Nehem, The Return

[maklelan]

Who in the world said H was a vowel?

Well, you made this statement:

I, for one, don't think that those who render it "Nihm" are merely picking a vowel for no reason. Neither, apparently, does Kent Brown.

Naturally, I assumed that such a statement would follow up with an explanation of the assertion, which is why I responded to your post accordingly. If the above statement and the subsequent paragraph:

This spelling comes from the theory that the H in NHM in South Arabia would have been a soft H, as opposed to a hard H in Hebrew. Some have theorized that the Lehites would have associated "Nihm" (soft H) with a word more familiar to them "Nahom" (with hard H). I'm not sure about this theory. Did they see the written name of the town on their way in ("Wlcm t NHM")? If they were told the name of the town, why would they apply a different name to it?

are in no way related, as you appear to insist, then I am still waiting for your evidence that Brown is at all convinced that the vowelization is anything but arbitrary, per your opening assertion.

The hard and soft "H" letter has nothing to do with the above statement about arbitrary vowelization, so I had two assumptions to make: 1) You think the letter "H" is a vowel, or 2) you're just spouting stuff with no organization of your argument. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the former. Was I wrong?

[AndyOne]

The chosen vowel I alluded to is the "I" in Nihm, not the "H".

Brown's words again - as quoted above:

"The exact equivalency of the root letters cannot be assured. It is probable that the term Nahom was spelled with the rasped or fricative Hebrew letter for "h" (�het or chet) whereas the name Nihm, both in modern Arabic and in the ancient Sabaean dialect, is spelled with a softer, less audible h sound. See G. Lankester Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971), 81, 602; and Joan Copeland Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 296. One has to assume, it seems to me, that when the members of Lehi's party heard the local name for "the place that was called Nahom" they associated the sound of that local name with the term Nahom, a Hebrew word that was familiar to and had meaning for them."

[maklelan]

The chosen vowel I alluded to is the "I" in Nihm, not the "H".

Brown's words again - as quoted above:

"The exact equivalency of the root letters cannot be assured. It is probable that the term Nahom was spelled with the rasped or fricative Hebrew letter for "h" (�het or chet) whereas the name Nihm, both in modern Arabic and in the ancient Sabaean dialect, is spelled with a softer, less audible h sound. See G. Lankester Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971), 81, 602; and Joan Copeland Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic: Sabaean Dialect (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 296. One has to assume, it seems to me, that when the members of Lehi's party heard the local name for "the place that was called Nahom" they associated the sound of that local name with the term Nahom, a Hebrew word that was familiar to and had meaning for them."

What Brown is saying in no way, shape, or form condones an assertion that the voweling is not arbitrary, or that the "i" is at all relevant. He references a modern transliteration because it is the familiar one, not because the vowel has anything to do with the type of "h" used. The transliteration is only a retrojection of modern Arabic vowelization into ancient Sabaean, which, as any Semiticist can tell you, is not going to be accurate. It's just an arbitrary framework that makes vowelization more consistent, but there's absolutely no way to tell if it is accurate or not. Again, the voweling is utterly arbitrary, and to assert that it cannot be Nahom because it's spelled Nihm is ludicrous.

[AndyOne]

"Again, the voweling is utterly arbitrary, and to assert that it cannot be Nahom because it's spelled Nihm is ludicrous."

Of course it is ... and that is exactly my assertion isn't it? Or am I simply objecting to the dogmatic assertions of others that we've got a bulls eye here?

Tell me, regardless of pronunciation, do you believe that the NHM on the altar was the Hebrew word Nahom? Do you believe that the Sabaean pronunciation would have been the same as the ancient Hebrew?

[cksalmon]

Her Amun asks, "What does it all mean?"

I suppose I would throw the question back at him, "What does it all meanâ??to you?" That BoM is true? I don't think you'd argue that. That BoM is plausible? You might argue this, but then that would be a judgment that must take into account the bigger picture of BoM as a whole. Does this find render BoM as a whole plausible as a historical account of the ancient Americas? Again, I don't think you're arguing this either.

But, I should think that you wouldn't expect this to mean anything in excess of what it is on the face of it: an interesting parallel (either a legitimate one or an illegitimate one). I think this is probably one of the most interesting LDS finds for historicity (to paraphrase a previous poster), but if this is the strongest evidence in favor of BoM historicity, it's really not strong enough to base BoM's plausibility upon. One interesting parallel (and I realize there are other cases to be made by BoM defenders) does not plausibility make.

Taking a holistic view, I would say that, from my perspective, the NHM/Nehem parallel is no more than interesting. It is not proof of anything. And, yet again, I'm not suggesting that that's what you're arguing.

But, then, how do you think the critic should answer the question, "What does it all mean?"

Best to you.

CKS

[maklelan]

Tell me, regardless of pronunciation, do you believe that the NHM on the altar was the Hebrew word Nahom? Do you believe that the Sabaean pronunciation would have been the same as the ancient Hebrew?

No, and no. Has someone asserted that it is and they are?

[Zakuska]

I think People are forgetting how the Altars where found in the first place.

A member traveling in area in the 1970s saw a name on a modern Map written as "Nehem". This lead to research that lead them to an earlier Danish map from the 1760s with it written as Nehhm. Then the Altars where found with the Inscription of NHM, then finally the Grave Yard is located. And all on the bend from a southeast to nearly east travel route to a lush garden spot on the coast of Yemen.

What are the odds? Granted through some miracle Joseph could have gotten his grubby paws on 1760s map...

[cksalmon]

I think People are forgetting how the Altars where found in the first place.

A member traveling in area in the 1970s saw a name on a modern Map written as "Nehem". This lead to research that lead them to an earlier Danish map from the 1760s with it written as Nehhm. Then the Altars where found with the Inscription of NHM, then finally the Grave Yard is located. And all on the bend from a southeast to nearly east travel route to a lush garden spot on the coast of Yemen.

What are the odds? Granted through some miracle Joseph could have gotten his grubby paws on 1760s map...

Do you have a reference?

Thanks.

CKS

[Cold Steel]

The script contained no vowels, and we have absolutely no idea what the vowels for the word should be. The "Nehem" spelling contains arbitrarily assigned vowels. The fact that this argument shows up in absolutely every single discussion of NHM testifies of the utter ignorance of the subject upon which detractors build their arguments. Research something for yourself and stop reading the filth that other people regurgitate.

Yep, and doesn't it stand to reason that if Joseph Smith got it from a map that he would have used the published name rather than substituting other vowels? This is not an argument that impresses the critics, however. They could find Nephi's and Lehi's names carved on something down there and they wouldn't care less.

[Zakuska]

CkSalmon,

Sure do... I first mentioned it on this post...

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208114739

But heres the Primary source:

The Aston Family's Vacations

This story of two modern explores of Arabia had its beginning in 1974 in the sealing room of the New Zealand Temple. There, Warren Aston, then the assistant recorder for the temple met Michaela, who had come from Australia to be sealed to her parents. As their acquaintance blossomed into romance, they discovered that they shared an attraction for ancient history and archaeology, particularly that related to the scriptures. As one of their marriage goals they determined to pursue this mutual interest, traveling as their means would allow to those places which related to the origins of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Of course they did not, and probably would not today, consider themselves to be explores. But, you decide. Here's their story.

Following their marriage in 1974, the Astons established their home in Brisbane, Australia. Warren, with the objective of maximizing the effective value of their limited travel resources, took a job in the airline and travel industry. Their first overseas vacation took them to Israel in 1976. They brought with them their first child, six months old Claire. This was a time of considerable instability in all of the Middle East and the Aston's were immediately introduced to the realities of the resulting tensions. Immediately following their landing, Warren found himself, with other male passengers, lined up on the runway being interrogated by a heavily armed military. Despite this inauspicious beginning, they were delighted with Israel. On subsequent vacations the family visited Baghdad, Beirut, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Also, intermingled, were return trips to Israel.

One day in 1984 Warren read a letter that was destined to give their family vacations a new dimension. Warren took to work, to read during lunch hour, the August 1978 issue of the Ensign. He found Ross Christensen's letter regarding the possible discovery of "a place called Nahom." Warren's curiosity was prickedâ??what, he wondered, had been done in the intervening years to follow-up on Dr. Christensen's hypothesis? He contacted FARMS and was told that nothing had been done. In Warren's mind "a plan for doing something began to take shape."

Through what the Aston's describe as "a series of minor miracles," they very soon found themselves (with Michaela in the seventh month of her fifth pregnancy) in Sana'a, the capital of the Yemen Arab Republic. They described Sana'a as "overflowing with sewage and garbage." A city with "colorful and chaotic" markets, with small bags of frankincense for sale along side machine guns, grenades, and surface to air missiles. Michaela reported that she "once found herself surrounded by dozens of armed men in the city who refused to let her leave." It was with great relief that she came to understand that what they wanted was her picture.

It was not until their last day in Yemen that they found their first clueâ??a recently printed map showing "Nehem." Since vowels are not included in either the Arabic or Hebrew script, both "Nehem" and "Nahom" would be identically scripted, "NHM" in either language. When this is translated into English, the vowels must be supplied by the translator.

Over the next ten years this research of Nehem produced strong evidence that Nehem is indeed identical to Lehi's Nahom. They discovered two ancient burial grounds in the hills of Nehem, each clearly predating Lehi. One of these is considered by local archaeologists in the area to be the largest ancient burial site discovered in all of Arabia.

As the research of Nahom progressed, the Aston's curiosity naturally turned toward the place which Nephi called Bountiful. The location of Bountiful was seen as an important contributor to their evidence chain supporting Nehem as the location of Nahom. Nephi reported that they went nearly in an easterly direction from Nahom. Most LDS scholars felt that the location of Bountiful had been pretty much determined as Salalah in Dhofar. Yet, no LDS observer had ever visit Salalah to assess the evidence. This was because the Arab republic of Oman, where Salalah is located, was firmly closed to most outsiders. In October of 1987, after repeated requests, Warren was finally granted permission to visit Salalah.

After five days in Salalah, Warren was convinced that this was not Bountiful. Nephi provides many details either explicitly or by clear deduction as to the specific characteristics of Bountiful. While Warren reported that most all of these requirements were satisfied in the larger area of Salalah, "it took hours of driving to see them all." Warren's assessment was that "the area seemed very different from Nephi's description." However, after considerable probing, Warren learned of "large trees" growing near the Yemen boarder. But the roads didn't go that far and Warren was forced to leave that investigation to a future trip.

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/lehi/lehi.html

[cksalmon]

CkSalmon,

Sure do... I first mentioned it on this post...

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208114739

But heres the Primary source:

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/lehi/lehi.html

Thanks for the reference.

It is indeed interesting stuff.

The modus operandi, it would seem, is that the amateur researchers eliminated the unlikely sites and zeroed in on a likely one.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that. I'm sure it happens all the time in archaeological research.

My questions would be these: What do you think this demonstrates? More than mere consonantal equivalence, I'm sure. I take it that you see this as indicative of BoM historicity. Is that correct?

How would you fit this seeming find in with the big picture of BoM historicity? Is this the best example out there? Do you think this mitigates the other problems of assuming BoM historicity?

I do think this provides a superlative test case for one's stance anent BoM historicity. Having said that, it seems a bit paltry in light of the holistic picture. We've got nothing definitive here. Nothing that non-LDS scholars would latch onto and say, in an inspired "Ah-ha!" moment: "Well, obviously BoM is inspired scripture: witness NHM and Nehem!" I'll grant that non-LDS scholars are probably not all that interested in this bit of LDS apologia (but perhaps they should be?). But, still, is this more than a convergence of convenience for LDS apologists? Does this rise to the level of proof? I don't think you're necessarily arguing that.

But, all told, is this the cornerstone upon which to build an argument for BoM historicity? How often has this bit of perhaps fortuitous parallelism been promulgated as the definitive proof of BoM historicity? All things being equal, and taking a holistic view, is this really that significant?

I don't think it is personally. But, then, I'm an anti.

Best.

CKS

[The Dude]

Her Amun asks, "What does it all mean?"

Much better!

Maybe he's asking this because of my recent tizzy about the hidden and nonsensical assumption of the other question ( "How could Joseph have known?" which has the assumption that Joseph did know.)

I think "What does it all mean?" is the right question.

[Zakuska]

Thanks for the reference.

It is indeed interesting stuff.

The modus operandi, it would seem, is that the amateur researchers eliminated the unlikely sites and zeroed in on a likely one.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that. I'm sure it happens all the time in archaeological research.

My questions would be these: What do you think this demonstrates? More than mere consonantal equivalence, I'm sure. I take it that you see this as indicative of BoM historicity. Is that correct?

How would you fit this seeming find in with the big picture of BoM historicity? Is this the best example out there? Do you think this mitigates the other problems of assuming BoM historicity?

I do think this provides a superlative test case for one's stance anent BoM historicity. Having said that, it seems a bit paltry in light of the holistic picture. We've got nothing definitive here. Nothing that non-LDS scholars would latch onto and say, in an inspired "Ah-ha!" moment: "Well, obviously BoM is inspired scripture: witness NHM and Nehem!" I'll grant that non-LDS scholars are probably not all that interested in this bit of LDS apologia (but perhaps they should be?). But, still, is this more than a convergence of convenience for LDS apologists? Does this rise to the level of proof? I don't think you're necessarily arguing that.

But, all told, is this the cornerstone upon which to build an argument for BoM historicity? How often has this bit of perhaps fortuitous parallelism been promulgated as the definitive proof of BoM historicity? All things being equal, and taking a holistic view, is this really that significant?

I don't think it is personally. But, then, I'm an anti.

Best.

CKS

Well certianly looking at any one piece of the Puzzle, by istelf doesn't result in much of anything. But when one starts finding more pieces to the puzzle and starts putting those pieces together and then taking into account that a 20 year Farm boy comes up with a story about a family leaving Jerusalem in 600BC and he incredibly describes their Journey from Jerusalem to the ship yard with such detail. The odds start approaching a critcal mass that one has to stop and wonder in awe.

[cksalmon]

Well certianly looking at any one piece of the Puzzle, by istelf doesn't result in much of anything. But when one starts finding more pieces to the puzzle and starts putting those pieces together and then taking into account that a 20 year Farm boy comes up with a story about a family leaving Jerusalem in 600BC and he incredibly describes their Journey from Jerusalem to the ship yard with such detail. The odds start approaching a critcal mass that one has to stop and wonder in awe.

I guess I would say, as an anti, no, really, I don't.

No critical mass has been reached. Because no instances approach more than reasonable probability.

You're certainly free to believe what you will. But, then, I don't suppose that you're able to predict what a critic might think.

I don't find it incredible, frankly. I find it fortuitous. If there is a difference, you can let me know. I don't mean any offense here. I just don't think that, all things considered, holistically, this is anything more than coincidence.

Why do you think it is in excess of this?

Best.

CKS

[Fortigurn]

The no rivers in Arabia bit came from an overzealous interpretation of the CIA World Factbook on the part of some critics. The Factbook mentions a "lack of perennial rivers," but does not actually state that there are no perennial rivers in the whole country. I suspect that the CIA didn't intend their statement to be taken in such an absolute sense.

I still haven't seen any evidence for rivers in Arabia.

[Zakuska]

I have. Just because it doesn't meet your expectations of what a river should be doesn't mean its not a river.

[Fortigurn]

I have. Just because it doesn't meet your expectations of what a river should be doesn't mean its not a river.

It has nothing to do with my expecations. It has to do with what constitutes a river. What you showed me was a trickle of water leaking from an underground resovoir of rainwater runoff.

[Zakuska]

It has nothing to do with my expecations. It has to do with what constitutes a river. What you showed me was a trickle of water leaking from an underground resovoir of rainwater runoff.

Today. Yes... but you are ignoring tha calcium deposites.

[Zakuska]

I guess I would say, as an anti, no, really, I don't.

No critical mass has been reached. Because no instances approach more than reasonable probability.

You're certainly free to believe what you will. But, then, I don't suppose that you're able to predict what a critic might think.

I don't find it incredible, frankly. I find it fortuitous. If there is a difference, you can let me know. I don't mean any offense here. I just don't think that, all things considered, holistically, this is anything more than coincidence.

Why do you think it is in excess of this?

Best.

CKS

Pretty big "coincidence" if you ask me...

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=582

George Potter has, in my opinion, almost certainly located Lehi's "river of Laman"a "river of water" that, "continually running," "emptied into the Red Sea." And anybody who has seen photographs of the sheer granite cliffs that loom over narrow portions of the Wadi Tayyib al-Ism, through which it runs, will have no difficulty imagining why Lehi would term this valley, which he named "Lemuel," "firm and steadfast, and immovable."45 How did Joseph Smith know about the Wadi Tayyib al-Ism? Even in our information-rich contemporary environment, what could most of us say about it?

Furthermore, the recent publication of inscriptions from three limestone altars that have been found in the ancient temple of Marib, in the Yemen, demonstrates quite unmistakably that the tribal name NHM existed in precisely the right area of Arabia, at exactly the right time that 1 Nephi places the toponym Nahom there.46 Says one of them, for instance: "Bi'athar, son of Sawad, son of Naw'an, the Nihmite, has consecrated to [the god] Almaqah [the person of] Fari'at." This seems remarkable in itself, but, strikingly, the Lehite party's turn due east at Nahom, diverging from their generally southward direction to that point, coincides with the now-demonstrated fact that all roads turned east in the region of NHM, including the famous Arabian incense trail and the "shortcuts" across the Ramlat Sab'atayn desert. How did Joseph Smith know this? (The "eastward turn" does not appear in any known ancient source, not even in Pliny the Elder's famous description of the incense-growing lands of Arabia Felix. As Kent Brown has written, "No one knew of this eastward turn in the incense trail except persons who had traveled it.")

[Fortigurn]

Today. Yes... but you are ignoring tha calcium deposites.

I have not ignored the calcium deposits. I addressed this directly. See my replies in the other thread.

[Hammer]

I have not ignored the calcium deposits. I addressed this directly. See my replies in the other thread.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that your point is made and accepted (thought the Spirit screams that it is a lie you believe) what would that do to the truths taught in the BoM or the testimonies given only through the Spirit?

Do you believe that God can do anything? Even put stumbling blocks of blindness in the minds and hearts of those who refuse to follow His chosen servants?

Why do you think people of Christ's day didn't recognize Him as the Savior? Do you believe God makes it easy, clear, without a catch or problem for people to find the truth?

Why is the path narrow and few find it? Because it is all presented in clear geological evidence?

[Fortigurn]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that your point is made and accepted (thought the Spirit screams that it is a lie you believe) what would that do to the truths taught in the BoM or the testimonies given only through the Spirit?

I believe that they would have to be re-evaluated.

Do you believe that God can do anything? Even put stumbling blocks of blindness in the minds and hearts of those who refuse to follow His chosen servants?

Yes.

Why do you think people of Christ's day didn't recognize Him as the Savior?

Because of their pride.

Do you believe God makes it easy, clear, without a catch or problem for people to find the truth?

I don't believe He deliberately misleads us. I do believe He makes it sufficiently easy for a simple mind which uses reason.

Why is the path narrow and few find it? Because it is all presented in clear geological evidence?

No, Christ tells us it's because the alternative is wide and easy. It's more attractive.

[Hammer]

I believe that they would have to be re-evaluated.

Yes.

Because of their pride.

I don't believe He deliberately misleads us. I do believe He makes it sufficiently easy for a simple mind which uses reason.

No, Christ tells us it's because the alternative is wide and easy. It's more attractive.

First you say he doesn't mislead and makes it sufficiently easy for SIIMPLE MINDED, then you say the easy way is the wide way and more attractive? What do you really want to say here?

You need to reread the Bible.

How many times is the word mystery used in the NT?

[Zakuska]

I have not ignored the calcium deposits. I addressed this directly. See my replies in the other thread.

Yes you have... A papered Geologist who has been to the sight (unlike Chadwick) disagrees with chadwick and you.

Who am I to beleive?

[Fortigurn]

First you say he doesn't mislead and makes it sufficiently easy for SIIMPLE MINDED, then you say the easy way is the wide way and more attractive? What do you really want to say here?

I'm surprised you see a contradiction here. There is no contradiction. The fact that God doesn't mislead people doesn't change the fact that His way is less attractive than the way of the world.

How many times is the word mystery used in the NT?

None. Hey, that was easy.

Yes you have... A papered Geologist who has been to the sight (unlike Chadwick) disagrees with chadwick and you.

I said that the calcium deposits were not made by that trickle, and must have been made by a water current which existed a long time ago. Please show me where 'A papered Geologist who has been to the sight' disagrees with me.