God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/18/2017 at 10:03 AM, nealr said:

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

It is possible NHM is Nahom, but I told the PhysicsGuy (I will re-post in case someone misses it)  

Quote

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.  

The Physics Guy says, "NHM is a modest coincidence whose exact likelihood is quite hard to quantify". I agree NHM is probably a coincidence, or at least a good possibility.  If you believe it is very probable that NHM is Nahom please tell us how you made that calculation..

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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? 

Have to go, but for now let me just say that possibilities are not evidence. That is all for now.   

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

I think we need some clarification. Khor Rori  is Northeast of Salalah, and Salalah is North East of Wadi Sayq - khor kharfot. The Dhofar region allows Nahom to be in at least a 300 mile radius.    

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

I think the Darthmouth map theory is interesting, but completely unnecessary. I don't buy into the Dartmouth theory, if you read carefully my only point is that possibilities are not evidence. 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

In a video Stephen said it was "nearly impossible" for NHM to be a coincidence. 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  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). 

As I said Hyrum Smith was a student in 1811 at Moor's Charity School which was part of Dartmouth College. Please read the source where it says "many volumes".  I don't believe Hyrum took the 1782 book map home, it is just a fun coincidence.  Under naturalism it is a possibility, but possibilities are not evidence. 

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

I do accept Nehem is the best candidate location and the best educated guess. However, everyone here seems to agree we can find many inscriptions (including toponyms) in Old South Arabia that match Old Testament names. So in your view what is more likely? We know the Book of Mormon has many Old Testament names.  

Edited September 28, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I think we need some clarification. Khor Rori  is Northeast of Salalah, and Salalah is North East of Wadi Sayq - khor kharfot. The Dhofar region allows Nahom to be in at least a 300 mile radius.  

You are demanding things of the direction and map which no scholar would demand.  Being punctilious is not being scholarly, but merely being ridiculous.  Going in some general direction as the crow flies is useful only to a point.  Deliberately obfuscating that point is not scholarly but instead is anti-intellectual.  In the real ancient world, we don't find straight lines, but rather general directions, curves and all.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I think the Darthmouth map theory is interesting, but completely unnecessary. I don't buy into the Dartmouth theory, if you read carefully my only point is that possibilities are not evidence. 

So your comment on Dartmouth was a throw-a-way line, not intended to be serious?  Why mention it then?  And what does it mean to say that "possibilities are not evidence"?  Another throw-a-way line?  You have no idea what evidence is, you do not respond to serious discussion about evidence, and instead substitute throw-a-way lines.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In a video Stephen said it was "nearly impossible" for NHM to be a coincidence. 

By quoting him out of context, of course you can make it appear that he is only saying that it was "nearly impossible" for NHM to be a coincidence.  By leaving out his basic case, you make it appear that he is only making one, unsupported claim.  Had you been honest, you would note that he was speaking to a convergence of a multitude of factors:  Correct place, correct time, correct wordplay, and the relative position and proximity to Bountiful -- which is what I have mentioned to you repeatedly, and which you regularly ignore in your responses.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

As I said Hyrum Smith was a student in 1811 at Moor's Charity School which was part of Dartmouth College. Please read the source where it says "many volumes".  I don't believe Hyrum took the 1782 book map home, it is just a fun coincidence.  Under naturalism it is a possibility, but possibilities are not evidence. 

I do accept Nehem is the best candidate location and the best educated guess. However, everyone here seems to agree we can find many inscriptions (including toponyms) in Old South Arabia that match Old Testament names. So in your view what is more likely? We know the Book of Mormon has many Old Testament names.  

The fact that Semitic languages have similar roots in common, and that some Old South Arabic inscriptions might have similar structure and meaning may be interesting, but is irrelevant when one is asking about specific wordplay.  We never make the point about the common wordplay in the Bible that there are many other biblical names in the Bible, and therefore that particular wordplay is just coincidence.  No scholar would draw that inane conclusion.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Have to go, but for now let me just say that possibilities are not evidence. That is all for now.   

That is not a response to the case which has been made here.  Since  no one claims that possibilities are evidence, what does your phrase even mean? Are you even able to carry on a meaningful discussion about actual evidence, or do you even care?

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It is possible NHM is Nahom, but I told the PhysicsGuy ...............................

Quote

I don't see possibilities as evidence.....................................

The Physics Guy says, "NHM is a modest coincidence whose exact likelihood is quite hard to quantify". I agree NHM is probably a coincidence, or at least a good possibility.  If you believe it is very probable that NHM is Nahom please tell us how you made that calculation..

No sure what you are even saying here, Sam, and perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "probably a coincidence," "at least a good possibility," and that "it is possible NHM is Nahom," etc.
 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are demanding things of the direction and map which no scholar would demand.  Being punctilious is not being scholarly, but merely being ridiculous.  Going in some general direction as the crow flies is useful only to a point.  Deliberately obfuscating that point is not scholarly but instead is anti-intellectual.  In the real ancient world, we don't find straight lines, but rather general directions, curves and all.

The argument I am making is that Book of Mormon description allows Nahom to be anywhere in Old South Arabia.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So your comment on Dartmouth was a throw-a-way line, not intended to be serious?  Why mention it then?  And what does it mean to say that "possibilities are not evidence"?  Another throw-a-way line?  You have no idea what evidence is, you do not respond to serious discussion about evidence, and instead substitute throw-a-way lines.

Let me start over. It is possible that NHM is Nahom, it is possible Nephi was doing wordplay when the daughters of Ismael were crying for their father. For me possibilities are not evidence.  It is possible Smith saw 1782 map from Dartmouth, but just because it is possible doesn't mean it is true. The fun coincidence is that Hyrum Smith was a student at Dartmouth (or Moor which was part of Dartmouth) in 1811.  Brown writes, ". As most are aware, the Smith family lived in Lebanon, New Hampshire, from 1811 to late in 1813, before moving back to Vermont. The home where the Smith family lived in Lebanon was just down the road from Dartmouth  College". Anti-Mormons argue Hyrum took home the 1782 book map. To refute that possibility Brown argues, "The first concerns the dates of the acquisition of these works by Dartmouth’s library, or by any other major library in the United States. In the case of Robert Heron’s two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s work that was published in 1792, the acquisition date at the Dartmouth library is 1937, more than 140 years after it appeared in print...this work was not available in its library when the Smith family lived in the town of Lebanon". However, "many volumes had been lost" before 1825.  Anti-Mormons argue the 1937 acquisition was another copy. Allegheny College did have a 1792 map  in 1823, so anti-Mormons argue it is possible that Dartmouth also had a copy in 1811 before losing it.  Anti-Mormons argue that Smith believed Nehem had a treasure because of the "X" in the 1792 map.

To me the 1792 map theory possibility is just a fun coincidence, but completely unnecessary. Anti-Mormon make the same mistake by assuming the 1792 map theory is evidence that Smith saw the 1782 map. Hyrum going to Dartmouth doesn't prove anything. 

For me the fact that we can find many inscriptions rocks (including toponyms) that match Old Testament names is a good reason to suspect that NHM  is not necessarily Nahom.  Fun coincidence are very common in life. 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Made some changes above

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The argument I am making is that Book of Mormon description allows Nahom to be anywhere in Old South Arabia.

Anywhere?  That is simply irresponsible.  We already have directional descriptors which make that absurd, and leave only a very narrow range of potential areas in which Nahom could have been.  Only by carefully ignoring the actual descriptions and the available maps can we draw your anti-intellectual conclusion.  You provide no actual discussion of the larger context in which Nahom is placed.

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Let me start over. It is possible that NHM is Nahom, it is possible Nephi was doing wordplay when the daughters of Ismael were crying for their father. For me possibilities are not evidence.  It is possible Smith saw 1782 map from Dartmouth, but just because it is possible doesn't mean it is true. The fun coincidence is that Hyrum Smith was a student at Dartmouth (or Moor which was part of Dartmouth) in 1811. ..........................................

To me the 1792 map theory possibility is just a fun coincidence, but completely unnecessary. Anti-Mormon make the same mistake by assuming the 1792 map theory is evidence that Smith saw the 1782 map. Hyrum going to Dartmouth doesn't prove anything. 

For me the fact that we can find many inscriptions rocks (including toponyms) that match Old Testament names is a good reason to suspect that NHM  is not necessarily Nahom.

In what way do Semitic names like some of those in the Bible cause us to "suspect that NHM is not necessarily Nahom"?  Are you aware of the many biblical toponyms and personal names are used in wordplay, and that scholars do not follow your specious reasoning to disallow them, or render them suspect?  Why are you afraid to deal with that question, which I have put to you several times?

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

  Fun coincidence are very common in life. ........................

I am not sure what a "fun coincidence" is in your mind, but it certainly doesn't involve evidence of any kind, but rather just rank speculation.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

For me the fact that we can find many inscriptions rocks (including toponyms) that match Old Testament names is a good reason to suspect that NHM  is not necessarily Nahom.  Fun coincidence are very common in life.

Let's consider this analogy. You are given directions which have you leaving Cameron Wisconsin and traveling eastward parallel to the highway  until you come to Bruce, Wisconsin. Once there you travel parallel to the highway going northward until ypu get to Imalone, Wisconsin, then use your compass to go east south east until you get to Cedar Lodge, Wisconsin. If you follow those directions is it a coincidence that you would come to a town named Imalone? Can you follow those directions anywhere else in the Untied States and get to a town named Imalone? If you looked at a map of Wisconsin and noted that those places exist would you suspect that a person giving the directions had (1) Traveled the route, (2) looked at a map, (3) heard someone else give those directions or (4) made up some general directions for an imaginary travel route in Wisconsin with Imalone as a turning point on the map being a coincidence since there was a ship once named Imalone and it also is a surname? Of those four scenarios which one is the least likely?

Again, this is not an exact analogy but I think it will do for my purposes. In the Book of Mormon Nephi gives us some directions that if followed almost certainly takes one on a path down the south side of the Gulf of Aqaba close to the Red Sea then parallels the Red Sea to a point called Nahom where it turns nearly eastward and arrives at a lush, verdant spot they named Bountiful. With what we currently know can you follow those general directions other way and get to any other place named NHM and from there travel nearly eastward and come to a lush, verdant spot that would fit the description of the Book of Mormon Bountiful? From what we have thus far learned thus far, the four scenarios listed above would apply to this situation also. So which of the four is the least likely?

Glenn

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am not sure what a "fun coincidence" is in your mind, but it certainly doesn't involve evidence of any kind, but rather just rank speculation.

Let's compare so you can see the similarities. I wrote seven hours ago 

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti-Mormons argue Hyrum took home the 1782 book map. To refute that possibility Brown argues, "The first concerns the dates of the acquisition of these works by Dartmouth’s library, or by any other major library in the United States. In the case of Robert Heron’s two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s work that was published in 1792, the acquisition date at the Dartmouth library is 1937, more than 140 years after it appeared in print...this work was not available in its library when the Smith family lived in the town of Lebanon". However, "many volumes had been lost" before 1825 in Darthmouth.  Anti-Mormons argue the 1937 acquisition was another copy. Allegheny College did have a 1792 map in the year 1823, so anti-Mormons argue it is possible that Dartmouth also had a copy in 1811 before losing it.  Anti-Mormons argue that Smith believed Nehem had a treasure because of the "X" in the 1792 map.

 

Quote

The altars merely demonstrate that the name was in use in the time of Lehi.

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.

The 1792 map was available in the Northeast of the United States before the publication of the Book of Mormon, but it doesn't mean it is evidence that Joseph Smith saw the 1792 map. 

You tell me the altars demonstrate the name was in use in the time of Lehi, but I honestly  don't understand how the altars are evidence that NHM is Nahom.   

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Let's consider this analogy.

Robert says NHM is not a toponym (place name).  The inscription "bkr" in Old South Arabia matches old testament name "Barak", and bkr happens to be a toponym. "brk" also happens to be north of Sanaa. I am not sure about the exact dating, I am going have to double check, but it is just one example. 

http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=30&prjId=1&corId=0&colId=0&navId=55994766&recId=2384&mark=02384%2C001%2C001

Quote

Modern site Ẓafār

Ancient site Ẓfr

Geographical area Ẓafār

Country Yemen

I have to go, I can give you more example if you need. 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert says NHM is not a toponym (place name).  The inscription "bkr" in Old South Arabia matches old testament name "Barak", and bkr happens to be a toponym. "brk" also happens to be north of Sanaa. I am not sure about the exact dating, I am going have to double check, but it is just one example. 

I do not recall Robert saying that NHM is not a place name. Please point me to such a statement. NHM is the toponym that we are talking about here, a tribal region in old southern Arabia. There also is a Wadi Nihm in the area.

How does bkr=brk? There are two letters transposed. I am not a Semitic linguist but I rather image that the two are not the same.

Edited again: I looked up your reference and you did indeed transpose two letters. But I do not understand your assertion that brk is a place name. The description of the text says that it is a prayer. brk has the meaning of "to kneel."

And you are not responding to anything anyone is saying. You did not respond to my analogy at all. If you are going to quote me in a response, please respond to the quote and do not throw in extraneous stuff that has nothing to do with what I said.

Glenn

Edited September 30, 2017 by Glenn101
spelling and I said please, and more info

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

You tell me the altars demonstrate the name was in use in the time of Lehi, but I honestly  don't understand how the altars are evidence that NHM is Nahom. 

Once more, you misstate the case, which always involves the full context.  It would be very difficult to claim that Nahom was a name actually used in Ancient South Arabia, if we had no instances of NHM in insciptions there.  A case for something is made through systematic enumeration of all the pieces of evidence (right time, geographical location at the confluence of two separate directions, etc.).  Of course if you are deliberately opposed to anything, no standard piece of evidence will ever mean anything to you.  At that point, you need to submit the matter to third-party arbitration.

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert says NHM is not a toponym (place name).  The inscription "bkr" in Old South Arabia matches old testament name "Barak", and bkr happens to be a toponym. "brk" also happens to be north of Sanaa. I am not sure about the exact dating, I am going have to double check, but it is just one example. 

http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=30&prjId=1&corId=0&colId=0&navId=55994766&recId=2384&mark=02384%2C001%2C001

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

Well, based on your reasoning, Old South Arabic brk (which is what you probably mean) is not proof that Barak Obama was Pres of the USA, and I would agree -- even if the Semitic source of both their names meant the same thing, which may be the case.  Why is that not evidence?  Because the occurrences are unrelated in time & place.  That would make the case a mistaken one just based on it being a non sequitur.  That is your main problem.  You just don't understand evidence.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not recall Robert saying that NHM is not a place name. Please point me to such a statement. NHM is the toponym that we are talking about here

Robert told me, "NHM at Bar'an was a tribal/family name, as well as a vocational designation. Who said it was a toponym? Another strawman by you."

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Let's consider this analogy. You are given directions which have you leaving Cameron Wisconsin and traveling eastward parallel to the highway  until you come to Bruce, Wisconsin. Once there you travel parallel to the highway going northward until ypu get to Imalone, Wisconsin, then use your compass to go east south east until you get to Cedar Lodge, Wisconsin. If you follow those directions is it a coincidence that you would come to a town named Imalone?

You are right. There is only one town in the USA called "Imalone". However, Imalone is a seven letter town name. NHM is only three letters and allows for 25 different combinations like Nahum, Naham, Nehem, and so forth.  There are no model maps of Lehi's trail before LDS scholars found the Nehem tribe.  If Book of Mormon gives us enough details why didn't LDS scholars predict it's location before finding Nehem?   

Going back to your analogy please give me "Imalone" with no vowels. I can probably find a place name that matches "m l n" near Imalone, Wisconsin.  The place name can be a town, tribal/family name, a vocational designation, county, city, or simply a territory.  By the way, Arabia is much bigger than the state of Wisconsin. 

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

How does bkr=brk? There are two letters transposed. I am not a Semitic linguist but I rather image that the two are not the same.

It is a typo. The inscription  "brk" is an ancient toponym north of Sanaa. However, just because it is an ancient toponym doesn't mean it is related to the Old Testament name "barak". In the Old Testament Barak was a warrior, not a toponym. Hopefully you see my point. 

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 based on your reasoning, Old South Arabic brk (which is what you probably mean) is not proof that Barak Obama was Pres of the USA, and I would agree -- even if the Semitic source of both their names meant the same thing, which may be the case.  Why is that not evidence?  Because the occurrences are unrelated in time & place. 

Barak is a warrior according to the Old Testament. We can find many more matches in Old South Arabia, even north of Sanaa. 

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once more, you misstate the case, which always involves the full context.  It would be very difficult to claim that Nahom was a name actually used in Ancient South Arabia, if we had no instances of NHM in insciptions there. 

 We do, but we also have many instances on inscriptions that match other Old Testament names.   

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Glenn101]

29 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert told me, "NHM at Bar'an was a tribal/family name, as well as a vocational designation. Who said it was a toponym? Another strawman by you."

Robert was correct, but he was talking about the NHM on the altars in the temple at Bar'an. That is a tribal name. The Nihm tribe whose tribal area was in the Nehem region as shown on the map. The big thing about that is that it dates the Nihm tribe to at least the time of Lehi. That is what Robert has been trying to tell you over and over again.

35 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You are right. There is only one town in the USA called "Imalone". However, Imalone is a seven letter town name. NHM is only three letters and allows for 25 different combinations like Nahum, Naham, Nehem, and so forth.  There are no model maps of Lehi's trail before LDS scholars found the Nehem tribe.  If Book of Mormon gives us enough details why didn't LDS scholars predict it's location before finding Nehem?   

Going back to your analogy please give me "Imalone" with no vowels. I can probably find a place name that matches "m l n" near Imalone, Wisconsin.  The place name can be a town, tribal/family name, a vocational designation, county, city, or simply a territory.  By the way, Arabia is much bigger than the state of Wisconsin. 

You completely missed my point. It does not matter how many consonants it has. Even if there were twenty Imalone towns in the United States you could get to none other than Imalone, Wisconson by following those directions. Even just using the consonants mln, that would still be true. After either traveling that route or looking at a map these four possibilities come to mind. The person giving the directions (1) Traveled the route, (2) looked at a map, (3) heard someone else give those directions or (4) made up some general directions for an imaginary travel route in Wisconsin with Imalone as a turning point on the map being a coincidence since there was a ship once named Imalone and it also is a surname? Of those four scenarios which one is the least likely?

The same scenario plays out for Nahom/Nehem/NHM in the Book of Mormon. Following those directions one can only get to that one Nehem area in Southern Arabia. Even if you found another place or area with a NHM name, you could not get to it following the directions Nephi gave. Nahom had to be somewhere in Southern Arabia. After either traveling that route or looking at a map these four possibilities come to mind. The person giving the directions (1) Traveled the route, (2) looked at a map, (3) heard someone else give those directions or (4) made up some general directions for an imaginary travel route in Ancient Arabia with Nahom as a turning point being just coincidence although there have been no other places named Nahom found to date.  Now which of those scenarios is the least likely?

Now please stay on topic here and actually reply to my scenarios.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

It is a typo. The inscription  "brk" is an ancient toponym north of Sanaa. However, just because it is an ancient toponym doesn't mean it is related to the Old Testament name "barak". In the Old Testament Barak was a warrior, not a toponym. Hopefully you see my point. 

Barak is a warrior according to the Old Testament. We can find many more matches in Old South Arabia, even north of Sanaa. 

 We do, but we also have many instances on inscriptions that match other Old Testament names.

Your final comment here is one more example of a non sequitur.  It makes no difference whether there are many Old South Arabic words which have something in common with Hebrew names from the OT.  That does not make it less impressive that NHM occurs in place and time contemporary with Lehi, such that it supports a wordplay in the Book of Mormon which takes place at just the right time & place to fit the directions of travel of Clan Lehi.  You deliberately ignore the full context of that fact, making irrelevant and meaningless statements about how many OT names may find a relationship to Old South Arabic. Your lack of reason and logic in so saying (if taken seriously) would make a coherent discussion of any ancient Near Eastern history impossible.  Yours is a direct attack on Near Eastern scholarship in general.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Nahom had to be somewhere in Southern Arabia.

We agree.  For your information Yemen alone is 203,850 square miles, Southern Arabia covers much more. The state of Wisconsin is only 65,498 miles. 

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Even if you found another place or area with a NHM name, you could not get to it following the directions Nephi gave.

There is no evidence NHM was a toponym in the time of Lehi. 

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Robert was correct, but he was talking about the NHM on the altars in the temple at Bar'an. That is a tribal name. The Nihm tribe whose tribal area was in the Nehem region as shown on the map.

True, but is there any evidence that the Nehem tribal region existed during the time of Lehi? Robert tells me "NHM" was used, but it doesn't mean "NHM" was a toponym in the time of Lehi. 

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

You completely missed my point. It does not matter how many consonants it has. Even if there were twenty Imalone towns in the United States you could get to none other than Imalone, Wisconson by following those directions. Even just using the consonants mln, that would still be true. After either traveling that route or looking at a map these four possibilities come to mind. The person giving the directions (1) Traveled the route, (2) looked at a map, (3) heard someone else give those directions or (4) made up some general directions for an imaginary travel route in Wisconsin with Imalone as a turning point on the map being a coincidence since there was a ship once named Imalone and it also is a surname? Of those four scenarios which one is the least likely?

I understand your point, but the problem is that you are only covering a small region. The Arabian Peninsula is 1,200,000 square miles. If am in Minot, North Dakota trying to get to Imalone I am going to need many directions. I agree there is only one Imalone  in Wisconsin, but in the same "general area" there may be place names that can fit "mln". 

To answer your question number 4 is the least likely. 

Edited September 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 It makes no difference whether there are many Old South Arabic words which have something in common with Hebrew names from the OT.  That does not make it less impressive that NHM occurs in place and time contemporary with Lehi,

I found Old Testament names that match ancient toponyms north of Sanaa and date to the time of Lehi.  The toponyms are near the Nehem tribe, it is the same general region. 

Robert, I honestly don't know how to explain why it is not meaningless. I know there is a Mormon scholar that agrees with me, and I am going to invite him to this conversation. 

If he joins hopefully he can do a better job in explaining. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

it supports a wordplay in the Book of Mormon 

I don't see anything impressive with daughters crying for their father. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Yours is a direct attack on Near Eastern scholarship in general.

Someone who believes in the 1782 map theory can tell me I am attacking History for saying it is just a coincidence.

Do you believe like me that the 1782 map theory is just a coincidence? Didn't get your response to my comment so I will repostin case you didn't see it "Anti-Mormons argue Hyrum took home the 1782 book map. To refute that possibility Brown argues, "The first concerns the dates of the acquisition of these works by Dartmouth’s library, or by any other major library in the United States. In the case of Robert Heron’s two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s work that was published in 1792, the acquisition date at the Dartmouth library is 1937, more than 140 years after it appeared in print...this work was not available in its library when the Smith family lived in the town of Lebanon". However, "many volumes had been lost" before 1825 in Darthmouth.  Anti-Mormons argue the 1937 acquisition was another copy. Allegheny College did have a 1792 map in the year 1823, so anti-Mormons argue it is possible that Dartmouth also had a copy in 1811 before losing it.  Anti-Mormons argue that Smith believed Nehem had a treasure because of the "X" in the 1792 map." Please tell me why you are not making a similar mistake? 

Edited September 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

For me the fact that we can find many inscriptions rocks (including toponyms) that match Old Testament names is a good reason to suspect that NHM  is not necessarily Nahom.  Fun coincidence are very common in life. 

It is not "fun" coincidence though. The reason there may be a couple matches is because we are dealing with related Semitic languages here. I think any linguist understands the difference. In fact the more matches you find the LESS likely that a match is a coincidence, so your logic is kinda baffling.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

True, but is there any evidence that the Nehem tribal region existed during the time of Lehi? Robert tells me "NHM" was used, but it doesn't mean "NHM" was a toponym in the time of Lehi.

That is what the altars do for us. They place existence of the Nihm tribe to the time of Lehi. That is the point that Robert has been trying to make with you, over and over. It is not iron clad prove, but nonetheless makes it very probable that the Nihm tribe also had a tribal area named after them.

 

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand your point, but the problem is that you are only covering a small region. The Arabian Peninsula is 1,200,000 square miles. If am in Minot, North Dakota trying to get to Imalone I am going to need many directions. I agree there is only one Imalone  in Wisconsin, but in the same "general area" there may be place names that can fit "mln". 

I used that just for the sake of analogy. But the point remains, given the starting point of Cameron, Wisconsin (which would correspond to a known starting point of Jerusalem) and following the directions given one can only arrive at a town called Imalone in Wisconsin, no matter how many other places in the whole United States could be reduced to the consonants MLN. There might even be a million of them, but none of them would fit travel narrative except the one in Wisconsin.

Now with Nephi's journey, we have a known starting point in Jerusalem, and we are agreed that the directions that he gave would necessitate that the turning point that the party took at the place called Nahom would have to be in Southern Arabia. As I noted, with a reference, Hugh Nibley had predicted the turn to be on the nineteenth parallel in 1950. Later research had already modified that theory to a more southward point before Ross Christensen's remarks about the Nehhm he had found on a map. Another map had Nehem as the name. Using the directions several possible candidates have been found for Bountiful in the Dhofar region of present day Oman.

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

To answer your question number 4 is the least likely. 

We finally have found something that we can agree on. And so far NHM as a place name is really rare. We have only found one occurrence of it anywhere. So we just need to conclude which of the other three possibilities are the most likely. But in any of the more likely scenarios, the appearance  of the name Nehem/Nahom/NHM in Old South Saudia Arabia is not a coincidence. It is named after the Nihm tribe. Now, did Joseph Smith have access to a map with the name Nehem on it and change a couple of letters to make it Nahom? I would really suggest that you read "Lehi in the Desert." That will give you some information that could help you determine which scenario is the most likely.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I found Old Testament names that match ancient toponyms north of Sanaa and date to the time of Lehi.  The toponyms are near the Nehem tribe, it is the same general region.

Robert, I honestly don't know how to explain why it is not meaningless. I know there is a Mormon scholar that agrees with me, and I am going to invite him to this conversation. 

If he joins hopefully he can do a better job in explaining. 

And yet none of those similar biblical and Old South Arabic names is relevant to our discussion because they are from the wrong place, and are not mentioned in the BofM.  No biblical scholar would ever give credence to your argument, which is just plain silly.

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't see anything impressive with daughters crying for their father. 

Of course not, and neither do I, but that has nothing to do with the question we are addressing.  You again miss the point entirely because you look at it atomistically -- as though there was no Nahom, no Nehem, no Bountiful, and no directional associations.  In your narrow conception, there is no wordplay because you don't want wordplay.  Your apriori concepts determine everything before the fact.

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Someone who believes in the 1782 map theory can tell me I am attacking History for saying it is just a coincidence.

......................................... Please tell me why you are not making a similar mistake? 

In the absence of other evidence, anyone can reasonably claim that something is just a coincidence.  It is a mistake to take that position when there is adequate evidence in support of a claim.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It is not "fun" coincidence though. The reason there may be a couple matches is because we are dealing with related Semitic languages here. I think any linguist understands the difference. In fact the more matches you find the LESS likely that a match is a coincidence, so your logic is kinda baffling.

I understand. Is the South Arabian toponym"brk" named after "Barak" (a warrior according to the Old Testament)? If not, how can we be sure"NHM" is Nahom? Robert tells me that NHM in 600 BC was not a toponym.  

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That is what the altars do for us. They place existence of the Nihm tribe to the time of Lehi.

Robert tells me NHM in the altars is not a toponym, so it means there was no Nihm place name in the time of Lehi. If Nahom can be a family, tribe,  place, site, town, cemetery, property, kingdom, group, sect, or a vocational designation then the probability of coincidence increases.   

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 And so far NHM as a place name is really rare. 

I don't understand why it is relevant, even if it is true. For example say you role a dice 5,555 times and you get the same number five in all tries. What is the probability of getting the number "five" 5,555 times in a row? It is the same probability as getting any combination. There is nothing special about getting the number "five" 5,555 times in a row. See Gambler's Fallacy.

NHM was not a place name in Lehi's time according to Robert. 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not, and neither do I, but that has nothing to do with the question we are addressing.  You again miss the point entirely because you look at it atomistically -- as though there was no Nahom, no Nehem, no Bountiful, and no directional associations.  In your narrow conception, there is no wordplay because you don't want wordplay.  Your apriori concepts determine everything before the fact.

Robert, I can say the same thing: There is wordplay because you want wordplay. I honestly don't understand why daughters crying for their father has to be wordplay.  I agree it is possible, but for me possibilities are not evidence. If you want to talk about wordplay as a possibility I am with you. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And yet none of those similar biblical and Old South Arabic names is relevant to our discussion because they are from the wrong place, and are not mentioned in the BofM.  No biblical scholar would ever give credence to your argument, which is just plain silly.

You are missing the point Robert. "brk" and other inscriptions (including toponyms) are in the same exact region, and date to the time of Lehi.  It doesn't mean "brk"is named after barak (according to Old Testament barak was a warrior).  Yes, there is a LDS scholar that agrees with me. Hopefully he joins. You know him.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In the absence of other evidence, anyone can reasonably claim that something is just a coincidence.  It is a mistake to take that position when there is adequate evidence in support of a claim.

You have the NHM inscriptions near Ba'raan. They have 1782 map in Allegheny College. They argue it is possible the map was available at Dartmouth in 1811.  For them it is evidence. 

Edited September 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, I can say the same thing: There is wordplay because you want wordplay. I honestly don't understand why daughters crying for their father has to be wordplay.  I agree it is possible, but for me possibilities are not evidence. If you want to talk about wordplay as a possibility I am with you. 

So you are dismissing any non-Mormon claim of wordplay in the Bible?  The non-Mormon scholars who make those claims only do so, according to you, because they want wordplay?  No other reason?  Your strawman that someone is claiming that there is wordplay only because daughters are crying for their father is completely false.  Is that how you think scholarship works?   Why would you make that false claim?  Do you even understand what you are saying?

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You are missing the point Robert. "brk" and other inscriptions (including toponyms) are in the same exact region, and date to the time of Lehi.  It doesn't mean "brk"is named after barak (according to Old Testament barak was a warrior).  Yes, there is a LDS scholar that agrees with me. Hopefully he joins. You know him. 

Your OSA brk does not occur in the BofM, and the biblical instances (Barak, Barak-El) do not occur in South Arabia, and are not even from the time of Lehi. So how do you relate them?  You speak as though South Arabic brk has something to do with Pres Mubarak of Egypt.  After all, the words are related in meaning.

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You have the NHM inscriptions near Ba'raan. They have 1782 map in Allegheny College. They argue it is possible the map was available at Dartmouth in 1811.  For them it is evidence. 

Of course it is.  Indeed, for anti-Mormons anything specious and insubstantial is evidence, and they make a policy of not accepting the consequences of their flights of fancy -- which would require them to accept a Joseph Smith who had a PhD in ancient languages and literature from Harvard College.  Why?  Because there are hundreds of such powerful correlations as Nahom.  Joseph had to have been the best scholar in history to have come up with all of them.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your OSA brk does not occur in the BofM, and the biblical instances (Barak, Barak-El) do not occur in South Arabia, and are not even from the time of Lehi. So how do you relate them?  You speak as though South Arabic brk has something to do with Pres Mubarak of Egypt.  After all, the words are related in meaning.

Exactly, so the Biblical name Barak fitting in brk toponym is just a coincidence.  

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are dismissing any non-Mormon claim of wordplay in the Bible?  The non-Mormon scholars who make those claims only do so, according to you, because they want wordplay? 

It depends. Can you give me some Biblical examples. And can you please give me one example of ancient Hebrews doing wordplay for an Arabic name? 

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course it is.  Indeed, for anti-Mormons anything specious and insubstantial is evidence, and they make a policy of not accepting the consequences of their flights of fancy -- which would require them to accept a Joseph Smith who had a PhD in ancient languages and literature from Harvard College. 

In their defense there is no requirement for a PhD to look at a map.  

Edited September 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite