More Kinds Of Proof Of The Book Of Mormon

[Traveler]

Critics of the Book of Mormon love to say that there is no proof to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate for the time and place from which it came. In 1Nephi I have personally counted over 100 facts mentioned in the Book of Mormon that indicate historical, geographical, political, social and religious accuracy for both time and place of the Book of Mormon in the Middle East. None of the 100 plus facts were known in America when the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith. That is astonishing proof for anyone on a quest for truth.

In a quick review of a few facts I have previously mentioned on this forum, there is the accurate naming of ancient trails, several places where water is to be found in Arabia, the identification of “borders” near the Red Sea, a river the flows year round into the Red Sea, the “Tree of Life”, and a extremely accurate description of a place known as the valley of Lemuel and also the “land Bountiful”. I can tell that many are exerting great effort in order to not be impressed with this astonishing display of accuracy. If Joseph had a one in two chance of guessing right (which in predicting water in Arabia is hardly one in two) that the probability of the Book of Mormon being correct on so many facts is actually less that two separate individuals walking on to a beach in southern California and randomly picking up a single grain of sand and discovering they had chosen the exact same grain of sand. Not likely to anyone intelligent enough to calculate such probabilities. Snow thinks anyone can think of white fruit of a tree of life as a religious symbol without any connected experience but he has not given a single example of such a symbol without any known reference. My point is that the tree of life symbol was created by example that was demonstrated by the time and place of Lehi and the Book of Mormon uses the symbol in a manner that is 100% consistent with the time and place of Lehi. Why is this such a difficult concept? And why do those that oppose this concept not give any historical counter examples to demonstrate how it could all be based on luck? I submit the reason is because there are no such examples.

In addition there are numerous collateral facts that are not directly involved with the Book of Mormon that still indicate it’s accuracy. Once again I will give an example. When a Christian pilgrim explores the many places to see throughout the Holy Land they will get a feel for a time and a place quite foreign to our American society. One place of interest in our discussion is a cave on the outskirts of Jerusalem. It is called the cave of Lehi. It is not called the cave of Lehi because of the Book of Mormon. In fact there is almost no reason to even associate the cave directly with the Book of Mormon or anything to do with the LDS. Then why is it called the cave of Lehi and how does it help the Book of Mormon?

The naming of the cave comes from an ancient picture graph of a jawbone of a horse, mule or donkey in the cave. Such a jawbone is an Egyptian hieroglyphic of the Hebrew name Lehi. The one thing this cave demonstrates is that the name Lehi was anciently known and used with an Egyptian base by the Hebrews that occupied Jerusalem. How did Joseph Smith know of such proper Hebrew names in 1830 in America? And how did he know that there is an Egyptian hieroglyphic connection (reformed Egyptian) among the Hebrews that had their own written language? But the jawbone mystery only begins with the symbolic representation in a cave near Jerusalem.

This same jawbone symbol is everywhere among the ancient ruins in the Americas. Remember that the B of M critics insist that there is no evidence of horses in Americas prior to the arrival of the Spanish. Will these same critics produce any authorized published opinion that these jawbone symbols are not related to horses? They will not because there is no such published opinion. There is in addition other deceptions of animals the B of M critics claim was unknown in the Americas that illiterates their view of ancient America is seriously skewed in a false manner.

In connection with this jawbone symbol I draw particular attention to a stone carving called the “Stela #5", known among LDS as the Lehi Tree of Life. There are two things I would point out of the many collateral facts of this carving that support the Book of Mormon. First in the presents of the jawbone labeling the patriarch as a Lehi on the Stone. No one knows that this is a Lehi designation but with the same token no one knows for sure that it is not. But there is also something else of interest and that is the “Tree of Life” carved into the rock. The tree is a palm tree with fruit. In the Americas palm trees produce only two kinds of fruit. Coconuts and bananas. The fruit on the Palm tree on the Stela #5 is obviously not coconuts or bananas. The configuration of fruit of that palm tree is only consistent with the date palm tree that does not exist in the Americas. How is this possible with isolated indigenous people know about date palms in order to have created the Stela #5? How can any one say there is no indication of any historical migration to the Americas from the middle east having influence on rapid changes to the ancient culture in the Americas?

You have all seen the responses of the anit’s on this forum. Have they disputed any facts relating to the physical evidence of Book of Mormon? Have they disputed the accuracies of the Book of Mormon concerning Arabia? Are the facts concerning Lehi’s cave false as I have presented them? Anti’s have not given a single exception to the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon as it relates to exact known places in Arabia. Only excuses. And in light of the facts will they admit that the Book of Mormon revealed true historical fact about Arabia that was not known in America in 1830? With the truth in front of them they will refuse it. Where is the evidence that Joseph made up the story of Lehi leaving Jerusalem? Where are the obvious historical flaws that are out of time and place of Arabia? There are none. And there is a mountain of facts - of which I have just scratched the surface - Yet I have not even mentioned the most significant and important facts concerning the historical relevance of the Book of Mormon.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Have you alerted the Smithsonian?

[Guest Starsky]

Wonderful. Thank you so much...and I am anxiously waiting for when you have time to...

Yet I have not even mentioned the most significant and important facts concerning the historical relevance of the Book of Mormon.

mention the most significan and important facts... :)

[porterrockwell]

Why state the important and most significant when the nay-sayers can't even refute the simple sfuff. However, for my personal enjoyment I would love to hear more, Traveler great job...keep up the good work.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traveler@Mar 1 2004, 09:24 PM

In connection with this jawbone symbol I draw particular attention to a stone carving called the “Stela #5", known among LDS as the Lehi Tree of Life.  There are two things I would point out of the many collateral facts of this carving that support the Book of Mormon.  First in the presents of the jawbone labeling the patriarch as a Lehi on the Stone.  No one knows that this is a Lehi designation but with the same token no one knows for sure that it is not.  But there is also something else of interest and that is the “Tree of Life” carved into the rock.  The tree is a palm tree with fruit.  In the Americas palm trees produce only two kinds of fruit.  Coconuts and bananas.  The fruit on the Palm tree on the Stela #5 is obviously not coconuts or bananas.  The configuration of fruit of that palm tree is only consistent with the date palm tree that does not exist in the Americas.  How is this possible with isolated indigenous people know about date palms in order to have created the Stela #5?  How can any one say there is no indication of any historical migration to the Americas from the middle east having influence on rapid changes to the ancient culture in the Americas?

Traveler, you crack me up. Your last arguments were better, but this one makes me wonder if you EVER know what you are talking about. Do you REALLY know anything about Stelae #5? First of all, it's not a Palm Tree, it's a locally common Ceiba tree (known to the Maya as the "Tree of Life") Your interpretation comes from a 1950's LDS archaeologist Wells Jakeman. This is what other LDS experts have to say about his findings:

JOHN CLARK of FARMS said,

"The supposed glyphs for Lehi, Sariah, and Nephi, for example, are impressive only if one assumes that Old World concepts were translated into New World iconography to signify names that were simultaneously meaningful in Palestine and Mesoamerica. Thus Jakeman supposed that the "Lehi" figure, the old man, can be identified by a monster skull floating behind his head, and he assumed that this feature represented... Cipactli. From that tenuous linkage, the analyst leaped to the notion that the skull signified "jawbone," despite the fact that the skull is NOTICEABLE JAWLESS. Another step takes Jakeman to the name Lehi, which may have been pronounced like the Hebrew word for "jawbone." This argument is forced at several points.

HUGH NIBLEY said:

"Science does not arrive at its conclusions by syllogisms, and no people on earth deplore proof demonstration by syllogism more loudly than real archaeologists do. Yet Mr. Jakeman's study is nothing but an elaborate syllogistic stew. The only clear and positive thing about the whole study is the objective the author is determined to reach. With naive exuberance, he repeatedly announces that he has found 'exactly what we would expect to find.' Inevitably there emerges from this dim and jumbled relief exactly what Mr. Jakeman is looking for."

And DEE F. GREEN OF THE BYU ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY said.

The basis of Jakeman's evidence is HIS OWN HAND DRAWN VERSION FROM A PHOTOGRAPH of the stone. He makes unsupported assumptions about the canons of ancient art; he fumbles over elements of the dream which are not included and items on the stone which have no place in the dream; he displays ignorance of his linguistic data and most unfortunately reverses the scholarly method by presenting his data with a rash of 'evidentlys,' 'probablys,' 'appears,' and 'apparentlys'--but offers his conclusions as unarguable facts."

These guys are avid believers, but they still find Jakeman's "proof" absolutely unconvincing, unscientific and irresponsible. Keep scratching!

[Snow]

cont.

And Snow said this:

Jakeman's latest is nothing but a tour de force, a whirlwind ride that never pauses long enough to let you catch your breath... not only did it keep me up reading until the wee small hours of the morning, it had me waking up early to read some more. If you appreciate fiction, of the fictional kind, this book is must read.

Can't wait for the movie.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 2 2004, 02:14 PM

cont.

And Snow said this:

Jakeman's latest is nothing but a tour de force, a whirlwind ride that never pauses long enough to let you catch your breath... not only did it keep me up reading until the wee small hours of the morning, it had me waking up early to read some more. If you appreciate fiction, of the fictional kind, this book is must read.

Can't wait for the movie.

What's the "tour d'farce" (I mean tour de force) up to now?

[Rodney]

Good try Trav. You almost had me there. I was about to call the missionaries and tell them to start filling the font. Thank goodness curvette and Snow came along in time to set me straight. Sounds like this BoM proof business is still a little sketchy. I'm dead sure we'd love for you to erase all doubt and let us tell faith to take a hike. Better luck next time.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 2 2004, 02:59 PM

Traveler, you crack me up. Your last arguments were better, but this one makes me wonder if you EVER know what you are talking about.

Now, be nice......

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined+Mar 2 2004, 05:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Mar 2 2004, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Mar 2 2004, 02:59 PM

Traveler, you crack me up.  Your last arguments were better, but this one makes me wonder if you EVER know what you are talking about.

Now, be nice......

I am being nice. I'm sharing information.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Trav -- You wrote:

But there is also something else of interest and that is the “Tree of Life” carved into the rock. The tree is a palm tree with fruit. In the Americas palm trees produce only two kinds of fruit. Coconuts and bananas. The fruit on the Palm tree on the Stela #5 is obviously not coconuts or bananas. The configuration of fruit of that palm tree is only consistent with the date palm tree that does not exist in the Americas.

But see:

The California Fan Palm does not produce dates, but does fruit elliptical black "berries" about 1/2 inch in diameter. These berries have a very large, brown seed surrounded by a thin, sweet pulp, which native Americans ate fresh or dried. They also ground the seeds into flour.

I had to look that up, because I was sure that the native California Washingtonia palm tree was a date palm. The fruit clusters are in exactly the same places where dates grow on date palm trees, and they look like dates. But apparently they're not technically dates, but berries. Still, they're obviously not coconuts or bananas, and a person carving a Maya stela would be hard pressed to make Washingtonia berries look different from dates.

Snow thinks anyone can think of white fruit of a tree of life as a religious symbol without any connected experience but he has not given a single example of such a symbol without any known reference.

I thought that was me. Did Snow make the same point? Figures. Another SoCal heathen.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Rodney@Mar 2 2004, 05:12 PM

Good try Trav.  You almost had me there.  I was about to call the missionaries and tell them to start filling the font.  Thank goodness curvette and Snow came along in time to set me straight.  Sounds like this BoM proof business is still a little sketchy.  I'm dead sure we'd love for you to erase all doubt and let us tell faith to take a hike.  Better luck next time.

Rodney, definitely do the faith thing...and pray a little here and there. You really need it.

But no one here, not even Curvette, can fault Traveler for at least doing some research instead of doing what you do Rodney...expecting everyone else to do all the work just so you can stick your fat face in theirs.

Your best talent is finding fault with others work....not a really lovely talent...infact it really doesn't take talent or produce anything but the noted needed oposition for us to proceed upward and onward...while you proceed downward and twisted...

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 2 2004, 05:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 2 2004, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Outshined@Mar 2 2004, 05:19 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Mar 2 2004, 02:59 PM

Traveler, you crack me up.  Your last arguments were better, but this one makes me wonder if you EVER know what you are talking about.

Now, be nice......

I am being nice. I'm sharing information.

There is sharing and then there is 'in your face' sharing. :)

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 2 2004, 06:48 PM

I am being nice. I'm sharing information.

I just don't remember you being so mean-spirited about it.......

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined+Mar 2 2004, 07:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Mar 2 2004, 07:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Mar 2 2004, 06:48 PM

I am being nice.  I'm sharing information.

I just don't remember you being so mean-spirited about it.......

It's not my intention to be mean spirited. I just get tired of people like Traveler taking bits and pieces of history and spinning them into something that they aren't. I appreciate honest science, and no one would be happier than me to find "proof" of the Book of Mormon. I think it's dishonest to use the methods that Traveler and his Dr. Jakeman use, and it makes the whole LDS scientific community look stupid. I was glad to see that Hugh Nibley agrees with me. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 2 2004, 09:43 PM

I was glad to see that Hugh Nibley agrees with me. :)

As it so happens, I saw Hugh Nibley this past fall and he didn't say anything about you. Actually he didn't say anything at all. Well in reality, I don't know if he said anything or not. I was standing in front of his house taking a picture of my daughter and I could see him through the window of his living room (such as it is - he lives in a real dump). He suffered a downturn his past year and just moved his bed into the front room where he reads and does whatever people like him do. Fortunately he turned his last book into the publisher - after working on it for 25 plus years - making one endless change after the other. This son-in-law says he called the publisher (FARMS) the next week and asked for it back so he could keep working on it. They declined.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 2 2004, 10:00 PM

As it so happens, I saw Hugh Nibley this past fall and he didn't say anything about you.

He didn't? Gosh, I'm hurt....