Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Answering a Reader’s Eastern U.S. Model – Part III: The Map Without Error – Part III

Continuing with David McKane’s many comments left on this blog, and specifically below the continuation of the  errors on his “errorless maps.”
White Arrow shows the area along McKane’s East Wilderness from which Moroni drove the Lamanites—this area is not by any sea

    In another example of McKane’s map errors of his Land of Promise, he seems to forget, that in placing his East Wilderness, where “there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore” (Alma 22:29) to the east of his Sea East, that after Capt. Moroni drove the Lamanties out of the East Wilderness: “Moroni caused that his armies should go forth into the east wilderness; yea, and they went forth and drove all the Lamanites who were in the east wilderness into their own lands, which were south of the land of Zarahemla” (Alma 50:7), that Moroni “caused that the inhabitants who were in the land of Zarahemla and in the land round about should go forth into the east wilderness, even to the borders by the seashore, and possess the land” (Alma 50:9, emphasis added), and then “the Nephites began the foundation of a city, and they called the name of the city Moroni; and it was by the east sea; and it was on the south by the line of the possessions of the Lamanites” (Alma 50:13, emphasis asdded).
    Now on his map, any city built anywhere in his East Wilderness on the south by the Lamanite lands would not be by a seashore. McKane’s Sea East and East Sea are hundreds of miles to the north and east. Once again, a huge discrepancy in his map.
    Another example of his map is showing that there is a 180-mile gap between his Land of Zarahemla and his Land of Desolation in his Land Northward. Nothing in the scriptural record suggests such a distance or separation of the Land Southward and the Land Northward.
Top: White arrows shows the distance between his two lands, i.e., the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Desolaltion; Yellow Arrow shows McKane’s location of the Mulek landing site; Bottom: Elevation differences needing locks to reach (red circle) Lake Ontario

    Secondly, McKane labels the Land of Desolation as the “First landing of the people of Zarahemla/Mulek via the St. Lawrence Sea Way.” First of all, the St. Lawrence Seaway (one word) was not built until 1824 when the first part, the Welland Canel was built, and overall is “a system of locks, as well as canals and channels that permit ocean-going vessels to travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes.” These 15 locks and several canals bypass numerous rapids in the St. Lawrence River that kept any kind of shipping from traveling from Montreal to Lake Ontario for several thousand years.
    The St. Lawrence Seaway opened in 1959 and cost $470 million, with Queen Elicabeth II and president Dwight D. Eisenhower formally opening the Seaway. Prior to that time, no shipping of any kind could move upriver past Montreal because of several rapids, the biggest and most impassable was the Lachine Rapids at Montreal. Not until the Corps of Engineers dug a canal around Montreal could shipping continue onward to reach Lake Ontario, and not until 1954, could that shipping be elevated to the height of Lake Ontario and sail into the lake from the river.
    The idea that the People of Zarahemla, the Mulekites, came to the Land of Promise from that source is ludicruous and totally without merit. While the St. Lawrence River is at sea level, Lake Ontario sits at 243-feet elevation. Sailing ships, “driven forth before the wind” simply cannot sail into the wind and currents of the St. Lawrence and reach that elevation even if there were no rapids--nor could barges driven by wind and currents.
    In addition, the idea that the Mulekites landed in the Land Northward would be a huge surprise to Amaleki, who with Mosiah I, discovered the Mulekites in the Land of Zarahemla, no doubt in the vicinity of the city of Zarahemla, and were told by chief Zarahemla himself, that his people “journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth” (Omni 1:16).
    Consequently, McKane is wrong in both his map and his location for the Mulekites, who landed in the area of the Land of Zarahemla, where Mosiah found them, and they had lived there since the time of their landing. As for the quote in Alma 22:30, it is not about the Mulekites, but the Jaredites, and the reference to Zarahemla is that Limhi’s 42-man expedition found the bones of the Jaredites.
    Another error is found in his map and idea of migrating land animals. His map reads “Migrating land animals being the buffalo migrating back and forth from Canada.”
In former times, American bison (Bison bison), or plains buffalo, migrated regularly through the Great Plains. Herds of as many as 4,000,000 animals moved from north to south in fall and returned when spring rains brought fresh grass to the northern part of their range. Bison traveled over more or less circular routes and spent the winter in areas 200 to 400 miles from the summer range. While it is true there were American buffalo in Canada—their migratory route took them from the American west northward through the Dakotas along the Great Plains just east of the Rocky and Mackenzie Mountains in Western Canada to Great Bear Lake (118º-123º W longitude, about 1550 miles to the west of McKane’s migratory area in Canada), and nowhere near the Great Lakes from which McKane has them migrating.
    In addition, if anything more needs to be said about this additional discrepancy in his map, the scriptural record does not say these Jaredite animals were migrating back and forth form the Land Northward, but that “their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla” (Ether 9:31). We are not talking about animals migrating back and forth from Canada, but animals driven out of the Land Northward because of the serpents.
    Another case of discrepancy in McKane’s map is where he quotes: “And it came to pass that the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east unto the west sea, and thus the Nephites in their wisdom, with their guards and their armies, had hemmed in the Lamanites on the south, that thereby they should have no more possession on the north, that they might not overrun the land northward” (Alma 22:33), then shows this map:
Because it doesn’t agree with the scripture, McKane conveniently leaves out the names of the other three seas on his map, with (white 1) being his Sea West (we have added the white arrows, circle and yellow arrow for emphasis)
 
Which has three distinct errors:
1. When it says from the East to the West Sea, you have a tiny area  (white circle) where the “East” is the Land Northward—and how come the Land Northward is East and not North?
2. McKane has most of the Land of Bountiful not from the east, but from (white arrow) the Sea West  running to the West Sea;
3. McKane places the Lamanites to the east of the Sea East and then claims they are South of the Land of Zarahemla;
4. The Lamanites would not be hemmed in as Mormon tells us, since (yellow arrow) they could move into the Land Northward in a wide open area that would be indefensible by the Nephites.
    We are not sure how many discrepancies we need to point out, but McKane claims no one has ever found an error in his errorless maps?
    Really?
(See the next post, ”Answering a Reader – Part IV The Map Without Error – Part IV,” for more information on David Mckane’s maps that he claims not only have no errors, but no one has ever been able to find any discrepancies with them and the scriptural record, which so far that is all we’ve found)

32 comments:

  1. Zarahemla had Nephites on the east in the east Wilderness.

    That's why Moroni has to kick out the Lamanites in Alma 50 after Moroni Kicks out the Lamanites he is able to fortify the Narrow Pass between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. He also populates that area with people from Zarahemla. An important point to make is there is a Hill in the East Wilderness (New York area )called Onidah. There is a tribe in New York called Oneida phonetically exactly the same as the Lamanite hill Onidah

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hagoth on the west Sea next to the Bountiful border launches his ship. Bountiful borders the West Sea.

    See alma 63

    ReplyDelete
  3. The cold and the St Lawerence Sea way makes going around Lake Ontario impractical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Land north Ward is the areas in between the Great Lakes New York and Pennsylvania are south of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The narrow strip of wilderness/narrow neck separates the land northward from the Southward as described in the Verse. So the narrow strip of wilderness separating the land of desolation from Zarahemla makes complete sense. Since Zarahemla is in the Land Southward. See Ether9:31

    flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land
    southward, which was called by
    the Nephites Zarahemla.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't consider that area along the Appalachian mountains to be the east Wilderness. The east wilderness is the New York Pennsylvania area.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Buffalo were in the great lakes area south America has not migrating mammals

    ReplyDelete
  9. I did not mention the other seas because they were not mentioned in the verse but for information those seas are
    1) East Sea (Lake Erie): Alma 50:8, Alma 50:13, Alma 52:13

    2) Sea East (Lake Ontario) Alma 22:27, Helaman 3:8, Helaman 11:20

    3) West Sea (Lake Michigan) Alma 22:32-33, Alma 50:11, Alma 52:11-12, Alma 53:8, Alma 63:5, Helaman 4:17,

    4) Sea West (Lake Huron) Alma 22:27, Helaman 3:8, Helaman 11:20

    5) Sea South (Gulf of Mexico) Helaman 3:8

    6) North Sea (Lake Superior) Helaman 3:8

    ReplyDelete
  10. David: You just can't wait, can you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The narrow neck is between Desolation and Zarahemla

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bountiful based on the Michigan relics its north east border may not have stretched to Lake Huron but it does state that its east border stretch to the land Desolation see verse 32

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would prefer the mistakes get corrected as we go

    ReplyDelete
  14. David: The narrow neck is not between Desolation and Zarahemla, other than like saying the point of the mountain in Utah is between Salt Lake City and Nephi. It is between Salt Lake City and Provo—Nephi is far south of there. Now, this is not an opinion, but Mormon tells us 1) The “small” neck of land is between the Land Northward and the Land Southward (Alma 22:32); 2) On the north in the Land Northward was the Land of Desolation and on the south, in the Land Southward, was Bountiful (Alma 22:31); and 3) Hagoth’s shipyard was “on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward” (Alma 63:5).
    Thus, without a shadow of a doubt, Mormon tells us that the narrow neck of land is between the Land of Desolation and the Land of Bountiful. You don’t correct error, you just compound them with more errors.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David: You are not correcting mistakes, you are just adding to the problem and causing a diversion from the overall tons of errors...after all, your opinions and speculation do not correct mistakes, they simply reinforce your view, which is obviously in error as so many points made have shown. As an example, you introduce Michigan relics--there is no way to say those were Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, whatever--you are simply introducing an opinion without any scriptural support.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Daivd: Your error, in part, is that you place archaeology on a level with the scriptural record. We discuss the scriptural record here for it is absolutely 100% accurate. Archaeology, anthropology, geology etc., are based mostly on opinions an speculation of what is found. Your defense of your views by stating Michigan relics is without merit--they don't prove anything anymore than the ton of relics, mummies, artifacts, etc., found in South America, which at best can only support the scriptural record.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Narrow Neck/Narrow strip of wilderness separated Land Desolation from Zarahemla. Zarahemla was part of the land Southward the Narrow Neck/narrow strip of wilderness separating Desolation from the land southward.
    Zarahemla being part of the land southward, not northward. Zarahemla was south of the Narrow neck.
    Ether 9:31
    “towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla.”

    Alma 63:4,5
    4 “there was a large company of men, even to the amount of five thousand and four hundred men, with their wives and their children, departed out of the land of Zarahemla into the land which was northward.”
    5 “on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck WHICH LED INTO THE LAND NORTHWARD.”
    Hagoth Traveled north from Zarahemla to launch his Ship when he launches his ship he is close to the Land Desolation and the Narrow Neck WHICH LEADS INTO THE LAND NORTHWARD. From where Hagoth launches his ship is north of Zarahemla. As ether 9:31 states Zarahemla being in the land southward.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David: The ancient buffalo herds were mostly on the Great Plains and along the Rocky Mountains into Canada. Any buffalo in the Great Lakes would have been on a fringe area and not the major migrating area--that area was as stated earlier from western Canada down through the Dakotas and into the U.S. You saying dumb things does not change recorded history

    ReplyDelete
  20. Your correct in saying mostly but it's a known fact that buffalo stretched from the Great Lakes to Missouri

    ReplyDelete
  21. David: My comment, which is totally right, was in response to your migrating herds from Canada through the Great Lakes area, or your Land of Promise, etc., which did not happen. Period!

    ReplyDelete
  22. David: In fact, Buffalo New York was not named for the animal Buffalo (the Bison), which was not located there, but was named after the name of a creek that flowed through the area (it was originally called Lake Erie because it was at the western end of the new Canal, and had earlier been a part of the town of Clarence). And the Creek was not named 1) for the buffalo, but likely for a Seneca Indian who lived there and whose name meant Buffalo; 2) mistranslation of the Indian word Beaver for Buffalo--because beaver lived in the area, not buffalo and that the creek was actually named Beaver Creek; 3) or was anglicized from Beau Fleuve (French for "beautiful river"; 4) Early settlers saw animal bones of elk and moose at the salt lick called Sour Springs, and thought they were buffalo by mistake; etc., etc., etc. Once again, “their historical range roughly comprised a triangle between the Great Bear Lake in Canada's far northwest, south to the Mexican states of Durango and Nuevo León, and east to the Atlantic Seaboard of of the U.S. (nearly to the Atlantic tidewater in some areas) from New York to Georgia and per some sources down to Florida.” Their migration was not through New York, and did not go to Canada through New York.
    You keep saying these dumb things that are not supported by facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at the map that shows were buffalo lived

      http://google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.american.edu%2Fted%2Fimages2%2Frangemap.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.american.edu%2Fted%2Fice%2Fbuffalo.htm&docid=VD7eoI_zAfwFkM&tbnid=DR4Tznxy_0ac5M%3A&vet=1&w=450&h=411&safe=active&bih=462&biw=320&q=plsins%20buffalo%20habitat&ved=0ahUKEwjT0LzQ3YTSAhUBK8AKHXJrDp4QMwgrKA8wDw&iact=mrc&uact=8

      Del one thing you have to consider is South America has NO migrating land mammals

      Delete
    2. How do you reconcile South America not having migrating land mammals?

      Delete
  23. David: You wrote above: "The Narrow Neck/Narrow strip of wilderness separated Land Desolation from Zarahemla. Zarahemla was part of the land Southward the Narrow Neck/narrow strip of wilderness separating Desolation from the land southward"
    The narrow neck DID NOT separate the Land of Desolation from the Land of Zarahemla.It is clear it separated the Land of Desolation from the Land of Bountiful. The scriptural record is specific! You keep making dumb mistakes!

    ReplyDelete
  24. David: You wrote “Zarahemla being part of the land southward, not northward. Zarahemla was south of the Narrow neck.”
    That is what I said. But Zarahemla is NOT SEPARATED from the Land of Desolaton by the narrow neck of land, which is what you said. The Land of Zarahemla was separated from the Land of Bountiful by an unnamed land that was between them (3 Nephi 3:23), and the Land of Bountiful was separated from the Land of Desolation by the narrow neck of land. That is what I said, that is what Mormon tells us, and that is all there is to it. Stop making dumb mistakes by saying things that are not correct

    ReplyDelete
  25. David: You wrote: "I would prefer the mistakes get corrected as we go."
    You are the one making mistakes!

    ReplyDelete
  26. David: You wrote: "I don't consider that area along the Appalachian mountains to be the east Wilderness. The east wilderness is the New York Pennsylvania area."
    Frankly, it is hard to tell what you mean on some of your maps because they are not detailed--you do things with an extremely broad brush because you are using someone else's maps and not ones you created, or enlarged so details can be seen. On one map you call all that area Lamanite lands, and then on another map you call some of it East Wilderness, evidently, without realizing the East Wilderness was in the Nephite lands and was Nephite after Capt. Moroni drove out the Lamanites. Then in another map, you show the entire eastern seaboard being the area. Either make maps specific and consistent, or stop using them!
    And if you don't consider the land east of your east wilderness, then where is that land mentioned in the scriptural record? It is not! You play footloose and fancy free with your map boundaries in a land that makes it difficult to be consistent with the scriptural record.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There is a narrow neck between Zarahemla and Desolation

    Zarahemla is in the land Southward Ether 9:31 makes that clear

    Ether 9:31
    “towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla.”

    Alma 22:32
    there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

    Its also worth point out that Zarahemla had Lamanites on its east west and north border
    See Alma 2 and Alma 50
    Zarahemla was surrounded by Lamnaites
    Alma 22
    29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites;

    The only area that was not surrounded by lamanites was the Land Northward. The scriptures make it clear Zarahemla was in the land southward and surrounded. To enter the Land Northward desolation from Zarahemla you need to go through a narrow neck of Land. Zarahemla being south of the narrow neck.

    Alma 22:32
    there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

    ReplyDelete
  30. DAVID: YOUR REDUNDANT AND REPETITIVE COMMENTS ARE NO LONGER WELCOME HERE SINCE THEY ADD NOTHING TO OUR OVERALL PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE SCRIPTURAL RECORD. YOUR 22 POSTS ON OUR BLOG IN ONE DAY WITH NOTHING BUT REPEATED ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN ANSWERED IS A DISTRACTION TO OUR READERS AND A WASTE OF TIME FOR US.

    IF YOU KEEP POSTING, WE WILL SIMPLY ERASE THEM. WHEN THE CURRENT SERIE ANSWERING YOUR COMMENTS IS CONCLUDED IN A FEW DAYS, WE WILL AGAIN LOOK AT YOUR COMMENTS—IF THEY ARE NEW MATERIAL, WE WILL RESPOND TO THEM, IF NOT, YOU WILL BE PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM THIS BLOG AS AN ANNOYANCE

    ReplyDelete