Then it follows that Smith needed to know the geographical landform and the topography of Malay in which to base his stories. If he chose Malay to be the promised land then he would have consulted a map before proceeding. Seas, rivers, bodies of water, narrow neck, etc.
So, show me that map, please. Modern maps are irrelevant.
I’ve got pre-1830 maps too, but like I said above, we’ll get nowhere unless we agree on an internal map first. Otherwise I’ll show you a map that has a Sidon running the way I think it should run and you’ll disagree because you interpret the text differently. I start with Richard Clark’s internal map. Take a look at that and let me know if you agree with it.
To be honest, I’m really only into what Joseph Smith looked at. What others today look at or devise is irrelevant to me. I want to see the goods -- the real goods. Show me the map in which you think Smith utilized and let’s look at the river and examine the head and the mouth. Then we can compare that river to what the text actually says which is what I’ve been doing all along, as you know.
My ace card is how the ancient real world highways and mountain passes of the Malay Peninsula line up perfectly with the highways and mountain passes described in the Book of Mormon. There is a mountain pass between the west sea and Ammonihah, a mountain pass between Gideon and Gid as well as a mountain pass between Manti and Nephihah. The Line Bountiful is an ancient highway connecting the ancient port cities of Kra on the west sea and Chumphon on the east sea. Most importantly the Bandon River has its headwaters in the east in a narrow strip of wilderness and runs west until it curves north past the ancient capital city of Sra in the center of the peninsula.
You’re just as capable of providing a map in which Smith would have used to develop his story and utilize topography and features shown therein. A modern map is what the apologists depend on to defend a nonfiction narrative. We don’t have to do that because we know it’s all fiction. The modern map is completely irrelative to what Joseph Smith saw and utilized. I can’t stress that enough.
I’ve explained in my other threads how Smith fantasized some topography and melded it into his story based on the basic geography of Delmarva where he had never set foot. He had a certain degree of wiggle room (hills and mountains) to play with because the whole story was based on an anonymous location known ONLY to him. Speculation and discourse on that
geography whether from himself or others came after the fact.
I’ve got pre-1830 maps too, but like I said above, we’ll get nowhere unless we agree on an internal map first. Otherwise I’ll show you a map that has a Sidon running the way I think it should run and you’ll disagree because you interpret the text differently.
I’m interpreting the text exactly the way it reads and provide examples to support that interpretation. Apologists fail to interpret the text either subconsciously or consciously because they don’t want to LEARN that the Book of Mormon does not match a geography in which archeological evidence must exist in order to verify such claims. The story tells us that the river runs from east to west, period. It means the source or head waters originates in an eastern region and the mouth or exit of those waters is released into the western sea. Period. There are no ands, ifs, or buts about it.
Look, I’m looking at the big picture; it’s not a matter of imagining myself in a canoe and riding the whole way to figure it out. All I have to do is look at the same map in which Smith looked at and see the river for myself to identify what Smith was describing. I’ve done that! Nobody, absolutely nobody is going to be able to refute that! And in the words of Joseph Smith, I defy the whole world to try and refute me!
The text explicitly states that Zarahemla is *by* Sidon and is *west* of that river. Recall that the Lamanites crossed the river from east to west in their war against Alma. Whoever labeled your map placed Zarahemla on the east of the river!
Here's why I put Zarahemla on the east of the river. The modern city of Wiang Sra presently sits on the east side of the river, but archeological remains dating to the Book of Mormon time period sit on both sides of the river. Rivers tend to meander over the course of 2000 years. This is why I included all the tributaries, to give a better idea of the coarse a large river might cut through a plain over two millennia. You can zoom in at the area on Google Maps and see the dried out river beds as the single river cut different paths to the sea. I could move the pin over to the west side of the river, and it'd still be accurate representation of the location "Zarahemla". But I chose to keep it on the east side because that's where Google Maps has it. It's a difference of like 5 miles, so hardly a problem.
Zosimus,
I’m sorry to say that in my view you don’t have a leg to stand on and your approach is totally illogical. I don’t care (and neither should you) what the rivers were doing 2,000 years ago because Joseph Smith surely didn’t know and science in his day was limited in expressing those things on maps and atlases. All you should concern yourself with is the maps of his day that portray Malaysia -- that is all that matters! Maps of modern times meant absolutely nothing to Joseph Smith! You cannot bring Joseph Smith into the future but we can go back to the past and verify his work. Let me just say that your modern map and the various designations on it are totally useless and have no bearing whatsoever with how Smith interpreted maps available to him. I can assure you that Smith did not utilize Google Maps! So why should we “zoom in” to Google Maps in order to find things Smith never saw?
Now for the bad news. You have no river Sidon that matches the text such as the one in Delmarva. The rivers in Malaysia will not help you in proving your theory. Here is a map that may have very well been available to Joseph Smith in his time. I’m afraid river Sidon is nowhere to be found on the Malaysian peninsula and the text of the Book of Mormon does not match your geographical theory. It is DOA, period.
The problem with faith promoting apologists is they look through lenses in which they base the geography of the Book of Mormon as nonfiction. They automatically assume the Book of Mormon is God’s word that describes the geography in a place where it really happened. They speak in terms as if it’s real history and that the Book of Mormon is true! To this day those fools have not figured out that the narrow neck is only 1 day’s distance in width. To this day they have not realized that Sidon in the Book of Mormon flowed eastward into the west sea. They are dodos! They peddle poison and their followers drink it.
John E. Clark is just another blind apologist (dodo) leading the blind! I don’t need him and neither do you!
I'm not interested in what you critics have to say about apologists or what apologists have to say about critics. I've heard it all over and over again for well over 20 years now. Its tiresome and petty.
I'm not interested in what you critics have to say about apologists or what apologists have to say about critics. I've heard it all over and over again for well over 20 years now. Its tiresome and petty.
I’m confident you’ve learned some new things while having our little discussion. There was just no way we could carry on with you playing either side of the fence which is why I insisted you declare your faith in the matter. It’s not fair to leave the other person in the dark and expect them to maneuver about not knowing where you stand. Now I know where you stand and know exactly how to counter your arguments should the discussion continue.
Zosimus,I’m sorry to say that in my view you don’t have a leg to stand on and your approach is totally illogical.
The fact that a Google Maps satellite view of the Malay Peninsula fits the Book of Mormon geography better than Delmarva, Mesoamerica, or Heartland, says nothing about me, it means y'alls methodology is flawed. So prove to me that your method in this thread is valid by demonstrating that Google Maps in 2022 isn't a better template for Joseph's Zarahemla than a drawing of Delmarva in 1830.
I’m confident you’ve learned some new things while having our little discussion. There was just no way we could carry on with you playing either side of the fence which is why I insisted you declare your faith in the matter. It’s not fair to leave the other person in the dark and expect them to maneuver about not knowing where you stand. Now I know where you stand and know exactly how to counter your arguments should the discussion continue.
As I've said, you've set up a false dilemma and you're trying to force me into it. Let's keep this simple. Show me the graphic that you feel most closely represents the Book of Mormon geography. The Delmarva map you've been sharing doesn't cut it. For example, the rivers on that map don't flow the direction you are saying the Sidon flows. I still have no idea how you make the Sidon fit in Delmarva.
Shelve Delmarva and Malay for a moment. Once we have an internal map that we both agree on we can can start comparing pre-1830 maps that the author of the Book of Mormon could have used.
The fact that a Google Maps satellite view of the Malay Peninsula fits the Book of Mormon geography better than Delmarva, Mesoamerica, or Heartland, says nothing about me, it means y'alls methodology is flawed. So prove to me that your method in this thread is valid by demonstrating that Google Maps in 2022 isn't a better template for Joseph's Zarahemla than a drawing of Delmarva in 1830.
Google Maps is out of place and out of time. It has absolutely no place in a discussion between two persons who believe the Book of Mormon is fiction. It’s pointless for us to utilize Google Maps when we only need rely on the same information Joseph Smith would rely on. I won’t be taken down a modern rabbit hole on an exercise of futility. I’m sorry, but enough is enough and I won’t be strung along any further.
As I've said, you've set up a false dilemma and you're trying to force me into it. Let's keep this simple. Show me the graphic that you feel most closely represents the Book of Mormon geography. The Delmarva map you've been sharing doesn't cut it. For example, the rivers on that map don't flow the direction you are saying the Sidon flows. I still have no idea how you make the Sidon fit in Delmarva.
I’ve shown you all the graphics that I care to show. I’ve explained all that I care to explain to you and if you don’t get it at this point then you aren’t ever going to get it and I’m fine with that. I’m perfectly satisfied that I’ve demonstrated how the Pocomoke originates from eastern lands and terminates in the western sea which is a direct match to the river Smith described in the text. Thus it can be rightly said that this water flows from east to west. It’s easy to conceive how bones some thirty miles upstream would be carried directly to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay!
Shelve Delmarva and Malay for a moment. Once we have an internal map that we both agree on we can can start comparing pre-1830 maps that the author of the Book of Mormon could have used.
I’m sorry but I feel it’s pointless to continue a discussion with someone who refuses to accept the author’s description of a river that ends in a western sea where the bones of men are buried.
Once we have an internal map that we both agree on we can can start comparing pre-1830 maps that the author of the Book of Mormon could have used.
We know Smith had access to American maps. What was his access to Malaysian maps?
Thank you for making that point, Moksha. The only maps that matter in a discussion between persons who believe the Book of Mormon is fiction are those that may have been used by the one who wrote that fiction. I’m afraid Zosimus wants to put the cart ahead of the horse in an exercise of futility.
I rest my case.
PS. Would you believe that I have more cards up my sleeve.
