Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 The BoM describes that they went down the western part of the Arabian peninsula, came to a place called "Nahom", turned east and went straight east to Bountiful.The reality of Arabian geography is that the old Incense Trail runs down the western part of the Arabian peninsula, to a place called "NHM". If you turn east from there, you will run smack into a place that exactly matches the description of the place Lehi & Co. called "Bountiful." (Down to the uniquepresence in Arabia of hematite ore, I might add.)That sounds like a really good "direct hit" to me.Unless of course the location was known on maps of Joseph Smith's day, which I believe you already pointed out. It only works if there's no way Joseph could have known.
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Unless of course the location was known on maps of Joseph Smith's day, which I believe you already pointed out. It only works if there's no way Joseph could have known.Sorry, I missed the map showing the Incense Trail, the "more fertile parts", Bountiful, and the Hematite ore?
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Ok so lets entertain ourselfs... Joseph Gets a map with these place names on it. Ok hes got the names.What are the odds of him describing these places he as named on his map with such details?I think we need to take a look at the distribution lists of the 1763 map.Rememebr the Seders got a Modern day map in Yemen in the 70s that spells the name of the place as "Nehem".
Doctor Steuss Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Would some one please post a picture of the Bag mummies from the site!As you wish (said in a Princess Bride sort-of-way):MummyBurial MoundsClose up of a grave site at the Nahom Burial ground.Another Mummy (Circa 600 BC)Really big gunAlter (donated around 600 BC)Photos courtesy of: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/020925yemen.html
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Sorry, I missed the map showing the Incense Trail, the "more fertile parts", Bountiful, and the Hematite ore?We're not talking about that. We're talking about NHM/Nehem/Nahom.
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Ok so lets entertain ourselfs... Joseph Gets a map with these place names on it. Ok hes got the names.What are the odds of him describing these places he as named on his map with such details?I think we need to take a look at the distribution lists of the 1763 map.Rememebr the Seders got a Modern day map in Yemen in the 70s that spells the name of the place as "Nehem".I really don't know what you want from me, Zak. I've already said it's worth investigating, it's significant, etc. Either way, it's a promising start. But I'm quite skeptical about the "details," as there aren't too many details in the account in 1 Nephi.
consiglieri Posted January 30, 2007 Author Posted January 30, 2007 I love when goalposts moveâ?¦ it always adds interesting aspects to the game.I think not only the goalposts have moved, but the entire thread!Is the evidence of the river in Arabia so striking that critics choose to focus their attentions on other targets?We're not talking about that. We're talking about NHM/Nehem/Nahom.Actually, we're talking about a river the Book of Mormon says is in Arabia emptying into the Red Sea that should not be there, according to the experts.Any comments on that?
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 I think not only the goalposts have moved, but the entire thread!Is the evidence of the river in Arabia so striking that critics choose to focus their attentions on other targets?Actually, we're talking about a river the Book of Mormon says is in Arabia emptying into the Red Sea that should not be there, according to the experts.Any comments on that?Sure, if there's a river there, there's a river there. Chalk one up for the Book of Mormon.
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 We're not talking about that. We're talking about NHM/Nehem/Nahom.Perhaps you haven't. I have.To reiterate the comparison:The BoM records that Lehi's party traveled down the western part of the Arabian peninsula, past a river of water, through the "more fertile parts", to a place called "Nahom", where they made a left turn and traveled straight east to a plush paradise they called "Bountiful", and where they found ore from which to smelt tools.2007 knowledge shows that the Incense Trail follows the route down the western part of Arabia, past a river of flowing water, goes through "more fertile parts" that can actually be seen in Google Earth at the right time of the year, reaches "NHM", at which point turning left and traveling straight east will bring you to a plush paradise that also has a very rich vein of hematite ore, which is not found elsewhere in Arabia.That sounds like a dead-on bullseye to me.Regarding the map showing "Nehem": If Joseph Smith were in fact to have found this map and worked from it, why would he bother to change the name from "Nehem" to "Nahom"? That makes no sense, especially since he never pulled out said map and said, "See! Here it is! The vowels shifted, but this proves the book!" What possible reason would he have for doing this?And, again, none of the rest of what I've discussed is depicted on that map.Nahom, and the rest of the Arabian trek, is very much a bullseye.
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Perhaps you haven't. I have.To reiterate the comparison:The BoM records that Lehi's party traveled down the western part of the Arabian peninsula, past a river of water, through the "more fertile parts", to a place called "Nahom", where they made a left turn and traveled straight east to a plush paradise they called "Bountiful", and where they found ore from which to smelt tools.2007 knowledge shows that the Incense Trail follows the route down the western part of Arabia, past a river of flowing water, goes through "more fertile parts" that can actually be seen in Google Earth at the right time of the year, reaches "NHM", at which point turning left and traveling straight east will bring you to a plush paradise that also has a very rich vein of hematite ore, which is not found elsewhere in Arabia.That sounds like a dead-on bullseye to me.Sure, why not? Regarding the map showing "Nehem": If Joseph Smith were in fact to have found this map and worked from it, why would he bother to change the name from "Nehem" to "Nahom"? That makes no sense, especially since he never pulled out said map and said, "See! Here it is! The vowels shifted, but this proves the book!" What possible reason would he have for doing this?I can think of at least a couple of reasons the name might have been transcribed differently, but that's neither here nor there. I've already said that it's an interesting place to start and as close to a direct hit as we have. The onus is on you all to show its significance; otherwise, it's merely an alteration of a name on a map. That I think the "place of mourning" evidence is weak has nothing to do with the merits of Nehem as a Book of Mormon correlation.And, again, none of the rest of what I've discussed is depicted on that map. No one is claiming that it was.Nahom, and the rest of the Arabian trek, is very much a bullseye.Bullseye or not, what you've shown is that the Lehi story is plausible and works within what we know about the Arabian peninsula. I'll gladly grant you that.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Yep... nothing more than..."Here lies Ishmael, our beloved father, 640bc - 608bc"Will be acceptable.
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Yep... nothing more than..."Here lies Ishmael, our beloved father, 640bc - 608bc"Will be acceptable.I really don't know what you want, Zak. It's plausible, it's a good hit, etc., etc.That I don't find it a compelling reason to reclaim my LDS faith doesn't mean I am dismissing it.
cdowis Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Up to a point. The document does not simply say LM but 'LM, where the intial ' represents an aleph. Aleph is a consonant that represents a glottal stop, i.e. a little click in the back of the throat, like an unvoiced grunt. When it appears at the start of a word, it indicates a leading vowel; conventionally an A. There's a reason why aleph became A in our alphabet. It wasn't some Mormon hack apologist who transliterated 'LM as Alma, but Dr. Yigael Yadin. Take it up with him, if you like.Regards,PahoranThe name Alma was both a female and male name in NY during JS time period.For example, I found these on family search:1. Alma Rodgers - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Birth: 18 JUN 1836 Genesee, , Genesee, New York 6. Alma Lane - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Birth: 04 APR 1847 New Hudson, , Allegany, New YorkAnother apologetic argument bites the dust.
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Bullseye or not, what you've shown is that the Lehi story is plausible and works within what we know about the Arabian peninsula. I'll gladly grant you that.OK, I'll accept that! And that it isn't enough for you to "reclaim" your LDS faith.I wish you well.
Not quite me Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 OK, I'll accept that! And that it isn't enough for you to "reclaim" your Mormon faith.I wish you well.I was getting the feeling that y'all weren't going to be happy until I burst into tears and said, "I was wrong! I'm going back!"
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 It couldn't hurt... PS. What happens if they do find a head stone?
Doctor Steuss Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 The name Alma was both a female and male name in NY during JS time period.For example, I found these on family search:1. Alma Rodgers - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Birth: 18 JUN 1836 Genesee, , Genesee, New York 6. Alma Lane - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Birth: 04 APR 1847 New Hudson, , Allegany, New YorkAnother apologetic argument bites the dust.Both born after the publication of the Book of Mormon. (Could these little ones perhaps be born to Mormons?)Maybe a little nibble of dust, but not quite a full on bite.
cdowis Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 Both born after the publication of the Book of Mormon. (Could these little ones perhaps be born to Mormons?)Maybe a little nibble of dust, but not quite a full on bite.25. Alma D. Hubbard - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Birth: About 1820 Of, Cameron Mills, Steuben, New York 63. Alma Post - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Birth: 08 JAN 1818 , , New YorkPerhaps the parents read Spaulding's missing manuscript. Remember that the *big* apologetic argument was a male with the name Alma, showing the BOM was of ancient origin. Now the sword cuts the other way. Where did these people get the idea for a male name of Alma? What now does that prove?This is why I am not a big fan of "proving" the BOM.
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 And cdowis counters with an uper cut to the jaw... What you don't realize is you are also picking away at the critics position as well?Alma was a commen biblical name... for both males and females. So there shouldn't be any reason that it shouldn't appear in the BOM.
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 OK, I'm confused. I thought that the contrarian argument was that "Alma" was not a name for Hebrew males in the 7th century B.C., and the apologetic counter is that bullae have been found from around that time that bear the name "Alma" for a male. What do births in 19th century NY have to do with either of those arguments?
Zakuska Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 They are trying to prove that Joseph just made up the name from his surroundings. But I'm not sure how that is part of the argument either.
Doctor Steuss Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 And cdowis counters with an uper cut to the jaw... What you don't realize is you are also picking away at the critics position as well?Alma was a commen biblical name... for both males and females. So there shouldn't be any reason that it shouldn't appear in the BOM.And the Doctor quits his practice and retires to a tropical island to nurse his wounds. Where was Cdowis when this stuff was being spouted around?Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry in the Book of Mormon. In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden-hardly a fitting name for a man.Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1978), 327.In most of the United States Alma is a woman's name. However, in Utah, only the men are named Alma... Thus we see that even in peoples names, Mormonism redefines Christian words to suit its meanings.Robert McKay, "A Mormon Name" Utah Evangel 31/8 (August 1984): 4.So Mormons who name their sons Alma have actually named them 'lass' or 'virgin' or a young woman. Interesting!John L. Smith, editorial comment on Robert McKay, "A Mormon Name" Utah Evangel 31/8 (August 1984): 4.We still find it interesting that so many Mormons saddle their sons with a word that means 'lass' or 'damsel.' It reminds us of the 'boy named Sue.' Again, Mormonism has redefined a word. ...Typical of the strange definitions that Mormonism gives familiar terms, perhaps we should not think it strange that Mormonism gives boys a girl's name."That Man Alma" Utah Evangel 33/3 (April 1986): 2.My hat is off to you my friend. You have bested me...
SolarPowered Posted January 30, 2007 Posted January 30, 2007 They are trying to prove that Joseph just made up the name from his suroundings.OK, I'm still not following this. The existence of a man named "Alma" in NY somehow proves that the "Alma" in the BoM was ficticious?Edit to add: I see that you edited you post to say that you don't get it, either.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.