Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

God probably won't allow us to find Nahom


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you acknowledge that coincidence is a reasonable possibility? 

How do you know? For example "the Semitic name Nahom can refer to mourning and consolation, and may also refer to groaning and complaining, giving it special significance in Nephi's account as a possible Hebraic wordplay."

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

I am not making stuff up. 

Jeff Lindsay is not "many LDS scholars" -- you are using hyperbole.  Did ancient peoples use hyperbole?  We know that they did.  How do  we know?  Because research has assembled multiple instances, and we know that it was a standard characteristic of ancient literature.  The same applies to wordplay and many other literary techniques.  Does that mean that we have "proven" that Nephi was using wordplay in the Nahom case?  Of course not, which is what I have been trying to impress upon you all along, but you never seem to get it that we are not seeking "proof" of anything.  Only plausible indicators.  That is what scholars do.  You demand extreme doubt, where scholars use reason and logic.  You cannot understand the difference, and it might help a lot if you were to take several semesters of English literature in college, followed by a couple of semesters of biblical literature.  You have no idea currently how scholars think and you desperately need to acquaint yourself with scholarly discipline.  Everything in the world is not just "coincidence," Sam.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you acknowledge that coincidence is a reasonable possibility? 

Sam, all of the evidence points away from coincidence. It would have to be considered a remote possibility. You have adduced no evidence for a coincidence. You have not even been able to find another NHM as a place name anywhere else but the one in question. If you will recall that was one of the things that you were going to do. If you are satisfied with your conclusions, fine, but you have produced nothing in the way of scholarship to make any case for coincidence.

From all of the archaeological evidence that has been uncovered so far it is evident that a Nihm tribe has existed and inhabited an area north east of Sana'a going back to at least the eighth century BCE. The existence of the Nehhm area with Nehhm tribe was documented by Carsten Niehbur in his "Travels in Arabia" published in the mid eighteenth century. It is illogical to conclude that such is a coincidence.

Glenn

Link to comment
On 10/27/2017 at 10:20 AM, Glenn101 said:

Sam, all of the evidence points away from coincidence. It would have to be considered a remote possibility. You have adduced no evidence for a coincidence. You have not even been able to find another NHM as a place name anywhere else but the one in question

Okay, let me explain in detail why coincidence is a good possibility. First, let me start with your claim "You have not even been able to find another NHM as a place name anywhere else but the one in question". 

I think I could find a place name somewhere else that fits in NHM, but it would be irrelevant if I find it or not. Why? Because a coincidence doesn't have to repeat itself. For example, it is a coincidence that a man was caught on a security camera being struck by lighting twice, but it doesn't mean it has to happen again to someone else.  It is a coincidence that Moroni is the capital of Comoros Island, but it doesn't mean you have to find another island with the same name and capital. A coincidence doesn't have to be repetitive, that is why Cinepro says, "it's misleading to only consider the probability of events after they occur". 

On 10/27/2017 at 10:20 AM, Glenn101 said:

From all of the archaeological evidence that has been uncovered so far it is evident that a Nihm tribe has existed and inhabited an area north east of Sana'a going back to at least the eighth century BCE. The existence of the Nehhm area with Nehhm tribe was documented by Carsten Niehbur in his "Travels in Arabia" published in the mid eighteenth century. It is illogical to conclude that such is a coincidence.

As far as I know there is no evidence that NHM tribe dates to the time of Lehi, Robert says the NHM inscription rocks only demonstrate that NHM was in use in the time of Lehi. "The altars merely demonstrate that the name was in use in the time of Lehi." Glenn, coincidence is a valid possibility because we have to make a lot of assumptions .

1. We have to assume NHM was a toponym in the time of Lehi

2. We have to assume Nihm dates to the time of Lehi

3. We have to assume Lehi heard the "H" as a soft h, it it possible, but that doesn't stop it from being an assumption. 

4. Book of Mormon "south-south east" and "east" are not enough instructions to get us to a specific location, even one degree can make hundreds of miles difference. Finding Bountiful and Nihm before predicting their location "puts the cart before the horse".  

5. We find many inscriptions (including toponyms) near Nihm that match other Old Testament names. This point number five hasn't been refuted so far.   

6. We have to assume Nahom was a tribal region. We could have also assume Nahom was a kingdom, family, property, city, business, clan, religious sect territory.  Had NHM been a religion,  LDS defenders would have been arguing that Nahom was a religious territory.   

Glennn, we have many more assumptions than you probably realize, I can still continue to grow the list.  

On 10/27/2017 at 6:45 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

  Of course not, which is what I have been trying to impress upon you all along, but you never seem to get it that we are not seeking "proof" of anything.  Only plausible indicators. 

I understand Robert, I agree it is possible, but it doesn't mean ancient history is not full of problems. For example, what are the best available biographies of the life of Jesus? The best biographies are the new testament gospels, some 40 to 90 years later. There is no evidence the Gospel authors ever met the original twelve, and yet scholars take the gospels as the best biographies for antiquity. Robert, I hope you understand that the standard for ancient history isn't that high. Ancient history is not like science, science is more reliable (yet not perfect) because it can be tested over and over again, and makes predictions.  You can't do the same for ancient history. 

My point is that ancient history is not very reliable on many occasions Robert. Many times scholars have to make assumptions that can't be verified. I am not saying ancient history is entirely useless, but it is sometimes. For example, as we discuss previously it is my understanding that the dating of the NHM rocks is just a guess. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
On 10/26/2017 at 1:45 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The Nihm نهم district is listed regularly in news reports due to fighting in the area, and you can see it llsted on this map -- 

 Nihm District (Arabicمديرية نهم‎‎) is a district of the Sana'a GovernorateYemen. As of 2003, the district had a population of 41,502 inhabitants.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihm_District .  You can also find a color-coded tribal map of Yemen in Arabic at https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2876/10846669493_17fe8a560f_b.jpg .

Wait a minute. I found a list of the districts of Yemen. So far I am not finding a single tribal name other than Nihm. Could it be that the Nihm district name comes from the Nihm tribe and not the other way around?

Robert, I am not seeing any evidence Nihm was ancient place name. So what is it? A district, a tribal territory, a toponym?All three? Please clarify.  

You previously told me Nihm was not a toponym.  

Quote
Name HASC Cd Population
Abs YE.HJ.AB 1704 133,824
Ad Dahi YE.HU.DA 1809 54,503
Ad Dhale'e YE.DL.DH 3006 80,213
Ad Dis YE.HA.DI 1914 23,092
Ad Durayhimi YE.HU.DU 1814 55,013
Adh Dhlia'ah YE.HA.DH 1922 18,678
Aflah Al Yaman YE.HJ.AY 1714 38,874
Aflah Ash Shawm YE.HJ.AS 1710 54,054
Ahwar YE.AB.AH 1209 25,246
Ain YE.SH.AI 2106 22,051
Al Abdiyah YE.MA.AB 2611 13,000
Al Abr YE.HA.AB 1906 3,348
Al A'rsh YE.BA.AR 1416 45,773
Al Ashah YE.AM.AS 2903 43,859
Al Azariq YE.DL.AZ 3008 37,295
Al Bayda YE.BA.BA 1410 40,289
Al Bayda City YE.BA.BC 1409 29,853
Al Buraiqeh YE.AD.BU 2404 62,405
Al Dhaher YE.SD.DH 2207 22,394
Al Dhihar YE.IB.DH 1119 154,399
Al Garrahi YE.HU.GA 1825 89,163
Al Ghaydah YE.MR.GH 2804 27,404
Al Ghayl YE.JA.GH 1608 10,436
Al Had YE.LA.HD 2501 53,159
Al Hada YE.DH.HA 2001 143,100
Al Hajjaylah YE.HU.HJ 1811 9,694
Al Hali YE.HU.HL 1823 168,071
Al Hashwah YE.SD.HW 2213 14,274
Al Hawak YE.HU.HW 1821 155,369
Al Hawtah YE.LA.HT 2514 25,881
Al Haymah Ad Dakhiliyah YE.NA.HD 2308 83,234
Al Haymah Al Kharijiyah YE.NA.HK 2309 58,454
Al Hazm YE.JA.HA 1605 30,952
Al Humaydat YE.JA.HU 1602 20,026
Al Husha YE.DL.HU 3009 60,178
Al Husn YE.NA.HU 2315 30,124
Al Hussein YE.DL.HN 3005 37,118
Al Jabin YE.RM.JB 3102 71,777
Al Jafariyah YE.RM.JF 3105 69,705
Al Jamimah YE.HJ.JA 1708 41,211
Al Jubah YE.MA.JU 2607 21,093
Al Khabt YE.MW.KH 2704 64,033
Al Khalq YE.JA.KH 1609 14,123
Al Khawkhah YE.HU.KH 1820 33,764
Alluheyah YE.HU.AL 1802 105,682
Al Ma'afer YE.TA.MF 1521 110,924
Al Madan YE.AM.MD 2906 26,955
Al Madaribah Wa Al Arah YE.LA.MA 2513 45,808
Al Maflahy YE.LA.MF 2503 38,524
Al Maghrabah YE.HJ.MG 1717 64,440
Al Mahabishah YE.HJ.MH 1715 50,865
Al Mahfad YE.AB.MA 1201 26,870
Al Mahwait YE.MW.MA 2709 50,526
Al Mahwait City YE.MW.MC 2708 20,134
Al Makhadir YE.IB.MK 1107 113,892
Al Malagim YE.BA.ML 1420 29,573
Al Manar YE.DH.MN 2012 49,390
Al Mansura YE.AD.MA 2403 114,931
Al Mansuriyah YE.HU.MS 1816 44,744
Al Maqatirah YE.LA.MQ 2512 54,613
Al Marawi'ah YE.HU.MR 1813 129,527
Al Mashannah YE.IB.MN 1118 101,148
Al Masilah YE.MR.MS 2806 10,404
Al Maslub YE.JA.MS 1607 9,938
Al Matammah YE.JA.MM 1603 28,935
Al Maton YE.JA.MN 1606 28,411
Al Mawasit YE.TA.MT 1522 115,857
Al Miftah YE.HJ.MF 1716 31,691
Al Mighlaf YE.HU.MG 1808 39,436
Al Milah YE.LA.MI 2508 27,636
Al Mina YE.HU.MI 1822 91,843
Al Misrakh YE.TA.MI 1512 112,653
Al Mualla YE.AD.MU 2406 49,891
Al Mudhaffar YE.TA.MU 1518 146,259
Al Mukalla YE.HA.MU 1930 16,748
Al Mukalla City YE.HA.MC 1929 184,635
Al Mukha YE.TA.MK 1506 18,155
Al Munirah YE.HU.MU 1805 37,183
Al Musaymir YE.LA.MU 2509 26,558
Al Qabbaytah YE.LA.QA 2510 94,516
Al Qaf YE.HA.QF 1903 2,145
Al Qaflah YE.AM.QA 2904 36,722
Al Qafr YE.IB.QA 1101 103,272
Al Qahirah YE.TA.QA 1519 149,394
Al Qanawis YE.HU.QA 1806 72,336
Al Qatn YE.HA.QT 1907 64,248
Al Quraishyah YE.BA.QU 1414 29,525
Al Talh YE.SH.TA 2102 9,404
Al Udayn YE.IB.UD 1111 143,578
Al Wade'a YE.AB.WA 1208 23,400
Al Wahdah YE.SA.WA 1306 99,956
Al Wazi'iyah YE.TA.WA 1516 75,288
Amd YE.HA.AM 1921 20,052
Amran YE.AM.AM 2915 96,375
An Nadirah YE.IB.NA 1104 73,755
Anss YE.DH.AN 2010 119,124
Arhab YE.NA.AR 2302 90,038
Arma YE.SH.AR 2104 10,188
Ar Radmah YE.IB.RA 1103 76,576
Ar Rawdah YE.SH.RA 2115 27,371
Ar Raydah Wa Qusayar YE.HA.RQ 1913 45,180
Ar Rujum YE.MW.RU 2703 75,708
Ar Ryashyyah YE.BA.RY 1418 22,842
Ash Shaghadirah YE.HJ.SG 1725 48,746
Ash Shahil YE.HJ.SH 1721 32,548
Ash Shaikh Outhman YE.AD.SO 2402 105,248
Ash Sha'ir YE.IB.SH 1105 39,805
Ash Shamayatayn YE.TA.SH 1515 26,790
Ash Sharyah YE.BA.SH 1419 33,873
Ash Shihr YE.HA.SH 1915 73,482
Ash Shu'ayb YE.DL.SH 3004 38,261
Aslem YE.HJ.AL 1712 49,227
As Sabain YE.SA.SA 1305 311,203
As Sabrah YE.IB.SB 1114 69,872
As Saddah YE.IB.SD 1106 82,502
Assafi'yah YE.SA.AS 1304 109,109
As Safra YE.SD.SF 2212 50,845
As Said YE.SH.SA 2112 35,034
As Salafiyah YE.RM.SA 3103 82,540
As Salif YE.HU.SA 1804 6,343
As Sawadiyah YE.BA.SD 1411 26,763
As Sawd YE.AM.SA 2914 25,892
As Sawm YE.HA.SM 1912 12,666
As Sawma'ah YE.BA.SM 1404 44,873
As Sayyani YE.IB.SY 1115 110,515
As Silw YE.TA.SI 1514 152,486
As Sudah YE.AM.SU 2913 32,169
As Sukhnah YE.HU.SU 1815 59,652
Ataq YE.SH.AT 2113 37,315
Ath'thaorah YE.SA.AT 1309 170,145
At Taffah YE.BA.TA 1407 27,692
At Tahrir YE.SA.TA 1307 66,898
At Ta'iziyah YE.TA.TA 1502 109,814
Attawahi YE.AD.AT 2405 52,984
At Tawilah YE.MW.TA 2702 58,862
At Tuhayat YE.HU.TU 1826 67,660
Attyal YE.NA.AT 2313 36,253
Az Zahir YE.BA.ZA 1405 25,704
Az Zahir YE.JA.ZA 1604 24,065
Az'zal YE.SA.AZ 1303 115,054
Az Zaydiyah YE.HU.ZD 1807 95,048
Az Zuhrah YE.HU.ZU 1801 138,045
Ba'dan YE.IB.BA 1113 116,045
Bajil YE.HU.BA 1810 169,884
Bakil Al Mir YE.HJ.BM 1701 21,701
Bani Al Awam YE.HJ.BA 1727 52,222
Bani Al Harith YE.SA.BH 1310 184,509
Bani Dhabyan YE.NA.BD 2314 16,262
Bani Hushaysh YE.NA.BH 2304 73,957
Bani Matar YE.NA.BM 2307 100,012
Bani Qa'is YE.HJ.BQ 1724 54,272
Bani Sa'd YE.MW.BS 2707 59,015
Bani Suraim YE.AM.BS 2920 32,698
Baqim YE.SD.BA 2201 22,965
Bart Al Anan YE.JA.BA 1610 59,463
Bayhan YE.SH.BA 2107 48,347
Bayt Al Faqiah YE.HU.BF 1817 241,300
Bidbadah YE.MA.BI 2605 18,214
Bilad Ar Rus YE.NA.BR 2306 31,259
Bilad At Ta'am YE.RM.BA 3101 31,143
Brom Mayfa YE.HA.BM 1925 17,327
Bura YE.HU.BU 1812 45,116
Craiter YE.AD.CR 2407 76,723
Damt YE.DL.DA 3002 60,944
Dar Sad YE.AD.DS 2401 79,712
Daw'an YE.HA.DA 1918 43,836
Dawran Aness YE.DH.DA 2011 121,553
Dhamar City YE.DH.DH 2008 175,159
Dhar YE.SH.DH 2101 9,927
Dhi As Sufal YE.IB.DS 1116 163,019
Dhi Bin YE.AM.DB 2909 30,799
Dhi Na'im YE.BA.DN 1406 25,759
Dhubab YE.TA.DH 1507 35,054
Dimnat Khadir YE.TA.DK 1513 49,832
Far Al Udayn YE.IB.FU 1110 89,011
Ghamr YE.SD.GH 2204 19,718
Ghayl Ba Wazir YE.HA.GW 1917 48,831
Ghayl Bin Yamin YE.HA.GY 1916 28,120
Habban YE.SH.HN 2114 29,846
Habil Jabr YE.LA.HJ 2505 41,474
Habur Zulaymah YE.AM.HZ 2908 39,334
Hagr As Sai'ar YE.HA.HS 1905 2,474
Hajjah YE.HJ.HJ 1729 29,533
Hajjah City YE.HJ.HC 1728 53,887
Hajr YE.HA.HA 1924 25,566
Halimayn YE.LA.HL 2506 27,871
Hamdan YE.NA.HA 2301 85,370
Harad YE.HJ.HD 1702 93,523
Harf Sufyan YE.AM.HS 2901 42,480
Harib YE.MA.HA 2609 33,663
Harib Al Qaramish YE.MA.HQ 2604 8,573
Hat YE.MR.HT 2802 2,786
Hatib YE.SH.HT 2111 13,335
Hawf YE.MR.HF 2803 5,143
Haydan YE.SD.HD 2208 60,331
Hayfan YE.TA.HA 1517 171,315
Hayran YE.HJ.HR 1705 15,491
Hays YE.HU.HS 1819 45,436
Hazm Al Udayn YE.IB.HU 1109 79,483
Hidaybu YE.SO.HI 1926 34,011
Hubaysh YE.IB.HB 1108 105,998
Hufash YE.MW.HU 2706 37,884
Huraidhah YE.HA.HU 1928 18,684
Huswain YE.MR.HU 2809 11,130
Huth YE.AM.HU 2902 22,267
Ibb YE.IB.IB 1120 143,641
Iyal Surayh YE.AM.IS 2918 54,015
Jabal Ash Sharq YE.DH.JS 2003 62,034
Jabal Habashy YE.TA.JH 1509 24,544
Jabal Iyal Yazid YE.AM.JI 2912 84,393
Jabal Murad YE.MA.JM 2614 10,280
Jabal Ra's YE.HU.JR 1818 44,674
Jahaf YE.DL.JA 3007 22,897
Jahran YE.DH.JA 2002 86,590
Jardan YE.SH.JA 2103 16,270
Jayshan YE.AB.JA 1203 14,800
Jiblah YE.IB.JI 1112 112,481
Jihanah YE.NA.JI 2316 50,747
Juban YE.DL.JU 3001 42,397
Kamaran YE.HU.KA 1803 2,465
Khabb wa ash Sha'af YE.JA.KS 1601 80,193
Khamir YE.AM.KM 2919 73,225
Khanfir YE.AB.KH 1211 109,044
Kharab Al Marashi YE.JA.KM 1612 63,532
Kharif YE.AM.KF 2910 45,977
Khayran Al Muharraq YE.HJ.KM 1711 68,707
Khur Maksar YE.AD.KM 2408 47,044
Khwlan YE.NA.KH 2312 28,925
Kitaf wa Al Boqe'e YE.SD.KB 2214 43,034
Ku'aydinah YE.HJ.KD 1722 69,332
Kuhlan Affar YE.HJ.KA 1718 40,333
Kuhlan Ash Sharaf YE.HJ.KS 1709 44,760
Kushar YE.HJ.KU 1707 74,176
Kusmah YE.RM.KU 3104 74,622
Lawdar YE.AB.LA 1204 88,155
Ma'ain YE.SA.MA 1308 265,469
Mabyan YE.HJ.MB 1720 50,732
Maghirib Ans YE.DH.MA 2004 53,261
Mahliyah YE.MA.ML 2610 9,156
Majz YE.SD.MA 2210 68,598
Majzar YE.MA.MJ 2601 10,477
Manakhah YE.NA.MA 2310 78,932
Man'ar YE.MR.MN 2805 5,388
Maqbanah YE.TA.MQ 1505 62,471
Marib YE.MA.MB 2613 39,495
Marib City YE.MA.MC 2612 32,143
Mashra'a Wa Hadnan YE.TA.MH 1510 109,533
Maswar YE.AM.MW 2916 38,432
Maswarah YE.BA.MS 1403 7,038
Mawiyah YE.TA.MW 1501 129,765
Mawza YE.TA.MZ 1508 119,818
Mayfa'a YE.SH.MA 2116 41,597
Mayfa'at Anss YE.DH.MF 2009 60,854
Mazhar YE.RM.MA 3106 64,661
Medghal YE.MA.ME 2603 10,654
Merkhah Al Ulya YE.SH.MU 2108 32,278
Merkhah As Sufla YE.SH.MS 2109 40,635
Midi YE.HJ.MD 1703 16,604
Milhan YE.MW.MI 2705 89,224
Monabbih YE.SD.MO 2203 51,823
Mudhaykhirah YE.IB.MU 1117 77,835
Mudiyah YE.AB.MU 1202 34,879
Mukayras YE.BA.MK 1408 41,515
Mustaba YE.HJ.MU 1706 42,531
Najrah YE.HJ.NA 1726 35,942
Na'man YE.BA.NM 1401 9,252
Nati' YE.BA.NT 1402 13,604
Nihm YE.NA.NI 2303 41,502
Nisab YE.SH.NI 2110 42,050
Old City YE.SA.OC 1301 63,398
Qa'atabah YE.DL.QA 3003 91,206
Qafl Shamer YE.HJ.QS 1713 50,439
Qarah YE.HJ.QA 1731 30,641
Qatabir YE.SD.QA 2202 22,658
Qishn YE.MR.QI 2808 11,441
Qulensya Wa Abd Al Kuri YE.SO.QK 1927 10,109
Rada' YE.BA.RD 1413 56,382
Radfan YE.LA.RA 2507 45,570
Radman Al Awad YE.BA.RA 1412 20,150
Raghwan YE.MA.RG 2602 4,391
Rahabah YE.MA.RB 2608 7,441
Rajuzah YE.JA.RA 1611 73,723
Rakhyah YE.HA.RA 1920 8,715
Rasad YE.AB.RA 1206 54,825
Raydah YE.AM.RA 2911 46,631
Razih YE.SD.RA 2205 62,915
Rudum YE.SH.RU 2117 23,244
Rumah YE.HA.RU 1901 6,357
Sa'adah YE.SD.SD 2215 58,695
Sabah YE.BA.SB 1417 27,472
Sabir Al Mawadim YE.TA.SM 1511 100,254
Sa'fan YE.NA.SF 2311 33,722
Sah YE.HA.SA 1909 24,146
Sahar YE.SD.SR 2211 133,060
Salh YE.TA.SL 1520 198,169
Sama YE.TA.SA 1523 41,464
Sanhan YE.NA.SN 2305 80,399
Saqayn YE.SD.SQ 2209 52,521
Sarar YE.AB.SA 1207 15,093
Sayhut YE.MR.SA 2807 11,746
Sayun YE.HA.SY 1910 102,409
Shada'a YE.SD.SH 2206 11,202
Shahan YE.MR.SH 2801 3,152
Shaharah YE.AM.SH 2905 43,738
Shara'b Ar Rawnah YE.TA.SR 1504 186,955
Shara'b As Salam YE.TA.SS 1503 146,650
Sharas YE.HJ.SR 1719 15,707
Shibam YE.HA.SB 1908 48,829
Shibam Kawkaban YE.MW.SK 2701 39,163
Shu'aub YE.SA.SH 1302 213,939
Sibah YE.AB.SI 1205 15,996
Sirwah YE.MA.SI 2606 19,939
Suwayr YE.AM.SR 2907 20,854
Tarim YE.HA.TA 1911 100,617
Thamud YE.HA.TH 1902 4,402
Thula YE.AM.TH 2917 40,971
Tuban YE.LA.TU 2515 83,444
Tur Al Bahah YE.LA.TB 2511 47,426
Usaylan YE.SH.US 2105 31,518
Utmah YE.DH.UT 2005 145,284
Wadhrah YE.HJ.WD 1723 10,928
Wadi Al Ayn YE.HA.WA 1919 28,474
Wald Rabi' YE.BA.WR 1415 19,427
Washhah YE.HJ.WH 1730 62,617
Wusab Al Ali YE.DH.WA 2006 164,223
Wusab As Safil YE.DH.WS 2007 149,531
Yabuth YE.HA.YA 1923 9,862
Yafa'a YE.LA.YF 2502 75,014
Yahr YE.LA.YR 2504 37,148
Yarim YE.IB.YA 1102 175,014
Zabid YE.HU.ZB 1824 155,585
Zamakh wa Manwakh YE.HA.ZM 1904 1,505
Zingibar YE.AB.ZI 1210 25,524

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It is a coincidence that Moroni is the capital of Comoros Island, but it doesn't mean you have to find another island with the same name and capital. 

You first have to establish that this is merely a coincidence. It is not as easy as it seems.

Comoros takes its name from the Komr/Cumr people, a Biblical clan that sailed from the Middle East around the time of the tower (source). So in a way, the name of the islands aligns well with the narrative in the Book of Mormon of a Biblical clan departing from the Middle East around the time of the tower.

Moroni is more complicated, but it does appear to also be related to this group, as one of the leading figures in their civilization was a warrior from the Middle East named Maron, or Maroni (source). Note the original spelling of Moroni in JS History is Maroni

It could be coincidence, but you can't just say it is without doing a lot more footwork. And for the record, there are other islands founded by this Biblical group that have historically had the same name, including the Malay Peninsula (source) and Madagascar (source). They were all called a variation of Comoro, and had cities that were variations of Moroni. At some point, coincidence becomes the least likely explanation.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

As far as I know there is no evidence that NHM tribe dates to the time of Lehi, Robert says the NHM inscription rocks only demonstrate that NHM was in use in the time of Lehi. "The altars merely demonstrate that the name was in use in the time of Lehi." Glenn, coincidence is a valid possibility because we have to make a lot of assumptions .

That is the problem with as far as you know. You ignore all of the evidence and scholarship that has been done. You refuse to acknowledge the the references that have been provided for you that provide evidence that the Nihm tribe was in existence at least in the eighth century BCE. For your belief that coincidence is a better answer, one would have to assume that all of the researchers and archaeologists that have been working on this are wrong, that they do not know what they are talking about, and that you do. I take it that uou have yet to read and digest the information that Warren P. Aston gave in his paper published in the Journal of Arabian Studies entitle "The Origins of the Nihm Tribe of Yemen: A Window into Arabia's Past."

I have another challenge for you. Find an authority on ancient Arabia that will opine that the Nihm tribe did not exist in the sixth century BCE and that the Nehem on the maps should not be associated with the Nihm tribe. Please find some qualified scholar that will agree with you. References are called for here. Find one that will dispute the information presented in that article. Go back and read nealr's post on page five of this topic. Find an authority on Ancient Arabia that will disagree with the assessments of those non-LDS scholars. But get informed on the scholarship and research that has already been done. Barring that I guess you will have to be known as an anti-scholar.

To quote Rajah Manchou in the post just above "It could be coincidence, but you can't just say it is without doing a lot more footwork. At some point, coincidence becomes the least likely explanation."

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
Link to comment
4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Wait a minute. I found a list of the districts of Yemen. So far I am not finding a single tribal name other than Nihm. Could it be that the Nihm district name comes from the Nihm tribe and not the other way around?

Many place names come from the tribe of that area. You can't see any other tribal names on the list because you don't know which ones are tribes.  Many of them are tribal names.  As for the Nihm district, which is based on the tribe  in that area, many districts take their names from the local tribes.  There is nothing unusual about that.  Does that make any sense to you?

If not, you might need to consider the various biblical tribes which gave their names to their regions of occupation.  Do I need to list them for you, or can you fill in the blanks?

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, I am not seeing any evidence Nihm was ancient place name. So what is it? A district, a tribal territory, a toponym?All three? Please clarify.  

You previously told me Nihm was not a toponym.  

False.  You need to reread Warren Aston's "The Origins of the Nihm Tribe of Yemen: A Window into Arabia's Past," which is cited earlier in this thread.  Arab geographers mention Nihm at least a thousand years ago, and the evidence from Marib makes the likelihood that the tribe existed at the time of Lehi & Nephi very high.

Because you don't use reason and logic, naturally it will seem odd to you that Nihm can be a modern district, as well as a tribal territory, and toponym.  Non-Mormon scholars have no problem with reality, and see all three being true in many cases.  The crucial question is Why do you not accept reality?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, let me explain in detail why coincidence is a good possibility. First, let me start with your claim "You have not even been able to find another NHM as a place name anywhere else but the one in question". 

I think I could find a place name somewhere else that fits in NHM, but it would be irrelevant if I find it or not. Why? Because a coincidence doesn't have to repeat itself. For example, it is a coincidence that a man was caught on a security camera being struck by lighting twice, but it doesn't mean it has to happen again to someone else.  It is a coincidence that Moroni is the capital of Comoros Island, but it doesn't mean you have to find another island with the same name and capital. A coincidence doesn't have to be repetitive, that is why Cinepro says, "it's misleading to only consider the probability of events after they occur". 

Your reasoning here is of such poor quality and so tendentious that the only conclusion to be drawn is that you are deliberately obfuscating.  How do you know, for example, that Moroni as the capital of Comoros Island is a coincidence?  To say that something is coincidental is to say that it is entirely random.  One might think that you believe that everything is random.  How would we know if something weren't random?

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

As far as I know there is no evidence that NHM tribe dates to the time of Lehi, Robert says the NHM inscription rocks only demonstrate that NHM was in use in the time of Lehi. "The altars merely demonstrate that the name was in use in the time of Lehi." Glenn, coincidence is a valid possibility because we have to make a lot of assumptions .

1. We have to assume NHM was a toponym in the time of Lehi

2. We have to assume Nihm dates to the time of Lehi

3. We have to assume Lehi heard the "H" as a soft h, it it possible, but that doesn't stop it from being an assumption. 

4. Book of Mormon "south-south east" and "east" are not enough instructions to get us to a specific location, even one degree can make hundreds of miles difference. Finding Bountiful and Nihm before predicting their location "puts the cart before the horse".  

5. We find many inscriptions (including toponyms) near Nihm that match other Old Testament names. This point number five hasn't been refuted so far.   

6. We have to assume Nahom was a tribal region. We could have also assume Nahom was a kingdom, family, property, city, business, clan, religious sect territory.  Had NHM been a religion,  LDS defenders would have been arguing that Nahom was a religious territory.   

............, we have many more assumptions than you probably realize, I can still continue to grow the list.  

Yes, you can expand the list of false claims to any number you like, Sam, which is what you have been doing on this thread.  All of your numbered items here are false:

1. We do not have to assume that NHM on the stone altars was a toponym.  We need only find that highly unusual tribal name present to extrapolate to Nahom.  An ignoramus seeks proof, where a reasonable person merely seeks plausibility (which you mistake for "possibility") via correlation with multiple points and factors (as Ryan argued and you rejected).

2.  Archeologically we know that the region has burials going back to long before Lehi.  We also know that the stone altars with NHM go back to Lehi's time.  Your level of discourse on this is at the "tis so, tis not" stage.  Logic, reason, and fact mean nothing to you.

3. Wordplay is regularly done with such similar sounds.  Because you refuse to study the issue, you naturally cannot distinguish fact from fancy.

4. You have once again falsified the direction "nearly eastward" which you just apologized for getting wrong.  You show your hand through repetition, Sam (is repetition coincidental?).  You say you're sorry and immediately do it again.  Aside from the irresponsible notion that the Lehites must have had a magnetic compass, and therefore could only navigate with precision.  Even a five-year-old would not make such a shallow assertion.

5.  We do not find "many inscriptions (including toponyms) near Nihm that match other Old Testament Names."  You have never demonstrated that false claim.

6.  We do not have to assume that Nahom was a tribal region.  It could just as easily simply have

been the name of a cemetery or town.  We do not know beforehand what we might find.  We are actually surprised by what we did not expect, and need only read the research of non-Mormon scholars to learn about the matter.  Only a bitter anti-Mormon would make the silly and false claims you make, Sam.

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand Robert, I agree it is possible, but it doesn't mean ancient history is not full of problems. For example, what are the best available biographies of the life of Jesus? The best biographies are the new testament gospels, some 40 to 90 years later. There is no evidence the Gospel authors ever met the original twelve, and yet scholars take the gospels as the best biographies for antiquity. Robert, I hope you understand that the standard for ancient history isn't that high. Ancient history is not like science, science is more reliable (yet not perfect) because it can be tested over and over again, and makes predictions.  You can't do the same for ancient history. 

My point is that ancient history is not very reliable on many occasions Robert. Many times scholars have to make assumptions that can't be verified. I am not saying ancient history is entirely useless, but it is sometimes. For example, as we discuss previously it is my understanding that the dating of the NHM rocks is just a guess

For a yokel stone altars become just "rocks," careful and learned epigraphic dating becomes just "a guess," and non-Mormon archeological reports "can't be verified."  For the yokel, the Moon landing by U.S. astronauts can just be a hoax.  Why?  Because it requires too many "assumptions."  Too many "coincidences" can't be explained.  For the yokel, science and logic mean nothing.  Why?  Because too many assumptions must be made.

So, Sam lectures others on historiography, about which he knows nothing, and next week he will be instructing a class of surgeons on cardiovascular surgery -- after he reads a Wikipedia article about it.  Why?  Because he has no conception of the requirements of a discipline like history or medicine.  One need not study any such subject -- they require too many "assumptions" to be taken seriously.

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

Your reasoning here is of such poor quality and so tendentious that the only conclusion to be drawn is that you are deliberately obfuscating.  How do you know, for example, that Moroni as the capital of Comoros Island is a coincidence?  To say that something is coincidental is to say that it is entirely random 

The coincidence is that Moroni is a Book of  Mormon name, and Comoro is very close to Comorah. I think it is a coincidence because there is no evidence Smith got "Moroni" and "Comoro" names from the Comoro Islands. There is no poor reasoning Robert, please read carefully what I am telling you. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Many place names come from the tribe of that area. You can't see any other tribal names on the list because you don't know which ones are tribes.  Many of them are tribal names.  As for the Nihm district, which is based on the tribe  in that area, many districts take their names from the local tribes.  There is nothing unusual about that.  Does that make any sense to you?

Robert, 

So the Nihm tribal territory can't be a small district because you told me Nihm always moves. 

Please tell me where exactly is that ancient Nihm tribal territory?  You are not clarifying Robert. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

5.  We do not find "many inscriptions (including toponyms) near Nihm that match other Old Testament Names."  You have never demonstrated that false claim.

You originally told me it was irrelevant, now you tell me it is false. It is not false, I shared some examples here in this thread. I now have a bigger list, but not planning to do your homework. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

2.  Archeologically we know that the region has burials going back to long before Lehi.  We also know that the stone altars with NHM go back to Lehi's time.  Your level of discourse on this is at the "tis so, tis not" stage.  Logic, reason, and fact mean nothing to you.

Robert, there are burials everywhere. I don't think many would travel many miles in the Arabian desert carrying dead bodies. Robert, you told me, ""The altars merely demonstrate that the name was in use in the time of Lehi." 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

4. You have once again falsified the direction "nearly eastward" which you just apologized for getting wrong.  You show your hand through repetition, Sam (is repetition coincidental?).  You say you're sorry and immediately do it again.  Aside from the irresponsible notion that the Lehites must have had a magnetic compass, and therefore could only navigate with precision.  Even a five-year-old would not make such a shallow assertion.

Robert, please let's have a conversation. I did overlook the fact that the Book of Mormon mentions "south south-east", and I did apologize for that. Robert, what you are telling me above has nothing to do with what I just said in point four. There is no need for a straw-man.   

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

6.  We do not have to assume that Nahom was a tribal region.  It could just as easily simply have been the name of a cemetery or town.  We do not know beforehand what we might find.  We are actually surprised by what we did not expect, and need only read the research of non-Mormon scholars to learn about the matter.  Only a bitter anti-Mormon would make the silly and false claims you make, Sam.

Robert, our human bias is a problem. Making predictions is a good way to protect yourself from your own bias. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

1. We do not have to assume that NHM on the stone altars was a toponym.  We need only find that highly unusual tribal name present to extrapolate to Nahom.  An ignoramus seeks proof, where a reasonable person merely seeks plausibility (which you mistake for "possibility") via correlation with multiple points and factors (as Ryan argued and you rejected).

Robert, in case you forgot I asked you "Do you acknowledge that coincidence is a reasonable possibility?"  To borrow your own word  "An ignoramus seeks proof" because I can't prove NHM = Nahom is a coincidence. 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That is the problem with as far as you know. You ignore all of the evidence and scholarship that has been done. You refuse to acknowledge the the references that have been provided for you that provide evidence that the Nihm tribe was in existence at least in the eighth century BCE. For your belief that coincidence is a better answer, one would have to assume that all of the researchers and archaeologists that have been working on this are wrong, that they do not know what they are talking about, and that you do. I take it that uou have yet to read and digest the information that Warren P. Aston gave in his paper published in the Journal of Arabian Studies entitle "The Origins of the Nihm Tribe of Yemen: A Window into Arabia's Past."

Glenn, the only Arabian experts doing research on Nahom are Mormons. The Nahom evidence hasn't been analyzed by the scholarly community. 

Let's take a look at Aston's paper, he tells us his research is just "reconstructed and theoretical history", but hasn't been disputed yet.  Glenn,  I doubt there are enough ancient Southern Arabia scholars that are interested in Aston's research, there is a reason why his paper hasn't been cited by other scholars. Secondly, Aston keeps telling us "the possible earlier link of the name to the large-scale construction of burial tombsin the Neolithic era remains conjectural." Glenn, the evidence you are giving me is just conjectural. The word conjecture means "inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence"  

As for the dating of the NHM rocks it is just an educated guess  Glenn, because we have to make a lot of assumptions that possibility of coincidence increases. The more assumptions we make the more careful we need to be about our own bias. You can read Aston's paper here http://www.academia.edu/13256024/The_Origins_of_the_Nihm_Tribe_of_Yemen_A_Window_into_Arabias_Past  

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I have another challenge for you. Find an authority on ancient Arabia that will opine that the Nihm tribe did not exist in the sixth century BCE and that the Nehem on the maps should not be associated with the Nihm tribe. Please find some qualified scholar that will agree with you. References are called for here. Find one that will dispute the information presented in that article.

Glenn, you have it backwards. I don't have to find an ancient Arabia scholar that disagrees with Aston, you have to find a non-Mormon OSA scholars that agrees the Nihm tribe dates to the time of Lehi. 

So I request for a reference please. How many non-mormon scholars agree the Nihm tribe dates to at least 600 BC, and how many agree the territory had the same name? 

Tell you what, if you give me just one non-Mormon scholar that confirms with evidence that Nihm dates to at least 600 BC you will impress me a lot, and I might even reconsider my views. 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite
Link to comment
On 9/17/2017 at 3:12 PM, nealr said:

In form, it is a nisbe, so it means that a person is  "of NHM." This could be a place name, but it is most consistently interpreted as a tribal name. I'm not sure if nisbes can be interpreted as family names, but I haven't seen anyone interpret the NHMyn of the altars as being a family name. Sima (above) translates nhmyn as "from Nihm," and says that "The dedicant, Bi'athtar ... comes from the Nihm region, west of Marib" (pp. 166-167). This is in the same general area as Nehem/Nihm today. Vogt (above) and Kitchen (in Aston's publications) translate nhmyn as "Nihmite". Vogt says that the Bi'athtar on the altars is from the Nihm tribe (tribu de Nihm), which was located "at the time without doubt north of Jawf, today northeast of Sanʾa" (p. 144, originally in French: "à l’époque sans doute au nord du Jawf, aujord’hui au nord-est de Sanʾâ"). Like Sima, he is clearly connecting the NHMyn  on the altars to the Nihm/Nehem tribal territory today, and locating it in the same general area. Peter Stein, Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München. Band 1: Die Inschriften der mittel- und spätsabäischen Periode (Tübingen and Berlin, GER: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 2010), 23, fig. 1 maps out "place, tribal, or regional names mentioned in the minuscule inscriptions" (originally in German: "anderer in den Minuskelinschriften erwähnter Orts–, Stammes– oder, Landschaftsname"), which date to a later time-period (late BC to early AD) and places NHM (Nihm) in the same general area as it is located today, based on the occurrence of  NHMyn in a list of tribal names (YM 11748) dated to ca. 4th century BC-4th century AD. Although this is later, I point it out because it is the same form of the name as found on the altars (the nisbe). In general, Stein lumps together nisbe, stamm (tribe), under the "toponym" umbrella, which of course means "place names." 

Looking back at this thread I honestly didn't find the papers that neal is sharing, and I doubt Neal read them directly because the papers are in French and German. 

Sources are no good when they can't be verified or accessed. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Tell you what, if you give me just one non-Mormon scholar that confirms with evidence that Nihm dates to at least 600 BC you will impress me a lot, and I might even reconsider my views. 

They have already been given to you.

Burkhard Vogt, “Les Temples de Maʾrib,” in Yemen au Pays de la Reine de Saba, ed. Christian Robin and Burkhard Vogt (Paris, FR: Flammarion, 1997), 144: 6th-7th century BC.

K. A. Kitchen, Documentation for Ancient Arabia, 2 vols. (Liverpool, UK: 1994–2000), 2:18: 6th-7th century BC

Alexander Sima, “Religion,” in Queen of Sheba: Treasures from Ancient Yemen, ed. St John Simpson (London, UK: The British Museum Press, 2002), 166: 6th-7th century BC

But you have already backed out because you said:

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Looking back at this thread I honestly didn't find the papers that neal is sharing, and I doubt Neal read them directly because the papers are in French and German. 

Sources are no good when they can't be verified or accessed. 

You do of course know that every paper or book that has been published is not available on line. There are many ways to obtain translations of material. Now you are implying that the people that have quoted the those scholars are making it up. I think you need to prove this. You have been backed into a corner and I say to prove that those people do not know what they are talking about. The books are available in libraries, etc. Here is your chance to shone, to prove to your detractors that you know what you are talking about and that everyone else is just full of hot air.

Glenn

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The coincidence is that Moroni is a Book of  Mormon name, and Comoro is very close to Comorah. I think it is a coincidence because there is no evidence Smith got "Moroni" and "Comoro" names from the Comoro Islands. There is no poor reasoning Robert, please read carefully what I am telling you. 

For you everything is random.  According to you one cannot employ reason, logic, and evidence to reach any conclusion.  It's always random.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

.............So the Nihm tribal territory can't be a small district because you told me Nihm always moves

Please tell me where exactly is that ancient Nihm tribal territory?  You are not clarifying ......

False.  I told you that Bedouin tribes move around.  You could take a course in anthropology and learn why they move on a regular basis.  The fact is that they move around within a well-defined territory.  The name of the tribe is attached to the entire territory, and other tribes recognize that boundary.  The ignoramus believes that tribes do not move. Why?  Perhaps because that makes a great straw man for a shallow evangelical mind.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You originally told me it was irrelevant, now you tell me it is false. It is not false, I shared some examples here in this thread. I now have a bigger list, but not planning to do your homework. 

Then cite a professional source which agrees with your ridiculous assertion.   That's what scholars do.  Of course you have no support for those pretended "many instances."

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, there are burials everywhere. I don't think many would travel many miles in the Arabian desert carrying dead bodies. Robert, you told me, ""The altars merely demonstrate that the name was in use in the time of Lehi." 

There are not burials everywhere.  People tend to bury in limited areas designated for that purpose.  And no one said that a dead Ishmael was hauled many miles to be buried.  The text doesn't tell us, but for all we know, he died in or very near the Nehem area.  In any case, Clan Lehi most likely got the name of that area from local tribesmen, along with information on where a burial area was.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, please let's have a conversation. I did overlook the fact that the Book of Mormon mentions "south south-east", and I did apologize for that. Robert, what you are telling me above has nothing to do with what I just said in point four. There is no need for a straw-man. 

Once again, when shown to be wrong you make false accusations instead of accepting your error.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, our human bias is a problem. Making predictions is a good way to protect yourself from your own bias. 

Robert, in case you forgot I asked you "Do you acknowledge that coincidence is a reasonable possibility?"  To borrow your own word  "An ignoramus seeks proof" because I can't prove NHM = Nahom is a coincidence. 

Yeah, sure.  According to you, everything is random, Sam.  According to you, one can never employ reason, fact, and logic to evaluate the likelihood of something.  For you, everything has to be proved or it is random.  No scholarship allowed.  No marshaling of facts permitted.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

Brother Samuel, and I mean this in the most kind and LDS way, after today's Sunday School and combined Priesthood/Relief Society lessons I realized that I have been investing way too much time in an effort that has proven to be futile and further expenditure of my time and resources on this subject with you would be unwise and fruitless. As an old adage goes, A sure sign of stupidity/insanity/neurosis (pick your poison) is doing the same things over and expecting a different result. I am not stupid, insane, or overly neurotic (although family and friends might tell you that there is more than a slight chance that I am a bit off my rocker) and feel this is past my dropping off point. I am comfortable with the scholarship and research that has gone into this subject and based upon that believe that it is probable the Nihm tribe existed as early as the eighth century BCE and that the Nehem area was (and is) so called because it was and is the stomping grounds of the Nihm tribe. Much more probable than coincidence. I am always open to more information that may alter my viewpoint on this, but the information has been mostly affirming rather than contradictory as it has unfolded.

I will read anything else you have to say but will not respond.

Glenn

Link to comment

Glenn,

This thread should have been closed long ago. 

You, Robert and so many others in this thread have patiently invested a great amount of time and effort to try to reason with a man that is intellectually dishonest. 

There is more than enough material in the 24 pages of posts for Sam to review if in the future he ever has a change of heart and mind.  But at this point, there is no hint that Sam is even making an attempt to openly consider the truth.  As someone said, Sam's mind is like concrete; all mixed up and permanently set.

Edit: Thank you Glenn/Robert and others for the input on this subject.  I have benefited from the discussion.

Edited by MDalby
Link to comment
6 hours ago, MDalby said:

This thread should have been closed long ago. 

You, Robert and so many others in this thread have patiently invested a great amount of time and effort to try to reason with a man that is intellectually dishonest. 

 If you have nothing productive to say don't say it and get out! 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

They have already been given to you.

Burkhard Vogt, “Les Temples de Maʾrib,” in Yemen au Pays de la Reine de Saba, ed. Christian Robin and Burkhard Vogt (Paris, FR: Flammarion, 1997), 144: 6th-7th century BC.

K. A. Kitchen, Documentation for Ancient Arabia, 2 vols. (Liverpool, UK: 1994–2000), 2:18: 6th-7th century BC

Alexander Sima, “Religion,” in Queen of Sheba: Treasures from Ancient Yemen, ed. St John Simpson (London, UK: The British Museum Press, 2002), 166: 6th-7th century BC

But you have already backed out because you said:

I need a link to check the references. Glenn, have you read them yourself? or do you simply take Neal's word?  

I need a link not only to check what Vogt is saying, but also to check what methods is he using. Like I said, "if you give me just one non-Mormon scholar that confirms with evidence that Nihm dates to at least 600 BC" 

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Brother Samuel, and I mean this in the most kind and LDS way, after today's Sunday School and combined Priesthood/Relief Society lessons I realized that I have been investing way too much time in an effort that has proven to be futile and further expenditure of my time and resources on this subject with you would be unwise and fruitless. As an old adage goes, A sure sign of stupidity/insanity/neurosis (pick your poison) is doing the same things over and expecting a different result. I am not stupid, insane, or overly neurotic (although family and friends might tell you that there is more than a slight chance that I am a bit off my rocker) and feel this is past my dropping off point. I am comfortable with the scholarship and research that has gone into this subject and based upon that believe that it is probable the Nihm tribe existed as early as the eighth century BCE and that the Nehem area was (and is) so called because it was and is the stomping grounds of the Nihm tribe.

One of Vogt paper's dates the site after 600 BC, a paper that we can check online.  I still need a link to check the references. 

Okay Glenn, you take care, but remember "reconstructed and theoretical history....the possible earlier link of the name to the large-scale construction of burial tombsin the Neolithic era remains conjectural." -Aston 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For you everything is random.  According to you one cannot employ reason, logic, and evidence to reach any conclusion.  It's always random.

When did I say that? 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  I told you that Bedouin tribes move around.  You could take a course in anthropology and learn why they move on a regular basis.  The fact is that they move around within a well-defined territory.  The name of the tribe is attached to the entire territory, and other tribes recognize that boundary.

I am just pointing out that the Nihm district is a very small region. 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are not burials everywhere.  People tend to bury in limited areas designated for that purpose.  And no one said that a dead Ishmael was hauled many miles to be buried.  The text doesn't tell us, but for all we know, he died in or very near the Nehem area.

Not in every square mile Robert,  but there is a burial site near all cities, towns, tribes. 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeah, sure.  According to you, everything is random, Sam.  According to you, one can never employ reason, fact, and logic to evaluate the likelihood of something.  For you, everything has to be proved or it is random.  No scholarship allowed.  No marshaling of facts permitted.

Everything is not random Robert, I am just arguing that coincidence is a good possibility.  

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, when shown to be wrong you make false accusations instead of accepting your error.

False accusations of what Robert? What am I accusing you of? To clarify I meant that we all have biases, and making predictions are a good way to protect ourselves. 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then cite a professional source which agrees with your ridiculous assertion.   That's what scholars do.  Of course you have no support for those pretended "many instances."

I am still working on my research Robert. But, let me tell you what I just told Glenn. If you give me just one non-Mormon scholar that confirms with evidence that Nihm dates to at least 600 BC you will impress me a lot, and I might even reconsider my views. But please give me links, something that we can check for ourselves, not hard to get papers please

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I need a link to check the references. Glenn, have you read them yourself? or do you simply take Neal's word?  

I need a link not only to check what Vogt is saying, but also to check what methods is he using. Like I said, "if you give me just one non-Mormon scholar that confirms with evidence that Nihm dates to at least 600 BC" 

SamTheIrrational

Sam, if you are sincerely searching for the answers you can use this new thing called Google.  It is really quite handy.  Let me make this a little easier for you.

Sam - Look here

Next you will want us to provide a Cliffs Notes and highlight it for you.

 

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/3879/3304

 

Edited by MDalby
Link to comment
4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

Everything is not random Robert, I am just arguing that coincidence is a good possibility. 

And yet everything is random for you.  It doesn't matter what sort of evidence exists for anything.  For you it is always random.  You'll even deny the evidence exists just to make your assertion stick.

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

False accusations of what Robert? What am I accusing you of? To clarify I meant that we all have biases, and making predictions are a good way to protect ourselves. 

That would be fine if you had any idea what a "prediction" is.  The Book of Mormon is filled with predictions, but you have no idea what that even  means.

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am still working on my research Robert. But, let me tell you what I just told Glenn. If you give me just one non-Mormon scholar that confirms with evidence that Nihm dates to at least 600 BC you will impress me a lot, and I might even reconsider my views. But please give me links, something that we can check for ourselves, not hard to get papers please

You were presented with the non-Mormon sources on the dating earlier and it meant nothing to you.  You're just playing "Ring-around-the-Rosie," Sam. For you it is just a random game.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...