God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[Glenn101]

17 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes. I am working on Neal's challenge 

That is okay. I have provided the context and maps that put your references in perspective. You have actually aided the cause of the Nahom conspirators tremendously, adding two more inscriptions to the bundle.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

We will see. There over 14 thousand rock inscriptions in Old South Arabia. See what I told Neal above. There is no need for astronomical coincidences.  

So you are going to find an example (or multiple examples) of Book of Mormon names which occur in Old South Arabic inscriptions, and which are from the same time and place?  Say Irreantum, Shazer, and/or Bountiful -- the last in an ancient language, such as Old South Arabic?  Is this what you are promising me and Neal?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are going to find an example (or multiple examples) of Book of Mormon names which occur in Old South Arabic inscriptions, and which are from the same time and place?  Say Irreantum, Shazer, and/or Bountiful -- the last in an ancient language, such as Old South Arabic?  Is this what you are promising me and Neal?

Yes! I found one that dates close to the time of Lehi, I need to find four more. 

You can help me by giving me the Book of Mormon names in Arabic (equivalent) with no vowels. I don't know much about Arabic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Book_of_Mormon_places

Quote

Nehor (Alma 1:15)  matches nhr 

ḥly-s¹m ns²ʾh k- ⁹Nhr ʿd S¹lky w-gbʾh  «  "(le pays de) Nahar (?) jusqu'à Séleucie et qu'ils ont rapportées à" Translation: "(the country of) Nahar (?) to Seleucia and which they reported to"

Period C 

 

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

That is okay. I have provided the context and maps that put your references in perspective. You have actually aided the cause of the Nahom conspirators tremendously, adding two more inscriptions to the bundle.

Glenn

Correct, I told you in the post "NHM in Old South Arabia database". For more context see "ḥtn ywm nhm[ ... ...]"

Translation

" slab, when he made the polishing of the stone for (?) [... ...] "

Period B2 (third to first centuries BC)

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Okay, I found a second one. 

city of Laman (3 Ne. 9:10) matches lmn 

[Lmn mlkn ṣ]— 2 [rʿn Y] Translation: Lmn, the victorious king,

Period A – early first millennium to the fourth century BC.  

Geographical area: Tigray

King territory is almost the same as "tribal territory", so the above does compare to the Nihmite inscription.  

Three more. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes! I found one that dates close to the time of Lehi, I need to find four more. 

You can help me by giving me the Book of Mormon names in Arabic (equivalent) with no vowels. I don't know much about Arabic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Book_of_Mormon_places

Quote

Nehor (Alma 1:15)  matches nhr 

ḥly-s¹m ns²ʾh k- ⁹Nhr ʿd S¹lky w-gbʾh  «  "(le pays de) Nahar (?) jusqu'à Séleucie et qu'ils ont rapportées à" Translation: "(the country of) Nahar (?) to Seleucia and which they reported to"

Period C 

 

Nehor is a New World Book of Mormon name from the early 1st century BC.  It does not occur in an Arabic culture at all, and so fails the test of proper time and place for its occurrence.  The meaning in a Semitic language (including Hebrew nahar and Arabic nahr) would be "river," which was the conclusion of G. Reynolds and J. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, VI:37.  Or the "h" could be aspirated, as with the personal and place-name Naḥor meaning “Snort” (Genesis 11:22-29, 24:10; 1 Chronicles 1:26).

Quote

Correct, I told you in the post "NHM in Old South Arabia database". For more context see "ḥtn ywm nhm[ ... ...]"

Translation

" slab, when he made the polishing of the stone for (?) [... ...] "

Period B2 (third to first centuries BC)

This also fails the test for proper time and place.  I have discussed this problem with you repeatedly.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No. Here is the source.

Thank you. It appears that is or could be just a random NHM which got cut off. In the Minean it doesn't appear to refer to Nehem as a proper name. The Sabaen inscriptions obviously do. Therefore, it doesn't appear to be relevant to our discussion. I thought you were going to produce dozens or hundreds of names common between the Hebrew Bible and Sabaen from the Marib temple?

P.S. And let me ask you - do you have an opinion of where Bountiful is or was?=

Edited September 19, 2017 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, I found a second one. 

city of Laman (3 Ne. 9:10) matches lmn 

[Lmn mlkn ṣ]— 2 [rʿn Y] Translation: Lmn, the victorious king,

Period A – early first millennium to the fourth century BC.  

Geographical area: Tigray

Tigre is a language spoken in Eritrea and Ethiopia, not in Arabia, but it is a Semitic language very close to Arabic.  The New World City of Laman in 3 Nephi is from the 1st century AD, not from the proper time and place, so cannot be taken seriously in that particular instance.  However, since a son of Lehi is named Laman, we might want to consider what it meant in Arabic:  What about the meaning of Arabic Lâmân “Scoundrel,” which I suggested in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: The Ancient Near East,” JBMS, 5/2 (1996):147 and n267, online at https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/19791/18358 .  This meaning accords with Arabic luʼmān “evil, vile, wicked,” Hans Wehr, Arabic-English Dictionary, ed. J. Cowan (Ithaca: Spoken Language Services, 1994), 1001.

18 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

King territory is almost the same as "tribal territory", so the above does compare to the Nihmite inscription.  

Three more. 

The problem is that we first encounter Laman, son of Lehi, in Jerusalem, not in a specific, unique Arabic location.  So your point is not well made, if there is any point at all.  Perhaps you could clarify, Sam.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nehor is a New World Book of Mormon name from the early 1st century BC.  It does not occur in an Arabic culture at all, and so fails the test of proper time and place for its occurrence. 

 Let me explain what I am trying to do. Neal told me, "what are the odds of different Book of Mormon names matching with inscriptional evidence for the location of a tribe or place in the Wadi Jawf area, had they randomly been the names that occurred in 1 Nephi 16:34 instead?" 

What I am doing is replacing the word "Nahom" with other Book of Mormon names in 1 Ne 16:34.  I already found at least one ancient territory in old south Arabia that matches the book of Mormon name Nehor.  According to an Arabic inscription nhr is a country, the inscriptions dates close to the time of Lehi so it counts. 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Tigre is a language spoken in Eritrea and Ethiopia, not in Arabia, but it is a Semitic language very close to Arabic.  

So I need to four more because lmn inscription is not in old South Arabia (it is very close to south arabia), but it at least dates to the time of Lehi.  

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you. It appears that is or could be just a random NHM which got cut off. In the Minean it doesn't appear to refer to Nehem as a proper name.

Yes. Thank you. 

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 You have actually aided the cause of the Nahom conspirators tremendously

See RevTestament. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This also fails the test for proper time and place.  I have discussed this problem with you repeatedly.

That was my point for the other NHMs in south Arabia. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

P.S. And let me ask you - do you have an opinion of where Bountiful is or was?=

No idea. Scholars have two candidates, but I doubt it is one of them.  

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you. It appears that is or could be just a random NHM which got cut off

According to website one of the NHMs is the name of a man 

Edited September 19, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No idea. Scholars have two candidates, but I doubt it is one of them.  

According to website one of the NHMs is the name of a man 

not according to its translation:

slab, when he made the polishing of the stone for (?) [... ...]

 

That is the translation of line 4 where the  Minean NHM letters are from that slab. I don't see a relevant proper name there, and the slab was damaged

[SamuelTheLamanite]

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That is the translation of line 4 where the  Minean NHM letters are from that slab. 

No idea, but I found a second inscription tribe that dates close to the time of Lehi 

Land of Moron (Ether 14:6,11) matches mrn 

[... ...]ḏn ʾmrn s¹tʾḏnt Zydt[... ...]

Geographical area Ḥijāz

Period: B  

"In the Minaic corpus Mrn as name of group or person " "Mlhm is attested once in the Minaic Corpus as a name of group." 

and because I don't know how to transliterate it is going to take me a while finding three more. But it is much easier with Old Testament names. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

21 hours ago, nealr said:

Look, here's the bottom line. If you really think that there is a high probability that the Nahom/NHM/Nihm could all be a coincidence, then prove it. Do some real, rigorous statistical analysis, that takes all the relevant factors into consideration, not just the occurrence of other biblical sounding names in the South Arabian Corpus. Then get it peer-reviewed and published, with your real name attached to it, so that others with expertise in statistics and probability could examine and critique it. Until you do that, though, there really isn't much point in even having this conversation, because your opinion on the matter has no more grounding than any other. From what I can tell, it is not well-grounded in a solid grasp of the argument for associating Nahom with NHM/Nehem, its not well grounded in a competent understanding of the inscriptional data from South Arabia and how expert scholars have interpreted it, and it is not well-grounded in sound statistical reasoning. 

I am not an Arabic expert. Papers are written by scholars for other scholars. However, I already found two ancient region names in Old Arabia that match Book of Mormon names, and date around the time of Lehi. Will continue to look for more. 

However, It is much easier with Old Testament names. Many Old Testament names do match ancient tribe and region names in ancient South Arabia.  Nahom is an old testament name because it probably shares a common ancestor with Naham,Nehum, and Nahum. 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am not an Arabic expert. Papers are written by scholars for other scholars. However, I already found two ancient region names in Old Arabia that match Book of Mormon names, and date around the time of Lehi. Will continue to look for more.

There are two parts. Name and context. The NHM name is rare but as already noted it is the root for the Old Testament prophet Nahum. It would not have been surprising then to find a person named Nahom in the Book of Mormon. However, the Book of Mormon used it as a place name and gave some pretty good directions for getting there. efforts were made by several people to try to find Lehi's probable/possible path. Some important discoveries have been made based upon those explorations which include possible and plausible candidates for the Valley of Lemuel, Bountiful, and of course, Nahom. As I noted earlier, nothing is a slam dunk else there would be more people convinced. There is ongoing debate among LDS scholars on the subject. Fortunately this also is a subject upon which our exaltation depends. Fortunately this also is a subject on which our exaltation does not depend.

Glenn

Edited September 19, 2017 by Glenn101
I goofed as usual.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

Quote

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

P.S. And let me ask you - do you have an opinion of where Bountiful is or was?=

No idea. Scholars have two candidates, but I doubt it is one of them.  

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

Actually there are at least 5 proposals for the location of Bountiful along the South Arabian coast, Sam.  Why do you reject the two that you have heard of?

Edited September 19, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

That was my point for the other NHMs in south Arabia. 

But your point was clearly false.  The test of proper time and place is diagnostic.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

.................................................. Fortunately this also is a subject upon which our exaltation depends.

..........

I think you meant to say that it is a subject on which our exaltation does not depend. Correct?

[Glenn101]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

I think you meant to say that it is a subject on which our exaltation does not depend. Correct?

Yeah. I typed it in my mind but it skipped past my fingers. Thanks. I will fix it.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No. Here is the source.

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

You are citing here another instance of NHM, this one (DhM 386) probably from Baraqish, northeast of Nehem, which makes it even more clear that Nahom is not a fluke, but fits its time and place like a glove.

And please allow me to thank you, Sam, for our continuing conversation on the relative merits of Nahom (and associated issues).  This has helped clarify many elements of the textual, etymological, archeological, geographic, and chronological analysis of the case for Nahom.  You have greatly aided me in my own research.

[Ryan Dahle]

Samuel,

I think there is a major problem with your methodology. The probability argument isn't just be about how many biblical-sounding names show up on Arabian inscriptions surrounding the Nihm tribal region during Lehi's day. That is because the Nahom correlation is with the region itself,  and not merely with an inscription in that region. The difference is that while there are probably thousands of names and toponyms on inscriptions surrounding Nehem, Marib, etc., there is a limited number of those  that describe place names in that particular region (lets just say within 100 square miles to be liberal and fair).  For instance, "Lmn, the victorious king" which you found doesn't affect the true argument of probability because it is not a topoynm in the vicinity of the eastward turn. 

I'm guessing the odds are far less favorable than you think of Joseph Smith coming up with a 3-letter combination that matches a 3-letter combination of a toponym in the specific region surrounding the Nehem tribe, whether biblical-related or not.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/15/2017 at 8:59 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

 

Quote

On 9/15/2017 at 5:17 AM, Glenn101 said:

 Yet evidence keeps coming forward that presents evidence for the existence of characters previously unknown to secular history. One such example is the Tel Dan inscriptions found in 1993 which talk of the House of David.  We should be careful of attributing to God what can be rationally be explained by the activities of man and time.

The Tel Dan inscription doesn't prove the Bible,  and that is why no one is questioning the Tel Dan.  

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

No one claims that the Tel Dan inscription proves the Bible.  However, it does indicate the existence of the dynasty of King David, which was strongly doubted by Finkelstein the minimalist.  https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/artifacts-and-the-bible/the-tel-dan-inscription-the-first-historical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/ .  And just like the NHM inscriptions at Bar'an and Baraqish, it is in the right time & place to buttress claims about BofM Nahom.  That lesson is an important one, and it is diagnostic.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Ryan Dahle]

Samuel,

I realized afterword that you were saying that Lmn is arguably a toponym because "King territory is almost the same as 'tribal territory.'" Um...that honestly seems like a stretch. I guess what I am saying is that you need to demonstrate that these names you are finding are actually legitimate toponyms within the region surrounding Nehem. The fact that the inscription of a place is found in this area doesn't mean it is nearby. For example, if someone 3 thousand years from now came to New York and found inscriptions referring to Los Angeles, Hong Kong, or London it wouldn't mean that those locations were close to the site where they were found. We know that NHM was very likely nearby because there is continuity from the modern Nihm tribe going back into pre-Islamic times. 

You likewise have the burden to demonstrate that these names you are generating existed in Lehi's day and that they were place names in the specific region surrounding Nehem.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/15/2017 at 9:20 AM, hope_for_things said:

If clear evidence for the BoM came out that was unmistakable proof that Nephi and the Lamanites existed.   It would completely change my perspective on everything religiously and my entire world view would have to adjust to that new evidence.  I am convinced that the BoM was a 19th century production.  

This is a kind of a modified Pascal's Wager for me personally.  Because all the evidence I've seen about life and the world we exist in makes me believe that God does not work through supernatural means to produce books or prophesy, I would need either a new naturalistic explanation for the BoM in light of the new information which I can't even begin to imagine at this point, or I would have to reassess my ideas about the supernatural.  It would be completely game changing.

The problem here is twofold for you:

One the one hand, "unmistakable proof" is not only a very high bar for any assertion about anything, but it does not represent the way in which scholars go about reconstructing history.  Historians regularly find some sort of plausible explanation for the artifacts of history, attempting to go with the preponderance of evidence.  So called "proof" is simply a bridge too far -- especially for ancient history -- and there are many matters which we just can't know.  Thus, any premise including "proof" is going to bring failure to the syllogism, whatever it may claim.

Second, supernaturalism is likewise rejected by historians.  There is no logical reason to give it any credence in reconstructing history.  However, failure to recognize that supernaturalism is not part of LDS theology also leads to absurd results -- not that the hol polloi understand that, but it nonetheless carries with it the seeds of failure in reconstructing rational theology and history.  The upshot is that, like normative Christians & Jews, Mormons who believe in supernaturalism carry with them the seeds of the "death of God" and of their own apostasy.  Why?  Because a supernatural God cannot exist.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/15/2017 at 10:45 AM, hope_for_things said:

How wouldn't it change things for you.  Imagine that Joseph was given a supernatural power to translate an ancient language, or to channel the thoughts of long ago dead people.  Wouldn't this mean that Joseph was somehow blessed by a supernatural power of somekind and wouldn't that make his other claims about the supernatural more believable?   I just don't see how this wouldn't change everything for me.  

What if it wasn't supernatural at all, but merely an iPad with LED screen being read by Joseph (face in hat) as his scribes were writing it down?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/15/2017 at 10:58 AM, hope_for_things said:

What does this mean if you don't believe in the supernatural at all, could people like that be included with the saints?  

Mark Bukowski and I don't believe in the supernatural, and we are faithful Saints.  That is actually the more enlightened position.  The Mormon God is a natural God