God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That was in "Lehi in the Desert: The World of Jaredites" published serially in the LDS "Improvement Era" in 1950. I think it is available online at the Maxwell Institute but I have not been able to find a downloadable PDF. It also appears in Volume Five of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. I used to have a CDROM that had it also, but I lost it years ago. The maps were not discovered until the late seventies.

When I first read the Book of Mormon as a youngster I got the impression that Lehi and his entourage traveled through and empty land devoid of people and that the Americas were uninhabited when they first landed here. Nephi does not mention meeting anyone at all anywhere on their journey. But after reading "Lehi in the Desert" and later publications from different sources I came to realize that unless the Lord cloaked the party in an invisibility shield, it would have been next to impossible. In a desert as harsh and inhospitable such as that found on the Arabian Peninsula every body of water, every oasis, every puddle is known to the local tribes and is guarded and maintained zealously. Lehi's first stop at the place he named the "Valley of Lemuel" and the "River Laman", a stream that evidently flowed year around, would have almost surely been known and claimed by the local tribe. There were not a lot of streams along the Red Sea shore, if any that flowed year around. Water had to be obtained chiefly from wells. If Lehi left during the rainy season there could have been temporary streams and ponds along the way but once that season was over they would have had to dig their own wells or obtain water from wells that were already in existence. That would involve interacting with people. Also the coast of the Read sea was a notoriously infested with pirates that attacked Read Sea trading ships. It was a dangerous area for land or sea travelers. Yet there is not one word by Nephi about buying water or any difficulties with robbers or the like. 

On another note about the burial of Ishmael, I suggested that Ishmael may not have actually died in the Nahom area but his body may have been transported there to be buried in one of the Nehem burial sites of which they may have been informed by a local tribe. That was ridiculed by our sardonic peterpear, however Nibley notes in that Lehi in the Desert piece that "Note that this is not “a place which we called Nahom,” but the place which was so called, a desert burial ground. Jaussen reports that though Bedouins sometimes bury the dead where they die, many carry the remains great distances to bury them. Antonin Jaussen, “Chronique,” P. 607

Burial in the desert was seemingly not quite the same as other places. I thought that I had read about this before and found it in "Lehi in the Desert."

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

Nibley said in 1950:

Quote

When Ishmael died on the journey, he “was buried in the place which was called Nahom” (1 Nephi 16:34). Note that this is not “a place which we called Nahom,” but the place which was so called, a desert burial ground. Jaussen reports that though Bedouins sometimes bury the dead where they die, many carry the remains great distances to bury them.⁶⁷ The Arabic root NHM has the basic meaning of “to sigh or moan,” and occurs nearly always in the third form, “to sigh or moan with another.” The Hebrew Nahum, “comfort,” is related, but that is not the form given in the Book of Mormon. At this place, we are told, “the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly,” and are reminded that among the desert Arabs mourning rites are a monopoly of the women.⁶⁸  

^{http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/Lehi_in_the_Desert_part_III.html , and  https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1106&index=7 .}

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[SamuelTheLamanite]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wordplay (paronomasia) is a literary category, while a coincidence is an occurrence.  They are completely unrelated designations.  Someone may mourn at any time, but it is only a wordplay if the name of a place of a sad event carries that meaning.  The LDS Bible contains hundreds of notes citing such wordplays.  They are quite common and scholars accept that they are deliberate, not just coincidences.  They take place in both the OT and NT. We also see many of them in the Book of Mormon.

I understand, but is there a reason to rule out coincidence in 1 Ne. 16:34 as a good possibility?  

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 a vocational name is a job or specialist-name like "smith" or "stone-cutter."

I ask because Nahom in the Book of Mormon is probably not a vocational name.  So all the possibilities include tribe, place, region, family, and vocational names?  Coincidence becomes more likely when you allow for many possibilities. 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess the crucial question would be, Do you accept the scholarly concept of wordplay at all?  Do you understand it?

I understand Robert. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nibley said in 1950:

Note that this is not “a place which we called Nahom,” but the place which was so called, a desert burial ground.

So for Nibley nahom is a place. I earlier wrote, "Okay, what you are telling me is very interesting. It would be very impressive if Nibley predicted Nahom to be some miles north of Sana'a before looking at the Nehem maps or tribe names (including names similar to Nehem). Do you have a reference please? Need to read it for myself." 

I am kind of disappointed. So your quote above means there was no prediction in 1950. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

16 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It was in version on the Maxwell Institute site. Harder to find because it is not a continuous document there.

Glenn

Robert didn't quote a prediction. 

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So for Nibley nahom is a place. I earlier wrote, "Okay, what you are telling me is very interesting. It would be very impressive if Nibley predicted Nahom to be some miles north of Sana'a before looking at the Nehem maps or tribe names (including names similar to Nehem). Do you have a reference please? Need to read it for myself." 

I am kind of disappointed. So your quote above means there was no prediction in 1950. 

 

26 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert didn't quote a prediction. 

Nothing was known of Nehem in those days, and  Nibley did not intend to be a prophet.  He was merely describing the nature of Arab society in light of the text -- and he did a very good job of that.  What's not to like?

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand, but is there a reason to rule out coincidence in 1 Ne. 16:34 as a good possibility?  

I ask because Nahom in the Book of Mormon is probably not a vocational name.  So all the possibilities include tribe, place, region, family, and vocational names?  Coincidence becomes more likely when you allow for many possibilities. ...............................

Tribal names are often also territorial names, as they are for example for the 12 tribes of Israel.  There is nothing at all unusual about that in Arabia.  Rejecting something as "just coincidence" only makes sense when there is no evidence of a relevant meaning attached to a personal or place-name.  Ruling out any biblical instance of wordplay as "just a coincidence" would seem very odd to a non-Mormon biblical scholar.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert didn't quote a prediction. 

From "Lehi in the Desert" as it appears on the Maxwell Institute site:

"After traveling a vast distance in a south-southeasterly direction (1 Nephi 16:13, 33), the party struck off almost
due eastward through the worst desert of all, where they “did wade through much afiction,” to emerge in a state
of almost complete exhaustion into a totally unexpected paradise by the sea. There is such a paradise in the Qara
Mountains on the southern coast of Arabia. To reach it by moving “nearly eastward” (1 Nephi 17:1) from the Red
Sea coast, one would have to turn east on the nineteenth parallel. In The Improvement Era for September 1950 the
present writer published a map in which his main concern was to make Lehi reach the sea in the forested sector of
the Hadhramaut, and no other consideration dictated his sketching of the map. He foolishly overlooked the fact
that Dr. John A. Widtsoe had published in the Era some months previously what purports to be a “Revelation to
Joseph the Seer,” in which it is stated that Lehi’s party “traveled nearly a south, southeast direction until they came
to the nineteenth degree of north latitude; then nearly east to the sea of Arabia.”16 By an interesting coincidence,
the route shown in the author’s map turned east exactly at the nineteenth parallel."

 

Now if you want to go back and find a September 1950 Issue of the Improvement Era to verify that be my guest. I have already pointed you to the Maxwell Institute document a couple of times. Reading that whole article might enlighten you a bit. You are rehashing stuff that has been hashed over here several times. You might also just go back and review some of the earlier threads on this subject. The finding of a burial site in Wadi Nihm in the Nihm tribal area also has been discussed. As an added note on burials in the area, evidence has been found of a type of mummification in the Ancient Yemeni area using extracts from plants available in the area (including frankincense no less).

Glenn

[wtrdog]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

From "Lehi in the Desert" as it appears on the Maxwell Institute site:

"After traveling a vast distance in a south-southeasterly direction (1 Nephi 16:13, 33), the party struck off almost
due eastward through the worst desert of all, where they “did wade through much afiction,” to emerge in a state
of almost complete exhaustion into a totally unexpected paradise by the sea. There is such a paradise in the Qara
Mountains on the southern coast of Arabia. To reach it by moving “nearly eastward” (1 Nephi 17:1) from the Red
Sea coast, one would have to turn east on the nineteenth parallel. In The Improvement Era for September 1950 the
present writer published a map in which his main concern was to make Lehi reach the sea in the forested sector of
the Hadhramaut, and no other consideration dictated his sketching of the map. He foolishly overlooked the fact
that Dr. John A. Widtsoe had published in the Era some months previously what purports to be a “Revelation to
Joseph the Seer,” in which it is stated that Lehi’s party “traveled nearly a south, southeast direction until they came
to the nineteenth degree of north latitude; then nearly east to the sea of Arabia.”16 By an interesting coincidence,
the route shown in the author’s map turned east exactly at the nineteenth parallel."

 

Now if you want to go back and find a September 1950 Issue of the Improvement Era to verify that be my guest. I have already pointed you to the Maxwell Institute document a couple of times. Reading that whole article might enlighten you a bit. You are rehashing stuff that has been hashed over here several times. You might also just go back and review some of the earlier threads on this subject. The finding of a burial site in Wadi Nihm in the Nihm tribal area also has been discussed. As an added note on burials in the area, evidence has been found of a type of mummification in the Ancient Yemeni area using extracts from plants available in the area (including frankincense no less).

Glenn

Never seen this quote before.  How is this meant to be reconciled with NHM?  19th parallel is much further north in Saudi Arabia by the looks of it.  In fact, the 3-way border point where Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman join is also at 19 degrees.... tracking nearly eastward this lands you in a completely different location.... 300 miles away.  

[Glenn101]

41 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Never seen this quote before.  How is this meant to be reconciled with NHM?  19th parallel is much further north in Saudi Arabia by the looks of it.  In fact, the 3-way border point where Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman join is also at 19 degrees.... tracking nearly eastward this lands you in a completely different location.... 300 miles away.  

That all is true. The point that I was making is not that the nineteenth parallel was where the turn actually happened. The dialog was that in the early fifties, before the discovery of maps showing a Nehm or Nehem area, and it seems now that it was 1950, Hugh Nibley had surmised from reading the Book of Mormon text concerning Nephi's travel narrative that the route had to parallel eastern coast of the Red Sea and take a turn eastward somewhere in Yemen. Subsequent map discoveries showing a Nehem region in the Yemen area and discovery that the frankincense trail also took an eastward turn at Marib have caused later scholars and researchers to modify that assumption. The discovery of the verdant area in the Dhofar region has also influenced the assumptions, all of which are still theories.

Glenn

[Physics Guy]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ruling out any biblical instance of wordplay as "just a coincidence" would seem very odd to a non-Mormon biblical scholar.

To identify potential ancient wordplay, as a way of enriching modern understanding of an undoubtedly ancient text—that's one thing. To identify potential wordplay as a way of establishing that a text really is ancient, though—that's another thing. The possibilities of coincidence have quite different implications in these two cases.

[wtrdog]

30 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That all is true. The point that I was making is not that the nineteenth parallel was where the turn actually happened. The dialog was that in the early fifties, before the discovery of maps showing a Nehm or Nehem area, and it seems now that it was 1950, Hugh Nibley had surmised from reading the Book of Mormon text concerning Nephi's travel narrative that the route had to parallel eastern coast of the Red Sea and take a turn eastward somewhere in Yemen. Subsequent map discoveries showing a Nehem region in the Yemen area and discovery that the frankincense trail also took an eastward turn at Marib have caused later scholars and researchers to modify that assumption. The discovery of the verdant area in the Dhofar region has also influenced the assumptions, all of which are still theories.

Glenn

Hmm.  In general fitting vague evidence on top of a vague story is quite easy and that's all this evolution demonstrates.  Candidate locations have bounced all over the entire continent it would seem.

The part of your quote that's interesting though is the claim that it's a “Revelation to Joseph the Seer.”  How is that reconciled?  Is it no longer believed JS received this revelation?  Cause if he did, that really limits your wiggle room.  19th parallel is pretty specific.  This could also add weight to those who argue Joseph did have access to some ancient maps.  It's speculation, no way to know, but where did this business about 19th parallel come from?  If it's thought that Joseph was the one this originated from that seems a reasonable explanation for all of this.  Has anybody taken a look at the ancient maps that name NHM to see if the text appears near the 19th parallel or might have been interpreted as such by Joseph?  

[Glenn101]

11 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Hmm.  In general fitting vague evidence on top of a vague story is quite easy and that's all this evolution demonstrates.  Candidate locations have bounced all over the entire continent it would seem.

The part of your quote that's interesting though is the claim that it's a “Revelation to Joseph the Seer.”  How is that reconciled?  Is it no longer believed JS received this revelation?  Cause if he did, that really limits your wiggle room.  19th parallel is pretty specific.  This could also add weight to those who argue Joseph did have access to some ancient maps.  It's speculation, no way to know, but where did this business about 19th parallel come from?  If it's thought that Joseph was the one this originated from that seems a reasonable explanation for all of this.  Has anybody taken a look at the ancient maps that name NHM to see if the text appears near the 19th parallel or might have been interpreted as such by Joseph?  

Actually the candidate locations have not hopped all over the continent. There has been quite a few candidates proposed for the different places that the clan stopped and a couple of different proposals for the actual route, but the general directions have always been pretty much the same. Hugh Nibley noted that the political climate at the time pretty much eliminated heading towards Egypt. The discovery of Wadi Tayyib Al Ism has a lot of people believing that it at least could be the Valley of Lemuel and River of Laman of the Book of Mormon, and the discovery of the verdant area in the Dhofar region of Oman is believed by many to fit the bill for Bountiful, although there is disagreement on exactly which spot.

As far as the bit about the Joseph Smith quote, it is a purported quote. I do not know the real provenance of it. It was circulated among the Saints in the 1850's as an unsigned document in the handwriting of Frederick Willimas and at some point was attributed to Joseph, however that has not been ascertained.

Glenn

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

To identify potential ancient wordplay, as a way of enriching modern understanding of an undoubtedly ancient text—that's one thing. To identify potential wordplay as a way of establishing that a text really is ancient, though—that's another thing. The possibilities of coincidence have quite different implications in these two cases.

Mr. Physics Guy, 

Here we seem to agree many inscriptions in Old South Arabia match Old Testament names. Neal told me "Of course there are a ton of names similar to biblical names". Glenn told me "it is hardly a coincidence that many Old Testament names match toponymns in Old South Arabia."

There are about 16,000 inscriptions (and about 1,000 to 2,000 ancient toponymns) in Old South Arabia. In your view is it reasonable to assume that the NHM rock near Ba'ran maching Nahom is a coincidence? Do we have "nearly impossible" odds for a coincidence? 

Your reply will be appreciated because you have a Mathematical mind. 

On 9/17/2017 at 11:47 PM, nealr said:

Again still just scratching the surface. I may not "understand coincidence"--I certainty don't understand statistical reasoning well enough to know how to start putting together a statistical test that could bring all these different factors into account. Maybe I am even wrong about some of these things. But I know enough to be quite certain that you have not really thought through all the factors involved in assessing the probability of coincidence here.

I am asking a Math expert for his opinion. Thank goodness he is participating.   

Edited September 27, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

41 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually the candidate locations have not hopped all over the continent. There has been quite a few candidates proposed for the different places that the clan stopped and a couple of different proposals for the actual route, but the general directions have always been pretty much the same.

I understand, it is the reason why we are only looking at Old South Arabia. I was thinking Nibley made a specific prediction.  

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, wtrdog said:

The part of your quote that's interesting though is the claim that it's a “Revelation to Joseph the Seer.”  How is that reconciled?  Is it no longer believed JS received this revelation?  Cause if he did, that really limits your wiggle room.  19th parallel is pretty specific.  This could also add weight to those who argue Joseph did have access to some ancient maps.  It's speculation, no way to know, but where did this business about 19th parallel come from?  If it's thought that Joseph was the one this originated from that seems a reasonable explanation for all of this.  Has anybody taken a look at the ancient maps that name NHM to see if the text appears near the 19th parallel or might have been interpreted as such by Joseph?  

 

Quote

As far as the bit about the Joseph Smith quote, it is a purported quote. I do not know the real provenance of it. It was circulated among the Saints in the 1850's as an unsigned document in the handwriting of Frederick Willimas and at some point was attributed to Joseph, however that has not been ascertained.

Glenn

Glenn Scott notes that in the early days of the Restored Church, Frederick G. Williams (one-time counselor to Joseph Smith, Jr.) in a notation about Lehi's colony wrote, "they traveled nearly a south south East direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of North Lattitude [sic] then nearly east to the Sea of Arabia."426

     Thus, Williams added to Nephi's words his own assumption. A harmless speculation, but in 1882 a Salt Lake City printer, F.D. Richards, attributed William's notation to Joseph Smith, Jr., and called it a revelation. That claim was refuted by William's great-great-grandson who said "the page on which the original Frederick G. Williams statement is found, gives no evidence of revelatory origin. . . . It should not be given any more authority than any other theory."

Edited September 27, 2017 by RevTestament

[Glenn101]

43 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand, it is the reason why we are only looking at Old South Arabia. I was thinking Nibley made a specific prediction. 

His only specific prediction or assumption was the nineteenth parallel. He did not know about the Nehem area at that time. The different researchers are modifying their theories as more information comes to light.

48 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Glenn told me "it is hardly a coincidence that many Old Testament names match toponymns in Old South Arabia."

I modified that statement to read something like "It is hardly a coincidence that many Old Testament names appear on inscriptions in Old South Arabia." The languages all have Semitic roots. It would stand to reason that there would be some inscriptions from South Arabia that would also appear as Biblical names. Especially if some of the tribes that developed in Arabia were descendants of Ishmael, son of Abraham and Hagar. 

52 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am asking a Math expert for his opinion. Thank goodness he is participating.   

Is he a statistics expert?

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

To identify potential ancient wordplay, as a way of enriching modern understanding of an undoubtedly ancient text—that's one thing. To identify potential wordplay as a way of establishing that a text really is ancient, though—that's another thing. The possibilities of coincidence have quite different implications in these two cases.

Of course, and scholarly analysis must always be incisive and careful -- regardless of the text being analyzed.  Sam's main problem is that he expects proof, where no scholar ever finds "proof" of anything, and does not expect to.  What scholars do is to provide reasonable information about the mise en scene of events.  From that it is sometimes possible to find indicators of historical authenticity.  This applies as much to the Book of Mormon as it does to the Bible, the upshot being that an entire chain of potential wordplays which could not have been known to the English translator of the BofM.  This is only one forensic aspect of methods of analysis of questioned documents.  Rather than examine only one minute instance in such an endeavor, we must look at the the bigger picture, attempting to synthesize the knowledge obtained.  Otherwise we can find ourselves straining out gnats and swallowing camels.  Discerning fakes and forgeries is not so difficult, and that is the purpose of forensic analysis.

[Physics Guy]

Statistics in physics is pretty basic stuff. Fancy statistics is what you do when you don't have enough data, but our subjects are things like electrons and stars—we have lots of them. So, I think that the NHM inscriptions are probably coincidence, but my view should not carry any special weight as an expert judgement.

I'm not sure that statistical expertise is the bottleneck challenge in evaluating the likelihood of this NHM inscription, though. According to my understanding of the Mormon argument, it's important that the NHM rock turns up in a place that exactly matches the location of Nahom in the Book of Mormon account of Lehi's journey. The problem for me is that the journey account doesn't really seem very precise. If you know you want Nahom to come out to be at the NHM rock, then maybe you can read the text in a way that fits with that. Are there other readings, however, that would put Nephi's Nahom somewhere else entirely? 

The question is not just how many ancient rock inscriptions there are per square mile in Arabia, but also how many middle eastern square miles can be covered by tenable readings of Nephi. I think that's highly debatable. Mormon apologists who want to stand upon NHM may well argue that their currently preferred reading of Nephi is unambiguous, but then when it comes to places like Cumorah and Zarahemla those same apologists instead seem to emphasize how impossible it is to deduce precise modern locations of places mentioned in ancient texts.

I'm left with the impression, for what it's worth, that NHM is a modest coincidence whose exact likelihood is quite hard to quantify. I'm happy to concede that it counts as some evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. To me it's weak evidence. Just how weak? I'm not sure, but certainly far short of adequate to establish a theory of a plate-bearing angel. Even a pretty unlikely coincidence is more likely than that.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

 According to my understanding of the Mormon argument, it's important that the NHM rock turns up in a place that exactly matches the location of Nahom in the Book of Mormon account of Lehi's journey. The problem for me is that the journey account doesn't really seem very precise.

Yes, very true. With Book of Mormon description and a simple map of Arabia we can only say Nahom is somewhere in Old South Arabia, nothing in the text tells us it is north of Sanaa or near Ba'ran.

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The question is not just how many ancient rock inscriptions there are per square mile in Arabia, but also how many middle eastern square miles can be covered by tenable readings of Nephi.

Excellent point 

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Are there other readings, however, that would put Nephi's Nahom somewhere else entirely? 

Yes. Book of Mormon says "nearly east" and "nearly south east". If we apply Book of Mormon's "North" and "South" of the New world we can have a totally different location. 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, and scholarly analysis must always be incisive and careful -- regardless of the text being analyzed.  Sam's main problem is that he expects proof, where no scholar ever finds "proof" of anything, and does not expect to. \

All we need is a good reason to believe NHM near Ba'raan is Nahom, so far we cannot rule out coincidence as a good possibility. If we are only talking about possibilities then I completely agree it is possible NHM is Nahom.  However, coincidence is also a possibility, a reasonable one.  There are no "nearly impossible" odds for a coincidence.

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I'm left with the impression, for what it's worth, that NHM is a modest coincidence whose exact likelihood is quite hard to quantify. I'm happy to concede that it counts as some evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. To me it's weak evidence. Just how weak? I'm not sure, but certainly far short of adequate to establish a theory of a plate-bearing angel. Even a pretty unlikely coincidence is more likely than that.

I really like your post, but I don't see possibilities as evidence. For example it is possible Smith saw a 1782 map with an "X" as a treasure symbol, but I don't consider the 1782 possibility as evidence. It is also possible that the 1782 map was available in Dartmouth College before 1825. I say possible because according to website "many volumes " were lost in the "College as a whole" before 1825 . Hyrum Smith was a student in 1811 at Moor's Charity School which was part of Dartmouth College. Again, just because it is possible that the map was available in Dartmouth before 1825 doesn't mean it is evidence.  I am sure Robert, Neal, Ryan, and Glenn wouldn't see it as evidence.

  

Edited September 28, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Is he a statistics expert?

See his response above 

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The problem for me is that the journey account doesn't really seem very precise. If you know you want Nahom to come out to be at the NHM rock, then maybe you can read the text in a way that fits with that. Are there other readings, however, that would put Nephi's Nahom somewhere else entirely? 

 

You are pretty much correct about the directions. If Nephi had been very precise we would not be having this discussion. I don't know how much you have followed the discussion over the years, but the researchers did not start out looking for Nahom. Hugh Nibley very early on had analysed the political and social landscape at the time and and the maps of the mid east and came up with a scenario, before we found out about Nehem. His route would have taken the party into the general area. This was in 1950. Later researchers actually went into Arabia and followed the general directions that Nephi gave in the Book of Mormon looking for evidences and possible sites. The first were Lynn and Hope Hilton in 1976. In 1978 a BYU professor of archaeology proposed that an area on a map by Carsten Niebuhr which was designated Nehhm could be the Nahom of the Book of Mormon. Other maps have since been uncovered that show the name Nehem for the same area. This was either a bit of serendipity or Joseph Smith had seen one of those maps and wove that into his tale.

The issues here concern the likelihood of Joseph working all of this out without a map, the general directions, etc. the frankincense trail and how much was known about it in Joseph's time, the whole kit and caboodle. I do not know if anyone can really step back from their biases and be able to formulate a model upon which to perform any type of statistical analysis.

What I am comfortable with is not the odds, but with the fact that the information that has come forth through the efforts of the scholars and researchers has formed a very plausible basis for Nephi's travel narrative. Many questions are left unanswered, but the framework seems solid.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

All we need is a good reason to believe NHM near Ba'raan is Nahom, so far we cannot rule out coincidence as a good possibility. If we are only talking about possibilities then I completely agree it is possible NHM is Nahom.  However, coincidence is also a possibility, a reasonable one.  There are no "nearly impossible" odds for a coincidence.

Now, is there any good evidence that it is a coincidence? Have you found NHM as a place name on a map anywhere else? And you are still ignoring the context in which Nahom/Nehem/Nihm/NHM was found. It was not a Texas sharpshooter type of event. Now if you can find us map with a NHM place name, say in Egypt, or Mesopotamia, you would bolster your argument somewhat. Right now you have a bow with an empty quiver.

40 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

See his response above

I did not realize Physics Guy was your math expert. He is a physics expert, which does imply competence in math as well, but not statistics, and possibly linguistics since those are the two areas of expertise that would most likely come into play.

Glenn

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Deleted 

Edited September 28, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

42 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes, very true. With Book of Mormon description and a simple map of Arabia we can only say Nahom is somewhere in Old South Arabia, nothing in the text tells us it is north of Sanaa or near Ba'ran............................................

If one approaches a text with a monomaniacal commitment to considering single items in isolation from all others (atomistically), then of course that will make sense.  However, if one is concerned with a factual, close reading of a text, combined with all other considerations simultaneously, then one has to read the complete narrative and understand it as a whole.  That means considering the general location of Bountiful, along with the most likely Bountiful, Khor Kharfot, with Kharfot meaning "Abundance, Bountiful" in Mehri language, then the directional orientation of nearly eastward to get to Bountiful, backtracking to the Tihama Red Sea coast of the Yemen, and then backtracking up the Red Sea coast, where the general direction was SSE, after having come down from Jerusalem to the Red Sea, and having gone along the coast for three days.  Taken together, in sequence, these points give a general picture of where Clan Lehi was most likely to have been during the years from 597 to 588 BC.  Your comment here, Sam, makes it appear that we know nothing at all, which is absurd.

42 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes. Book of Mormon says "nearly east" and "nearly south east". If we apply Book of Mormon's "North" and "South" of the New world we can have a totally different location. 

Scholars know of only one mode of orientation in both Hebrew and Arabic in the ancient Near East, both then and now.  You are inventing a problem where there is none, Sam.  Why?  Various theories about the New World are completely irrelevant here.

42 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

All we need is a good reason to believe NHM near Ba'raan is Nahom, so far we cannot rule out coincidence as a good possibility. If we are only talking about possibilities then I completely agree it is possible NHM is Nahom.  However, coincidence is also a possibility, a reasonable one.  There are no "nearly impossible" odds for a coincidence.

Scholars don't use "nearly impossible" odds, and they don't need them.  You love this strawman, Sam.  Why?  You prefer to ignore all other considerations instead of simply looking at a theoretical map with the various points simply placed in it without bias.

42 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I really like your post, but I don't see possibilities as evidence. For example it is possible Smith saw a 1782 map with an "X" as a treasure symbol, but I don't consider the 1782 possibility as evidence. It is also possible that the 1782 map was available in Dartmouth College before 1825. I say possible because according to website "many volumes " were lost in the "College as a whole" before 1825 . Hyrum Smith was a student in 1811 at Moor's Charity School which was part of Dartmouth College. Again, just because it is possible that the map was available in Dartmouth before 1825 doesn't mean it is evidence.  I am sure Robert, Neal, Ryan, and Glenn wouldn't see it as evidence........................................

Why are you willing to equate a close reading of the BofM text with the likelihood of Joseph possibly seeing a 1782 map at Dartmouth?  How does the actual existence of the BofM text equate to the possible existence of a 1782 map at Dartmouth?  You don't seem to understand the relative merits of claiming something as evidence.  We actually have a BofM text with Nahom at a reasonably good location to correlate with Nehem in the Yemen (strong likelihood), but we have no likelihood that Joseph spent any time ever doing research at Dartmouth (weak likelihood).  Indeed, if we start down the long road to postulating the Joseph did heavy scholarly research for all of the thousands of such correlations which he got right in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere, does that seem more credible that postulating that an angel gave him some plates?  You are preferring to strain out gnats and swallow camels instead, Sam.

 

[RevTestament]

39 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes, very true. With Book of Mormon description and simple map of Arabia we can only say Nahom is somewhere in Old South Arabia, nothing in the text tells us it is north of Sanaa or near Ba'ran.

That is actually not really true. The description of the text limits Nahom to the western coastal area of south Arabia rather than somewhere along the 800 mile coast of S. Arabia or somewhere much inland. If one accepts the Dhofar Region as the region of Bountiful then the text further limits the likely area to the NW region of present day Yemen. As you yourself indicated, you believe Nahom could have been closer to the Red Sea than the Nihm region. So in actuality you restrict it even further. But to say it is somewhere in S Arabia is simply not accurate.

Quote

Yes. Old South Arabia is a big region.  Book of Mormon says "nearly east" and "nearly south east". If we apply Book of Mormon's "North" and "South" of the New world we can have a totally different location. We find NHM graffiti (personal name) in North Arabia written in Taymanitic (8th or 6th century BC).  

I do not understand why you keep doing this Sam. Are you a critic in disguise as has been suggested? You yourself just above talk about Nahom being in Old South Arabia, and here you talk about the North Arabian Taymanitic inscriptions as somehow being relevant to the geography enumerated in the Book of Mormon, when plainly it is not as Robert has pointed out numerous times. Taking in the likelihood that they didn't encounter the desert of the Empty Quarter until the last leg of the journey after they had turned east and described having to eat raw meat and virtually reaching a point of desperation, geography strongly suggests they were roughly following the old frankincense trail east from Marib through the empty quarter. I suppose they could have crossed further north, and traveled even further through the central desert, but that is extremely unlikely. Would the Lord really purposefully have led them that way rather than eastward far more north and then down the coast of the Persian Gulf? But that is not what the text describes. So again we are left with a somewhat limited area in the NW region of Yemen as the likely area of Nahom from which they traveled east.

Quote

All we need is a good reason to believe NHM near Ba'raan is Nahom, so far we cannot rule out coincidence as a good possibility. If we are only talking about possibilities then I completely agree it is possible NHM is Nahom.  However, coincidence is also a possibility, a reasonable one.  There are no "nearly impossible" odds for a coincidence.

As I have pointed out absent a better reasonable option the Nihm region of Yemen is the best fit found so far. It has considerable evidence for it given the passage of 2600 years. You don't want to believe it for some reason but have come up with no reasonable alternative. Nihm is currently the most reasonable educated guess. Is it possible it is just coincidence? Yes, but I believe the probabilities given the totality of the evidence in the text, the region, and found in archaeology strongly favors the Nihm region on a "more likely than not" legal basis. Arguing on the side of your less likely than not probabilities of possible coincidence doesn't do anything for me.

Quote

I really like your post, but I don't see possibilities as evidence.  It is also possible Smith saw a 1782 map with an "X" as a treasure symbol, but I don't consider the 1782 possibility as evidence. It is also possible that the 1782 map was available in Dartmouth College before 1825. I say possible because according to website "many volumes " were lost in the "College as a whole" before 1825 . Hyrum Smith was a student in 1811 at Moor's Charity School which was part of Dartmouth College. Again, just because it is possible that the map was available in Dartmouth before 1825 doesn't mean it is evidence.  I am sure Robert, Neal, Ryan, and Glenn wouldn't see it as evidence

While you seem to be trying to pass yourself off as an objective member, you really sound like you are taking cues from some anti-Mormon website Sam with a link to the Dartmouth library site and all - really? Crap Sam. Have some faith. Really. Your continual plea to unprovable possibilities is not scholarly nor convincing.