South Arabian Inscriptions

[Gervin]

16 hours ago, Darren10 said:

 

 

 

 

Pre-Nahom the text mentions travelling "many days" and there are references to marriage but no children (Nephi 16).  After Nahom (Ch. 17), the journey is noted for traveling nearly eastward from that time forth, women having children, and the time referenced in years.   Assume the journey in Chapter 16 took a year - that would leave 7 years to travel the near eastward direction from Nahom to Bountiful - around 600 miles? - or about a quarter-mile a day.  This anachronism is mild compared to the rest found in these two chapters, but I've always thought the times and distances don't match very well.

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I may be wrong but didn't you just cite that the temple at the location if the altar was used "from 9th century BC..."?

" Approximately 800 Cal Bc To 600 Cal AD" 800 BC to 600 AD is a period of 1,400 years. From 800 BC to 600 BC is only 14% of that 1,400 period. The odds are not in your side. 

Please show me evidence that NHM altars predate Lehi. 

 

[MormonVideoGame]

Quote

The only Hebraisms worth discussing are those which could not be culled from the KJV Bible.  Any yokel can insert Hebraisms into a text by copying from the English Bible.  However, it is only those Hebraisms which can not be found that way which are of significance.  The Spalding MS is of no consequence for that purpose.  You might want to read my “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,

I will later, but the Book of Mormon has 6604 verses. I don't think it's hard to find some patterns. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Gervin said:

Pre-Nahom the text mentions travelling "many days" and there are references to marriage but no children (Nephi 16).  After Nahom (Ch. 17), the journey is noted for traveling nearly eastward from that time forth, women having children, and the time referenced in years.   Assume the journey in Chapter 16 took a year - that would leave 7 years to travel the near eastward direction from Nahom to Bountiful - around 600 miles? - or about a quarter-mile a day.  This anachronism is mild compared to the rest found in these two chapters, but I've always thought the times and distances don't match very well.

Aren't you assuming that they traveled every single day?

Edited February 22, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

" Approximately 800 Cal Bc To 600 Cal AD" 800 BC to 600 AD is a period of 1,400 years. From 800 BC to 600 BC is only 14% of that 1,400 period. The odds are not in your side. 

Please show me evidence that NHM altars predate Lehi. 

 

I understand your request for a time date for the altar but what I do not understand is that if the temple of the NHM site was used previous and then subsequent to Lehi's arrival, why that's a problem for showing the altar being used at the time Lehi and company arrived.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Darren10

[Gervin]

26 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Aren't you assuming that they traveled every single day?

only for the purpose of providing a daily average

the text doesn't say they "wandered" in the wilderness, nor does it say that they made a home anywhere for any length of time

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Tecumseh was the name of a well known Shawnee chief, leader of a First Nations confederacy, military leader in the War of 1812 (born c 1768 in south-central Ohio; died 5 October 1813 near Moraviantown, ON...that his name is associated with Moraviantown is also interesting given Holley's theory

Too easy

Apologists are arguing that a few NHMs among thousands of inscriptions is significant but that a few BOM place names among thousands in the eastern United States is not.

Critics are arguing that a few place names among thousands is significant in Vernal Holley's theory but not in NHM.

I think the one takeaway is that we're all terribly biased.

[Johnnie Cake]

36 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Apologists are arguing that a few NHMs among thousands of inscriptions is significant but that a few BOM place names among thousands in the eastern United States is not.

Critics are arguing that a few place names among thousands is significant in Vernal Holley's theory but not in NHM.

I think the one takeaway is that we're all terribly biased.

We agree

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, Gervin said:

only for the purpose of providing a daily average

the text doesn't say they "wandered" in the wilderness, nor does it say that they made a home anywhere for any length of time

If anything I would think journeying on foot on the Arabian Peninsula one would naturally make shelter and park it there until the time needed to continue to the journey.

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Apologists are arguing that a few NHMs among thousands of inscriptions is significant but that a few BOM place names among thousands in the eastern United States is not.

Critics are arguing that a few place names among thousands is significant in Vernal Holley's theory but not in NHM.

I think the one takeaway is that we're all terribly biased.

The place names given in the United States contains records by which one can see that the vast majority of those names are not valid as influence on the Book of Mormon. As for the place names that did exist previous to the publication of the Book of Mormon, there is no record of Joseph Smith knowing them whereas it is quite explicit (I've almost right on the border of Houston for 15 years now and only the past couple of years had I figured out where exactly Downtown and the Galleria are as well as Missouri City and where exactly NASA is located) that Lehi and his group of travelers did indeed come across a place called Nahom.

I think that is the main difference between the two groups of names and placing value on them.

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Darren10

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

...............................................

What is that? I don't speak Portuguese. ............................................

Darren handled several of your CFR requests, but the only reason I included the foreign language reports on the inscriptions at the site was because you specifically asked for non-Mormon books and articles.  The reports in German are due to a German group doing the excavation.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Apologists are arguing that a few NHMs among thousands of inscriptions is significant but that a few BOM place names among thousands in the eastern United States is not.

Critics are arguing that a few place names among thousands is significant in Vernal Holley's theory but not in NHM.

I think the one takeaway is that we're all terribly biased.

The problem I have always had with Holley's wild comparison with anything on a modern map is that in most cases the resemblance is not terribly close.  He threw anything into the mix which sounded remotely similar.  We have seen this sort of thing done indiscriminately before:  

Walter F. Prince, for example, claimed long ago that, even if the identity of the author of the Book of Mormon were not known, nevertheless, internal evidence and psychologico-historical comparison* establish it as being written by someone in western New York State ca 1827.  Prince felt that a series of "clang-words" was evident in such odd facts as that WilliAMMORgaN (= Ammoron) was murdered by the Masons in 1826, the notoriety of the matter lasting for years in western NewYork.  Thus, MORmoN comes from Morgan, and Moroni is merely a variant.  The ANTI-element comes from the name for the Anti-Masonic political party formed in the wake of the Morgan incident, and finds its way into Manti, Anti-Nephi-Lehi, Antiparah, Antipas, Antipus, Ani-Anti, and even into the Anti-Banking company of Kirtland.  Mathoni and Mathonihah come from Mason and Masonic.  Zeezrom and Cezoram derive from Chesebro, a kidnapper of Morgan.  A Morgan pamphlet contains still more elements: Tubaloth comes from Tubal-Cain, Shiblom/Shiblon from Shibboleth, Jacom and Jashon from Jachin, Boaz from Boaz, Mahah from Mahahbone, Zarahemla from Zaradatha, etc.  Isabel was from Isabella, Queen of Spain at the time of the Spanish Inquisition.  Ammah was from Emma, the wife of Joseph, while Helam and Helaman came from Hale, her maiden name.  Siron was really Sharon, N.Y.  Manti was Manchester.  Himni must have been Harmony, Pa.  Later terms are likewise traceable in this system:  Mahonri Moriancumer had to be from the words Masonry and Morgan, while in the D&C, also by free association of sounds, Olihah is Oliver Cowdery, and Tahhanes was a tannery.
    In his reply to all this (and more!), which he regarded as nonsense, non-Mormon T. Schroeder preferred to see Mormon as derived from MORe MONey, and Moroni as Italian and related to Cardinal Moroni/Morone.  The remainder he connected with Solomon Spaulding's study of Latin!**  A modern psychiatrist, Dr. Ernest Taves, has more recently repeated the tired suggestions of Prince with approval,# but does not seem to be aware of the cacophany of other, incompatible suggestions, including the astonishing suggestion by the great Egyptologist Erik Hornung that some Book of Mormon “names sound rather like King Arthur’s round table.”##  These guys throw in everything but the kitchen sink, and cannot agree with one another on which kind of humbug was used by Joseph.  Am I "terribly biased," or am I doing real scholarship.  You choose.

*  W. F. Prince, "Psychological Tests for the Authorship of the Book of Mormon," American Journal of Psychology, 27 (1917):373-389

**  T. Schroeder, "Authorship of the Book of Mormon," American Journal of Psychology, 30 (1919):60-72 (cf. also 30:260-273); see Prince's rejoinder in AJP, 30:427-428.

#  Ernest H. Taves, Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (1984), 60-61.  Taves was a consultant to the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

##  Hornung, Secret Lore, 178.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But Alma, West Virginia is there...in 1895 it's name was changed to Centerville, West Virginia

Yes, but Alma is a common female name (Latin).  Why would Joseph give it to men?

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but Alma is a common female name (Latin).  Why would Joseph give it to men?

Eons ago, on ZLMB, someone pulled up a number of Alma names listed for males, iirc, in one of the early censuses or some records. Sp?  So while more common for females, it was not unknown for males.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Calm

[PeterPear]

On 2/21/2017 at 0:19 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You revel in the apriori fallacy here, Pete, along with your obvious hatred for anyone who doesn't share your apriori views.  One does not need to be a scholar to look at a text inductively and logically.  Above, for example, you misquote the text.  There is no "land called Nahom."   The proper quote is "the place which was called Nahom." Note the passive voice.  You are so hasty to find fault that you can't even get the quotation correct.  Try reading calmly and without apriori notions, and please try avoiding the introduction of extraneous factors -- just for the sake of sarcasm.  You extreme hatred is sadly coloring all your comments.

Your fallacy is you think Ishmael waited to die in the land called Nahom - because extensive gravesites were found in the land with inscriptions of NHM, thus making it the land called Nahom. Brilliant. That's obviously the method by LDS Apologists to prove the Book of Mormon is true: false logic. Then to bolster said fallacy, you all claim: "Joseph Smith could not have known!"

Similar to your belief that the Prophet Joseph Smith was vague and ambiguous about his statements on Book of Mormon geography in North America, then later learned it was in Central America because he read a travel book by John Lloyd Stephens about Maya ruins in Central America. Not actually your idea - but that of Dr. John L. Sorenson - that the Prophets learn from learned men, not by revelation from God.

Then after LDS Apologists promoted and equated all things Maya to The Book of Mormon for some 30 years, Dr. John L. Sorenson states in his "Open Letter to Dr. Coe" that the Nephites were not the Maya. Ha ha ha! Talk about being vague and amibigous, the very thing accused Joseph Smith as being. LDS Apologists: Stable as Water.

Edited February 22, 2017 by PeterPear

[Rajah Manchou]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

These guys throw in everything but the kitchen sink, and cannot agree with one another on which kind of humbug was used by Joseph.  Am I "terribly biased," or am I doing real scholarship.  You choose.

My favorite is the one where Joseph steals the word "Mormon" from the name of a puffin bird in the Arctic.

I don't think we ever intend to be biased. But its too easy to do. I find NHM to be an interesting and compelling proof in favor of a historical Book of Mormon. I also find some of Vernal Holley's suggestions as valid arguments in favor of a 19th century author. Of course both can't be correct, so I think there is something faulty with the methodology of using toponyms as proofs.

Moroni in the Comoros is a good example of how both critics and apologists can use the same (mis)match to make a weak case.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but Alma is a common female name (Latin).  Why would Joseph give it to men?

You'd have to ask him...

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Eons ago, on ZLMB, someone pulled up a number of Alma names listed for males, iirc, in one of the early censuses or some records. Sp?  So while more common for females, it was not unknown for males.

True, it doesn't have to be female.  And a lot of men in Roman Catholic culture have as a given name, Maria.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You'd have to ask him...

My question was rhetorical.  Of course he did not give it to anyone, but instead read it in the Book of Mormon as he translated it.  Turns out to be a Semitic name meaning "Lad, Young-man."

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Your fallacy is you think Ishmael waited to die in the land called Nahom - because extensive gravesites were found in the land with inscriptions of NHM, thus making it the land called Nahom. Brilliant. That's obviously the method by LDS Apologists to prove the Book of Mormon is true: false logic. Then to bolster said fallacy, you all claim: "Joseph Smith could not have known!"

Wadi Nihm is in the tribal region of the Nihm tribe, and it is a convenient route up from the coastal area.  I have never heard anyone suggest that Ishmael waited to die there (except you, and you only do it to create a straw man fallacy).  He just died there.  So they buried him there.  Simple as that.  In the real world, people die at inconvenient times.  It is on you to prove that Joseph Smith knew all about the geography of that region.  Maybe you could bring to bear some more of your infamous false logic to show us how, Pete.

18 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Similar to your belief that the Prophet Joseph Smith was vague and ambiguous about his statements on Book of Mormon geography in North America, then later learned it was in Central America because he read a travel book by John Lloyd Stephens about Maya ruins in Central America. Not actually your idea - but that of Dr. John L. Sorenson - that the Prophets learn from learned men, not by revelation from God.

You have it all backward, Pete.  Joseph Smith merely read off an English translation of the Book of Mormon and his scribes wrote it down for him.  God gave him no insight on where or when any of it took place, except for Jerusalem -- and that was obvious from the text itself.  As for any member of the LDS Church, Joseph had a right to speculate on where and when any of it took place.  Unlike some silly belief systems, LDS religion combines logic and secular knowledge with spiritual knowledge.  In this case, there was no revelation on Book of Mormon geography.

18 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Then after LDS Apologists promoted and equated all things Maya to The Book of Mormon for some 30 years, Dr. John L. Sorenson states in his "Open Letter to Dr. Coe" that the Nephites were not the Maya. Ha ha ha! Talk about being vague and amibigous, the very thing accused Joseph Smith as being. LDS Apologists: Stable as Water.

Falsehood by you, Pete.  In the late 1940s, most LDS scholars (including John Sorenson at that time) found the Nephites to be non-Maya.  Yokels who didn't pay attention did not always understand that, due to their limited education and poor reading habits.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

My favorite is the one where Joseph steals the word "Mormon" from the name of a puffin bird in the Arctic.

I don't think we ever intend to be biased. But its too easy to do. I find NHM to be an interesting and compelling proof in favor of a historical Book of Mormon. I also find some of Vernal Holley's suggestions as valid arguments in favor of a 19th century author. Of course both can't be correct, so I think there is something faulty with the methodology of using toponyms as proofs.

Moroni in the Comoros is a good example of how both critics and apologists can use the same (mis)match to make a weak case.

I don't know any LDS scholars who use toponyms as "proofs" of anything, Rajah.  That completely misunderstands the scientific method, which depends heavily upon a wide array of different sorts of correlations.  One eventually comes up with a likelihood pointing in this or that direction -- the same way detectives frequently decide that the forensic evidence in a case seems to combine well with a credible motive, personal interrogation, and lack of an alibi to lead them to focus on one major suspect.  They want MOMS -- motive, opportunity, and means.  That isn't proof, but is indicative.  After that, the prosecutor must convince a jury of the guilt of the suspect, and do so within the rules of evidence.  Any sound historical or scientific inquiry proceeds in the same way.  A weak case can lead to lack of conviction.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/21/2017 at 4:19 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

" Approximately 800 Cal Bc To 600 Cal AD" 800 BC to 600 AD is a period of 1,400 years. From 800 BC to 600 BC is only 14% of that 1,400 period. The odds are not in your side. 

Please show me evidence that NHM altars predate Lehi. 

They closed the other thread where you were asking the same question:

On 2/21/2017 at 10:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

  I provided other citations to the same phenomena, but you will also find the dating of the three votive altars with NHM at 800 to 700 BC in Norbert Nebes, “Zur Chronologie der Inschriften aus dem Barʼan-Tempel,” Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen, 10 (2005):115.  There are other inscriptions with NHM dating later, but those are pre-Lehi.  Here is a photo of one of those limestone altars:

Quote

I didn't find anything about 800 to 700 BC in that paper. I was looking for the numbers 800 and 700. 

I gave you the page number, 115, but the numbers are given in centuries, in item 1, "aus dem 7. und 8. Jh. v. Chr.," meaning "from the 7th and 8th centuries B.C."  Not the same thing, but still pre-Lehi.  For those who want to look at the article online, go to http://digital.library.stonybrook.edu/cdm/ref/collection/amar/id/94855 .

[MormonVideoGame]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave you the page number, 115, 

Yes you did in your citation, sorry I missed that 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

ut the numbers are given in centuries, in item 1, "aus dem 7. und 8. Jh. v. Chr.," meaning "from the 7th and 8th centuries B.C."  Not the same thing, but still pre-Lehi.  

Yes, but there are a lot of dates in that paper. "aus dem 7. und 8. Jh. v. Chr.," doesn't tell me it's the same temple where the altars were given by "Bi‘athtar, son of Sawad, son of Naw‘an, the Nihmite" (Brown 1999). 

Google translate "Especially the immediate predecessor building from the 7th and 8th century BC, temple 3, whose essential Building complexes in a massive podium wall Huge limestone quarries and a central Cella with surrounding limestone pavement"

So the NHM altars are in temple 3? and period 2 and 3? How can we know NHM altars are not from Temple 4? and period 3? According to the other paper there are 4 Temples and 4 periods. 

Quote

What should catch our attention is the Hebrew wordplay which Nephi uses in describing the event. Only someone who knows Hebrew could do that,

So if Nahom meant (to Nephi) "to mourn" because the Nephi was using Hebrew wordplay to describe Nahom, does that mean Amulon (Mosiah 23:31) means "to till the ground"?  Or Antiparah (Alma 56:31) means "to march"? Or Ogath.(Ether 15:10) means "tents"? 

I don't see how 1 Nephi 16:34 is different. 

Quote

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.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

mistake. Please delete 

Edited February 23, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

. 

Edited February 23, 2017 by MormonVideoGame