This thread began with a claim that the Book of Mormon accurately
portrays the journey of a desert traveler in Arabia. In response
to that claim, I asked a simple question about a river mentioned
in the Book of Mormon. I have repeated the preamble and question
below. Most of the comments followed the same general argument
as J, so I am responding specifically to what he said. Hopefully,
this will not cause the other apologists who responded too much
disappointment. This post consists of a reprint of J's comments,
and a few additional comments of my own.
My original comments and question were:
"And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied
into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying:
O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running
into the fountain of all righteousness." (1 Nephi 2:9).
Please name the continually-flowing river that emptied into the
Red Sea. Describe its location so I, and others on this newsgroup,
may check your answer by consulting other references.
In response to my comments and question, J said (Wed, 23 Oct.
1996):
Before S wastes time talking to you go to a library and get on
[sic] of thoes [sic] big satelite [sic] snapshots of the Red Sea.
You can pick from the plain `snap shot only' or the one that draws
in the rivers and cities for you. Upon doing so look for rivers.
Any rivers constant or not.
Let's stop for a moment and consider J's comments. The Book of
Mormon describes a "continually" running river, yet
J says we should look for "any rivers constant or not."
Why is it justifiable to look for "any rivers constant or
not" when the river described in the Book of Mormon ran "continually
"? [By the way, several people have made this argument, but
I have seen no offers to name the seasonal river. The argument
about "seasonal" seems even weaker when those who propose
it fail to identify the river, even with this watered-down (pun
intended) definition.]
The context of the Book of Mormon strongly suggests the river
Joseph Smith used in his story was not seasonal. Mormons often
tell others about the importance of context. With this in mind,
let's examine the context in which we read about Joseph Smith's
description of an Arabian river. In chapter 2 (1 Nephi) Joseph
Smith has Lehi arriving in a valley through which ran a river.
Lehi named the river Laman and the valley Lemuel (1 Nephi 2:8-
10). While camped next to the river, an impressive number of things
happened. The time for these events strongly suggests Lehi was
there for a long time. Presumably, Lehi camped next to the river
to water his animals and family, and because the valley provided
forage. When he left, the Book of Mormon says he crossed the river
(1 Nephi 16:9-12), so a contextual reading says the river flowed
the entire time Lehi camped next to it. With this contextual understanding,
can we estimate how long Lehi camped in the valley next to the
river? If you follow along, I shall attempt to argue (based on
claims in the Book of Mormon) that Lehi camped next to the river
more than four months. Furthermore, I shall attempt to show that
a contextual reading suggests the river continued to flow during
that time. This adds credibility to the straight-forward reading
that the Book of Mormon describes a major river, and not simply
a wadi that fills only with infrequent rains.
Upon arriving in the valley, Lehi sent Nephi and his brothers
back to Jerusalem to get the brass plates (1 Nephi 3:2). They
were gone a long time. So long, in fact, that Nephi's mother Sariah
thought they had died in the wilderness (1 Nephi 5:1-2). Assuming
the Book of Mormon is true (which, based on the evidence, it is
not) we can estimate how long Nephi and his brothers were away
by examining the minimum distance they had to travel.
It is about 150 miles from Jerusalem to Al `Aqabah as the crow
flies. Add about 20% for overland travel (any boy scouts out there?)
and the distance is about 180 miles. The shortest distance to
the Red Sea (as the crow flies) is about 260 miles. Adding 20%
for overland travel, and we have about 310 miles. From this information,
we should be able to estimate roughly how long Nephi was away.
The Book of Mormon says Lehi "came down by the borders near
the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in
the borders which are nearer the Red Sea;...." (1 Nephi 2:5).
I can imagine Joseph Smith narrating this story with a map of
the middle east in front of him, mistaking the Gulf of Aqaba for
the Red Sea. This would make the distance (and time) shorter.
Giving Joseph the benefit of the doubt, lets assume Lehi and his
family only traveled to the Gulf, and not (as the text says) to
the Red Sea. This means they would have traveled nearly 200 miles.
The Book of Mormon says Lehi brought only "his family, and
provisions, and tents..." (1 Nephi 2:4). Apparently, traveling
on foot, they would have managed about 12 or 15 miles per day.
So it would have taken them about 15 days to reach the Gulf of
Aqaba. From there, the Book of Mormon implies they traveled three
more days to the river (1 Nephi 2:6). So they camped about 18
days from Jerusalem. They were Hebrew, so they would not travel
on Saturday. Thus, elapsed time for their trip would have been
roughly 20 days. [A literal reading of the Book of Mormon makes
the time much longer than this, since they would have to travel
about 100 more miles to reach the Red Sea.] Sariah would have
expected Nephi and his brothers to make the round trip in about
40 days. Add time for negotiations with Laban and typical delays,
and she probably would not have started worrying until they had
been gone 45 days. Since they were overdue enough for Sariah to
think they had died, and voice her fears openly to Lehi, let's
say Nephi and his brothers were gone about 50 days.
After getting the brass plates, Lehi read them and discovered
his genealogy. Meanwhile, Nephi began his own writings (1 Nephi
5- 6). Then, Lehi decided he needed daughters for his sons, so
he sent Nephi back to Jerusalem to get another family (headed
by Ishmael) to join them (see chapter 7). Let's suppose Lehi read
the brass plates, and Nephi started his own writings in about
7 days. Further, suppose Ishmael required four days to prepare
his family for the journey. Add this to a round- trip time of
40 days (for Nephi et. al. to travel to Jerusalem, get Ishmael,
and return) and we have another 51 days. Thus, by the time Nephi
returned with Ishmael, Lehi had been camped by the river for at
least 101 days.
With the arrival of Ishmael, there was more prophesying. Meanwhile,
Lehi's sons paired up with Ishmael's daughters and got married
(see chapter 16). Let's suppose the prophesying took another 7
days. Let's also give our Mormon friends the benefit of the doubt
and say the courtships were brief and the marriages all arranged.
Say it takes three weeks to get everyone married. This is another
28 days camped near the river. So the total time (on the express
track, giving Mormons every benefit of doubt) comes to at least
129 days that Lehi was camped next to the river.
Finally, Lehi and his troupe leave the valley. The Book of Mormon
says they cross the river Laman into the wilderness (1 Nephi 16:12).
The matter of fact way in which Joseph Smith writes this indicates
that (in his imagination) the river was still flowing. It was
going when they got there, and it was still going four months
later when they left. Presumably Lehi and his family camped by
the river because they and their animals required water and forage.
Consequently, even without the mention of them crossing the river,
a logical assumption is that the river ran while they camped next
to it.
Thus, if the Book of Mormon is true, we expect to find a valley
near the Gulf of Aqaba with a river in it. The river should run
at least 4 months out of the year. The Book of Mormon's description
is sufficiently clear that if such a river existed, evidence should
be available. Even if the river has since dried up, it would have
been close to established trade routes and an important source
of water for ancient travelers. Given this, it should be mentioned
in ancient texts.
J continued:
On the map that I pulled out there were three seasonal rivers
that flowed into the sea along with other geographical sites that
could have supported a river flow.
Other people following this discussion should take note. K made
a bold claim, echoed in the title of this thread. He claimed the
Book of Mormon is a geographic guidebook in the Arabian peninsula.
Yet here is a clear description of what should be an easily identifiable
feature (a continually-running river in a desert). I asked for
the modern name of the river. Has the question be answered? No.
Instead, J replied that somewhere in Arabia there appear to be
three "seasonal" rivers. He has not named the "rivers".
He has not described their locations. He has not explained if
they are truly seasonal (running regularly with the seasons) or
if they only run during infrequent rains. From appearances, he
simply found three blue lines on a map and considered his "research"
completed. I suspect a similar mistake led Joseph Smith to include
an Arabian river in the first place. J has not explained why a
desert traveler would describe a '"seasonal" river as
"continually" flowing. He has not explained why a natural
reading of the Book of Mormon would lead to any other conclusion
than that the river was year round. Then, with an extra serving
of ambiguity, J hedged his bets by referencing "other geographical
sites" that "could have" rivers in them. What are
these sites? Dry gulches? The Book of Mormon says the river was
in a valley. Not a canyon, ravine, or gulch.
If Mormons can accept evidence of a dry gulch for Lehi's continually-running
river, then I am not surprised they believe the Book of Mormon
can be used in Arabia as a "geographic guide".
J continued:
Now using the vague idea that rivers tend to move out of their
courses and flow and many times dissappear [sic] altogether during
a few hundred years due to climate shifts and other things.
Please provide references for your claim that a continually- running
river '[three days travel] in the wilderness in the borders which
are nearer the Red Sea ...' existed roughly 2600 years ago. Provide
evidence that the river has since dried up and disappeared. Show
that evidence of such a river exists in the same area near the
Red Sea as described in the Book of Mormon. If such a river existed,
evidence of it should be available (river gravel, for example,
or mention in ancient texts from the region). The Book of Mormon
says the river was in a valley. Valleys do not generally disappear
in 2600 years. It should be straightforward to locate a valley
that is within 100 miles of Lehi's expected intersection with
the Red Sea, and look for evidence that through it flowed a continually-running
river. In fact, if you are unable to name the river, I will be
happy starting with the name of the valley.
Remember, J, Mormons are the ones claiming the Book of Mormon
has been used as a geographic guide in Arabia. It is incumbent
upon you to support this affirmative claim. Mormons made the claim.
Now prove it. If all you can offer are suppositions, excuses,
and disappearing rivers, then you need to have sufficient intellectual
honesty to stop claiming that the Book of Mormon can be used as
a geographical guide.
J continued:
Ponder on the fact that according to the Book of Mormon it has
been over 2000 years since that river was recorded. Will you be
open minded enough to consider yourself wrong?
How about you? If there is no evidence of a continually flowing
river "[three days travel] in the wilderness in the borders
which are nearer the Red Sea...", will you and other Mormons
be open minded enough to consider yourself wrong?
This is probably a good place to review the evidence different
findings might provide. If a river is found roughly in the location
described in the Book of Mormon it would be of definite interest,
but provide little in the way of proof. The reason, simply, is
that mention of a river is not too remarkable even if the Book
of Mormon is fiction. It is easy to imagine Joseph Smith looking
on a map, seeing a blue line, and concluding the existence of
a river. Thus if a river is found, its mention in the Book of
Mormon is as easily explained by coincidence as by revelation.
What the Book of Mormon needs, by way of proof, is consistent
agreement with archeological evidence. Sporadic forced agreement
with facts, and ad-hock excuses for disagreement with facts is
hardly convincing.
On the other hand, it takes only one counter example to disprove
a theory. Thus, if no evidence of Lehi's river is found, it is
much stronger evidence against the Book of Mormon than the presence
of a river would be for the Book of Mormon. Add Lehi's missing
river to a long list of other Book of Mormon mistakes (steel smelting,
domesticated horses, and horse-drawn chariots in ancient America,
for example) and the evidence against the Book of Mormon is simply
too substantial for intellectually-honest people to ignore.
J continued:
Would you consider the Book of Mormon false because it describes
a "Yellowstone national park-like area" 60 miles away
from the one we have today? (FYI Yellowstone has moved and is
moving today).
J's analogy is a fantasy. The Book of Mormon's discrepancy
is serious, and it will take more than wise-cracks to satisfy
critical thinkers. To summarize:
1. K made the bold claim that the Book of Mormon accurately
describes a desert traveler's journey through the Arabian peninsula.
2. The Book of Mormon describes a "continually" flowing
river "[three days travel] in the wilderness in the borders
which are nearer the Red Sea...". Contextual reading of the
Book of Mormon shows the river flowing for a long time as Lehi
and his family camped next to it.
3. When asked to provide evidence of the river, J responded
by:
A. Saying it was a waste of time.
B. Looking on a map and supposedly finding three seasonal rivers
somewhere in Arabia. He did not name the rivers. He did not describe
them, except to say they are seasonal (apparently his opinion).
He did not describe where they are located, if they are in coastal
valleys, or if they are near the place where Lehi's route supposedly
intersected the Red Sea.
C. Suggested the "continually" running river might
have been in some other geological feature (a gully, ravine or
canyon?) that "might" have supported a river.
D. Suggested the river might have dried up or moved (a distinct
possibility) but failed to provide any evidence supporting the
idea.
E. Concluded with a false analogy to Yellowstone Park, implying
that the evidence exists but Mormon critics just don't want to
accept it, or are too skeptical.
F. Suggested that the reason I was asking the question was
because I don't have an open mind.
And still the question remains unanswered. What is the modern
name of the river that Lehi described?