Once Again: The Nahom-Bountiful/Nehem-Wadi Sayq Complex

[Olavarria]

Edited December 1, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[thesometimesaint]

[Rivers]

Has there been any good refutation of the Nahom evidence from the critics?

[LeSellers]

Has there been any good refutation of the Nahom evidence from the critics?

With the accent on "good", no. Their usual approach is dismissal and rejection of the evidence because it's not widely available in non-LDS sources.

Lehi

[KevinG]

You mean those sneaky Mormons planted gardens in a desert to falisfy evidence of the Book of Mormon! I can't wait for them to complete the Mormon Death Star to prove Kolob is out there!

[Gervin]

I've always thought it strange that it took 8 years of journeying in the wilderness to get from Nahom to Bountiful, a distance that LDS researchers estimate to be about 600 miles. Eight weeks would probably be a suitable time to cover that distance while observing the Sabbath*. As described in the Book of Mormon (a near straight eastward journey), this trip averaged about 1300 feet - or about 4 football lengths - a day for 8 years.

*Not sure how closely Judaic law was followed since they didn't follow kashrut; they survived off raw meat.

[KevinG]

I've always thought it strange that it took 8 years of journeying in the wilderness to get from Nahom to Bountiful, a distance that LDS researchers estimate to be about 600 miles. Eight weeks would probably be a suitable time to cover that distance while observing the Sabbath*. As described in the Book of Mormon (a near straight eastward journey), this trip averaged about 1300 feet - or about 4 football lengths - a day for 8 years.

*Not sure how closely Judaic law was followed since they didn't follow kashrut; they survived off raw meat.

There are a lot of unknown variables. The size of the tribe including members not named in the Book of Mormon narrative. The amount of resistance and time spent wandering because of lack of faith and a non-functioning Liahona. Etc.

[LeSellers]

I've always thought it strange that it took 8 years of journeying in the wilderness to get from Nahom to Bountiful, a distance that LDS researchers estimate to be about 600 miles. Eight weeks would probably be a suitable time to cover that distance while observing the Sabbath*. As described in the Book of Mormon (a near straight eastward journey), this trip averaged about 1300 feet - or about 4 football lengths - a day for 8 years.

*Not sure how closely Judaic law was followed since they didn't follow kashrut; they survived off raw meat.

There are a lot of unknown variables. The size of the tribe including members not named in the Book of Mormon narrative. The amount of resistance and time spent wandering because of lack of faith and a non-functioning Liahona. Etc.

We should not forget that Nephi tells us of afflictions in the Arabian desert they traveled.

The Lehite (I do not recall the current spelling, something like "Lehuyite") tribe of Yemen tells of a great prophet who passed through their territory. One wonders if they stayed in place for more than "a while", and if that sojourn (another Nephi word) was all voluntary.

We also note that Nephi did not give us all the record that was in his father's book, so if they were enslaved or otherwise detained in the region, there is no record of it in the text we have today.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Gervin:

Average doesn't tell us much. When the Mormon Pioneers were coming to the San Bernardino Valley there were days when they measured the distance backwards(They actually lost ground).

You'll also have to add in that the Lehite group camped by day, traveled without light by night, hunted, grew crops(where possible), gave birth, mourned the death of family memebers, and built, stocked a ship capable of transpacific travel.

Edited December 1, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[KevinG]

Tell me about it. Getting my family to Church on time is like pulling teeth.

[Gervin]

There are a lot of unknown variables. The size of the tribe including members not named in the Book of Mormon narrative. The amount of resistance and time spent wandering because of lack of faith and a non-functioning Liahona. Etc.

The passage describes them as not faltering in their faith and there's nothing to indicate they were lost as the text says they traveled "nearly eastward from that time forth." I understand that there are thousands of variables that can be added to account for an 8-year journey with a trip length equivalent of St. Louis to Pittsburgh.

I think the passage reference to surviving off raw meat is problematic. The passage says "And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them." But eating raw meat was strictly not a commandment - in fact it was forbidden, and when it does occur in 1 Samuel, the people are described as sinful.

[Olavarria]

One possible reason for an 8 year exodus is a period of captivity.

[ldsfaqs]

Lehi's party clearly stayed in some places "long term".

Anyone who's interested in this subject MUST read the book "Lehi in the Wilderness - 81 New Documented Evidences...." found over at

http://www.nephiproject.com

Also get the "Discovering Lehi's Trial" DVD's.....

Anyone that's objective, will be convinced of the BOM truthfulness by this material alone.

[LeSellers]

eating raw meat was strictly not a commandment - in fact it was forbidden, and when it does occur in 1 Samuel, the people are described as sinful.

But in 1 Nephi, the prophet tells us that the Lord made their meat sweet without their having to cook it. So, if the Lord intervenes, it is not sinful. As Christ pointed out, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The same would apply to any law, including "Thou shalt not kill."

Lehi

[Olavarria]

But in 1 Nephi, the prophet tells us that the Lord made their meat sweet without their having to cook it. So, if the Lord intervenes, it is not sinful. As Christ pointed out, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The same would apply to any law, including "Thou shalt not kill."

Lehi

Nephi: God Almighty, we have nothing to eat that conforms to thy laws.

God: Then starve to death.

Nephi: ???

[LeSellers]

But in 1 Nephi, the prophet tells us that the Lord made their meat sweet without their having to cook it. So, if the Lord intervenes, it is not sinful. As Christ pointed out, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The same would apply to any law, including "Thou shalt not kill."

Nephi: God Almighty, we have nothing to eat that conforms to thy laws.

God: Then starve to death.

Nephi: ???

There's that, but we ought not forget that Nephi tells us outright why they had to eat raw meat: He did not want them to have fire (possibly because it would give their position away, possibly because it would add a burden to the women's lot). Only when they were in a secure location, Bountiful, did they start a fire, and even then, it was not to cook over.

Lehi

[Honorentheos]

Personally, I think the NHM evidence when taken in total creates more problems for LDS believers than it solves.

I would argue that the entire purpose of the NHM apologetic is to refute the idea that a 19th century author living in North America could have written the BoM. I think it does more to support this probability than it does to refute it. Evidence-

Accepting that the three alters that bear the inscription "NHM" are evidence of Lehi's party being real and passing through that particular area in modern Yemen creates a logical contradiction that occurs when we compare the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon with the known external archaeological evidence from that area.

Internal Evidence from the BoM:

- The Book of Mormon tells us that Lehi's party traveled through the wilderness

- The Book of Mormon tells us that the Lord guided Lehi's family through the most fertile parts of the land along the Red Sea

- The Book of Mormon tells us that Lehi's party were subsistence hunters and gatherers along this route and primarily named places as they discovered them

- When the Book of Mormon brings us to a place that is "called" something, the name it gives is "Nahom"

What the NHM alters would mean if we accept that they are evidence of the route Lehi's party traveled (External Archaeological Evidence):

- The incense road/silk road followed the same route. Cities and stopping places where there was water (the most fertile parts) are positioned about 25 miles apart along this route.

- There were cities or known oasis along this route that were named.

- The place where the alters were found had a name that was not Nahom or Nihm. It was a city with a large ancient dam. The dam fed a series of canals, of which a writer from the period said, "To walk in Marib is to walk in the shade". It's kind of glaring to suggest that Lehi/Nephi would call this place by a name unattested to in any other source.

So why does that matter? Because to a 19th century author like Joseph Smith the arabian peninsula would have been a wilderness where Nephi and Lehi would be wandering in the desert relying on the Lord for food and to be guided to the "most fertile parts". In effect, the apologetic asserts that Joseph Smith was unaware of the context when he got the name right and the potential "bountiful" site in a reasonable location in relation to this so the narrative couldn't be the product of the 19th century. Only - from the 600 BCE perspective it seems he also made signficant errors in judgement regarding the setting that are not explained or included in the narrative if we assume the entire account in 1 Nephi places the Lehi Party traveling along the spice road and arriving in the location where the three alters were found.

My opinion - The Lehi account is derived from the exodus account, describing the wanderings of Israel in the desert. He got the majority of the context wrong because he was using a biblical source to recreate a story from the bible casting new characters in the roles of Moses/Aaron and the complaining Israelites.

I also don't think it helps the NHM argument that there are people making money selling NHM-related tours. Or there were prior to the recent instability caused by the Arab Spring.

I would be curious to hear Don Bradley's current views on the NHM evidence as he at one time suggested that while it was the strongest evidence for the BoM, it didn't really constitute much of an argument. I have to assume something has changed. I ask this respectfully as I happen to like Don, as a believer or otherwise.

[volgadon]

Not sure how closely Judaic law was followed since they didn't follow kashrut; they survived off raw meat.

Which laws of kashrut? The ones in the Pentateuch or the latter, rabbinic interpretations?

The problem in 1 Samuel 14:32-33 was not eating raw meat as much as it was eating the meat with the blood. Leviticus 10:13 requires that the blood be poured out on the ground and covered with dirt. Obviously, pouring the blood out doesn't get rid of every single drop, but it doesn't say that the meat must be thoroughly cooked, or that cooking it somehow changes the blood into something else.

[ERayR]

There are a lot of unknown variables. The size of the tribe including members not named in the Book of Mormon narrative. The amount of resistance and time spent wandering because of lack of faith and a non-functioning Liahona. Etc.

Also time spent in foraging for food and the fact that they had small children and older people. It wasn't a get tjere as fast as you can journey but theyr really did live the nomadic life.

[Olavarria]

Personally, I think the NHM evidence when taken in total creates more problems for LDS believers than it solves.

I would argue that the entire purpose of the NHM apologetic is to refute the idea that a 19th century author living in North America could have written the BoM. I think it does more to support this probability than it does to refute it. Evidence-

Accepting that the three alters that bear the inscription "NHM" are evidence of Lehi's party being real and passing through that particular area in modern Yemen creates a logical contradiction that occurs when we compare the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon with the known external archaeological evidence from that area.

Internal Evidence from the BoM:

- The Book of Mormon tells us that Lehi's party traveled through the wilderness

- The Book of Mormon tells us that the Lord guided Lehi's family through the most fertile parts of the land along the Red Sea

- The Book of Mormon tells us that Lehi's party were subsistence hunters and gatherers along this route and primarily named places as they discovered them

- When the Book of Mormon brings us to a place that is "called" something, the name it gives is "Nahom"

What the NHM alters would mean if we accept that they are evidence of the route Lehi's party traveled (External Archaeological Evidence):

- The incense road/silk road followed the same route. Cities and stopping places where there was water (the most fertile parts) are positioned about 25 miles apart along this route.

- There were cities or known oasis along this route that were named.

- The place where the alters were found had a name that was not Nahom or Nihm. It was a city with a large ancient dam. The dam fed a series of canals, of which a writer from the period said, "To walk in Marib is to walk in the shade". It's kind of glaring to suggest that Lehi/Nephi would call this place by a name unattested to in any other source.

So why does that matter? Because to a 19th century author like Joseph Smith the arabian peninsula would have been a wilderness where Nephi and Lehi would be wandering in the desert relying on the Lord for food and to be guided to the "most fertile parts". In effect, the apologetic asserts that Joseph Smith was unaware of the context when he got the name right and the potential "bountiful" site in a reasonable location in relation to this so the narrative couldn't be the product of the 19th century. Only - from the 600 BCE perspective it seems he also made signficant errors in judgement regarding the setting that are not explained or included in the narrative if we assume the entire account in 1 Nephi places the Lehi Party traveling along the spice road and arriving in the location where the three alters were found.

My opinion - The Lehi account is derived from the exodus account, describing the wanderings of Israel in the desert. He got the majority of the context wrong because he was using a biblical source to recreate a story from the bible casting new characters in the roles of Moses/Aaron and the complaining Israelites.

I also don't think it helps the NHM argument that there are people making money selling NHM-related tours. Or there were prior to the recent instability caused by the Arab Spring.

I would be curious to hear Don Bradley's current views on the NHM evidence as he at one time suggested that while it was the strongest evidence for the BoM, it didn't really constitute much of an argument. I have to assume something has changed. I ask this respectfully as I happen to like Don, as a believer or otherwise.

1 Ne. 6: 3 (1-6)

And it mattereth not to me that I am particular to give a full account of all the things of my father, for they cannot be written upon ^athese plates, for I desire the room that I may write of the things of God.

We shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that the account of the small plates tells the whole story. Also, Lehi and Co probably tried to keep a very low profile given that they were a small band with no local tribal affiliation, hence no one to avenge them if they became victims of any kind. Entering into a city like Marib would have been a last resort.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[thesometimesaint]

Honorentheos:

That large Palmyra public library again.

[CV75]

1 Ne. 6: 3 (1-6)

And it mattereth not to me that I am particular to give a full account of all the things of my father, for they cannot be written upon ^athese plates, for I desire the room that I may write of the things of God.

We shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that the account of the small plates tells the whole story. Also, Lehi and Co probably tried to keep a very low profile given that they were a small band with no local tribal affiliation, hence no one to avenge them if they became victims of any kind. Entering into a city like Marib would have been a last resort.

I've often thought that the reason it took so long to travel by boat was because they must have stopped along the way for provisioning, recuperation, repairs, etc.

[Kenngo1969]

I've always thought it strange that it took 8 years of journeying in the wilderness to get from Nahom to Bountiful, a distance that LDS researchers estimate to be about 600 miles. Eight weeks would probably be a suitable time to cover that distance while observing the Sabbath*. As described in the Book of Mormon (a near straight eastward journey), this trip averaged about 1300 feet - or about 4 football lengths - a day for 8 years.

*Not sure how closely Judaic law was followed since they didn't follow kashrut; they survived off raw meat.

The Nephites made the same sort of "beeline" between Nahom and Bountiful that the Israelites made through the wilderness to their promised land. (And by the way, the circuitous journeys of both groups served much the same purposes, spiritually speaking ... not, of course, that I would expect you to understand that. )

Edited December 2, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

... My opinion - The Lehi account is derived from the exodus account, describing the wanderings of Israel in the desert.

I disagree, but the parallels between the two are not accidental, spiritually speaking.

[ldsfaqs]

Honorentheos

​Please read the book and watch the video I reference the previous page.

There is a considerable amount of material you are missing to make your judgment.