Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Olavarria

Bom Wars, Episode 3: Return Of The Nehemi

Recommended Posts

Olavarria    77

Here are some things, that I think are relevant when talking about Lehi's trail. They are taken from Kent Brown's paper: "New Light from Arabia on Lehi's Trail" from Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon and Journey of Faith

Because I don't feel like typing so much, I will only describe what is written instead of cut and pasting.

1) The libraries that Joseph Smith could have visited during his New England years are :Dartmouth College in Hanover , New Hampshire which was close to where the Smiths lived when Joseph was between the ages of 5-7 years old, and John H. Pratt's Manchester lending library, near Palmyra where Joseph spent his teenage years from 1816 on up.

2) Contemporary maps that deal with the Nehem tribal area do not appear in those libraries during the times that Joseph lived near their vicinities.

3) It took 10,000 Roman soldiers 6 months to venture down the west side of Arabia, from Luece Come(probably modern Aynunah) to the city of Marisaba(perhaps ancient Marib). It took roughly the same time for Lehi's people to travel from "the valley of Lemuel'(Wadi Tayyib al ism) to Nahom(the Nehem tribal area).

We know this because shortly after Ishmael's buriel the birth of the first children are mentioned, marrieges occuring in the Valley of Lemuel. The roman army lost soldiers due to unhealthy water and food; the Lehites lost Ishmael and complaned of starving in the wilderness.

4) Nahom.......Nehem, comes from the south arabic Nahama, to cut stone. The Nehem tribal area existed during the time of Lehi, were it exists today as revealed by 3 Marib temple alter inscriptions. In other owrds, NHM was the right name, in the right place, at the right time.

5) After the Lehites stay at Nahom, "they did travel nearly eastward from that time forth". Such a path from Nehem will lead you to the Dofar Region of Oman. Satelite imagery from this region shows that it is a little sliver of green on the east coast of the Arabian peninsula. The region contains:lush, green vegetation, fruit, honey, timbers and ever so small ore deposits.

6) The Dhofar region also has an ancient ship building tradition, dating to as far back as 500BCE.

7) The spice trail parraleled the caost of the Red Sae and truned east at Marib(a city right next to Nehem), Nephi and his people turn east at Nahom.

Hmmmmm,

What does it mean?

Common rebuttals:

The fact that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention contact with outsiders during Lehi's journey.

Why mention others directly?

Jacob1:1-3

1 For behold, it came to pass that *fifty and five years had passed away from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem; wherefore, Nephi gave me, Jacob, a acommandment concerning the bsmall plates, upon which these things are engraven.

2 And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi. 3 For he said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should bpreserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation.

1 Nephi 9:2

2 And now, as I have spoken concerning these plates, behold they are not the plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; wherefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these plates also are called the plates of Nephi.

They are mentioned indirectly.

1 Ne. 16: 34

34 And it came to pass that aIshmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.

Notice the passive, "called". Compare that with other verses.

1 Ne. 16: 13-14

13 And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place aShazer.

1 Ne. 17: 5-7

5 And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.

6 And it came to pass that we did pitch our tents by the seashore; and notwithstanding we had suffered many aafflictions and much difficulty, yea, even so much that we cannot write them all, we were exceedingly rejoiced when we came to the seashore; and we called the place Bountiful, because of its much fruit.

1 Ne. 2: 8-9

8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

Notice that Shazer, the River Laman, Irreantum and Bountiful were places that "we called", were as Nahom "was called". In other words, the name did not originate with the Lehites.

It is suggested that the pronunciation of NHM is unknown and may not relate to Nahom at all.

In semetic languages, it is the vowels that count the most(vowels not even being written), and those change between languages. We should not expect hebrews to pronounce a place name exactly the same way south arabians would. By this line of thought, Musa in the Koran has nothing to do with Moshe of the Torah, Yosef of the Torah is not Yusuf of the Koran, Gabriel is not Jibril and Isa is not Yeshua.

It has been suggested that Joseph Smith simply created the name Nahom as a variant of the Biblical names Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Ne. 7:7) and Nahum (Na. 1:1). This fails to account for the plausible placement of the actual location of NHM relative to the description of Lehi's journey in the Book of Mormon narrative and the parrallel eastern turns made by both the nephites and other travelers of the spice trail.

Share this post


Link to post
jadams_4242    12
It has been suggested that Joseph Smith simply created the name Nahom as a variant of the Biblical names Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Ne. 7:7) and Nahum (Na. 1:1). This fails to account for the plausible placement of the actual location of NHM relative to the description of Lehi's journey in the Book of Mormon narrative and the parrallel eastern turns made by both the nephites and other travelers of the spice trail.

Ok i,ll respond, In regards to the Nahom you spoke of, J.s. could not have known which path the

journeys of Nahom and the people traveled in those days, How many years differance between the b.o.m

And the discovery of the {possible} structure of Nahom was discovered.

{only the "n h" was readable} but nontheless it was discovered excatly on the same path spoken

of in the b.o.m. ???

Me thinks this is awfull powerfull evidence?

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77

Ok i,ll respond, In regards to the Nahom you spoke of, J.s. could not have known which path the

journeys of Nahom and the people traveled in those days, How many years differance between the b.o.m

And the discovery of the {possible} structure of Nahom was discovered.

{only the "n h" was readable} but nontheless it was discovered excatly on the same path spoken

of in the b.o.m. ???

Me thinks this is awfull powerfull evidence?

:P

I dont understand your point, especially the n'h' part.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

Share this post


Link to post
jadams_4242    12

I dont understand your point, especially the n'h' part.

Might be off topic, but Anyway you were refering to Nahom, so that brought to mind

of the recent discovery of a partial temple or shrine of some sort, they found along the

same area as the b.o.m tells of "a" journey by people somewhere in egypt ? I,m not

real sure, because i watched it on b.y.u t.v sevearal months ago, {sorry} about the bad info,

But anyway the "temple" had the letters "N" and a "H" on it, indicating Nahom. {And i dont know excatly who Nahom was}

this is probably very confusing because my lack of referances,,,i,m sorry.

But anyway its another recent discovery of science that helps the b.o.m.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77

the yemeni nhm makes alot more sense. aside from the ponts in the op....

they initially went down alongside the Red Sea. If they had been in africa then they wouldnt have been able to make a turn due east without falling in the se.

Share this post


Link to post
LifeOnaPlate    298

Good stuff.

I guess Ol' Joe got lucky again. Either that, or the quacks at FARMS carved the name into stone using their pen knives.

Why would the Book of Mormon record be concerned with specifically naming evidence they think a later generation would find, like "hey we can help people believe in the Book of Mormon by inserting info about things future generations may find and realize this isn't a hoax!"

Hoax perpetrators are usually the ones trying to prove their own case. This can be a compelling argument for the authenticity or Joseph Smith and the BoM, or against them.

I believe it's the former; Nephi and Jacob were the ones writing the record; they knew it was true, their evidence was the fact that they were actual people; the ones writing. What proof would they feel constrained to offer? And would the future converts to their faith need to be those who take great interest in archeological proof, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Also, the Nephite society, for the most part, was very fluid. "Where are the ruins" is the question long since answered; the Nephites were a rather transitory people; we have walls of earth and wood, some stone, some cement, these are not compellingly lasting structures or societies; these are people living pretty simply, even in the larger cities.

The difficult part for me is that supposed Bible-believing Christians take note to point to archeological evidence against the Book of Mormon, but refuse to apply the same standard to Biblical history.

An interesting development.

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77

Good stuff.

I guess Ol' Joe got lucky again. Either that, or the quacks at FARMS carved the name into stone using their pen knives.

Why would the Book of Mormon record be concerned with specifically naming evidence they think a later generation would find, like "hey we can help people believe in the Book of Mormon by inserting info about things future generations may find and realize this isn't a hoax!"

Hoax perpetrators are usually the ones trying to prove their own case. This can be a compelling argument for the authenticity or Joseph Smith and the BoM, or against them.

I believe it's the former; Nephi and Jacob were the ones writing the record; they knew it was true, their evidence was the fact that they were actual people; the ones writing. What proof would they feel constrained to offer? And would the future converts to their faith need to be those who take great interest in archeological proof, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Also, the Nephite society, for the most part, was very fluid. "Where are the ruins" is the question long since answered; the Nephites were a rather transitory people; we have walls of earth and wood, some stone, some cement, these are not compellingly lasting structures or societies; these are people living pretty simply, even in the larger cities.

The difficult part for me is that supposed Bible-believing Christians take note to point to archeological evidence against the Book of Mormon, but refuse to apply the same standard to Biblical history.

An interesting development.

In regards to mesoamerica:

"Our knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (as though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)." (Michael D. Coe, The Maya, London: Thames and Hudson, 4th ed., 1987, p. 161.)

We also need to remember the fluid nature of BoM labels:

I have alawas heard the accusation that nothing "nephite" has been found in the ruins. That begs the questian, what is a nephite? What traits or background would a person need in order to be called a nephite? What traits would someone have in order to disqualify him as such? Once you define what a nephite is, then you would ask, "what would these people leave behind, and how would we recognize it?"

1)anyone who is not a lamanite. Jacob 1:13

2)political affiliation, loyal to the Nephi dynasty,kinda like Saudi, as in ibn Saud. Jacob 1:14

3)believer in the religion taught by Nephi and his descendants, kinda like a Sunni vs Shia. 4 Nephi 1:37

4) a blood descendant of Nephi. 3 Nephi 5:10

Given these definitions FROM THE BOM itself, what traces should we expect to find in the ruins or DNA? How would we recognize them? With two of these definitions, even DCP would be considered a Nephite!

Share this post


Link to post
skenderbeg    2

Interestingly enough, this is the exact topic I discussed with a friend of mine who is very anti-Mormon, very Protestant, and very, very smart.

He told me that if I could prove that anything Joe Smith had written in his book could be proven, specifically, any archeological proof for anything written in the BoM, after Lehi left Jerusalem, he would become a Mormon. At this point, I quickly turned to this part of the Book, had him read it, we then discussed, he went on the internet, etc., etc. To make a long story short, he told me, "Well, lucky guess - but prove to me something in America and I really will become a Mormon!" *sigh*

Sadly, 'evidence' cannot convert - signs and wonders don't convert (just look at Laman and Lemuel). Signs can help those who are truly seeking the Lord (for example Saul) - but regardless of the evidence, spiritual pornography will still be written to attack the kingdom of God, and those who profess to worship Him whom we serve will still denounce anything that can be written in defense of the faith because the vast majority of those spouting defamatory comments about the kingdom of God don't want it to be true or right - they just want to pick a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77

Interestingly enough, this is the exact topic I discussed with a friend of mine who is very anti-Mormon, very Protestant, and very, very smart.

He told me that if I could prove that anything Joe Smith had written in his book could be proven, specifically, any archeological proof for anything written in the BoM, after Lehi left Jerusalem, he would become a Mormon. At this point, I quickly turned to this part of the Book, had him read it, we then discussed, he went on the internet, etc., etc. To make a long story short, he told me, "Well, lucky guess - but prove to me something in America and I really will become a Mormon!" *sigh*

Sadly, 'evidence' cannot convert - signs and wonders don't convert (just look at Laman and Lemuel). Signs can help those who are truly seeking the Lord (for example Saul) - but regardless of the evidence, spiritual pornography will still be written to attack the kingdom of God, and those who profess to worship Him whom we serve will still denounce anything that can be written in defense of the faith because the vast majority of those spouting defamatory comments about the kingdom of God don't want it to be true or right - they just want to pick a fight.

amen and amen.

Lets face it, mormonism is a threat to trad. christianity, some have even called it a parasite religion.

as for "proving" the BoM is true:

Helaman 16:14-22

14 And angels did appear unto men, wise men, and did declare unto them glad tidings of great joy; thus in this year the scriptures began to be fulfilled.

15 Nevertheless, the people began to harden their hearts, all save it were the most believing part of them, both of the Mormons and also those of other faiths, and began to depend upon their own strength and upon their own wisdom, saying

16 Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken.

17 And they began to reason and to contend among themselves, saying:

18 That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Moroni or a living prophet; if so, and these things be true, as it has been spoken, why will Moroni not show himself and the plates unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Fayette?

19 Yea, why will he not show himself in this land as well as in the land of Fayette?

20 But behold, we know that this is a wicked tradition, which has been handed down unto us by our fathers, to cause us that we should believe in some great and marvelous thing which should come to pass, but not among us, but in a land which is far distant, a land which we know not; therefore they can keep us in ignorance, for we cannot bwitness with our own eyes that they are true.

21 And they will, by the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one, work some great mystery which we cannot understand, which will keep us down to be servants to their words, and also servants unto them, for we depend upon them to teach us the word; and thus will they keep us in ignorance if we will yield ourselves unto them, all the days of our lives.

22 And many more things did the people aimagine up in their hearts, which were foolish and bvain; and they were much disturbed, for Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually; yea, he did go about spreading crumors and contentions upon all the face of the land, that he might harden the hearts of the people against that which was good and against that which should come.

Heleman 16:14-22(The Her AMun Translation)

Share this post


Link to post
Nevo    2,097

Here's another rebuttal you may not have seen. This was posted by David Wright, Professor of Bible and Ancient Near East at Brandeis University, on ZLMB in 2002:

"A large number of BM names and words have the suffixed element -om (Abinadom, Antiomno, Corom, Cumom, Curelom, Ezrom, Jacom, Jarom, Shiblom, Shilom [not necessarily Hebrew sh-l-m!; see the caution below], Sidom, Zeezrom). Those ending in -um may represent the same suffix: Antionum, Jeneum, Helorum, Mocum, which could include also the -antum and -ancum names: Antum, Coriantum, Irreantum, Moriancum, Moriantum, Ripliancum, Seantum, Teancum. (It is less clear that -em names/words Ethem, Gazelem, Sherem, Shelem, [+ ? Zara-HEM-la/nah?] and -am names/words Luram, Zeram, Seezoram, Zoram should be included.)

The large number of names or words with -om (-um) indicate that this element may not be part of the word stem or root in many cases, but a suffix separate or distinct from the root. Thus is it difficult to argue decisively, even from a traditionalist perspective, that Nahom derives from a Semitic root n-h-m (as in the Arabic place name Nehhem) or the root n-kh-m (connected with mourning). Just because there are Semitic roots with a final -m which can be correlated with Nahom does not mean that they are in fact to be correlated. The word stem or root may be Nah- with an -om suffix."

. . . . . . . . .

"One could argue that -om names, which are found throughout the BM (early Nephite, late Nephite, Jaredite), are an indication that a single mind conceived them all. Recall too that -e/antum (and related -ianton) type names appear in all three literary-cultural periods: Irreantum (early Nephite); Coriantum, Coriantumr, Coriantor (Jaredite); Corianton, Moriantum, Seantum (late Nephite). This is not what one expects from an ancient document which reflects discrete cultural-historical periods, but is explanable if Joseph Smith invented the names and wrote the BM."

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...picID=310.topic

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77

Here's another rebuttal you may not have seen. This was posted by David Wright, Professor of Bible and Ancient Near East at Brandeis University, on ZLMB in 2002:

"A large number of BM names and words have the suffixed element -om (Abinadom, Antiomno, Corom, Cumom, Curelom, Ezrom, Jacom, Jarom, Shiblom, Shilom [not necessarily Hebrew sh-l-m!; see the caution below], Sidom, Zeezrom). Those ending in -um may represent the same suffix: Antionum, Jeneum, Helorum, Mocum, which could include also the -antum and -ancum names: Antum, Coriantum, Irreantum, Moriancum, Moriantum, Ripliancum, Seantum, Teancum. (It is less clear that -em names/words Ethem, Gazelem, Sherem, Shelem, [+ ? Zara-HEM-la/nah?] and -am names/words Luram, Zeram, Seezoram, Zoram should be included.)

The large number of names or words with -om (-um) indicate that this element may not be part of the word stem or root in many cases, but a suffix separate or distinct from the root. Thus is it difficult to argue decisively, even from a traditionalist perspective, that Nahom derives from a Semitic root n-h-m (as in the Arabic place name Nehhem) or the room n-kh-m (connected with mourning). Just because there are Semitic roots with a final -m which can be correlated with Nahom does not mean that they are in fact to be correlated. The word stem or root may be Nah- with an -om suffix."

. . . . . . . . .

"One could argue that -om names, which are found throughout the BM (early Nephite, late Nephite, Jaredite), are an indication that a single mind conceived them all. Recall too that -e/antum (and related -ianton) type names appear in all three literary-cultural periods: Irreantum (early Nephite); Coriantum, Coriantumr, Coriantor (Jaredite); Corianton, Moriantum, Seantum (late Nephite). This is not what one expects from an ancient document which reflects discrete cultural-historical periods, but is explanable if Joseph Smith invented the names and wrote the BM."

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm...picID=310.topic

Nibley has made a good case for jaredites surviving the "final" battle(which would explain alot of "mulekite" history), if that is the case then the BoM doesnt have three "discrete" cultural-historical periods, but rather 3 interlated historical periods.

At any rate, this really doesnt explain the Nehem/Nahom correlation that goes beyond mere etymology but includes a real world pre-islamic arabian geography.

Share this post


Link to post
Nevo    2,097

At any rate, this really doesnt explain the Nehem/Nahom correlation that goes beyond mere etymology but includes a real world pre-islamic arabian geography.

Well, the point is that the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon itself (the prevalence of -om suffixes in the onomasticon) militates against connecting Nahom and Nehhem. If the Book of Mormon place name is actually Nah- with an -om suffix then it is not derived from the Semitic root NHM and is not related to the Arabian place name Nehhem (which may not have even existed in 600 BCE). If the names are not related then there is no correlation with "real world pre-islamic arabian geography."

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77

Well, the point is that the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon itself (the prevalence of -om suffixes in the onomasticon) militates against connecting Nahom and Nehhem. If the Book of Mormon place name is actually Nah- with an -om suffix then it is not derived from the Semitic root NHM and is not related to the Arabian place name Nehhem (which may not have even existed in 600 BCE). If the names are not related then there is no correlation with "real world pre-islamic arabian geography."

Well I guess Musa has nothing to do with Moshe, Yosef has nothing to do with Yusuf and Isa has nothing to do with Yeshua. Man, those Muslims follow a new set of prophets. Shalom and Salam have nothing to do with each other either.

:P:unsure: Afterall, vowels are just as important in semetic languages as they are in english, and hebrews would certainly pronounce the word exactly as the south arabians did. <_<:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Nevo    2,097

Obviously you haven't grasped the argument.

The root NH is not the same as NHM.

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77

Obviously you haven't grasped the argument.

The root NH is not the same as NHM.

[/quote

I have grasped the argument I simply dont find it convincing. The idea that nahom is a compund of Nah- and -om is weak. The BoM records the topographic name Nahom, not "Nah-om". The word has been simply chopped into two pieces so that one can say NH does not = NHM.

NHM=NHM.

The theory also fails to it fails to take into consideration how words can be transliterzted between semetic languages, and it fails to explain the correlations between the river laman and wadi talib al ism, the time of travel between jerusalem and marib, with river laman and nahom, the east ward turn of the spice trail at nehem, and the east ward turn at nahom, and the correlations between bountiful and wadi sayq and the ancient ship building that took place at both.

I suppose because the BoM has the names Giddianhi, Lehonti, and Lamoni that Lehi has nothing to do with the hebrew Lehi as Leh- does not= Lehi.

Share this post


Link to post
charity    62

I hesitate to put my puny opinion, but doesn't the fact that there was a single compiler and editor, Mormon, tend to "smooth" things out some with the 3 different types of records?

Share this post


Link to post
poulsenll    210

I hesitate to put my puny opinion, but doesn't the fact that there was a single compiler and editor, Mormon, tend to "smooth" things out some with the 3 different types of records?

Oops

Charity

Mormon did not write the small plates of Nephi. These were written by a variety of authors. Moroni, not Mormon wrote the Book of Ether as well as his own book which is the final book of the BofM.

Larry P

Share this post


Link to post
charity    62

Thanks, Larry. Next time I think to hesitate, I should go with my first thought. Better to keep you mouth shut. . . .etc.

Share this post


Link to post
poulsenll    210

Obviously you haven't grasped the argument.

The root NH is not the same as NHM.

The only validity to this argument is IF Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon. For those of this opinion, it appears to be a valid, although circular argument. As an original document, no matter how many times certain suffixes are used, it does not preclude words where it is not a suffix. Look in the dictionary, there are many words with the suffix /ed/ , in fact this suffix is used to form the past tense of regular verbs. This does not mean that "red" is the past tense of the verb r.

Larry P

Thanks, Larry. Next time I think to hesitate, I should go with my first thought. Better to keep you mouth shut. . . .etc.

You are forgiven.

Larry P

Share this post


Link to post
Nevo    2,097

As an original document, no matter how many times certain suffixes are used, it does not preclude words where it is not a suffix.

So in your view, then, even though there are dozens of Book of Mormon names ending in -om or -um for which there is no apparent Semitic root, we should consider Nahom an exception. That it happens to resemble so many other Book of Mormon names is simply an interesting coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77
So in your view, then, even though there are dozens of Book of Mormon names ending in -om or -um for which there is no apparent Semitic root,

if that is the case then, the common element in many nephite and jaredite names could also be explained by infusion into both cultures by Behring Straiters.

we should consider Nahom an exception.

That it happens to resemble so many other Book of Mormon names is simply an interesting coincidence.

I dont think it is a coincidence. The questian I ask is where did it come from? You say Joseph. I say, Behring Straiters or surviving Jaredites.

That being said, the "coincidence" doesnt explain NHM=NHM and all the other "coincidences" related to the spice trail and pre-islamic arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
poulsenll    210

So in your view, then, even though there are dozens of Book of Mormon names ending in -om or -um for which there is no apparent Semitic root, we should consider Nahom an exception. That it happens to resemble so many other Book of Mormon names is simply an interesting coincidence.

After you spend over 50 years pondering the message of the BofM and correlating all of the 500+ descriptions of geography in the text, as I have , then come back and ask me if I should discount the possibility that one word in the Old World context of the geography should not be different from the names of people, which were not usually used to name geographic features, used during the 1000 years of the New World context.

Larry P

Share this post


Link to post
Olavarria    77

After you spend over 50 years pondering the message of the BofM and correlating all of the 500+ descriptions of geography in the text, as I have , then come back and ask me if I should discount the possibility that one word in the Old World context of the geography should not be different from the names of people, which were not usually used to name geographic features, used during the 1000 years of the New World context.

Larry P

Que?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×