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

[Gervin]

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.

I seem to recall a verse in Genesis that admonishes against eating raw meat, but I'll need to go back and hunt for that. I guess you can kosher the meat with salt to remove all the blood but I have a hard time imagining folks living doing this for 8 years. Maybe I'm just not very imaginative.

[Gervin]

not, of course, that I would expect you to understand that. )

I understand that, I just don't happen to believe that. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Gervin

[thesometimesaint]

Gervin:

Ever made Jerky?

[Brant Gardner]

I have a hard time imagining folks living doing this for 8 years.

Eight years refers to the entire time, and eating the uncooked meat occurs only in a very specific leg of the journey. The timing of that portion is not known, but it was not the entire journey.

[volgadon]

I seem to recall a verse in Genesis that admonishes against eating raw meat, but I'll need to go back and hunt for that. I guess you can kosher the meat with salt to remove all the blood but I have a hard time imagining folks living doing this for 8 years. Maybe I'm just not very imaginative.

I suspect that you have Genesis 9:4 in mind. If so, this is similar. Don't eat the meat and its blood together.Koshering the meat with salt, that is exactly why I asked you which kashrut laws you were thinking of.

[Honorentheos]

Honorentheos:

That large Palmyra public library again.

Not at all, TSS. The main points of the counter argument are about what JS had wrong. No library required to do that.

[Honorentheos]

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.

I have.

The question was asked if the NHM evidence has ever been counter. The points I posted were ones I've made over a year ago on another site. The evidence for NHM has been debated and found lacking on other occations. I'm offering the chance here to do so from the beginning. If you feel there is a point missed please feel free to isolate it for examination. In the mean time, the main question is what the NHM evidence is meant to prove. I continue to argue that when taken in total it reveals more problems for the ancient authorship theory than it does for the 19th century authorship theory for the origin of the BoM.

[altersteve]

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.

This is not true. Latter-day Saints all agree that the evidence they find is not conclusive. Nothing can "refute" the 19th century authorship theory of the Book of Mormon, and vice-versa. There's a reason for this, and that is that the Book of Mormon must be accepted by faith.

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.

The fact that Joseph didn't have a Bible with him when he was translating the Book of Mormon and that he had never read the Bible prior to the Book of Mormon's publication, according to his mother, weaken this argument significantly.

[altersteve]

I have.

The question was asked if the NHM evidence has ever been counter. The points I posted were ones I've made over a year ago on another site. The evidence for NHM has been debated and found lacking on other occations. I'm offering the chance here to do so from the beginning. If you feel there is a point missed please feel free to isolate it for examination. In the mean time, the main question is what the NHM evidence is meant to prove. I continue to argue that when taken in total it reveals more problems for the ancient authorship theory than it does for the 19th century authorship theory for the origin of the BoM.

The point you missed is that the Book of Mormon does not tell us everything about Lehi's group's travels. In fact, it tells us that explicitly. That's the most important thing to remember. And I don't see how any of the arguments you have presented reveals problems for Joseph Smith's explanation for the book's origin as you have claimed. You haven't explained that adequately.

[Honorentheos]

The fact that Joseph didn't have a Bible with him when he was translating the Book of Mormon and that he had never read the Bible prior to the Book of Mormon's publication, according to his mother, weaken this argument significantly.

So when Joseph (in his JS-H) tells us the reason he went to the grove was due to reading the bible (in particular the Epistle of James), we have a contradictory account by his mother? Interesting.

[Honorentheos]

And I don't see how any of the arguments you have presented reveals problems for Joseph Smith's explanation for the book's origin as you have claimed. You haven't explained that adequately.

Question: was the Lehi party traveling in such as manner that they were avoiding contact with other groups or individuals? Can we determine this either explicitly or implicitly from information shared in the Book of Mormon and do not have to infer an interpretation of our own?

[Honorentheos]

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.

The challenge is that we have to account for all of the information the BoM provides. This includes information regarding the Lehi Party being guided to the most fertile lands along the route that would eventually take them to the vicinity around Marib. Keeping a low profile along this route, while still being guided by God to the most fertile parts is difficult to reconcile. We can create explainations for this of our own, but the fact we have to begins to demonstrate why the NHM alters become an additional challenge for BoM apologetics not a solution.

As Altersteve said above, in the end it will still come down to your faith in the book and JS's role as translator rather than author of the BoM.

[Calm]

Question: was the Lehi party traveling in such as manner that they were avoiding contact with other groups or individuals? Can we determine this either explicitly or implicitly from information shared in the Book of Mormon and do not have to infer an interpretation of our own?

I think it is implicit at the beginning, how long this need for secrecy lasts as they leave the vicinity of the territory control by those at Jerusalem is more iffy and if it does occur, it does not necessarily imply that secrecy/separateness was a constant need or desired state.

[thesometimesaint]

Honorentheos:

it is not a matter of what he got wrong. Thomas Edison was wrong thousands of times before he got the light bulb right. It is that he finally got it right, and we enjoy the benefits that matters.

Here is a partial list of what JS got right.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

[Calm]

Apples and oranges, SS.

The light bulb was complete in and of itself. The thousand times wrong and then right applied to only it.

This analogy would be like saying JS tried writing the BoM a thousand times and then finally got it right, not that he got a lot of things right in the BoM, got the most important thing right, etc.

You need another analogy, , in my opinion.

[Honorentheos]

I think it is implicit at the beginning, how long this need for secrecy lasts as they leave the vicinity of the territory control by those at Jerusalem is more iffy and if it does occur, it does not necessarily imply that secrecy/separateness was a constant need or desired state.

Hi Calmoriah,

I appreciate the response.

I think the question is how much of this is implicit and how much explicitly described in the Book of Mormon.

The relevent matter is in 1 Nephi 16, which I think is worth quoting for the purpose of real discussion -

6 Now, all these things were said and done as my father dwelt in a tent in the valley which he called Lemuel. (note, Lehi naming this valley himself)

9 And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord spake unto my father by night, and commanded him that on the morrow he should take his journey into the wilderness.

(my add)

10 And it came to pass that as my father rose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness.

(my add - God gives them a compass which is useful when one is traveling in the wilderness while not as necessary if one is following the coast of the Red Sea)

11 And it came to pass that we did gather together whatsoever things we should carry into the wilderness, and all the remainder of our provisions which the Lord had given unto us; and we did take seed of every kind that we might carry into the wilderness.

(they take provisions with them into the wilderness, again useful when one is not travelling along a major trade route but rather when one is traveling in a wilderness)

12 And it came to pass that we did take our tents and depart into the wilderness, across the river Laman.

13 And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer.

(named a new place - still in the wilderness)

14 And it came to pass that we did take our bows and our arrows, and go forth into the wilderness to slay food for our families; and after we had slain food for our families we did return again to our families in the wilderness, to the place of Shazer. And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea.

(they are following the most fertile parts along the Red Sea, in the wilderness, heading south-southeast)

15 And it came to pass that we did travel for the space of many days, slaying food by the way, with our bows and our arrows and our stones and our slings.

(The timeline is undetermined here. How far did they travel? Where are we on a map right now? We don't know, but they are slaying food to survive.)

16 And we did follow the directions of the ball, which led us in the more fertile parts of the wilderness.

(Again, mention of the wilderness along with more fertile parts)

17 And after we had traveled for the space of many days, we did pitch our tents for the space of a time, that we might again rest ourselves and obtain food for our families.

(It's important here to consider that during the narrative about the broken bow we are told the following about their inability to hunt for food - )

19 And it came to pass that we did return without food to our families, and being much fatigued, because of their journeying, they did suffer much for the want of food.

....

(Now the important part. What is the context for where they are when Ishmael dies?)

33 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time.

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

35 And it came to pass that the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly, because of the loss of their father, and because of their afflictions in the wilderness; and they did murmur against my father, because he had brought them out of the land of Jerusalem, saying: Our father is dead; yea, and we have wandered much in the wilderness, and we have suffered much affliction, hunger, thirst, and fatigue; and after all these sufferings we must perish in the wilderness with hunger.

36 And thus they did murmur against my father, and also against me; and they were desirous to return again to Jerusalem.

37 And Laman said unto Lemuel and also unto the sons of Ishmael: Behold, let us slay our father, and also our brother Nephi, who has taken it upon him to be our ruler and our teacher, who are his elder brethren.

38 Now, he says that the Lord has talked with him, and also that angels have ministered unto him. But behold, we know that he lies unto us; and he tells us these things, and he worketh many things by his cunning arts, that he may deceive our eyes, thinking, perhaps, that he may lead us away into some strange wilderness; and after he has led us away, he has thought to make himself a king and a ruler over us, that he may do with us according to his will and pleasure. And after this manner did my brother Laman stir up their hearts to anger.

39 And it came to pass that the Lord was with us, yea, even the voice of the Lord came and did speak many words unto them, and did chasten them exceedingly; and after they were chastened by the voice of the Lord they did turn away their anger, and did repent of their sins, insomuch that the Lord did bless us again with food, that we did not perish.

Where ever they are, they are still dependant on the Lord blessing them with food, living in tents, etc. Remember, in the next chapter we are still reminded that they are eating raw meat (1 Nephi 17:2) because they were not allowed fire to cook their food as explained in verse 17 of that chapter.

(Side note: am I alone in imagining someone listening to the translation narrative asking Joseph Smith - "Wait a minute, you just said they ate raw meat, and now Nephi is building a boat with a forge and bellows. Why is he able to make fire but they ate their meat raw?" Joseph Smith: "Good question! Oh! Look the next verse answers this for us!...")

But what about the site where NHM is found?

Here we can read about the NHM evidence - Meridian Article

In the article, we find out that the site where the alters were found was in a temple in the City Marib that dates back to the time of the Queen of Sheba, or King Soloman.

We can see a picture of where the NHM alters were found, here - http://en.wikipedia....:Sun_temple.jpg Note, they are three among a lot of alters. And they bear the name of a local tribe - Nihm.

From the article we read this -

"Found in the very area where Nephi’s record locates Nahom, these altars may thus be said to constitute the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon...No, the altar inscriptions were not carved by Nephi, but they vindicate his account in several spectacular ways. They confirm what Nephi said - there WAS in fact a place already called NHM dating to before the Lehites traveled to Bountiful."

Except, they don’t. They were found in a city which had another name, and the NHM on the alters is described as belonging to a person's tribal name - "What was significant was that the altar inscription named a donor who was the grandson of a man from the Nihm tribe."

I just don't see why people are so quick to point to the NHM alters as strong evidence for the BoM's ancient origins. Personally, if I were a believer I think I'd be quick to distance myself from them as no prophet has made any such claims about them and the problems they raise are not insignificant. But to each their own I guess.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

I think the analogy still works. At least in theory it is possible to get something right the first time. I always marvel that JS was able to get so much right the first time. Must have had help from God.

[Honorentheos]

TSS -

The question of JS's supposed BoM "bullseyes" as they were so famously called here is debateable.

And again, the question posed in this thread is if the NHM evidence has even been addressed. Being scientifically trained as you are, I would hope that you hold a more critical opinion of the evidence presented in this particular apologetic than others may excusably do. Saying JS had anything right because of the limited information presented in 1 Nephi is a stretch, IMO. To make the apologetic work, one merely applies 1 Nephi as if it were a horoscope to the the arabian pennisula and makes assumptions about how three letters "NHM" that have a reasonable meaning (NIHM) can also mean something that supports the BoM claims.

So you suggest in your post that one should ignore what JS had wrong. What we are saying is that JS wrote a broadly applicable description of a setting at a given point in history that, on examination, doesn't match the evidence from the part of the world along the route to Moarib at that point in time. My claim continues to be that when one uses the NHM - Marib route for the Lehi party it requires explainations for things the BoM actually says that arise because of the apologetic itself. It isn't a functional light bulb yet.

[Brant Gardner]

Except, they don’t. They were found in a city which had another name, and the NHM on the alters is described as belonging to a person's tribal name - "What was significant was that the altar inscription named a donor who was the grandson of a man from the Nihm tribe."

The original argument seems to get waylaid in subsequent conversations. There is evidence of a NHM tribe in the general location where the Book of Mormon would place it. That information comes from modern information and older maps. What was missing was the ability to date that people to the time period of Lehi. The altars confirm the tribal name and the time period. The altars themselves don't show where NHM was, but rather when it was.

[Honorentheos]

The original argument seems to get waylaid in subsequent conversations. There is evidence of a NHM tribe in the general location where the Book of Mormon would place it. That information comes from modern information and older maps. What was missing was the ability to date that people to the time period of Lehi. The altars confirm the tribal name and the time period. The altars themselves don't show where NHM was, but rather when it was.

While partially true, Brant, the modern tribal name is "Nihm" which requires us to interpret the altar's rendition of the pronounciation as "Nahom". We have to manipulate the evidence in favor of an ancient author in order to make your statement reasonably useful. Again, it's not unlike finding one's self in one's horoscope. I don't find it that convincing, even if we try to distance location from the apologetic in favor of time period.

But it isn't lost on me that in making this case there is an underlying acknowledgement that the problems using the NHM evidence creates are with the location and it's historical context.

[Glenn101]

While partially true, Brant, the modern tribal name is "Nihm" which requires us to interpret the altar's rendition of the pronounciation as "Nahom". We have to manipulate the evidence in favor of an ancient author in order to make your statement reasonably useful. Again, it's not unlike finding one's self in one's horoscope. I don't find it that convincing, even if we try to distance location from the apologetic in favor of time period.

But it isn't lost on me that in making this case there is an underlying acknowledgement that the problems using the NHM evidence creates are with the location and it's historical context.

No LDS scholar that I know of is claiming that Marib is Nahom. According to the information that has been brought forth, there is a large, ancient burial ground in the region, twenty-five miles north of Marib. As Brant noted, the dating of the altars places them squarely in the time frame of Lehi's journey. It is surmised by LDS scholars that the Nihm tribe gave their name to the region there abouts, or maybe it was the other way around. A couple of cartographers actually made maps that showed a Nehem or Nehhem region in that area. Of course Joseph just went to his local Palmyra library and dug up that information and changed the name to Nahom to avoid charges of plagarism.

Glenn

[Honorentheos]

No LDS scholar that I know of is claiming that Marib is Nahom. According to the information that has been brought forth, there is a large, ancient burial ground in the region, twenty-five miles north of Marib. As Brant noted, the dating of the altars places them squarely in the time frame of Lehi's journey. It is surmised by LDS scholars that the Nihm tribe gave their name to the region there abouts, or maybe it was the other way around. A couple of cartographers actually made maps that showed a Nehem or Nehhem region in that area. Of course Joseph just went to his local Palmyra library and dug up that information and changed the name to Nahom to avoid charges of plagarism.

Glenn

I'm afraid this is not an accurate assessment of the counter-argument, Glenn. The question of where Joseph Smith came up with the name Nahom is not particularly important to the 19th century authorship theory. Again, the answers provided by the NHM altars are a stretch in terms of what they definatively say in favor of the BoM as ancient account. Even if one were to disregard the question over NHM meaning Nahom or just coincidence, we still have to deal with what this means for 1 Nephi and what was going on in this region of the world at that time. If all the evidence is placed on a scale, if you will, I'd be inclined to say the idea the Lehi Party traveled the route to the Marib area and yet meet the requirements of 1 Nephi are much more weighty than the possibility that Nihm/NHM could mean Nahom - a pronounciation with attributed meaning in the apologetic related to mouring - that has not persisted through time. It's weak evidence in favor of BoM authenticity and creates problems that didn't exist before hand.

Why continue to try and suggest JS would have needed access to material of an extraordinary nature when having such might have prevented the mistakes we see when we consider the apologetic in the context of the actual BoM text? At most, all he would have needed was a map to create the rough narrative about the journey that includes no information about travel times and only rough references to identifiable features such as the Red Sea? The NHM evidence is nothing spectacular and given how generic the actual evidence is (Nihm a tribal name -> NHM a 6th century BCE family name inscibed on an altar gift -> Nahom a potentially fictional place name in the BoM) apparently all he needed to convince some was those three letters to appear on anything in a large geographical area.

In addition, I think it's worth bearing in mind that potential locations for Nahom have been many and scattered to date. Add to this the person making the most strenuous claims for the NHM evidence also ran tours for LDS to "walk where Lehi walked" it makes the claim all the more incredulous.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Brant Gardner]

While partially true, Brant, the modern tribal name is "Nihm" which requires us to interpret the altar's rendition of the pronounciation as "Nahom". We have to manipulate the evidence in favor of an ancient author in order to make your statement reasonably useful. Again, it's not unlike finding one's self in one's horoscope. I don't find it that convincing, even if we try to distance location from the apologetic in favor of time period.

Supplying the vowels is a completely different issue. That gets into the question of how the translation occurred, and whether or not there would be firm control over vowels in any name coming from the Ancient Near East. While that is an important issue, it is a secondary issue to the location in time and space of the NHM. Frankly, given the plausible local meaning and the associated meaning in the Book of Mormon, there was likely some punning going on. Supplying the vowels in Hebrew can yield the mourning connotation. In the local language, it would have been different.

In any case, translating/transliterating names across cultures can yield multiple differences even when we know the origina (Munchen/Munich--Peking/Beijing). The latter example from changing the way sounds are represented in the non-native alphabet.

The fact that there are vowel exchanges is not a very big negative.

[Honorentheos]

The fact that there are vowel exchanges is not a very big negative.

Nor is it such a dramatic positive. Nor does it speak to the challenges mentioned through-out this thread.

Why plant a flag here and determine to die on this hill? No prophet has ever claimed that NHM was Nahom. It's a tour guide who is profiting from this so-called evidence.

I truly don't understand that.

[altersteve]

So when Joseph (in his JS-H) tells us the reason he went to the grove was due to reading the bible (in particular the Epistle of James), we have a contradictory account by his mother? Interesting.

I meant that he had never read the Bible all the way through. Sorry for not making that clear.

My point still stands, though. If Joseph Smith did not have a Bible or any other book or document with him when he was translating, how, for example, was he able to dictate to his scribes the several portions quoted from the Book of Isaiah? I hope you won't suggest that he had memorized the whole thing. That would be absurd. This is the biggest hole, I think, in the critical argument that Joseph Smith used the Bible in "writing" the Book of Mormon. I've never seen a critic adequately explain this.

Anyway, you have yet to respond to the fact that the Book of Mormon tells us that it does not contain everything involved in Lehi's party's travels. So I think your criticisms in this area are useless.

To answer your other question, however, I do believe that since they were required by the Lord to travel by night, and since the Lord did not allow them to make fires, avoiding contact with others was probably important for at least a good portion of their journey.

Edited December 4, 2011 by altersteve