Jump to content

The Place Which Was Called Nahom


StriplingWarrior

Recommended Posts

In 1 Nephi 16 we read:

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

I was watching a great video called Journey of Faith in which is said that this could possibly have been a site in Yemen. Not only that, but it is even plausible, as the video shows, that Nephi and his family would have traveled through there on their journey.

On top of that, this site was discovered well after Joseph Smiths time. To me, this was a really cool.

I know that there was a critic that has attacked this theory, but to my knowledge there was an apologetic in response to it.

Anyone else have comments about this?

Link to comment

StriplingWarrior:

The critics are claiming that the Palmyra Lending Library was such an extensive library. All JS did was trot on down and read about it in a book. <_<

In my post I said that this site wasn't even know during Joseph Smith's time. This site was discovered later, unless you are suggesting that he took a boat and traveled to Yemen? :P

Link to comment

StriplingWarrior:

The critics are claiming that the Palmyra Lending Library was such an extensive library. All JS did was trot on down and read about it in a book. :P

Those critics would have to first assume that who ever wrote the BOM, only had access to the Palmyra lending library.

Let back up on step.

I realize that you want to portray critics as irrational and stupid. But, do you honestly think that it is a patently unreasonable assumption that someone who is taking the time to write a story about a family traveling in the Mideast, would consult a map of the mideast as part of their background research?

Link to comment

I realize that you want to portray critics as irrational and stupid. But, do you honestly think that it is a patently unreasonable assumption that someone who is taking the time to write a story about a family traveling in the Mideast, would consult a map of the mideast as part of their background research?

Prove it. Call for reference. Where is the affadavit of a person who saw Joseph pouring over maps in the Palmyra (or any other) library?

Link to comment

Prove it. Call for reference. Where is the affadavit of a person who saw Joseph pouring over maps in the Palmyra (or any other) library?

:P

You missed the point.

If I had an affidavit from a person who saw JS pouring over a map, I would not be asking whether it was a patently unreasonable ASSUMPTION that whoever wrote a book describing a mideast journey would have looked at a map of the Mideast.

I am now assuming that by making a demand for evidence on a claim I did not make, you prefer not to answer my question.

Why don't you want to answer my question, Charity?

Link to comment

<_<

You missed the point.

If I had an affidavit from a person who saw JS pouring over a map, I would not be asking whether it was a patently unreasonable ASSUMPTION that whoever wrote a book describing a mideast journey would have looked at a map of the Mideast.

I am now assuming that by making a demand for evidence on a claim I did not make, you prefer not to answer my question.

Why don't you want to answer my question, Charity?

I don't understand your example. This site was discovered after Joseph Smith had translated the BoM.

Maybe Marty McFly visted him and took him forward into the future? I guess that could be plausible. I'd love a fourth movie to come out... :P

Link to comment
Those critics would have to first assume that who ever wrote the BOM, only had access to the Palmyra lending library.

Let back up on step.

I realize that you want to portray critics as irrational and stupid. But, do you honestly think that it is a patently unreasonable assumption that someone who is taking the time to write a story about a family traveling in the Mideast, would consult a map of the mideast as part of their background research?

Please identify for us the map that you think Joseph Smith (or perhaps one of his many co-conspirators) used, and give us precise information about where he was (or they were) likely to have studied it. You are free to look well beyond the (non-existent) Palmyra lending library.

In the meantime, let nobody forget that the identification of NHM is only a relatively small piece of this overall bull's eye.

Incidentally, the movie Journey of Faith is a must-see -- except, of course, for critics like "Johnny."

Link to comment

Please identify for us the map that you think Joseph Smith (or perhaps one of his many co-conspirators) used, and give us precise information about where he was (or they were) likely to have studied it. You are free to look well beyond the (non-existent) Palmyra lending library.

In the meantime, let nobody forget that the identification of NHM is only a relatively small piece of this overall bull's eye.

Incidentally, the movie Journey of Faith is a must-see -- except, of course, for critics like "Johnny."

Could you elaborate more on this small piece of the overall bull's eye? Are there more studies or findings being done?

If so, could you point me to where I may become informed on it?

Thanks.

Link to comment

Those critics would have to first assume that who ever wrote the BOM, only had access to the Palmyra lending library.

Let back up on step.

I realize that you want to portray critics as irrational and stupid. But, do you honestly think that it is a patently unreasonable assumption that someone who is taking the time to write a story about a family traveling in the Mideast, would consult a map of the mideast as part of their background research?

So he consults a map. I think we are answering your question here. How was Joseph Smith suppose to know that a site named Nahom was in Yemen when that site was not discovered? On top of that, there is more than just looking at the map. What about the cultures and the trails. In Journey of Faith they describe how difficult this journey would have been and what they would need to do to get through it.

Again, how is Joseph Smith suppose to know these things in so much detail with names of places that were not known at his time?

Please answer my question. I have answered yours.

Link to comment

-A-

As I recall, even the video Journey of Faith (which Johnny need not see) discusses the fact that NHM occurs not merely in modern Arabia but is attested, precisely, at the time of Lehi (a fact not deducible from any map, even if NHM appears on a map [which it typically doesn't] and, in fact, unknown until just a few years ago); the fact that it is in exactly the right geographical relationship to Wadi Sayq (a place that, although one could not learn this from a map [and it rarely appears on maps, anyway], meets all of the hydrological and botanical and geological and topographical requirements for Lehi's Old World Bountiful); the fact that the ancient incense route took a turn at the right place that could not have been deduced from any map; and etc.

Professor S. Kent Brown, the principal speaker in Journey of Faith, has published a number of articles on this topic, all of which are well worth reading (unless, of course, you're Johnny).

-B-

As for Jaybear: I don't, of course, think it unreasonable to suppose that somebody writing a yarn about the Middle East would consult a map of the Middle East. (I think that's what Jaybear is trying to get at.) But I don't think it reasonable to suppose that Joseph Smith had access to a map of the Middle East that would have helped him to score the complex bull's eye represented by Nahom. Jaybear is, of course, welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Link to comment

So he consults a map. I think we are answering your question here. How was Joseph Smith suppose to know that a site named Nahom was in Yemen when that site was not discovered?

Thanks for answering my question. If you don't mind, I want to see if Dan concurs that it would not be patently unreasonable to assume that a writer would consult with a map of the mideast, in writing a story of a family travelling through the Mideast.

Link to comment

Thanks for answering my question. If you don't mind, I want to see if Dan concurs that it would not be patently unreasonable to assume that a writer would consult with a map of the mideast, in writing a story of a family travelling through the Mideast.

1. You never answered my question

2. You are twisting what I am trying to say. My point was, if he was to consult a map, how was he suppose to know all these other factors of names and places and techniques to cross this dangerous part of the world?

Link to comment

Daniel,

What do Maxwell Institute scholars think of Jeffrey R. Chadwick's claim that "They're digging in the wrong place!" (so to speak) in his review of Lehi in the Wilderness by George Potter and Richard Wellington.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=586

Is the subject in his review the same as this subject in the OP? Also, Chadwick says, "I grant a disclaimer of my own: I have no on-the-ground experience in Arabia proper" Still, are any of his claims worth paying attention to?

Link to comment

As for Jaybear: I don't, of course, think it unreasonable to suppose that somebody writing a yarn about the Middle East would consult a map of the Middle East. (I think that's what Jaybear is trying to get at.) But I don't think it reasonable to suppose that Joseph Smith had access to a map of the Middle East that would have helped him to score the complex bull's eye represented by Nahom. Jaybear is, of course, welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Thank you Dan.

As to your latter point, you make several assumptions which are questionable.

First you make a conclusory statement that finding a stone with the inscription NHM is a "complex bulleye."

I enjoy reading apologists when they say the location is "precisely" where the BOM says it would be. Yeah right. Please give me the name of one mideast archeaologist who is not LDS, who now believes that there was once a city called Nehom where that stone was found.

Second, you assume that I believe JS wrote the BOM. I harbor no such belief. I am more inclined to believe the book is mostly the product of plagerism. I don't know who wrote the book, or helped him write the book.

Here is the bottom line, given that you believe (for other reasons) the Book of mormon is an ancient document, I don't think it is patently unreasonable for you to believe that the stone found in the mideast bearing "NHM" refers to Nehom, as described in the Book of Mormon.

At the same time, given that (for other reasons) I believe the book of mormon is the product of the 19th century writer, I don't think it is patently unreasonable for me to assume that whoever wrote the book, may have looked an a map which contained the name of a Yemini province named Nehem, and changed it to nehom, as he changed Oneida to Onidah.

Link to comment
What do Maxwell Institute scholars think of Jeffrey R. Chadwick's claim that "They're digging in the wrong place!" (so to speak) in his review of Lehi in the Wilderness by George Potter and Richard Wellington.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=586

Is the subject in his review the same as this subject in the OP? Also, Chadwick says, "I grant a disclaimer of my own: I have no on-the-ground experience in Arabia proper" Still, are any of his claims worth paying attention to?

No, I think Chadwick is referring, specifically, to the "Valley of Lemuel." I don't know that he disagrees on NHM or Wadi Sayq.

I take Jeff Chadwick very seriously on geographical matters related to the scriptures (particularly within Israel and, to a certain extent, Jordan), and I take him seriously on this one. However, on the matter, specifically, of the "Valley of Lemuel," I'm resistant to his claim. And I know that Kent Brown is, too. While I don't always agree with them, I regard the site that Potter and Wellington discovered as an awfully good match for the Valley of Lemuel. But I don't think that anything has been published in response to him yet, and, in fact, I don't know (off hand) of anything in the works on that topic.

Link to comment

:P

You missed the point.

If I had an affidavit from a person who saw JS pouring over a map, I would not be asking whether it was a patently unreasonable ASSUMPTION that whoever wrote a book describing a mideast journey would have looked at a map of the Mideast.

I am now assuming that by making a demand for evidence on a claim I did not make, you prefer not to answer my question.

Why don't you want to answer my question, Charity?

I have no trouble with your question. I have a big problem with your basic assumption that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon sometime prior to the events attested to by many people of the Book of Mormon being put on paper by various scribes. But the number of assumptions required are just too many and complex to give the theory any wings to fly at all.

Just so you will be clear about my answer: Would a person who wanted to write a book about a mideast journey have looked at a map? Porbably. If he/she had access to a source of maps. If he/she had already learned about trade routes,eetc. Oops. That means other research first. The library gets bigger and bigger and the author's level of education more advanced all the time. Oh, well, that is the way the pretzel theory goes. Determine your facts first, and the twist everything to fit.

Link to comment

I have a big problem with your basic assumption that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon ...

I make no such assumption.

As for your statement "Determine your facts first, and the twist everything to fit."

Isn't that how apologists come to the grand conclusion that NHM is in precisely the location that the BOM say it would be.

Link to comment

In 1 Nephi 16 we read:

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

I was watching a great video called Journey of Faith in which is said that this could possibly have been a site in Yemen. Not only that, but it is even plausible, as the video shows, that Nephi and his family would have traveled through there on their journey.

On top of that, this site was discovered well after Joseph Smiths time. To me, this was a really cool.

I know that there was a critic that has attacked this theory, but to my knowledge there was an apologetic in response to it.

Anyone else have comments about this?

If I claim to predict the weather and do so for 100 days, if I get 2, 3, 4, or even 20 or 25 days correct and the others wrong I haven't proven my ability to predict the weather. The Nahom, Bountiful, and even Hebraisms are interesting but if they aren't followed by what experts consider to be consistent statements with regards to the academically accepted view of the ancient culture, demographics, etc in the New World, where most of the BoM takes place, then it is not really strong evidence.

Link to comment
As for your statement "Determine your facts first, and the twist everything to fit."

Isn't that how apologists come to the grand conclusion that NHM is in precisely the location that the BOM say it would be.

No. It isn't.

But I'd be interested to learn which of the Hiltons' or the Astons' or Professor Brown's publications it was in which you imagine that you found such reasoning.

Link to comment

Stripling,

Boy, you sure stepped in it this time! :P As you may have discerned from the discussion so far, this has been a point of continual bickering on the part of the antis.

Part of the broader context of this hit is this:

1. Lehi & company travel three days from Jerusalem and encamp by a "river of water", in a great valley. Said valley and river do indeed exist.

2. They subsequently travel through "the more fertile parts." In fact, you can see in Google Earth that this area turns green during part of the year, while the rest of the Arabian Peninsula remains sand-colored.

3. The eventually reach Nahom, where they bury Ishmael, and turn left to travel east. In fact, the ancient Inscense Road follows the route so far described, and turns east at this point. There is in fact a place there known by the consonants "NHM" in the local semitic language. The place has an ancient cemetary that was in use in 600 B.C. An alter dating from about 600 B.C. has been found there that is inscribed with the name "NHM"

4. When you continue straight east from NHM, you arrive at a very lush area, that closely matches the BoM's description of Bountiful, down to the presense of iron ore and several other features mentioned in the text.

The argument is that there exists at least one map dating prior to publishing of the Book of Mormon that shows the place NHM as "Nehem", or something very close to that. The antis are desperately trying to somehow tie this map to Joseph Smith, because otherwise this is a slam-dunk proof of the Book of Mormon. In reality, there is no record of Joseph doing any sort of scholarly research. He was still pretty young--hadn't had much time for that sort of thing--and his time was spent in the work of eking out an existence. There are specifically records that he was not "bookish." Also, there is no record that any of the few copies the map mentioned above were ever anywhere near Joseph, nor is there any expanation of why he would have changed "Nehem" to "Nahom." And, of course, the map doesn't account for any of the other points I listed above. (And there are many more "hits" in Arabia as well. See, for example, Potter's book, Lehi in the Wilderness.)

Link to comment

StriplingWarrior:

The critics are claiming that the Palmyra Lending Library was such an extensive library. All JS did was trot on down and read about it in a book. :P

How extensive does it have to be to have one copy of a popular map (Pinkerton)??

Link to comment

No. It isn't.

So your are saying that if you were to give the book of mormon to ten BYU freshmen who are unfamiliar with the "NHM" apologetics, and ask him to place Nehom on a map, you would expect them all to pick a spot within say 200 miles of where the stone NHM was found.

Like I said. Yeah, right.

Solarpowered: nor is there any expanation of why he would have changed "Nehem" to "Nahom."

I imagine for the same reason he changed "Oneida" to "Onidah."

Link to comment

Stripling,

Boy, you sure stepped in it this time! :P As you may have discerned from the discussion so far, this has been a point of continual bickering on the part of the antis.

Part of the broader context of this hit is this:

1. Lehi & company travel three days from Jerusalem and encamp by a "river of water", in a great valley. Said valley and river do indeed exist.

2. They subsequently travel through "the more fertile parts." In fact, you can see in Google Earth that this area turns green during part of the year, while the rest of the Arabian Peninsula remains sand-colored.

3. The eventually reach Nahom, where they bury Ishmael, and turn left to travel east. In fact, the ancient Inscense Road follows the route so far described, and turns east at this point. There is in fact a place there known by the consonants "NHM" in the local semitic language. The place has an ancient cemetary that was in use in 600 B.C.. An alter dating from about 600 B.C. has been found there that is inscribed with the name "NHM"

4. When you continue straight east from NHM, you arrive at a very lush area, that closely matches the BoM's description of Bountiful, down to the presense of iron ore and several other features mentioned in the text.

The argument is that there exists at least one map dating prior to publishing of the Book of Mormon that shows the place NHM as Nehem, or something very close to that. The antis are desperately trying to claim that Joseph had access to that map, because otherwise this is a slam-dunk proof of the Book of Mormon. In reality, there is no record of Joseph doing any sort of scholarly research. He was still pretty young--hadn't had much time for that sort of thing--and his time was spent in the work of eking out an existence. There are specifically records that he was not "bookish." Also, there is no record that any of the few copies the map mentioned above were ever anywhere near Joseph, nor is there any expanation of why he would have changed "Nehem" to "Nahom." And, of course, the map doesn't account for any of the other points I listed above. (And there are many more "hits" in Arabia as well. See, for example, Potter's book, Lehi in the Wilderness.)

I think I sure did. Thanks for the additional information and books. This is such a strong proof that the BoM is what it claims to be that makes me really interested in it.

Thanks.

Link to comment

Archived

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

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

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