom).
The valley of Wadi Sayq leads to the ocean from the desert interior, and is the only wadi that flows from the high desert eastward toward the coast. The coast is accessible by traveling through the bottom of Wadi Sayq.
Khor Kharfot is the most fertile site on the southern Arabian coast. The region of fertility extends two miles into the Wadi Sayq.
There is evidence of inhabitation and use as a small seaport during the Islamic period. Water was available through freshwater springs and an ancient river.
A number of sizable trees exist in the area, with evidence of ancient forests. These trees could have provided sufficient lumber to build a ship (Reynolds 1997, p. 385).[5]
Khor Kharfot has the largest permanent flow of fresh water of any site on the coast.
A large mountain overlooks the west end of the beach.
Cliffs rise above the ocean in this area.
Iron in the form of specular hematite is available in the Marbat plain, within a few days' hike to the east of Khor Kharfot.
A form of flint is available on the surface in large quantities.
Ancient ruins show that Khor Kharfot was occupied intermittently, although it is currently uninhabited.
The coast is well suited to sailing, with seasonal winds in the fall blowing east.

 

[TexanKnight]

the problem with your site is that generally Mormons cannot agree on anything about where stuff is, and if they ever do, there is no non-LDS scientist, geologist, archaeologist, linguist, or Historian that will agree with them

I read a pretty decent book called “Voices from the Dust” that made a pretty compelling argument that everything happened in the middle part of South America. Read another book that argued for the United States. My mission president said Central America.

and on and on…

 

[PaulDupre1]

Upon their arrival at the coast, the Book of Mormon states that Lehi’s group named the sea Irreantum, which is said to mean “many waters” (1 Nephi 17:5).[1] Anciently, the Arabian Sea was referred to by the Latin name Mare Erythraeum. LDS researchers Lynn and Hope Hilton point out the similarity between the words Irreantum and Erythraeum (Hilton & Hilton 1996, p. 21)

The earliest Latin dates to Rome’s Early Republic period and the writings of Plautus and Terence in the 3rd century BC. So Lehi could not have named a place as a transliteration of a Latin name, since the Latin language did not exist in 598 BC.

But the Smiths or Sidney Rigdon could easily have encountered that name by reading any of the Roman histories popular in the early 1800s.

Sidney Rigdon was a well-educated and well-read preacher. So was Solomon Spalding.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Two years of High School Latin and two years of College Latin.

 

[Tarquin]

. . .

Sabacthani, you provided links to two Wikipedia articles, with excerpts. Ahem. I had already read those articles several times before your links. One discussed the problematic (and archaeologically indefensible) “Nahom”. The other provided differing theories on possible real-world locations for the fictional-world Bountiful. If you had skimmed through earlier posts on this thread, or done a “simple” search into this thread, you would have read some of the responses to both of those articles and Mormon claims relating to them.

What I had expected was an excerpt or two from the Book of Mormon itself, and something substantiating locations in those excerpts to some real-world place in Saudi Arabia. For a book to “map perfectly” to a real-world geographic region, specificity and uniqueness are required. I cannot say, “The Book of Mormon mentions cities and cities have been found” as proof of the Book of Mormon, because there is nothing uniquely identifiable in that statement. I could say – if it were true, which it is not – “The Book of Mormon says Lehi spent some time in a place called ‘Nahom’ where he buried Ishmael. Archaeologists have found monuments in Saudi Arabia on which are inscribed – in Hebrew, Egyptian, and Reformed Egyptian - the burial of a man named ‘Ishmael’ who was part of a group led by a visionary Israelite named ‘Lehi’ who claimed to be a prophet, who was leading his family and associates to some unidentified promised land.”

A sentence you included in one of your quotes shows how not “perfectly” Nephi’s geography “maps perfectly to Saudi Arabia, including the Oasis Bountiful.”
::** A few LDS scholars believe that the location of Bountiful can be correlated with any of several locations on Oman’s southern Dhofar coast on the Arabian peninsula. **::
“Correlated”, not “identified perfectly as”, not “mapped perfectly in Nephi and perfectly in Saudi Arabia,” in fact not mapped at all in Nephi.
By such weak means of “correlation,” is there any reason, Sabacthani, that we should not believe that the city of Angola in the Americas is the same as the city Angola in the Book of Mormon? Or that the land of “Lehigh” in New England is none other than the land of “Lehi” in the Book of Mormon? I mean, the names are the same! Even the vowels.