Author noted that the seashore used to be higher the time of the Book of Mormon. That article wanted the observation to show that the shore and the stream could have linked up which they do not now. If the shore water was higher they would link. It should be noted that if the shore was higher that shore road could not exist, the water would be frequently right against the rocks. The photos clearly show there is an erosion shelf, old shoreline, just above the road. Water line would have been high enough to block shore line travel it would appear.
There were rivers in Arabia during a wet epoch many thousands of years before Book of Mormon times. But that does nothing to help save the Book of Mormon from certain doom because geology itself destroys it. The apologists can talk about rumors of rivers with its ten thousand tongues till the cows jump over the moon, but there was no river in Arabia when and where Lehi was said to trod. Did Lehi say anything to the effect that they were approaching such and such river that had already been named by former inhabitants? No! He claims to enter the desert and chance come upon a river that he happen to name after his son as if it had just been discovered for the first time. But had a river like the one described in the text really existed in the wilderness along the coast it would have been inhabited and populated by people and tribes who had long since known of its existence. The trail of Lehi was in fact encroaching into the territory of other people where civilization had already been established. But the Book of Mormon treats the story as if they are on virgin ground where no man has trod before.
I think it’s safe to say that a daily journey consisted of no more than 10 or 15 miles is fair, otherwise, poor Sariah wouldn’t make it. Right?
Now, on to river Laman...
I’m afraid the apologists are not going to be able to push, pull, or carry poor mother Sariah along with Nephi’s sisters from Aqaba for 74 miles down into their proposed river Laman at Tayyib al-Ism in just 3 days! The apologetic standard of measurement is just too much to accept as normal behavior. It is an outright fantasy and silliness on the part of apologists.
How can they be so dumb?
I think, however, in all actuality, Smith envisioned his little make-believe family reaching the main boundaries of the Red Sea as shown on a simple globe or world map and figured that after traveling for a few (3) days they would chance come upon a river along the coast. It’s easy-peasy lemon squeezy. But I am reminded of the disproportionate size of the neck of Tehuantepec and envisioning Daniel C. Peterson and his cronies traversing it in a single a day (Helaman 4:7) as they guard against the approaching Lamanites.
Last edited by Shulem on Wed Oct 11, 2023 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Let’s be clear about one thing, a river in the desert is the most precious natural commodity that any tribe of people could hope to possess and inhabit -- even in 600 BC. Had there been a river a few days south of Aqaba, it would have been already staked out and inhabited by indigenous people who made claim to that territory prior to Lehi.
Think about it: If Lehi and his family had wandered down to the Red Sea and beyond some 400 years earlier, they might have run into the royal caravan of camels and met Queen Sheba and her entourage carrying spice, gold, and all manner of gifts for king Solomon. The queen left Arabia (Yemen) and traveled some 1,500 miles to pay personal respect to the famed wisdom of Solomon. Surely, any and all Oasis and streams were staked out and under control of the tribes who lived in Arabia during Lehi’s life.
I wonder if Joseph Smith thought about that while telling his story? I very much doubt it! The whole narrative reads as if Lehi never met a single soul and they accomplished everything on their own including ship building at a make believe place called “Bountiful,” if you can believe it.
Think about it: If Lehi and his family had wandered down to the Red Sea and beyond some 400 years earlier, they might have run into the royal caravan of camels and met Queen Sheba and her entourage carrying spice, gold, and all manner of gifts for king Solomon. The queen left Arabia (Yemen) and traveled some 1,500 miles to pay personal respect to the famed wisdom of Solomon.
The NHM letters the apologists discovered were at the Temple of Sheba.
above photo of reenactment. Perhaps southern Utah? They look awfully lush and well watered when compared to what Google maps showed me of the area in question in Saudi Arabia, Or the rest of that region.
Shulem, as you point out it is strange that the story does not include meeting with other people. It is sort of a theme, perhaps habit of imagination. I am finding the thought a bit dismal.
Think about it: If Lehi and his family had wandered down to the Red Sea and beyond some 400 years earlier, they might have run into the royal caravan of camels and met Queen Sheba and her entourage carrying spice, gold, and all manner of gifts for king Solomon. The queen left Arabia (Yemen) and traveled some 1,500 miles to pay personal respect to the famed wisdom of Solomon.
The NHM letters the apologists discovered were at the Temple of Sheba.
Think about what Lehi did NOT say in Smith’s tale of Arabia:
1. We passed by the temple of Queen Sheba.
2. We were greeted with honor and respect by the locals because we are descendants from Solomon’s kingdom.
3. The inhabitants of Nahom gave us gifts and loaded our bags with all manner of provisions.
4. The descendants of Sheba granted us the right of way to travel and pass through wherever the magic ball pointed.
5. The name (?) of the Egyptian king while Abraham sat on Pharaoh’s throne.
Contrary to what Daniel C. Peterson believes, I find very little in the Book of Mormon that sounds ancient to me other than it being the result of a 19th century plagiarized piece of work.
I bear my testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.
Shulem, as you point out it is strange that the story does not include meeting with other people.It is sort of a theme, perhaps habit of imagination. I am finding the thought a bit dismal.
Joseph Smith was clueless about Arabia -- its history, culture, and climate. He did not know how to intermingle the characters of his story with indigenous people of that region and so he elected to ignore that altogether and take Lehi to Bountiful without meeting a single soul. That is a very large hole in the script and a sure sign that Smith was making the whole thing up. He wanted to get them on a ship and sail to the southern tip of Delmarva as soon as possible. He was anxious to begin his Indian stories about how white people turned dark and loathsome due to having committed sin.
