Jump to content
SamuelTheLamanite

God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

Recommended Posts

In Hebrew the word Nahom means mourning and it is impossible for its meaning to be a coincidence because the Book of Mormon was written by Israelites. The meaning of Nahom is good evidence, but it is only evidence. I don't think Nahom was found because I believe God hided archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon to test our faith.  It makes sense that God hided (or removed) everything to test our faith.  

I believe the NHM altars are a coincidence because the altars are not located in Nehem. Nehem and the NHM altars may not be related at all. The NHM altar sites are located in near the temple of Bar'an in Marib, Yemem,  nowhere near Nehem. As for the dating, the only dating of the altars published in a Journal was done by Warren Aston. However, I am a little skeptical because Aston also finds "overwhelming evidence that earth is being, and has always been, visited by a variety of extra-terrestrial races".  For Aston there are a lot of archaeological evidences for ancient astronauts. I feel we need more confirmation for the dating of the altars. It is well known that sometimes bad research is published in scholarly and archaeology journals.  

Another reason why I am skeptical is because in the NHM sites we find many inscriptions that match Biblical names.  For example the Biblical name Gareb matches an inscription (Grb) in the same Bar'an region. Or the Biblical name Nebat matches an inscriptions (Nbt)in the same Bar'an region, again. You can literally find dozens and possibly hundreds of examples. However, just because they match doesn't mean they are related.   

I don't believe Nehem in Arabia is Book of Mormon's Nahom because Nehem (tribal territory) is located in the mountains, there was no reason for Lehi and his family to enter 150 miles of dangerous mountains without food and water.  Here is a picture of what the Nehem mountain area looks like, it is very ugly and unsafe for a family travel. I don't see how it would be possible for Lehi and his family to set tents in those ugly mountains. 

I see no reason to believe Nahom was found, but of course the Hebrew meaning of Nahom is powerful and makes me feel good. Anti-mormons will never explain it's meaning because it is clearly not a coincidence. Book of Mormon says Nahom means mourning. 

=======================================================================================

Update  There are ancient NHM inscriptions in North and West Arabia, See 

http://krcfm.orient.ox.ac.uk/fmi/webd#ociana

Or https://goo.gl/nciV7x 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

 

I don't believe Nehem in Arabia is Book of Mormon's Nahom because Nehem is located in the mountains, there was no reason for Lehi and his family to enter 150 miles of dangerous mountains without food and water. 

You're implying here that you understand the why's and why not's of Lehi's route choices.  That's something that I don't think any of us can do.  Lehi and his family were being guided by the Spirit.  We today may not understand why they chose to travel in a particular direction, take a certain road, or avoid another.  Lehi may not have even known.  But the Lord knew the reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That bridge is awesome. 

Can you imagine Gandolf and the whole "you shall not pass" scene taking place there? 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You're implying here that you understand the why's and why not's of Lehi's route choices.  That's something that I don't think any of us can do.  Lehi and his family were being guided by the Spirit. 

Exactly. That is why I don't believe Nehem and Book of Mormon's Nahom are the same. 

As for the NHM archaeological sites you can find many inscriptions that match Biblical names. Just because NHM matches Nahom doesn't mean they are related. 

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair it may not be the same one. But the evidence available does show a remarkable coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Another reason why I am skeptical is because in the NHM sites we find many inscriptions that match Biblical names.  For example the Biblical name Gareb matches an inscription (Grb) in the same Bar'an region. Or the Biblical name Nebat matches an inscriptions (Nbt)in the same Bar'an region, again. You can literally find dozens and possibly hundreds of examples. However, just because they match doesn't mean they are related.   

I don't believe Nehem in Arabia is Book of Mormon's Nahom because Nehem is located in the mountains, there was no reason for Lehi and his family to enter 150 miles of dangerous mountains without food and water.  Here is a picture of what the Nehem mountain area looks like, it is very ugly and unsafe for a family travel. I don't see how it would be possible for Lehi and his family to set tents in those ugly mountains. 

I see no reason to believe Nahom was found, but of course the Hebrew meaning of Nahom is powerful and makes me feel good. Anti-mormons will never explain it's meaning because it is clearly not a coincidence. Book of Mormon says Nahom means mourning. 

This brings up the issue that we should give a rating to BOM evidence, from 1 to 5 where 5 is a verified and dated  inscription in a cave near Jerusalem that says, "Nephi, son of Lehi, was here".  
A 1 would be the inscription that says "Nephi, son of Lehi, was here in 600 BCE"   :P

Anyway, based on the analysis, I would rate NHM as a three.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In Hebrew the word Nahom means mourning, and it is impossible for its meaning to be a coincidence because the Book of Mormon was written by Israelites. The meaning of Nahom is good evidence, but it is only evidence. I don't think Nahom was found because I believe God hided archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon to test our faith. If we find no evidence for barley, horses, elephants, steel in southern Mexico why would we find Nahom? It makes sense that God hided (or removed) everything to test our faith.  

Nonsense. It is there if you look in the right places. Stop trying to force the BoM to fit into an archaeologically incorrect area.

Quote

I believe the NHM altars are a coincidence because the altars are not located in Nehem. The NHM altar sites are located in near the temple of Bar'an in Marib, Yemem,  nowhere near Nehem. As for the dating, the only dating of the altars published in a Journal was done by Warren Aston. However, I am a little skeptical because Aston also finds "overwhelming evidence that earth is being, and has always been, visited by a variety of extra-terrestrial races".  For Aston there are a lot of archaeological evidences for ancient astronauts. I feel we need more confirmation for the dating of the altars. It is well known that sometimes bad research is published in scholarly and archaeology journals.  

Another reason why I am skeptical is because in the NHM sites we find many inscriptions that match Biblical names.  For example the Biblical name Gareb matches an inscription (Grb) in the same Bar'an region. Or the Biblical name Nebat matches an inscriptions (Nbt)in the same Bar'an region, again. You can literally find dozens and possibly hundreds of examples. However, just because they match doesn't mean they are related.   

I don't believe Nehem in Arabia is Book of Mormon's Nahom because Nehem is located in the mountains, there was no reason for Lehi and his family to enter 150 miles of dangerous mountains without food and water.  Here is a picture of what the Nehem mountain area looks like, it is very ugly and unsafe for a family travel. I don't see how it would be possible for Lehi and his family to set tents in those ugly mountains. 

I see no reason to believe Nahom was found, but of course the Hebrew meaning of Nahom is powerful and makes me feel good. Anti-mormons will never explain it's meaning because it is clearly not a coincidence. Book of Mormon says Nahom means mourning. 

The Nhm  region is actually quite close to ancient Marib. I don't know what map you're looking at dude. Marib is the closest known city to the NHM valley and was the capitol as well. It is natural to find a reference to these nearby people in Marib. That is where they would go to present their sacrifices, etc.

Why would the Lehites go there? Because they were following the Liahona, and that was the natural route east. There was a chain of several cities along the trade route that would provide needed supplies to cross the empty quarter.

I guess you can always choose to believe it was referring to the base of Jesus' operations at Capernaum - Capernaum means Nahum's city. As for me, it's the place. Their travel had been along the Red Sea until they turned east. Therefore, they could not be in Egypt or Cush since there is no way to turn east from there. They had to be in Arabia. No doubt that is the place, and the Nhm altar's are excellent archaeological evidence. You can hardly get better. It is rare to find place names in ancient archaeology.

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In Hebrew the word Nahom means mourning, and it is impossible for its meaning to be a coincidence because the Book of Mormon was written by Israelites. The meaning of Nahom is good evidence, but it is only evidence.

Evidence, but not proof.  Actually there are a couple of Hebrew words which could be the source:  *Nāḥôm “Comfort, Consolation, Mourning, Moan," or nhm “to groan, growl” (Sidney Sperry, and Jo Ann Hackett),[1] particularly since the latter is the exact consonantal equivalent to the Early South Arabic root NHM which apparently has to do with "stone-cutting."


[1] S. Sperry, The Book of Mormon Testifies, 60; Jo Ann Carlton (Hackett), and John W. Welch, “Possible Linguistic Roots of Book of Mormon Names,” FARMS Preliminary Report CAR-81 (Provo: FARMS, 1982).

Quote

 I don't think Nahom was found because I believe God hided archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon to test our faith. If we find no evidence for barley, horses, elephants, steel in southern Mexico why would we find Nahom? It makes sense that God hided (or removed) everything to test our faith.  

Not sure what you mean to say here, but it seems incoherent at best.  Barley, horses, elephants, steel, etc., are not an actual problem for the BofM, and even bringing them up deflects from the issue we are discussing.

Quote

I believe the NHM altars are a coincidence because the altars are not located in Nehem. The NHM altar sites are located in near the temple of Bar'an in Marib, Yemem,  nowhere near Nehem.

False.  The votive NHM altars are found at a temple only 25 miles from the massive, ancient burial ground within the well-known tribal area of NHM.  That burial ground has been used contnuously since around 3000 BC.  The altars merely demonstrate that the name was in use in the time of Lehi.

Quote

 As for the dating, the only dating of the altars published in a Journal was done by Warren Aston. However, I am a little skeptical because Aston also finds "overwhelming evidence that earth is being, and has always been, visited by a variety of extra-terrestrial races".  For Aston there are a lot of archaeological evidences for ancient astronauts.

I feel we need more confirmation for the dating of the altars. It is well known that sometimes bad research is published in scholarly and archaeology journals.  

I know and have met Warren Aston, and have never heard of such nonsense about ancient astronauts.  Moreover, it is not true that Aston dated the altars.  The altars were dated by the non-Mormon archeologists who excavated the site.  For example, Christian Robin, in Yemen au Pays de la reine de Saba (Paris: Flammarion, 1977), 144; Norbert Nebes, “Zur Chronologie der Inschriften aus dem Bar’an-Tempel,” in Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen. Bd. 10: Rencontres Sabéennes 6 (Mainz am Rhein : P. von Zabern, 2005), 111-117,, online at http://digital.library.stonybrook.edu/cdm/ref/collection/amar/id/94855 .

Quote

Another reason why I am skeptical is because in the NHM sites we find many inscriptions that match Biblical names.  For example the Biblical name Gareb matches an inscription (Grb) in the same Bar'an region. Or the Biblical name Nebat matches an inscriptions (Nbt)in the same Bar'an region, again. You can literally find dozens and possibly hundreds of examples. However, just because they match doesn't mean they are related.   

We should not be surprised to find Semitic names with roots similar to biblical names, since both Hebrew and ancient South Arabic are Semitic languages.  That is normal and to be expected.  And it is true that, just because they are similar does not mean that they are genetically related.

Quote

I don't believe Nehem in Arabia is Book of Mormon's Nahom because Nehem is located in the mountains, there was no reason for Lehi and his family to enter 150 miles of dangerous mountains without food and water.  Here is a picture of what the Nehem mountain area looks like, it is very ugly and unsafe for a family travel. I don't see how it would be possible for Lehi and his family to set tents in those ugly mountains. 

Ancient South Arabic NHM is not in the mountains, it is in a flat plateau area, and no one has proposed that Clan Lehi went mountain climbing.  There are some very high mountains in the South Arabian area, but Clan Lehi likely skirted the mountains on the northwest side en route to Bountiful.  A great deal of rainfall lands on those mountains, and water comes forth downslope from springs.  In addition, there is a lot of game available in those mountains, particularly in ancient times, and hunting may have been good in the lowlands (piedmont).

Quote

I see no reason to believe Nahom was found, but of course the Hebrew meaning of Nahom is powerful and makes me feel good. Anti-mormons will never explain it's meaning because it is clearly not a coincidence. Book of Mormon says Nahom means mourning. 

So you want to have your cake and eat it too?  Warren Aston tells the basic story rather well in his “Newly Found Altars From Nahom,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10/2 (2001): 57-61,71, online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/10/2/S00008-50e5e94d04c218Aston.pdf .  I just don't see why you would have a problem with it, Sam.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

To be fair it may not be the same one. But the evidence available does show a remarkable coincidence.

Not really, see the updated version of the OP. 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We should not be surprised to find Semitic names with roots similar to biblical names, since both Hebrew and ancient South Arabic are Semitic languages.  That is normal and to be expected.  And it is true that, just because they are similar does not mean that they are genetically related.

Yes, but it doesn't mean they are related. For example Biblical name Nebat is unrelated to Nbt inscriptions in Bar'an.  You can find many other examples of Bar'an inscriptions matching Biblical names. 

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Nonsense. It is there if you look in the right places. Stop trying to force the BoM to fit into an archaeologically incorrect area.

There are ancient NHM inscriptions everywhere in Arabia. See updated version of the OP. 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

“Zur Chronologie der Inschriften aus dem Bar’an-Tempel,” in Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen. Bd. 10: Rencontres Sabéennes 6 (Mainz am Rhein : P. von Zabern, 2005), 111-117,, online at http://digital.library.stonybrook.edu/cdm/ref/collection/amar/id/94855 .

Corrected: German article dates them after Nephi. 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  The votive NHM altars are found at a temple only 25 miles from the massive, ancient burial ground within the well-known tribal area of NHM.  That burial ground has been used contnuously since around 3000 BC.  The altars merely demonstrate that the name was in use in the time of Lehi.

If true 25 miles is still kind of far. Nehem is a mountain region, and may be unrelated to NHM altars. 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

...............................................................

Yes, but it doesn't mean they are related. For example Biblical name Nebat is unrelated to Nbt inscriptions in Bar'an.  You can find many other examples of Bar'an inscriptions matching Biblical names. 

What I said, son, which you apparently did not read, and did not understand.  I have been aware that Semitic names are shared in common for over 40 years, and  that is not the issue here.  You act as though you have made a new and important discovery.  What you say here is old news and irrelevant.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There are ancient NHM inscriptions everywhere in Arabia. See updated version of the OP. 

There are indeed some very late instances of NHM in Saifaitic and Hismaic (formerly Thamudic E) in ancient North Arabic, but they are all centuries after Lehi, from the period from the 1st century BC to the 4th century AD.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't see anything about the dating of the altars in your source. We are interested in the altars, not other sites near Bar'an temple. 

I did not give you one source.  I gave you two, and both sources deal specifically with the Bar'an Temple and the altars there.  Once again, it isn't clear that you are even on planet Earth, Sam.  First you lied and said that Aston had dated the altars, while now you are claiming that non-mormon scholars Robin and Nebes do not deal with the Bar'an Temple.  Just the title alone of the German article ought to make that clear:  Nebes "On the Chronology of the Inscriptions of the Bar'an-Temple."

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

If true 25 miles is still kind of far. Nehem is a mountain region, and may be unrelated to NHM altars. 

Maybe to some city-slicker it might seem that 25 miles is a long way, but you originally claimed that the altars were "nowhere near Nehem."  Yet 25 miles is near for most rational thinkers, but the point wasn't ever that they were at the same location as the NHM cemetery, but rather that the name occurs in nearby inscriptions during the time of Lehi, demonstrating beyond dispute that the name was well-known in Lehi's day.  That is why the Safaitic and Hismaic graffiti are of no interest -- they are from centuries later and in a very different area.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I said, son, which you apparently did not read, and did not understand.  I have been aware that Semitic names are shared in common for over 40 years, and  that is not the issue here.  You act as though you have made a new and important discovery.  What you say here is old news and irrelevant.

There are indeed some very late instances of NHM in Saifaitic and Hismaic (formerly Thamudic E) in ancient North Arabic, but they are all centuries after Lehi, from the period from the 1st century BC to the 4th century AD.

I did not give you one source.  I gave you two, and both sources deal specifically with the Bar'an Temple and the altars there.  Once again, it isn't clear that you are even on planet Earth, Sam.  First you lied and said that Aston had dated the altars, while now you are claiming that non-mormon scholars Robin and Nebes do not deal with the Bar'an Temple.  Just the title alone of the German article ought to make that clear:  Nebes "On the Chronology of the Inscriptions of the Bar'an-Temple."

Maybe to some city-slicker it might seem that 25 miles is a long way, but you originally claimed that the altars were "nowhere near Nehem."  Yet 25 miles is near for most rational thinkers, but the point wasn't ever that they were at the same location as the NHM cemetery, but rather that the name occurs in nearby inscriptions during the time of Lehi, demonstrating beyond dispute that the name was well-known in Lehi's day.  That is why the Safaitic and Hismaic graffiti are of no interest -- they are from centuries later and in a very different area.

This needs a little something at the end...

 

IMG_2357.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I said, son, which you apparently did not read, and did not understand.  I have been aware that Semitic names are shared in common for over 40 years, and  that is not the issue here.  You act as though you have made a new and important discovery.  What you say here is old news and irrelevant.

Okay Father. So we agree that finding NHM inscriptions doesn't mean anything? 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are indeed some very late instances of NHM in Saifaitic and Hismaic (formerly Thamudic E) in ancient North Arabic, but they are all centuries after Lehi, from the period from the 1st century BC to the 4th century AD.

I have no idea, but I will believe you. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not give you one source.  I gave you two, and both sources deal specifically with the Bar'an Temple and the altars there.  Once again, it isn't clear that you are even on planet Earth, Sam.  First you lied and said that Aston had dated the altars, while now you are claiming that non-mormon scholars Robin and Nebes do not deal with the Bar'an Temple.  Just the title alone of the German article ought to make that clear:  Nebes "On the Chronology of the Inscriptions of the Bar'an-Temple."

Sorry, I thought it was another paper. The German article you cite dates them after Nephi, and it was just a guess estimate. It was Aston that dated them to an earlier time. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe to some city-slicker it might seem that 25 miles is a long way, but you originally claimed that the altars were "nowhere near Nehem."  Yet 25 miles is near for most rational thinkers, but the point wasn't ever that they were at the same location as the NHM cemetery, but rather that the name occurs in nearby inscriptions during the time of Lehi, demonstrating beyond dispute that the name was well-known in Lehi's day.  That is why the Safaitic and Hismaic graffiti are of no interest -- they are from centuries later and in a very different area.

Vogt dated NHM altars after Nephi. Do we agree God won't allow us to find Nahom? 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Gray said:

I echo the opinion of others in saying that you come off like an exmo impersonating a "TBM" in order to satirize LDS beliefs

Why? 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Gray said:

I echo the opinion of others in saying that you come off like an exmo impersonating a "TBM" in order to satirize LDS beliefs. I mean if that makes you happy, have at it. But it seems silly to be so cloak and dagger. Why not just have a real conversation and say you're skeptical about Nahom and list the reasons why? 

Yup. And I say that as someone who has long been skeptical of the Naham stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Corrected: German article dates them after Nephi. 

 

Are you sure of that?  The “Katalog” indicates that there are four altar inscriptions which include the word “nhm”.  All of these are dated to the “Old Sabaean Period" (i.e., 9th - 6th century B.C.)  Of these, three were dated to the “B” period and one to the “C” period.  The “B” period is the only one that actually includes a fairly specific "absolute" date (685 B.C.)  I don’t see that the “C” period has been correlated to a specific time other than that it was "before Christ."

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why? 

For the same reason that The Nehor likes to be cynical and satirical.  It is amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay Father. So we agree that finding NHM inscriptions doesn't mean anything? 

On the contrary.  When a name is later found at the same place (cemetery) as well as nearby from the period in question (Lehi), that is the sort of evidence (not proof) which is indicative of a plausible fit for an archeologist.  Find enough plausible instances, and one begins to have a generally plausible case -- from a secular, scientific POV.

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

...................................................

Sorry, I thought it was another paper. The German article you cite dates them after Nephi, and it was just a guess estimate. It was Aston that dated them to an earlier time. 

Aston is not an epigrapher or archeologist, so he could not date them.  He merely reported what the non-Mormon scholars did.  As Okrahomer points out, Nebes places the altars within Lehi's period, not later.  the dating is partly by epigraphic style, which changes through time, but also by content, since some known kings are listed.

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Vogt dated NHM altars after Nephi. Do we agree God won't allow us to find Nahom? 

The notion that God would prevent someone from discovering items of evidence sounds something like your comment on ancient astronauts.  Really?!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

 

Are you sure of that?  The “Katalog” indicates that there are four altar inscriptions which include the word “nhm”.  All of these are dated to the “Old Sabaean Period" (i.e., 9th - 6th century B.C.)  Of these, three were dated to the “B” period and one to the “C” period.  The “B” period is the only one that actually includes a fairly specific "absolute" date (685 B.C.)  I don’t see that the “C” period has been correlated to a specific time other than that it was "before Christ."

9th century? Not according to scholar "the Sabaean kingdom began to flourish only from the eighth century BCE onward" and another scholar "there is hardly any evidence for a Sabaean kingdom there before the nigth or even eighth century BC"

According to the German article itself, " In order to we can have a more or less time complete epigraphic occupancy of the Bar'n Temple of almost 100 years, from 180 to 270 AD" and "This King, which we have begun between 210 and 230 AD the 'Almaqah, the Lord of Muscat, and the Bar'an resides" 

So yes, the German article dates altars after Nephi. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the contrary.  When a name is later found at the same place (cemetery)

You told me above "the point wasn't ever that they were at the same location as the NHM cemetery".  Nehem (tribal territory) is located in the ugly mountains, not in the NHM site.  

The burial sites may not be related to NHM. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

, that is the sort of evidence

It is not hard to find rocks, altars, inscriptions that match Biblical names in archaeological sites of Arabia. The fact that we find NHM in North Arabia means we need to be more careful. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

as well as nearby from the period in question (Lehi)

The question is debatable. There is nothing well-established in the dating of the NHM altars, it is mostly just an educated guess.  

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 which is indicative of a plausible fit for an archeologist.

It is easy to find possibilities, we are more interested in what is more probable.  Did we find Nahom? I doubt it. 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

9th century? Not according to scholar "the Sabaean kingdom began to flourish only from the eighth century BCE onward" and another scholar "there is hardly any evidence for a Sabaean kingdom there before the nigth or even eighth century BC"

According to the German article itself, " In order to we can have a more or less time complete epigraphic occupancy of the Bar'n Temple of almost 100 years, from 180 to 270 AD" and "This King, which we have begun between 210 and 230 AD the 'Almaqah, the Lord of Muscat, and the Bar'an resides" 

So yes, the German article dates altars after Nephi. 

I think you must be using Google translate or some other online tool to help you.  That's fine, but you are misunderstanding a great deal in the process.

Your first paragraph actually confirms what has already been pointed out:  the Sabaeans were inscribing their language in stone prior to,  contemporaneously with, and subsequent to the time that Lehi and his family traveled through Arabia.

This fact is confirmed in the journal article which notes that more than 70 inscriptions were found at Bar'an.  Most of these inscriptions belong to the old Sabaean period, and others are linked to the middle Sabaean period.  The wiki link I gave you indicates this:  "Old Sabaean: mostly boustrophedon inscriptions from the 9th until the 8th century BC and including further texts in the next two centuries from Ma'rib and the Highlands."  So we have inscriptions in old Sabaean stretching from the 9th century BC to the 6th century BC.

Nebes provides information for each of the inscriptions in the  "Anhang - Katalog" section of the journal article.  Each of the inscriptions has been assigned a date (Datierung) code.  ALL of the "NHM" inscriptions (there 4 of them) are dated to the Old Sabaean period; however, Nebes also uses a reference within these inscriptions to link to an historical figure (Karib'il Watar) in order to set the so-called "absolute" date.  I believe "absolute" in this case means these particular inscriptions (which Nebes assigns a sub code "B") could not pre-date 685 BC.  Three of the four "NHM" inscriptions are dated "B".  The Lehites did not bury Ishmael in Nahom until about 592 BC.  

Finally, Nebes mentions that carbon-dating of some parts of the excavation had yielded an 8th century BC result.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It is easy to find possibilities, we are more interested in what is more probable.  Did we find Nahom? I doubt it. 

You are not alone in those doubts as witness Clark Goble's comments, but for different reasons than the one you have presented. It is not a slam dunk, else everyone would be convinced. It is plausible, given the context from the Book of Mormon. However, the arguments that you use could also be applied to many Biblical names also. Yet evidence keeps coming forward that presents evidence for the existence of characters previously unknown to secular history. One such example is the Tel Dan inscriptions found in 1993 which talk of the House of David.  We should be careful of attributing to God what can be rationally be explained by the activities of man and time.

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I think you must be using Google translate or some other online tool to help you.  That's fine, but you are misunderstanding a great deal in the process.

Your first paragraph actually confirms what has already been pointed out:  the Sabaeans were inscribing their language in stone prior to,  contemporaneously with, and subsequent to the time that Lehi and his family traveled through Arabia.

This fact is confirmed in the journal article which notes that more than 70 inscriptions were found at Bar'an.  Most of these inscriptions belong to the old Sabaean period, and others are linked to the middle Sabaean period.  

Okay, an Arabic scholar told me the German paper dates them after Nephi. He also told me the dating was just an educated guess. I am going to invite him to this discussion, I hope he accepts. I am not sure where you are getting the "old Sabaean period" from, and how you know aSabB means "old Sabean period".  Nowhere does the German article mention 900BC to 600BC.

Anyways, the German paper says 

Quote

13 DAI Bar'an 1996-1
Trager: Altarblock

Founder: b'ttr bn swdm bn nw'm nhmyn
Addressee: 'Imqh

Dwelling: Person (or Altar?) Fr't
Ruler and eponym: w-b yd "l w-b m'dkrb
Dating: aSabB

I don't think the above has anything to do the the Nehem tribal area in the mountains, or Book of Mormon Nahom. 

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 Yet evidence keeps coming forward that presents evidence for the existence of characters previously unknown to secular history. One such example is the Tel Dan inscriptions found in 1993 which talk of the House of David.  We should be careful of attributing to God what can be rationally be explained by the activities of man and time.

The Tel Dan inscription doesn't prove the Bible,  and that is why no one is questioning the Tel Dan.  

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You are not alone in those doubts as witness Clark Goble's comments, but for different reasons than the one you have presented. It is not a slam dunk, else everyone would be convinced. It is plausible, given the context from the Book of Mormon.

 How plausible? We find NHM in northern Arabia. We find many south inscriptions that match Biblical names. So how likely is it that we found Nahom? 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You are not alone in those doubts as witness Clark Goble's comments, but for different reasons than the one you have presented. It is not a slam dunk, else everyone would be convinced. It is plausible, given the context from the Book of Mormon. However, the arguments that you use could also be applied to many Biblical names also.

The main argument against "Samuel's" line of thought is to just think through the consequences of finding clear evidence of a Nahom that can't be attributed to coincidence that's tied to an unambiguous trade route. Would critics suddenly believe the Book of Mormon? Of course not. The rhetoric would merely shift to how the information could plausibly be found by Joseph Smith even if there's no evidence he'd seen it. Just look at the attempts to make Joseph aware of the Comoros islands without any evidence.

Since a real Nahom find wouldn't really change the nature of the debate much, why on earth would God have to obscure it?

Edited by clarkgoble
(Spelling error)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

 Just look at the attempts to make Joseph aware of the Comoros islands without any evidence.

No True Scotsman 

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 Would critics suddenly believe the Book of Mormon? Of course note.

Are you saying all critics would be in denial? You are doing a lot of speculation there my friend. 

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The main argument against "Samuel's" line of thought is to just think through the consequences of finding clear evidence of a Nahom that can't be attributed to coincidence that's tied to an unambiguous trade route.

Unfortunately that hasn't ever happened. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×