NHM and the trail

[Olavarria]

The following books, journals and videos have great information on Lehi's trail.

By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion. By Terryl L. Givens;Published by Oxford University Press US,Chapter 5

(click here)

The Children of Noah: Jewish Seafaring in Ancient Times

By Raphael Patai; Edition: 3, illustrated; Published by Princeton University Press, 1999

(click here)

"Newly Found Altars from Nahom"

(click here)

Where is Nahom?

Where is Bountiful?

Book of Mormon Geography in the Old World (full-length)

[Scottie]

My personal feeling on this is that apologists are looking for anything that might match. The details in the BoM aren't exactly specific.

If someone had enough time on their hands, I'm quite certain that we could find a place with strikingly similar characteristics that match Middle Earth.

[Glenn101]

My personal feeling on this is that apologists are looking for anything that might match. The details in the BoM aren't exactly specific.

If someone had enough time on their hands, I'm quite certain that we could find a place with strikingly similar characteristics that match Middle Earth.

Instead of finding "anything that might match" the poor apologists seem to have found 'the only thing(s) that might match", by following those inexacltly specific directions.

Glenn

[Scottie]

Instead of finding "anything that might match" the poor apologists seem to have found 'the only thing(s) that might match", by following those inexacltly specific directions.

Glenn

If they found something that might match, what incentive is there to keep looking?

[mfbukowski]

If they found something that might match, what incentive is there to keep looking?

And if you are an explorer looking for the South Pole, and you find it, would you keep looking? Your point?

[All-Seeing Eye]

There is no secular explanation. This is clearly bulletproof evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, in full... even the parts that had nothing to do with Lehi. And also that the Mormon church (or one of its splinters) is completely true, without exception (unless there's been another apostasy).

Jeez, why hasn't everyone joined yet in the face of such clear and convincing evidence?

[Daniel Peterson]

It's solid evidence, and there is, so far as I can tell, no good secular explanation for it.

Which is why, instead of reasoned argument, we get sneering responses like ASE's, above, and/or rather feeble attempts to dismiss the data as insignificant.

[ttribe]

There is no secular explanation. This is clearly bulletproof evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, in full... even the parts that had nothing to do with Lehi. And also that the Mormon church (or one of its splinters) is completely true, without exception (unless there's been another apostasy).

Jeez, why hasn't everyone joined yet in the face of such clear and convincing evidence?

If you actually want to contribute something substantive around here, I think it was a bad idea for you to admit (in another thread) that you just come around here to "piss" people off. At this point, your online persona on this Board is nothing but a stereotyped caricature and posts like the one above simply play right into the stereotype of the bitter ex-member who spends his time spreading his brand of "cheer" by mocking the beliefs of those who didn't decide to the leave the Church. It must make you feel all happy inside to look down your nose at us and arrogantly sneer.

[Scottie]

It's solid evidence, and there is, so far as I can tell, no good secular explanation for it.

Which is why, instead of reasoned argument, we get sneering responses like ASE's, above, and/or rather feeble attempts to dismiss the data as insignificant.

How, exactly, is it significant??

If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we have no way of knowing what the vowels are inbetween NHM. It could be Niham, Nohum, Nahem, Nehom, etc.

I am also unimpressed that someone could take a couple of EXTREMEMLY vague directions and find a place on a map that sort of matches...

It would be as if I were to say "There were a mountain and a lake, and atop this mountain there was snow" and apologists claiming that they have found THE place in SLC! There is a mountain and a lake and it snows!!! DIRECT HIT!! (Disregarding the 1000 other places where this is a direct hit).

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

This is clearly bulletproof evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, in full... even the parts that had nothing to do with Lehi.

Indeed, the ancient frankincense trails leads right to NHM, to bad there are no signs of Lehi's passing along the way to NHM...

If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we have no way of knowing what the vowels are inbetween NHM. It could be Niham, Nohum, Nahem, Nehom, etc.

Vowels are only used when words are spoken and so vowel variance is to be expected. Semitic languages utilize only the consonants and not the vowels. The Arabian root for NHM is related to stone cutting. The Hebrew root NHM is related to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning. After excavation, it seems NHM is the largest burial complex known anywhere in Arabia.

Strange for Joseph to make up a place along the way through Arabia, who's consonants are the same as a once unknown burial site, to have them mourn and bury Ishmael before proceeding east, which NHM is right where the frankincense trail goes east... Lucky break?

[Daniel Peterson]

How, exactly, is it significant??

Have you read anything substantial on the topic?

If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we have no way of knowing what the vowels are inbetween NHM. It could be Niham, Nohum, Nahem, Nehom, etc.

Semitic words are typically triconsonantal. Thus, for example, Arabic KiTaaB, maKTaB, KuTuB, KaTaBa, KaaTiB, KuTayBa, maKTaBa, yaKTuBu, maKTuuB, taKTuBiina etc., are all from the root KTB, and all are connected with the idea of writing (meaning, respectively, for the Arabic words I've just given, "book," "desk," "books," "he wrote," "writer," "pamphlet," "library," "he writes," "written," "you [f. sg.] write", etc.). The triliteral consonant root is fundamental, and then changes are rung upon it. In fact, the short vowels will typically not even be written. Thus, the words I've given above would actually be written, in most cases, as KTaaB, mKTB, KTB, KTB, KaaTB, KTyB ["y," here, being a semi-vowel, which is to say partially a consonant], mKTB[t], yKTB, mKTuuB, tKTBiin.

To my mind, as a Semiticist, it's impressive to find the right three-consonantal root in the right place, and in the right relationship to another place, at the right time. Although this might be sheer dumb luck, the odds are against it.

I am also unimpressed that someone could take a couple of EXTREMEMLY vague directions and find a place on a map that sort of matches...

It would be as if I were to say "There were a mountain and a lake, and atop this mountain there was snow" and apologists claiming that they have found THE place in SLC! There is a mountain and a lake and it snows!!! DIRECT HIT!! (Disregarding the 1000 other places where this is a direct hit).

Your analogy grossly understates the situation with regard to NHM, and suggests that, in fact, you haven't read the relevant studies.

[MDalby]

Have you read anything substantial on the topic?

Semitic words are typically triconsonantal. Thus, for example, Arabic KiTaaB, maKTaB, KuTuB, KaTaBa, KaaTiB, KuTayBa, maKTaBa, yaKTuBu, maKTuuB, taKTuBiina etc., are all from the root KTB, and all are connected with the idea of writing (meaning, respectively, for the Arabic words I've just given, "book," "desk," "books," "he wrote," "writer," "pamphlet," "library," "he writes," "written," "you [f. sg.] write", etc.). The triliteral consonant root is fundamental, and then changes are rung upon it. In fact, the short vowels will typically not even be written. Thus, the words I've given above would actually be written, in most cases, as KTaaB, mKTB, KTB, KTB, KaaTB, KTyB ["y," here, being a semi-vowel, which is to say partially a consonant], mKTB[t], yKTB, mKTuuB, tKTBiin.

To my mind, as a Semiticist, it's impressive to find the right three-consonantal root in the right place, and in the right relationship to another place, at the right time. Although this might be sheer dumb luck, the odds are against it.

Your analogy grossly understates the situation with regard to NHM, and suggests that, in fact, you haven't read the relevant studies.

Brother Peterson,

To be able to pick those consonants with these semetic specifics would be difficult for Joseph to understand at his young age and level of education, correct? Is this something that was widely understood in his area at that time?

Vowels are only used when words are spoken and so vowel variance is to be expected. Semitic languages utilize only the consonants and not the vowels. The Arabian root for NHM is related to stone cutting. The Hebrew root NHM is related to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning. After excavation, it seems NHM is the largest burial complex known anywhere in Arabia.

In combination with the wording of Nahom, then to actually find a place matching the description in the travel path seems to be very, very unlikely.

MD

[John Larsen]

Suppose I gave my child a Calculus test. My child has taken no course in calculus, but has studied some algebra. The child takes the test and of the 100 questions, gets 5 right! Not only did she get 5 correct but on some of the questions she got wrong happen to have a step or two right in a way that is unlikely without a knowledge of calculus. However, when we look at the answers she got right, she in fact made some mistakes that would indicate she wasnâ??t so sure what she was doing.

The question is, does the child know calculus?

The answer is clearâ??no. Applying a knowledge of algebra, she could in fact deal with some of the issue within the calculus problems. But more importantly, even if she were guessing she would likely get some right. The most important thing is not the few she got right but the overwhelming number she got wrong. The right ones become a curiosity, but it is clear she doesnâ??t know calculus. If the test had 100 question and 5 multiple choice questions, we would expect her to get 20% correct by simply guessing.

Additionally, the likelihood of hits grows exponentially when you increase the set you are comparing. So if we are looking for linguistical hits in the book of Mormon, and we use, as a basis of comparison, Egyptian, Coptic, Hittite, Hebrew, etc. etc. covering 1000s of years of usage in any and all situations, it would be almost impossible for Joseph not to have some hits. This is especially true when you start bending the rules to ignore vowels and count near hits.

In language, there are only so many sound patterns that are possible. IIRC, the English language has 54 distinct sounds in the Midwestern dialect. Language production is also conservative, meaning that speakers tend to simplicity and use as few sounds and syllables to produce words as is possible while maintaining distinctiveness. What this means is there is a likely line up of words that share similar meaning, since the 200,000 or so words are statistically likely to line up in a few 100 cases, even if the languages have had no contact. So when we look at Josephâ??s hits, the first question is how many hits would be expected if the BoM were compared to any randomly selected language. It is pretty well guaranteed that at least a few words or place names would line up.

But Joseph wasnâ??t working on mere statistical probability. He had a bible in front of him. In select names for persons and places, he very well could have just riffed on names already in the bible such as Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Ne. 7:7) and Nahum (Na. 1:1).

However, this issue is simpler. The Book of Mormon tells us that Lehiâ??s party was trying to flee in secrecy. They didnâ??t even light fires. No contact with any outsiders is suggested anywhere in the text. And the book is unclear who named the place Nahom:

1 Nephi 16:34

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

In other instances, the book suggests that Lehiâ??s party did the naming of places so by implication Nahom was named by the party, not by some Yemen tribesmen.

One of the arguments for the name is that NHM suggest mourning or burial. It seems like a direct hit, right? But letâ??s look again. Verse 34 says that Ishmael died and was buried there. For there to be a linguistic connect in the archeological evidence there are only two possible explanations. One, the Lehi party named the spot NHM because father Ishmael died and the name stuck, to be found in the archeological evidence. Or, two, Ishmael just happened to die in the place name NHM. The second is dismissive of the evidence. If that is the case then there really is no connection to the meaning of NHM (unless God choose to kill off Ishmael in this location because of the clever irony). For the first case, you would have to believe that the Yemen tribesmen had contact with the Lehite party and felt so bad when this old man died that they changed the name of the place. This is equally unlikely since the Lehite party was trying to avoid contact.

So letâ??s look again at the evidence. We donâ??t know the place NHM was called Nahom. We donâ??t know for sure if the place called NHM is named that because of mourning (although there is a Hebrew word that would suggest that, there are also other unrelated meanings to NHM). We donâ??t know if the Yemen tribes who named it had any inkling of the Hebrew meanings. We donâ??t know if Lehiâ??s party actually passed through this place. Even if Lehiâ??s party passed through, we donâ??t know if they had any contact with the Yemen.

This is one weak piece of evidence. I hope you can all see why it is unconvincing to everyone but the already convinced.

[maklelan]

Suppose I gave my child a Calculus test. My child has taken no course in calculus, but has studied some algebra. The child takes the test and of the 100 questions, gets 5 right! Not only did she get 5 correct but on some of the questions she got wrong happen to have a step or two right in a way that is unlikely without a knowledge of calculus. However, when we look at the answers she got right, she in fact made some mistakes that would indicate she wasnâ??t so sure what she was doing.

The question is, does the child know calculus?

The answer is clearâ??no. Applying a knowledge of algebra, she could in fact deal with some of the issue within the calculus problems. But more importantly, even if she were guessing she would likely get some right. The most important thing is not the few she got right but the overwhelming number she got wrong. The right ones become a curiosity, but it is clear she doesnâ??t know calculus. If the test had 100 question and 5 multiple choice questions, we would expect her to get 20% correct by simply guessing.

Additionally, the likelihood of hits grows exponentially when you increase the set you are comparing. So if we are looking for linguistical hits in the book of Mormon, and we use, as a basis of comparison, Egyptian, Coptic, Hittite, Hebrew, etc. etc. covering 1000s of years of usage in any and all situations, it would be almost impossible for Joseph not to have some hits. This is especially true when you start bending the rules to ignore vowels and count near hits.

In language, there are only so many sound patterns that are possible. IIRC, the English language has 54 distinct sounds in the Midwestern dialect. Language production is also conservative, meaning that speakers tend to simplicity and use as few sounds and syllables to produce words as is possible while maintaining distinctiveness. What this means is there is a likely line up of words that share similar meaning, since the 200,000 or so words are statistically likely to line up in a few 100 cases, even if the languages have had no contact. So when we look at Josephâ??s hits, the first question is how many hits would be expected if the BoM were compared to any randomly selected language. It is pretty well guaranteed that at least a few words or place names would line up.

Quite a roundabout way to claim it's just a coincidence. The difference between your premise and the situation with the Book of Mormon, however, is that you know the child doesn't know calculus. You have presuppose the Book of Mormon is false for this analogy to be relevant. If you're trying to answer the question of whether or not the child knows calculus the test is only going to produce fuzzy probabilities. In addition, Calculus has clear and objective answers against which you may compare the child's answers. You're rather naively suggesting that you have the same sort of binary answer key for vague historical questions. The fact that the test is a nineteenth century anaphoric translation further precludes the premise you're proposing.

But Joseph wasnâ??t working on mere statistical probability. He had a bible in front of him. In select names for persons and places, he very well could have just riffed on names already in the bible such as Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Ne. 7:7) and Nahum (Na. 1:1).

Also a possibility. This doesn't engage the evidence at all, though. Providing another possibility isn't really a way to undermine its validity.

However, this issue is simpler.

It absolutely is not unless one doesn't know much about it.

The Book of Mormon tells us that Lehiâ??s party was trying to flee in secrecy. They didnâ??t even light fires. No contact with any outsiders is suggested anywhere in the text.

But "no contact" is also not suggested. Avoiding fire helps prevent contact with thieves, but there's no indication they were avoiding contact with anyone other than thieves, and that far south they had nothing to worry about from any authorities.

And the book is unclear who named the place Nahom:

But the text makes it illogical to assert Lehi's party named it.

In other instances, the book suggests that Lehiâ??s party did the naming of places so by implication Nahom was named by the party, not by some Yemen tribesmen.

Horrible exegesis. The explicit naming of one place has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they named another place. The language of the text suggests they did not name Nahom. It was "the place which was called," not "we did call the name of the place." Suggesting the latter should inform the former is just ludicrous exegesis.

One of the arguments for the name is that NHM suggest mourning or burial.

No, it suggests "consolation" or "compassion," since that's what the Hebrew word means. Have you read any of the arguments or just flippantly waved you hand in their direction?

It seems like a direct hit, right? But letâ??s look again. Verse 34 says that Ishmael died and was buried there. For there to be a linguistic connect in the archeological evidence there are only two possible explanations. One, the Lehi party named the spot NHM because father Ishmael died and the name stuck, to be found in the archeological evidence. Or, two, Ishmael just happened to die in the place name NHM. The second is dismissive of the evidence. If that is the case then there really is no connection to the meaning of NHM (unless God choose to kill off Ishmael in this location because of the clever irony). For the first case, you would have to believe that the Yemen tribesmen had contact with the Lehite party and felt so bad when this old man died that they changed the name of the place. This is equally unlikely since the Lehite party was trying to avoid contact.

There's a third which you haven't considered. That is that the Arabian name, which refers to stone masonry, reminded the party of the Hebrew word, which refers to consolation, and they went with that. Homophony played a large role in word play and names during the time period, although to me it doesn't really matter what Hebrew words are associated with it. Word play is not particularly significant in my mind. Irrespective, perhaps you should learn a little about the historical context before you a priori reject the possibility that it fits the historical context.

So letâ??s look again at the evidence. We donâ??t know the place NHM was called Nahom.

We know as well as we possibly could. There is absolutely no way we could ever know what the vowels were.

We donâ??t know for sure if the place called NHM is named that because of mourning (although there is a Hebrew word that would suggest that, there are also other unrelated meanings to NHM).

Not particularly significant considering the propensity for associating names with familiar words, although, again, the word play doesn't strengthen the evidence significantly. The name, location, and function are by far the most significant considerations. Somehow you don't bother to engage them.

We donâ??t know if the Yemen tribes who named it had any inkling of the Hebrew meanings. We donâ??t know if Lehiâ??s party actually passed through this place. Even if Lehiâ??s party passed through, we donâ??t know if they had any contact with the Yemen.

We don't know that they didn't either. One of the great fallacies of historiography is claiming what is not in the text was not in the history behind the text.

This is one weak piece of evidence. I hope you can all see why it is unconvincing to everyone but the already convinced.

I can see how it can be unconvincing to someone who (1) doesn't know much of the evidence, (2) refuses to familiarize himself with the evidence, and (3) was already convinced it couldn't possibly be legitimate.

[Daniel Peterson]

To be able to pick those consonants with these semetic specifics would be difficult for Joseph to understand at his young age and level of education, correct? Is this something that was widely understood in his area at that time?

That seems to me extraordinarily unlikely.

He was a semi-literate farm boy on the American frontier.

If you were, say, to take a poll of students at BYU, where Hebrew and Arabic and other Semitic languages are regularly taught in numerous classes, you would still find very, very few of them, I'm confident, who've ever so much as heard of triconsonantal Semitic word-roots. And how many of them would then know enough about the microgeography of the Arabian Peninsula, and etc., to pull this off?

Thus far, I don't think I've ever seen a message board critic who seemed to me to grasp the issues involved in this. What I've invariably read are airy dismissals of simplistic caricatures of the NHM argument.

[Eldwynn]

That seems to me extraordinarily unlikely.

He was a semi-literate farm boy on the American frontier.

Why do people think that Joseph Smiths literacy was even relevant in any discussion about the authoring of the book of mormon.

You and I both agree that he didn't actually do any of the writing, and that he wasn't even doing a strict translation of the book of mormon (after all, he wasn't even looking at the plates). So why is the question of his literacy here or there?

[Daniel Peterson]

Why do people think that Joseph Smiths literacy was even relevant in any discussion about the authoring of the book of mormon.

You and I both agree that he didn't actually do any of the writing, and that he wasn't even doing a strict translation of the book of mormon (after all, he wasn't even looking at the plates). So why is the question of his literacy here or there?

I have no idea what your position is on the Book of Mormon and who wrote it, but I can promise you that there are several people in the world who think he wrote it. I've actually met them, and read things they've written.

Spalding/Rigdon enthusiasts should not imagine that they exhaust the spectrum of critics abroad in the land. As a matter of fact, believers in the Spalding/Rigdon theory are, and have long been, a tiny and rather eccentric fringe group among anti-Mormons.

[Eldwynn]

I have no idea what your position is on the Book of Mormon and who wrote it, but I can promise you that there are several people in the world who think he wrote it. I've actually met them, and read things they've written.

To let you know where I am coming from: It doesn't matter to me. Even if I were convinced that Joseph did indeed translated it correctly, it would still not answer the dozens of other problems I find with religions claims.

I only piped in this thread to clarify why people make such a big deal about his literacy, and you answered. Thank you.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

The Book of Mormon tells us that Lehi’s party was trying to flee in secrecy... ...No contact with any outsiders is suggested anywhere in the text.

Once they left Jerusalem, they were well beyond the city's wrath. And in Doctrine and Covenants 33

"...the field is white already to harvest; wherefore, thrust in your sickles, and reap with all your might, mind, and strength. Open your mouths and they shall be filled, and you shall become even as Nephi of old, who journeyed from Jerusalem in the wilderness."

Nephi was a great missionary in the wilderness. I wonder who were his converts?

One of the arguments for the name is that NHM suggest mourning or burial. It seems like a direct hit, right? But let’s look again. Verse 34 says that Ishmael died and was buried there. For there to be a linguistic connect in the archeological evidence there are only two possible explanations. One, the Lehi party named the spot NHM because father Ishmael died and the name stuck, to be found in the archeological evidence. Or, two, Ishmael just happened to die in the place name NHM.

There is no suggestion to who named the place, that isn't relevant at all. And we don't know when Ishmael died to consider it good fortune. He could have been on his death bed along the way and they stopped there until he died, or he died long before they got to NHM, and they are simply jumping to the relevant part.

[John Larsen]

He was a semi-literate farm boy on the American frontier.

What a strange argument to come from a scholar of Islam. Muhammad was illiterate. Does lack of literacy, semi- or otherwise confirm the claims of the "prophet".

[John Larsen]

I can see how it can be unconvincing to someone who (1) doesn't know much of the evidence, (2) refuses to familiarize himself with the evidence, and (3) was already convinced it couldn't possibly be legitimate.

Well, at least this argument is strong, even if it is a fallacy. I would go with this one to lead, its your best.

[Tchild2]

There is no secular explanation. This is clearly bulletproof evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, in full... even the parts that had nothing to do with Lehi. And also that the Mormon church (or one of its splinters) is completely true, without exception (unless there's been another apostasy).

Jeez, why hasn't everyone joined yet in the face of such clear and convincing evidence?

Hmmm.. So God wants some evidence to be known of the BoM historicty and supernatural unfolding (NHM), but not that much? I thought God was hiding the evidence (he took the plates back, or commanded them to be taken by the angel Moroni didn't he)? So, which is it, faith or proof?

[Daniel Peterson]

What a strange argument to come from a scholar of Islam. Muhammad was illiterate.

He was ummi. That's typically taken to mean "illiterate." I disagree with that, on both linguistic and historical grounds.

Does lack of literacy, semi- or otherwise confirm the claims of the "prophet."

No. Nor have I said anything about "confirmation" here.

But the two cases are not comparable on this score in any event.

[volgadon]

Isn't ummi like am haaretz?

[MDalby]

Hmmm.. So God wants some evidence to be known of the BoM historicty and supernatural unfolding (NHM), but not that much? I thought God was hiding the evidence (he took the plates back, or commanded them to be taken by the angel Moroni didn't he)? So, which is it, faith or proof?

"Damned if you do. Damned if you don't"

If there isn't bulletproof, case closed evidence, Joseph was a charlatan. If the world happens to stumble upon truths that support Joseph Smith's claims, God is inconsistent.

MD