God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

Where is this brk place of which you speak. The example you gave was used in a prayer meaning to kneel or the like.

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

And Robert is correct. The NHM that appears on the altars is the name of a tribe. That has been explained to you several times. But the Nehem that is on the map(s) is a toponym. That has been explained to you several times. I do not understand why you keep repeating it. You also missed the point of my analogy. If I have been to a place named Nahom in South Arabia, it would hardly be a coincidence to find that name on a map of the area. I live near a town in North Carolina called Seven Springs. It is on a highway designated as NC55 about thirteen miles east of Mount Olive North Carolina. But it is not a coincidence that Seven Springs exists nor is it a coincidence that it appears on a map. Ishmael dies and was buried at a place called Nahom. The fact that NHM/Nehem is on a map is no coincidence because cartographers traveling in the area were told by the locals what the name of the area was/is and they marked it on the maps they were making of the areas. They also marked other names such as Sanaa and Marib. If Nephi had mentioned either of those places it would not have been a coincidence because they existed at the time that Lehi and his party traveled through the area. It is no coincidence that there is a place called Nehem/Nahom on a map because it existed when Lehi and his party went through the area.

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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.

You are using an inapt analogy. That Gambler's fallacy is based upon what is known as the law of very large numbers. We are not dealing with very large numbers here. Find me a map with a place called Nahom anywhere else in the area or anywhere else maybe in Egypt that dates to Lehi's time.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

Robert did not say that NHM was not a place name in Lehi's time. He said that the name on the altars was not a place name, but is a tribal name. I have told you that several times, yet you keep repeating it.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

Since biblical Brk and OSA brk are unrelated in time and place, there can be no wordplay or other meaningful connection.  I'm glad to see that you finally get that.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It depends. Can you give me some Biblical examples.

Plenty of examples can be found in S. B. Noegel, ed., Puns and Pundits: Wordplay in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (CDL, 2000).

Deuteronomy 12:5, lāśūm ʾet šemō šām “to put his name there.”  In light of this wordplay, can Book of Mormon Sam be from Arabic Śām, the Arabic form of biblical Hebrew Shem, the son of Noah?[1]

KJV Noah derived from Hebrew Noaḥ "Rest" (Genesis 5:29), Hebrew nḥm being used repeatedly in the word-play of the biblical Flood Story of Noah (Nḥ), from nwḥ “rest, settle-down, repose; regret.”  Thus, Genesis 5:29 has Noah bring “comfort, consolation” (nḥm), in 8:4 the ark comes to rest (tnḥ), and in 8:9 the dove (ywnh) cannot yet find a place to rest (mnwḥ), etc.^[2]

 

---

[1] Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 2^nd ed., CWHN V:42; Nibley, ABM, 1^st ed., 59-60 = ABM, 3^rd ed., 76.

^[2] I. Kikawada in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:1123-1124; Y. T. Radday, ”Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative,” in J. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity, 100, Genesis 6:6-7 wayyinnaḥem, niḥamti; 8:21 niḥoaḥ. 

 

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

And can you please give me one example of ancient Hebrews doing wordplay for an Arabic name? 

Can't think of one offhand.  However, the Arabs (Muslims) did conquer Palestine and renamed Hebrew Ophrah as Tayibeh "Good."  Why?  Because Ophrah sounded to them like the Arabic word for "demon" (Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 121, 440).

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

Of course not, but why did you leave out what I actually said about the hundreds of research items which would require a PhD?  Did you again miss the point entirely?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/30/2017 at 8:11 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Since biblical Brk and OSA brk are unrelated in time and place, there can be no wordplay or other meaningful connection.  I'm glad to see that you finally get that.

Yes, Biblical Brk and OSA brk are unrelated. Hopefully you see my point. 

On 9/30/2017 at 8:11 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Can't think of one offhand. 

If there is no evidence of ancient Hebrews doing wordplay for an Arabic name, then why should we assume Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom? Sure it is possible, but it is probable? 

On 9/30/2017 at 7:56 PM, Glenn101 said:

Where is this brk place of which you speak. The example you gave was used in a prayer meaning to kneel or the like.

And Robert is correct. The NHM that appears on the altars is the name of a tribe. That has been explained to you several times. But the Nehem that is on the map(s) is a toponym.

I understand, but there is no evidence that Nehem on the map existed on Lehi's time as Nehem, see what Robert told me. It is possible the NHM tribe in the inscriptions was another tribe.  

On 9/30/2017 at 7:56 PM, Glenn101 said:

 If I have been to a place named Nahom in South Arabia, it would hardly be a coincidence to find that name on a map of the area. I live near a town in North Carolina called Seven Springs. It is on a highway designated as NC55 about thirteen miles east of Mount Olive North Carolina. But it is not a coincidence that Seven Springs exists nor is it a coincidence that it appears on a map.

I understand. Imagine there was a club 75 miles away from Seven Springs called "Seven Springs club".  See the Pigeonhole Principle.   

On 9/30/2017 at 7:56 PM, Glenn101 said:

Find me a map with a place called Nahom anywhere else in the area or anywhere else maybe in Egypt that dates to Lehi's time.

 I can find an place that fits NHM dates to the time of Lehi.  For your challenge to be more fair you should ask me for a place, kingdom, tribe, sect, group, business, tradition called NHM in the time of Lehi.  I am not sure why you are still asking me for "a place". The Nehem tribe in the maps was not known as Nehem in the time of Lehi, it is possible the NHM tribe in the inscription was another tribe. 

So if the NHM tribe in the inscriptions near Ba'ran is another tribe then it means I already found it.

On 9/30/2017 at 7:56 PM, Glenn101 said:

You are using an inapt analogy. That Gambler's fallacy is based upon what is known as the law of very large numbers. We are not dealing with very large numbers here. Find me a map with a place called Nahom anywhere else in the area or anywhere else maybe in Egypt that dates to Lehi's time.

The truly large numbers law is something else. My point is that getting the number five for 5,555 times in a row would be something very rare, but not meaningful.  It would be a gambler's fallacy to assume "five" for 5,555 times in a row is something special or meaningful. 

You say NHM name is rare, why is being rare meaningful?   

Edited October 2, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/30/2017 at 7:56 PM, Glenn101 said:

Robert did not say that NHM was not a place name in Lehi's time. He said that the name on the altars was not a place name, but is a tribal name. I have told you that several times, yet you keep repeating it.

"There is no way to prove that the Nehem district (as shown on the maps) had that name attached to it in 587 BC when Clan Lehi likely passed through. We know that the name existed in the Kingdom of Saba at that time for certain, which only increases the likelihood that it was attached to the Nehem district then" - Robert 

"We don't know whether it was called NHM in 587 BC" - Robert 

In other words there is no evidence that the Nehem tribe in the maps was known as Nehem in the time of Lehi. It is possible NHM in the inscriptions was another tribe from somewhere else. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes, Biblical Brk and OSA brk are unrelated. Hopefully you see my point. 

If there is no evidence of ancient Hebrews doing wordplay for an Arabic name, then why should we assume Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom? Sure it is possible, but it is probable? 

The problem is that the Bible events take place in Syro-Palestine, not in Arabia.  The Book of Mormon takes a clan out of that biblical area and has them traveling through Arabia.  So why would we expect any sort of biblical wordplay on Arabic words or names in a regular biblical context?  You are comparing apples and oranges as though they are the same.  You make this mistake regularly.

Quote

I understand, but there is no evidence that Nehem on the map existed on Lehi's time as Nehem, see what Robert told me. It is possible the NHM tribe in the inscriptions was another tribe.  ...............................

 I can find an place that fits NHM dates to the time of Lehi.  For your challenge to be more fair you should ask me for a place, kingdom, tribe, sect, group, business, tradition called NHM in the time of Lehi.  I am not sure why you are still asking me for "a place". The Nehem tribe in the maps was not known as Nehem in the time of Lehi, it is possible the NHM tribe in the inscription was another tribe. 

So if the NHM tribe in the inscriptions near Ba'ran is another tribe then it means I already found it.

Correct.  We are only extrapolating from the long existence of a tribe in the area to the family/tribal name certainly existing in the time of Lehi.  As I have stated repeatedly (and which you don't seem to understand), this is not proof of the place Nahom being in actual existence in the time of Lehi.  However, it is an important item in a sequence of a number of such items which lend authenticity to the description of  travel.

Quote

....................................You say NHM name is rare, why is being rare meaningful?   

Because you seem to think that it occurs everywhere, and have cited many sources from other times and places, as though that were meaningful.  It is rare in the time and place in which Clan Lehi encounters it.  That makes it special.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I can find an place that fits NHM dates to the time of Lehi.  For your challenge to be more fair you should ask me for a place, kingdom, tribe, sect, group, business, tradition called NHM in the time of Lehi.  I am not sure why you are still asking me for "a place". The Nehem tribe in the maps was not known as Nehem in the time of Lehi, it is possible the NHM tribe in the inscription was another tribe. 

So if the NHM tribe in the inscriptions near Ba'ran is another tribe then it means I already found it.

You need to do a bit of research. The Nihm tribe in that area is the only tribe of the name. It is still in existence today and operates in the same area as part of the Bakil Confederation. It is illogical to propose another tribe unattested in history is the tribe meant by the inscription on those altars. What you are proposing is nothing but speculation with no supporting evidence. I am asking you for a place named NHM because that is what we are talking about. My challenge for you is one that fits the evidence that we have, a place called Nahom, which has been found on a map. It does not matter how many other inscriptions can be found of NHM, if they are not place names they are irrelevant to the discussion. There is no Nehem tribe listed on any map. It is an area listed on several maps made in the 1760's and later. 

If you were listening to a person talking about traveling through the United States and he said that he went through a town called Imalone without further explanation, you could do a search today and find that there is only one town or place named Imalone, and that is in Wisconsin, using the English language, you would pretty naturally expect that the person was talking about that town in Wisconsin. So, when Nephi says that Is Ishmael was buried at a place called Nahom and a corresponding place has been found at only one place on a map, normal people would rather naturally expect that was the place of which Nephi was speaking, especially since it is in the right place and thanks to the inscriptions on the altars we know that the name dates back at least to Lehi's era.

At this point most of the critics are mostly proposing that Joseph had access to a map showing the Nehem area and just changed a couple of letters. That is a possibility, although none of the critics have been able to provide any evidence that Joseph had access to any of those maps or books with such maps in them. Whether it is probable is a matter of opinion.

This is a point that I am not going to debate with you any longer. You have proffered no evidence to back your theories and you are welcome to them. I am always open to altering my understanding of an issue when evidence is proffered or a reasonable alternative explanation is presented. 

Glenn

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

"There is no way to prove that the Nehem district (as shown on the maps) had that name attached to it in 587 BC when Clan Lehi likely passed through. We know that the name existed in the Kingdom of Saba at that time for certain, which only increases the likelihood that it was attached to the Nehem district then" - Robert 

"We don't know whether it was called NHM in 587 BC" - Robert 

In other words there is no evidence that the Nehem tribe in the maps was known as Nehem in the time of Lehi. It is possible NHM in the inscriptions was another tribe from somewhere else. 

Robert is correct that there is no way to prove the Nehem District had the name attached in 587 BC. But it is the most plausible explanation based upon the current evidence available.

Yes, it is possible that the NHM inscriptions are/were referring to another tribe somewhere else, but based on the current evidence of a Nihm (the only known one) tribe that still exists in the area, it is much less likely. We have absolutely no evidence for it. That is sheer speculation.

We are dealing in possibilities and probabilities here, not on certitudes and I am looking at what is the more likely based upon the evidence.

Glenn

[Physics Guy]

46 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

[N]one of the critics have been able to provide any evidence that Joseph had access to any of those maps or books with such maps in them.

Proof, no; "any evidence", yes. Maps with "Nehem" on them were published in Smith's time, and at least one book with a detailed map of Arabia was publically accessible not far from Smith, within just a few years of his work on the Book of Mormon.

So far nobody can confirm that Smith saw a map showing "Nehem" before the Book of Mormon appeared, but the fall of shot comes a lot closer to Smith on this point than one might ever imagine, if one has always pictured him as living in a primitive frontier without access to books. The whole idea that he might ever have seen such a thing as a map with Arabian place names sounded ridiculous to me at first, but when I dug into it I discovered that it was only a matter of whether he happened to find one that included Nehem. There isn't enough evidence to show he did, but there is enough evidence to make the hypothesis far from ridiculous.

(My information on this point is all expressed well in Jeff Lindsay's Interpreter article. I interpret the data differently but I accept his statements of fact, for one of which he acknowledges me in his endnotes. Lots of professional academics are less punctilious about things like that.)

Edited October 2, 2017 by Physics Guy

[SamuelTheLamanite]

 

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

At this point most of the critics are mostly proposing that Joseph had access to a map showing the Nehem area and just changed a couple of letters. That is a possibility, although none of the critics have been able to provide any evidence that Joseph had access to any of those maps or books with such maps in them. Whether it is probable is a matter of opinion.

The anti-Mormons have a lot of crazy theories, but for them it is possible because the map was in the USA before the publication of the Book of Mormon. In 1811 Hyrum Smith as a student had access to the Dartmouth library, and according to Dartmouth "many volumes had been lost" before 1825.  For me possibilities are not evidence.  

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 I am asking you for a place named NHM because that is what we are talking about.

I am not sure why you are asking me for another NHM place because there was no NHM place in Lehi's time. Here is the answer to your question. In the comment section John Hamer (a member of the community of Christ) wrote:  

"It should come as no shock to us that Nahum, a Hebrew prophet in the Bible, has a Semitic name. It should therefore also come as no shock that there are places in Semitic-speaking countries that share that name, or at least its consonants (NHM). When I first wrote about NHM on a bboard, I did a quick test. I said to myself “they speak Arabic in Iraq, let’s see if there’s a NHM in Iraq.” A quick Google search picks up a place called Nahum in Maysan province, immediately south of Al Amarah. In other words, if the Book of Mormon had said the Lehi and his party traveled past Babylon, there was another potential Nahom “bulls-eye” waiting in Mesopotamia! Another Google search shows that historically there was a town called “Nahem” in Lebanon, half-way between Tyre and Acre. If Joseph Smith had sent Lehi to America via Phoenicia that would have been another bulls-eye! Again, NHM is not a bulls-eyes; it’s not even noteworthy. Given one has the entire volume of a large, Semitic country in which to find a common Semitic root (again, note that the Nihm in Arabia does not precisely match the Book of Mormon’s “Nahom”), we would be surprised not to find a place-name that is somehow similar to NHM" 

I disagree with John because I believe Book of Mormon is true, but I like his points because we cannot be sure NHM is Book of Mormon's Nahom.  I don't know if Nahem dates to the time of Lehi, but we don't have to prove it right? Proof is not necessary right? 

9 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Robert is correct that there is no way to prove the Nehem District had the name attached in 587 BC.

Yes, we would simply need to find inscriptions telling us that NHM was a toponym in the time of Lehi. 

9 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

(My information on this point is all expressed well in Jeff Lindsay's Interpreter article. I interpret the data differently but I accept his statements of fact, for one of which he acknowledges me in his endnotes. Lots of professional academics are less punctilious about things like that.)

Interesting 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  We are only extrapolating from the long existence of a tribe in the area to the family/tribal name certainly existing in the time of Lehi.  As I have stated repeatedly (and which you don't seem to understand), this is not proof of the place Nahom being in actual existence in the time of Lehi.  However, it is an important item in a sequence of a number of such items which lend authenticity to the description of  travel.

Can you please tell me what do you mean by proof? 

Edited October 2, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

31 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

......................  For me possibilities are not evidence.  ...................................

I still don't understand what that phrase means.  Are you discussing mathematical probability not being evidence?

Quote

Here is the answer to your question. In the comment section John Hamer (a member of the community of Christ) wrote, 

"It should come as no shock to us that Nahum, a Hebrew prophet in the Bible, has a Semitic name. It should therefore also come as no shock that there are places in Semitic-speaking countries that share that name, or at least its consonants (NHM). When I first wrote about NHM on a bboard, I did a quick test. I said to myself “they speak Arabic in Iraq, let’s see if there’s a NHM in Iraq.” A quick Google search picks up a place called Nahum in Maysan province, immediately south of Al Amarah. In other words, if the Book of Mormon had said the Lehi and his party traveled past Babylon, there was another potential Nahom “bulls-eye” waiting in Mesopotamia! Another Google search shows that historically there was a town called “Nahem” in Lebanon, half-way between Tyre and Acre. If Joseph Smith had sent Lehi to America via Phoenicia that would have been another bulls-eye! Again, NHM is not a bulls-eyes; it’s not even noteworthy. Given one has the entire volume of a large, Semitic country in which to find a common Semitic root (again, note that the Nihm in Arabia does not precisely match the Book of Mormon’s “Nahom”), we would be surprised not to find a place-name that is somehow similar to NHM" 

John Hamer misses the point which I have made time and again:  Only a name attached to a particular area and time is relevant.  Without those two conditions, such names have no relevance.  Moreover, one must also look at the overall context (wordplay, directions of travel, other points of encampment, etc.).

Quote

..................................... we cannot be sure NHM is Book of Mormon's Nahom.  I don't know if Nahem dates to the time of Lehi, but we don't have to prove it right? Proof is not necessary right? ...................................

Can you please tell me what do you mean by proof? 

Proof is not necessary, and is relatively rare in scholarship.  However, proof can occur:  Here is an example of proof relating to a Book of Mormon event, based on Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Five in cuneiform on a clay tablet:

Quote

British Museum Tablet 21946 (Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 563-564; Wiseman, DOTT, 1956:73; Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, TCS 5:102), translation of verso lines 11-13:

    "Year 7 [of Nebuchadrezzar II].  In the month of Kislimu [18 Dec 598 - 15 Jan 597], the King of Akkad [Babylonia] mobilized his troops and marched to Khatti-land [the west].  He encamped against the city of Judah [Jerusalem], and on the 2nd of Addaru [15/16 Mar 597], he captured the city [and] he seized [its] King.  A King of his choice he appointed there; he to[ok] its heavy tribute and carried it off to Babylon."

Quote

   Jack Finegan, the eminent scholar who wrote the book on the subject of biblical chronology, says that 2 Addaru in King Nebuchadrezzer's 7th year = 16 March 597 B.C. "is the most exact information to come from cuneiform records for an event recorded in the Bible, and gives us a precise day for the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of Jehoiachin."
    Shortly thereafter, most likely on 10 Nisannu (= 22 April 597 B.C.), Zedekiah, the new King of Judah, took office and began the first year of his reign -- giving us a firm terminus post quem for Lehi's call as a prophet.
    These are only a couple of elements in a very reliable and complex chronological matrix based on evidence from traditional as well as recently excavated sources.  The scope of the implications flowing from correlation of such evidence is astonishing.  The scholarly consensus which gives credibility to that matrix is on solid ground.  How do we know this?
    For nearly two millennia, scholars have known that Claudius Ptolemy, the great polymath of 2nd century A.D. Alexandria, claimed that nearly complete lists of eclipses existed from at least the time of King Nabonassar of Babylonia (747 B.C.).  Ancient lists of astronomical observations no doubt existed in the great library of Alexandria.  Ptolemy did not provide us with a systematic list of the early eclipses, but he did provide us with a complete King List, his "Royal Canon," and he utilized around eighty ancient eclipses and other astronomical observations in his Syntaxis Mathematica, III - VI (called by the Arabs Almagest, "The-Greatest") -- also containing a star catalogue and a convincing theoretical basis for geocentric astrophysics, which dominated Europe and the Near East for nearly a millennium-and-a-half thereafter (until proven wrong by the likes of Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo).  Having been so wrong about geocentrism, we might, thus, have come to doubt all else he had to say!
    Yet, beginning with the 19th century decipherment and publication of cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia, scholars were provided with a cornucopia of information, including eponym calendars and a wide range of astronomical texts and diaries, including lists of eclipses and Venus texts, and king lists, all of which (along with modern astronomical computations) proved Ptolemy to have been utterly reliable in his king list, eclipses, and other astronomical lists and observations.  The cuneiform texts underlying such correlations are still being discovered, translated, and studied.
    Of equal import are the cuneiform texts known as the "Babylonian Chronicles": Texts which cover almost two millennia of time, from the reign of Sargon I of Akkad to the reign of the Achaemenid Persians kings.  There is some overlap with the Assyrian Chronicles, Eponym Lists, and Ptolemy's Royal Canon, and this helps cover gaps in the series.  There are seven chronicles (most connected by "catch-lines") in the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Series, from 747 to 539 B.C., at which point the Late Babylonian Chronicle Series begins covering the Persian period; the Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian Chronicles run from the 8th to 3rd centuries B.C.  Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Five (quoted above) was the focus of Jack Finegan's interest in the establishment of precise dates for the capitulation of Jerusalem in 597 B.C.
    By comparing biblical data with these Babylonian Chronicles, scholars like Finegan have been able to apply absolute dates to a number of biblical events, and by extrapolation from those absolute dates have likewise managed to provide a real time historical matrix for the plethora of relative dates surrounding the absolute dates.  This is what permits us to conclude not only that Zedekiah's first year on the throne of Judah began on or shortly after 2 Adar 597 B.C., but also that Lehi was called as a prophet in that very same year (1 Nephi 1:4-5).

That is my summary of the facts, written many years ago.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

John Hamer misses the point which I have made time and again:  Only a name attached to a particular area and time is relevant.  Without those two conditions, such names have no relevance.  Moreover, one must also look at the overall context (wordplay, directions of travel, other points of encampment, etc.).

I don't think "directions travel' is relevant because we find Biblical matches for toponyms near the Nehem tribe that date to the time of Lehi.  As for wordplay there is no evidence that ancient Hebrews did it with Arabic names, tribes, or toponyms.   

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Proof is not necessary, and is relatively rare in scholarship. 

Anti-mormons argue they don't have to prove that Smith saw a 1782 map.  For me convincing evidence is necessary.   

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is my summary of the facts, written many years ago.

I am not sure how that demonstrates that ancient Hebrews did wordplay for Arabic names.  I do agree it is possible, but we really don't know if Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom.  There is nothing out of the ordinary for Nephi to mention that Ismael's family was crying for him.  

Edited October 2, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

There isn't enough evidence to show he did, but there is enough evidence to make the hypothesis far from ridiculous.

His brother had access to the  Dartmouth library in 1811. Dartmouth website says "many volumes had been lost" before 1825. 

Thanks for your comments. Do you see possibilities as evidence?  

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am not sure why you are asking me for another NHM place because there was no NHM place in Lehi's time. Here is the answer to your question. In the comment section John Hamer (a member of the community of Christ) wrote:  

As Robert Smith noted John Hamer did not research the NHM name places to see if they fit the time and place. Without context they are irrelevant. As for the existence of a place named NHM you are (1) disagreeing with the Book of Mormon in which you say you believe, and (2) stating as fact something which has not been proven (probably cannot be i.e. that there was no place named NHM in the time of Lehi). The available evidence, i.e. the Nehem region on several maps, and the Nihm inscriptions on the altars at Ba'ran are not proof but good evidence that the Nihm tribe existed at the time of Lehi. And if you will do the research you will find that the Nimh tribe has a long history that long predates Lehi and was in the same region and still is. Now even if the places that John listed did exist in the time of Lehi, you still could not get to any of them following the directions that Nephi gave with the starting point he gave. Please take Jerusalem as a starting point and write down the general directions that you would have to take and the compare them to the directions Nephi gave in the Book of Mormon. If you cannot do that, the case is closed.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

11 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Proof, no; "any evidence", yes. Maps with "Nehem" on them were published in Smith's time, and at least one book with a detailed map of Arabia was publically accessible not far from Smith, within just a few years of his work on the Book of Mormon.

I have known about the maps for some time, years. I had not heard of the book. Could you fill me in?

Thanks, Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't think "directions travel' is relevant because we find Biblical matches for toponyms near the Nehem tribe that date to the time of Lehi.  As for wordplay there is no evidence that ancient Hebrews did it with Arabic names, tribes, or toponyms. 

Once again you are making your own ignorance the measure of reality -- making up your own anti-intellectual rules.

No non-Mormon scholar would ever claim that wordplay would not happen for Hebrews traveling in Arabia.  Wordplay does not depend on where someone is, but only on the sounds and meanings which seem similar.  In any case, bilingual speakers (Hebrew & Arabic, for example) do in fact create puns (wordplay).  Roni Henkin, “The Cognate Curse in Negev Arabic: From Playful Punning to Coexistence Conflicts.” Israel Studies in Language and Society 2/2 (2009): 169-206.

Quote

Anti-mormons argue they don't have to prove that Smith saw a 1782 map.  For me convincing evidence is necessary.   

I am not sure how that demonstrates that ancient Hebrews did wordplay for Arabic names.

I was merely demonstrating what constitutes "proof," in direct response to your questions: "Proof is not necessary right? ...................................Can you please tell me what do you mean by proof?"  You need to read your own questions, Sam.  You are not really paying attention.

Quote

 I do agree it is possible, but we really don't know if Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom.  There is nothing out of the ordinary for Nephi to mention that Ismael's family was crying for him.  

Because you don't know anything about wordplay, and automatically discount anything you have no knowledge of, this will always be a problem for you,.  Non-Mormon scholars would be astonished at your ignorance.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The available evidence, i.e. the Nehem region on several maps, and the Nihm inscriptions on the altars at Ba'ran are not proof but good evidence that the Nihm tribe existed at the time of Lehi.

Doing research I found that Nhmyn can mean stonemason. The inscriptions near Ba'ran says "B-> t t r / b n/ ∞ w d m / b n / N w > m / N h m y n" which means "Bi>athar son of Sawdum, son of Naw>um, the Nihmite" or I would say "son of Naw>um, the stonemason". See http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=30&prjId=1&corId=0&colId=0&navId=651419322&r

ecId=1132&mark=01132%2C002%2C001

So Nhmyn near Ba'ran may not be a tribe after all. No wonder Robert said, ""NHM at Bar'an was a tribal/family name, as well as a vocational designation."  However, even if Nhmyn was a tribe it doesn't mean it is the same nihm tribe because the names don't match. It is my understanding the Nhmyn and Nihm are in two different languages.  The nihm tribe of Sanaa comes from bakil. According to book "Among the Bakil tribes are the Dhu Muhammad, Dhu Husayn, Arhab, Sufyan, Nihm" 

According to the Wiki (google translated from Arabic) "Bakil is an ancient Yemenite tribe from the Hamadan tribe and was one of the ruling Sabean families from the middle of the first century BC until about 100 AD. is one of the two main branches of the Hamadan tribes and their leader today, Sheikh Sinan Abu ' "From Bakil, who in turn control large sectors of the Union. Embraced the camel of Islam in the seventh century AD The tribe is divided into four main sections are welcome and terrifying and Nhm"    

I will continue to do research so see if the wiki is accurate because I usually don't trust the wiki.  

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

And if you will do the research you will find that the Nimh tribe has a long history that long predates Lehi and was in the same region and still is.

According to what I am reading the tribes were moving a lot, there is no evidence of Nimh territory in Lehi's time. 

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 Now even if the places that John listed did exist in the time of Lehi, you still could not get to any of them following the directions that Nephi gave with the starting point he gave.Please take Jerusalem as a starting point and write down the general directions that you would have to take and the compare them to the directions Nephi gave in the Book of Mormon. If you cannot do that, the case is closed.

I will look for the origin of those places. For now let me just reiterate that there are tononyms near Nimh that match Biblical names, hopefully you see the point of why the directions are not relevant.  

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No non-Mormon scholar would ever claim that wordplay would not happen for Hebrews traveling in Arabia. 

I agree it is possible, but do we have some specific examples? 

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Because you don't know anything about wordplay, and automatically discount anything you have no knowledge of,

Wordplay for Nahom is possible, but no one knows.   

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Physics Guy]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I have known about the maps for some time, years. I had not heard of the book. Could you fill me in?

The quickest source is Lindsay's article in Interpreter, which is about the Rochester arcade as a source for the "great and spacious building". On page 172 there is a discussion of the library that was housed in the arcade in Smith's time, and it mentions the book in question. The footnotes include links to online versions of the maps and books in question. A point that came up in Jeff's blog comments was that this "Athenaeum" library charged an annual fee to local members, but entry was free of charge to out-of-town visitors, so somebody like Smith could indeed have wandered in and looked at the map. I found that out by reading online scans of the Athenaeum's old bylaws.

Jeff is glad to confirm, as I agree, that the Rochester Athenaeum didn't acquire its copy of this book until some years after 1830. (I forget when it was acquired, but my memory is that it wasn't so long after.) As I said, the map in this book does not show Nehem, anyway. For me, though, the map chasing actually raised my estimation of the likelihood that Smith cribbed Nahom from a map. I had been considering Nahom and NHM a pure coincidence, and I had never imagined that upstate New York in the 1830s would have been a hotbed of interest in Arabian geography. I learned, however, that there was enough hunger for world geography that a public library in Rochester was stocking 10-volume series with pull-out maps. Suddenly the probability that Smith could have seen some such map, or at least heard people talking about it, jumped up a lot.

I'm not convinced he actually did. But the availability of maps sets an upper limit on how far this NHM thing can go as evidence for Smith's prophethood. Genuine prophets are so rare (if they exist at all) that cribbing Nahom from a map is now always going to be far more plausible than prophethood, and anything that rules out NHM as a coincidence is going to support the map-cribbing theory long before it establishes the prophet theory.

[Physics Guy]

11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you see possibilities as evidence?  

Potentially. I try to look at evidence in a Bayesian way. I say that with trepidation, because even though Bayes's theorem is a trivial piece of primary school arithmetic, there seem to be some self-professed Bayesian experts who can't follow that much arithmetic, and so I'm no longer sure what people will think I mean when I say "Bayesian".

First of all, Bayesian inference is about probabilities, not possibilities. To say that A is evidence for (or against) B is to say that, after learning A, your estimate of the probability of B rises (or falls). To say that evidence is strong is to say that it makes probability change by a lot; weak evidence has less effect. Even after rising a bit, the probability of B may still be very low; even after falling a bit, it may stil be high. So there is not necessarily anything illogical about holding a conclusion against adverse evidence. Logic only insists that you not hold the conclusion so firmly after hearing the adverse evidence. How much doubt you should have depends on how strong the evidence is, and how great your initial confidence was in the conclusion.

The basic point of Bayesian inference is that a hypothesis is more probable, if it makes the facts out to be more probable. If a coin toss shows heads ten times in a row, then the hypothesis that the coin is fair makes the probability of this fact very low, while the hypothesis that it's a two-headed coin makes the probability of the fact 100%. So seeing the run of ten heads is strong evidence for the two-headed theory, and against the fair-coin theory.

Bayes's theorem is far from being an algorithm that decides everything rationally, however. When you do the arithmetic, you find that the probability factors in response to observed facts only ever multiply the initial probabilities. In the case of coins, most coins are fair, and two-headed ones are rare. So there's a high prior probability bias in favor of fair coins, and against double-headed ones. Observing ten heads in a row is probably more than enough to outweigh that initial bias, but five heads in a row is probably not. That's a 1-in-32 chance for a fair coin, but my prior estimate of how likely any given coin is to be double-headed is less than 1-in-32. So after seeing five heads in a row, I'm going to wonder about that coin, but I'll still think it's probably fair.

Coin examples make Bayesian inference seem like mere common sense. And really, it is. It's a little harder to apply in less clear-cut scenarios, though. The main point is that if a theory wants to get a big boost from evidence, then it has to stick its neck out and say, "Darn it, you really have to see X. If you don't see X, I'm toast." If the theory says that, and we do see X, then X is good evidence for that theory. If another theory merely says, "Sure, X is possible. I can account for X," then seeing X is not nearly such good evidence for that theory.

That's the principle whose expression in arithmetic is known as Bayes's theorem. In practice it's vulnerable to abuse by the so-called Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, in which someone tunes their theory with benefit of hindsight to claim that it had to predict exactly what's seen.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Physics Guy

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/19/2017 at 4:46 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

Now if you actually do find a relatively large number of legitimate place names from close to Lehi's day in the general area surrounding the Nihm tribal grounds which have legitimate BofM or Bible correspondences, then that would be significant to your argument. 

Ryan, 

I just wanted to let you know that I am finding some under your conditions. What is relatively large number for you? 

Edited October 3, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I had been considering Nahom and NHM a pure coincidence, and I had never imagined that upstate New York in the 1830s would have been a hotbed of interest in Arabian geography.

The ancient toponym Kdr is located in Ṣirwāḥ and dates to the time of Lehi. Sirwah is south east of Jerusalem and west of Dhofar region, it is about 100 miles east of the Nehem tribe which means it is closer to the Dhofar region. Kdr happens to match the Biblical name Kedar, the second son of Ishmael ( Genesis 25:13 ). Kdr is just one of many examples, so 

http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=30&prjId=1&corId=0&colId=0&navId=771801613&recId=7356&mark=07356%2C002%2C022

I am doing exactly what Ryan told me to do, "Now if you actually do find a relatively large number of legitimate place names from close to Lehi's day in the general area surrounding the Nihm tribal grounds which have legitimate BofM or Bible correspondences, then that would be significant to your argument."

Physics Guy, please tell me your opinion about my project please. 

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

. If you cannot do that, the case is closed.

I am not sure, but I am doing something much more significant according to Nahom researcher Ryan Dahle. 

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Potentially. I try to look at evidence in a Bayesian way. I say that with trepidation, because even though Bayes's theorem is a trivial piece of primary school arithmetic, there seem to be some self-professed Bayesian experts who can't follow that much arithmetic, and so I'm no longer sure what people will think I mean when I say "Bayesian".

First of all, Bayesian inference is about probabilities, not possibilities.

Very interesting .

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you are making your own ignorance the measure of reality -- making up your own anti-intellectual rules.

I am doing exactly Ryan told me to do, all he needs to tell me now is how many does he want. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

49 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The ancient toponym Kdr is located in Ṣirwāḥ and dates to the time of Lehi. Sirwah is south east of Jerusalem and west of Dhofar region, it is about 100 miles east of the Nehem tribe which means it is closer to the Dhofar region. Kdr happens to match the Biblical name Kedar, the second son of Ishmael ( Genesis 25:13 ). Kdr is just one of many examples, so 

http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=30&prjId=1&corId=0&colId=0&navId=771801613&recId=7356&mark=07356%2C002%2C022

I am doing exactly what Ryan told me to do, "Now if you actually do find a relatively large number of legitimate place names from close to Lehi's day in the general area surrounding the Nihm tribal grounds which have legitimate BofM or Bible correspondences, then that would be significant to your argument."

The Bible does list a lot of Arabic place-names and eponyms (especially in Genesis), mostly as descended from Ishmael and Esau (Ammon and Moab are not Arabic, but rather Canaanite, and spoke the same language as the Israelites), but biblical events don't take place in those locations.  This map shows some of that:

However, that does not mean that such names were found in the Book of Mormon, nor in the time or place of Clan Lehi.  In fact, unless such an Arabic name actually occurred in proximity to Clan Lehi in both time & place, it is irrelevant.  The only reason why Nahom is so important is because it is used in wordplay, can be found as NHM in nearby Arabic inscriptions, and sits near the turning point in the two major directions traveled by Clan Lehi.  Without those elements, Nahom would merely be an instance ofr possible wordplay.  If the word did not lend itself to wordplay, then it would be as obscure as another Lehite toponym, Shazer.

In the case of Irreantum "Many-Waters" (1 Nephi 17:5), we also have a possible source in local languages:   ráwrem "sea" in Meḥri, rémnem in Jibbali, and renhĕm in Socotri.[1]

---

[1] P. Bennett, Comparative Semitic Linguistics, 138:68.

49 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

......................................................I am not sure, but I am doing something much more significant according to Nahom researcher Ryan Dahle. 

.................................I am doing exactly Ryan told me to do, all he needs to tell me now is how many does he want. 

Additive logic isn't worth much unless it is part of a larger, critical analysis and schema.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Potentially. I try to look at evidence in a Bayesian way. I say that with trepidation, because even though Bayes's theorem is a trivial piece of primary school arithmetic, there seem to be some self-professed Bayesian experts who can't follow that much arithmetic, and so I'm no longer sure what people will think I mean when I say "Bayesian".

First of all, Bayesian inference is about probabilities, not possibilities. ...............

The basic point of Bayesian inference is that a hypothesis is more probable, if it makes the facts out to be more probable. .................................

Bayes's theorem is far from being an algorithm that decides everything rationally, however. When you do the arithmetic, you find that the probability factors in response to observed facts only ever multiply the initial probabilities. ..................................................

....................... Bayesian inference seem like mere common sense. And really, it is. It's a little harder to apply in less clear-cut scenarios, though. The main point is that if a theory wants to get a big boost from evidence, then it has to stick its neck out and say, "Darn it, you really have to see X. If you don't see X, I'm toast." If the theory says that, and we do see X, then X is good evidence for that theory. If another theory merely says, "Sure, X is possible. I can account for X," then seeing X is not nearly such good evidence for that theory.

That's the principle whose expression in arithmetic is known as Bayes's theorem. In practice it's vulnerable to abuse by the so-called Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, in which someone tunes their theory with benefit of hindsight to claim that it had to predict exactly what's seen.

The nice thing about Bayesian inference is that it depends upon the "preponderance of evidence," and some civil juries have been urged to use it.  "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much harder standard, which is why it is used for criminal proceedings.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Doing research I found that Nhmyn can mean stonemason. The inscriptions near Ba'ran says "B-> t t r / b n/ ∞ w d m / b n / N w > m / N h m y n" which means "Bi>athar son of Sawdum, son of Naw>um, the Nihmite" or I would say "son of Naw>um, the stonemason". See http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=30&prjId=1&corId=0&colId=0&navId=651419322&r

ecId=1132&mark=01132%2C002%2C001

So Nhmyn near Ba'ran may not be a tribe after all. No wonder Robert said, ""NHM at Bar'an was a tribal/family name, as well as a vocational designation."  However, even if Nhmyn was a tribe it doesn't mean it is the same nihm tribe because the names don't match. It is my understanding the Nhmyn and Nihm are in two different languages.  The nihm tribe of Sanaa comes from bakil. According to book "Among the Bakil tribes are the Dhu Muhammad, Dhu Husayn, Arhab, Sufyan, Nihm" 

According to the Wiki (google translated from Arabic) "Bakil is an ancient Yemenite tribe from the Hamadan tribe and was one of the ruling Sabean families from the middle of the first century BC until about 100 AD. is one of the two main branches of the Hamadan tribes and their leader today, Sheikh Sinan Abu ' "From Bakil, who in turn control large sectors of the Union. Embraced the camel of Islam in the seventh century AD The tribe is divided into four main sections are welcome and terrifying and Nhm"    ................................................

These are all Arabic.  Different tribes and dialects, yes, but still Arabic.  You really haven't the foggiest idea what this discussion is about, do you?

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

According to what I am reading the tribes were moving a lot, there is no evidence of Nimh territory in Lehi's time. 

Nobody said there was -- another strawman from you.  Why do you ignore the actual evidence and make non sequiturs?

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I will look for the origin of those places. For now let me just reiterate that there are tononyms near Nimh that match Biblical names, hopefully you see the point of why the directions are not relevant.  

Again you reject standard scholarship in analyzing claims.  You insist on reading out of context, ignoring any ancillary factors, and accept non-evidence (toponyms not found in the BofM) as mitigating.

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I agree it is possible, but do we have some specific examples? 

Wordplay for Nahom is possible, but no one knows.   

Again, non-Mormon biblical scholars as well as Arabists would wonder why you would make such a series of statements.  Puns are common in nearly all languages on this planet.  Scholars see no need to prove any given wordplay, since each must be judged on its own merits.  Typically, if a pun could be used as evidence of an authentic Book of Mormon, an anti-Mormon will automatically discount it.  Scholarly fairness is of no interest to them.  For them it is all about war.

Puns in the Book of Mormon are quite common, and many of them have been fully published and discussed.  I cited a book for you on biblical Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern puns, but I can see that you didn't bother to read it.  You have made your ignorance of such things the measure of all reality.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/30/2017 at 5:00 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

................................................... And can you please give me one example of ancient Hebrews doing wordplay for an Arabic name? ............................................

Here is an example of Arabic wordplay in the Qur'an based on knowledge of biblical Hebrew (Deut 5:27): Taha, “Interlinguistic Pun in the Qur’an,” Pondering Islam, June 30, 2016, online at https://ponderingislam.com/2016/06/30/interlinguistic-pun-in-the-quran/ .   

Meantime, I have just provided a full summary of punning (wordplay) on names in the Book of Mormon:  “Puns, Paronomasia, and Wordplay in the Book of Mormon,” Oct 3, 2017, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/360593004/PUNS-PARONOMASIA-AND-WORD-PLAY-IN-THE-BOOK-OF-MORMON .

[Glenn101]

12 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I'm not convinced he actually did. But the availability of maps sets an upper limit on how far this NHM thing can go as evidence for Smith's prophethood. Genuine prophets are so rare (if they exist at all) that cribbing Nahom from a map is now always going to be far more plausible than prophethood, and anything that rules out NHM as a coincidence is going to support the map-cribbing theory long before it establishes the prophet theory.

For people that do not believe in prophets. I do agree that there is a possibility that Joseph saw a map with Nehem on it prior to translating the Book of Mormon. That is one of the possibilities I included in my discussion with SamTheL. And I understand the logic of critics that do not believe in the Christian God the Father and Jesus Christ. Like Dale Morgan, since they reject the being of God, they will (have) to look for any other explanation than the one given by the LDS Church. Those that do believe in the Christian God are on a less logical footing to an extent because they cannot logically rule out participation by God in the process. At this point though neither critical camp has provided anything but a bare bones attempt to provide a logical and coherent alternative theory. I would really like to see those who think it is a fraud to present something more in the way of evidence than just belief. 

Glenn