God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[hope_for_things]

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

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

[USU78]

5 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I think you must be using Google translate or some other online tool to help you.  That's fine, but you are misunderstanding a great deal in the process.

Your first paragraph actually confirms what has already been pointed out:  the Sabaeans were inscribing their language in stone prior to,  contemporaneously with, and subsequent to the time that Lehi and his family traveled through Arabia.

This fact is confirmed in the journal article which notes that more than 70 inscriptions were found at Bar'an.  Most of these inscriptions belong to the old Sabaean period, and others are linked to the middle Sabaean period.  The wiki link I gave you indicates this:  "Old Sabaean: mostly boustrophedon inscriptions from the 9th until the 8th century BC and including further texts in the next two centuries from Ma'rib and the Highlands."  So we have inscriptions in old Sabaean stretching from the 9th century BC to the 6th century BC.

Nebes provides information for each of the inscriptions in the  "Anhang - Katalog" section of the journal article.  Each of the inscriptions has been assigned a date (Datierung) code.  ALL of the "NHM" inscriptions (there 4 of them) are dated to the Old Sabaean period; however, Nebes also uses a reference within these inscriptions to link to an historical figure (Karib'il Watar) in order to set the so-called "absolute" date.  I believe "absolute" in this case means these particular inscriptions (which Nebes assigns a sub code "B") could not pre-date 685 BC.  Three of the four "NHM" inscriptions are dated "B".  The Lehites did not bury Ishmael in Nahom until about 592 BC.  

Finally, Nebes mentions that carbon-dating of some parts of the excavation had yielded an 8th century BC result.

Der Okrahomer hat das recht gut gemacht.*

*Engl. trans:  Okrahomer eats fancy turtles.

[RevTestament]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

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

Don't wait for the supernatural too long - you might get left behind.

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

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

I don't think it'd change a damn thing for me.  I'm maybe less convinced that it was a 19th century production, even though that's largely my position at this point.  But I'm squirrely enough to admit that the book itself might be largely 19th century, but there still could have been a Lehi and Nephi walking around somewhere in this western hemisphere 2600 years ago.  I just don't know that our English version, as early as we get it, is all that close of a rendition of what these two thought or believed; did or didn't do. 

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

9th century? Not according to scholar "the Sabaean kingdom began to flourish only from the eighth century BCE onward" and another scholar "there is hardly any evidence for a Sabaean kingdom there before the nigth or even eighth century BC"

The region to the north is known to have had gold mines. The Saba'a kingdom is the best fit for the Biblical Sheba(rendered through Greek) at the time of Solomon. Now, I accept that many archaeologists doubt the kingdom of Solomon, but archaeology is presently in all likelihood excavating his palace, the palace of David, and is finding much corroborating evidence. Now, granted the kingdom of Saba'a was apparently a newer kingdom so was probably just getting going as you say, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a queen of Sheba nor a Mar'ib at the time. Archaeology indicates there was. Actually, the archaeological epigraphy of the area is quite good. A second kingdom called the kingdom of Ma'in also flourished from Yemen northward. These two kingdoms left rich detail in Yemeni inscriptions about their own kingdom outposts to the south and north along their main land trade routes.

Quote

According to the German article itself, " In order to we can have a more or less time complete epigraphic occupancy of the Bar'n Temple of almost 100 years, from 180 to 270 AD" and "This King, which we have begun between 210 and 230 AD the 'Almaqah, the Lord of Muscat, and the Bar'an resides" 

So yes, the German article dates altars after Nephi. 

You told me above "the point wasn't ever that they were at the same location as the NHM cemetery".  Nehem (tribal territory) is located in the ugly mountains, not in the NHM site.  

The burial sites may not be related to NHM. 

It is not hard to find rocks, altars, inscriptions that match Biblical names in archaeological sites of Arabia. The fact that we find NHM in North Arabia means we need to be more careful. 

The question is debatable. There is nothing well-established in the dating of the NHM altars, it is mostly just an educated guess.  

It is easy to find possibilities, we are more interested in what is more probable.  Did we find Nahom? I doubt it. 

All archaeology is based on educated guesses. Rarely does the evidence get better than it is in the case of this area. NHM is written all over it. It fits the area the Lehites must have been in before turning east as well - along the Red Sea. Now you can point to areas in north Arabia or whatever, but they do not match the geographical description in the Book of Mormon, and as pointed out, to date they have not been dated early enough to be a match either. The tribe of NHM was apparently a powerful local tribe with a large burial ground used for the whole area. The Book of Mormon does not say the Lehites called the area Nahom. It was apparently already named that so we get the Hebrew translation of it. We have to remember that it is doubtful that they spoke Sabaen. They probably shared Semitic words, but that would be the best of it. By that time Hebrew had developed into its own dialect.

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Don't wait for the supernatural too long - you might get left behind.

How's that?  Do you have to believe in the supernatural to climb that stairway to heaven?  

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think it'd change a damn thing for me.  I'm maybe less convinced that it was a 19th century production, even though that's largely my position at this point.  But I'm squirrely enough to admit that the book itself might be largely 19th century, but there still could have been a Lehi and Nephi walking around somewhere in this western hemisphere 2600 years ago.  I just don't know that our English version, as early as we get it, is all that close of a rendition of what these two thought or believed; did or didn't do. 

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

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How's that?  Do you have to believe in the supernatural to climb that stairway to heaven?  

You seem to be a faithful member of the Church despite your doubts, but He cometh as a thief. Those waiting for the supernatural sign will not believe, nor be saved. But after the thief cometh, they will believe, because the saints will be gone/taken. The earth will be reaped. The supernatural sign will be over.

Edited September 15, 2017 by RevTestament

[ttribe]

On 9/14/2017 at 8:59 AM, Gray said:

I echo the opinion of others in saying that you come off like an exmo impersonating a "TBM" in order to satirize LDS beliefs. I mean if that makes you happy, have at it. But it seems silly to be so cloak and dagger. Why not just have a real conversation and say you're skeptical about Nahom and list the reasons why? 

I've been wanting to say this for days...

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

I've been wanting to say this for days...

The best satire is the kind that is right on the edge: absurd enough that you think it must be satire, but not so far off that you're sure it is.

[ttribe]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

The best satire is the kind that is right on the edge: absurd enough that you think it must be satire, but not so far off that you're sure it is.

Yep.  Ever since the "I don't believe in evolution..." thread, this has been on my mind every time I read SamTL's posts.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Yep.  Ever since the "I don't believe in evolution..." thread, this has been on my mind every time I read SamTL's posts.

The thing is, I've met people who are quite serious in believing the kind of stuff he posts. So, no, I genuinely have no idea if he means it or is just a satirical troll. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You seem to be a faithful member of the Church despite your doubts, but if He cometh as a thief. Those waiting for the supernatural sign will not believe, nor be saved. But after the thief cometh, they will believe, because the saints will be gone/taken. The earth will be reaped. The supernatural sign will be over.

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

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The thing is, I've met people who are quite serious in believing the kind of stuff he posts. So, no, I genuinely have no idea if he means it or is just a satirical troll. 

Me, too...that's why I took the weasel-way and waited for someone else to bring this up. 

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I already agree it's scripture, though.  I treat the BoM as scripture whether it is of ancient origin, like I used to, or not. 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I already agree it's scripture, though.  I treat the BoM as scripture whether it is of ancient origin, like I used to, or not. 

I didn't say anything about it being scripture or not.  I accept it as scripture for myself as well, but I don't believe its ancient or produced through supernatural means.  I think Joseph dictated it.  But if something supernatural was happening, something as dramatic as proof that there really were ancient Nephites, that would change my entire world view and turn everything around for me.  

Maybe you can explain how you view supernatural explanations verses the naturalistic ones.  Do you have a more naturalistic bent towards religious claims, or are you mixing the natural with the supernatural and how do you distinguish between the two?  

[Okrahomer]

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, an Arabic scholar told me the German paper dates them after Nephi. He also told me the dating was just an educated guess. I am going to invite him to this discussion, I hope he accepts. I am not sure where you are getting the "old Sabaean period" from, and how you know aSabB means "old Sabean period".  Nowhere does the German article mention 900BC to 600BC.

 

Some of the inscriptions are definitely dated "after Nephi."  However, many are dated to the "old Sabaean Period."  I linked to the Wiki article to give you a "general" date for the “old Sabaean Period” (9th - 6th centuries BC.)  This is based on inscriptions and other texts.  But the Wiki article does not mention the inscriptions at Bar'an.  Per the Wiki article, there was also a "middle Sabaean Period" (3rd century BC - 300 AD) and a "late Sabaean Period" (400 AD - 600 AD.)

 

Nebes dates all of the incscription in the Katalog, and those that he categorizes as "Old Sabaean" inscriptions are date coded (Datierung) with "aSab"--and then he adds a suffix of "A", "B", or "C".  You can read the explanation of the date code on page 118:

 

"Unterpunktes sind die Inschriften chronologisch angeordnet, wobei fur die altsabaische Zeit (aSab) die Grobdatierung in die drei Phasen A, B und C in oben dargelegtem Sinne vorgenommen wird."

 

Translation:  “The inscriptions are chronologically arranged, with coarse dating into three phases A, B and C for the Old Sabaean period (aSab) in the above-mentioned sense.”

 

Nebes discusses the fact that some of the inscriptions include the name “Karib’il Watar”, a known historical figure who lived in the 7^th century BC.  On page 114 Nebes explains that the appearance of "Karib'il Watar" in the inscriptions provides the one “absolute” date—685 BC.  Footnote 34 on page 115 explains that this is indicated in the “Katalog” as aSabB.

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Okrahomer

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I already agree it's scripture, though.  I treat the BoM as scripture whether it is of ancient origin, like I used to, or not. 

I've never understood that idea. If it was just the product of a 19th Century fevered mind. Then it can not be Scripture.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

I've never understood that idea. If it was just the product of a 19th Century fevered mind. Then it can not be Scripture.

What if it was the product of a 19th century inspired mind?

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Der Okrahomer hat das recht gut gemacht.*

*Engl. trans:  Okrahomer eats fancy turtles.

Ich glaube du bist ein bissel verrückt, oder?

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What if it was the product of a 19th century inspired mind?

Works for me. Just depends on who/what is doing the inspiring.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The main argument against "Samuel's" line of thought is to just think through the consequences of finding clear evidence of a Nahom that can't be attributed to coincidence that's tied to an unambiguous trade route. Would critics suddenly believe the Book of Mormon? Of course not. The rhetoric would merely shift to how the information could plausibly be found by Joseph Smith even if there's no evidence he'd seen it. Just look at the attempts to make Joseph aware of the Comoros islands without any evidence.

Since a real Nahom find wouldn't really change the nature of the debate much, why on earth would God have to obscure it?

I am in agreement with you. I don't think that God has obscured anything. Man and nature do that well enough. The destruction of the Mayan codices by Diego de Landa, a Spanish Franciscan monk is an example of how man has helped obscure information about a people and their history.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

I just uploaded a full reply to Sam, but all that came through were these shots of the "ugly" mountainous area of the Bar'an Temple before it was excavated.  I'll try to duplicate the rest later.  Meantime, maybe Sam could explain to us why the mountains are absent here.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

9th century? Not according to scholar "the Sabaean kingdom began to flourish only from the eighth century BCE onward" and another scholar "there is hardly any evidence for a Sabaean kingdom there before the nigth or even eighth century BC"

The Wikipedia article you quote out of context actually says:

Quote

The view that the biblical kingdom of Sheba was the ancient Semitic civilization of Saba in Southern Arabia is controversial. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman write that "the Sabaean kingdom began to flourish only from the eighth century BCE onward" and that the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is "an anachronistic seventh-century set piece meant to legitimize the participation of Judah in the lucrative Arabian trade."^[5] The British Museum states that there is no archaeological evidence for such a queen but that the kingdom described as hers was Saba, "the oldest and most important of the South Arabian kingdoms" ^[6] Kenneth Kitchen dates the kingdom to between 1200 BCE until 275 CE with its capital Marib.^[7] The Kingdom fell after a long but sporadic civil war between several Yemenite dynasties claiming kingship,^[8][9] resulting in the rise of the late Himyarite Kingdom.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabaeans .

It is helpful to know that Finkelstein & Silberman do not even believe that David was King of Judah, a minimalist position not shared with most other Israeli archeologists.  At its height, Saba (Sheba) was the richest kingdom in the ancient Near East, due to trade in frankincense and myrrh, which were more precious than gold.  Ancient South Arabia (Arabia Felix) was already producing high carbon steel in 1100 B.C., when the Israelites could only produce bronze and were being dominated by the Philistines.  After the 4th century, when pagan temples were on the wane and expensive incense was no longer in strong demand, the South Arabian economy collapsed, and they have been poor ever since.

Quote

According to the German article itself, " In order to we can have a more or less time complete epigraphic occupancy of the Bar'n Temple of almost 100 years, from 180 to 270 AD" and "This King, which we have begun between 210 and 230 AD the 'Almaqah, the Lord of Muscat, and the Bar'an resides" 

So yes, the German article dates altars after Nephi. 

False.  The late inscriptions you cite here have nothing to do with the altars in question, which are certainly contemporary with Lehi.  However, it is useful to speak about the kings of Saba in order to properly date those altars:  First off, we have an absolute date of 683 B.C. when King Sennacherib of Assyria received an expensive gift from King Karib'il Watar of Saba.*  The paleography (datable writing style) of a great inscription of Watar at nearby Sirwah matches the style of the NHM altars at Bar'an, which mention a later ruler, King Yadaʻ-il, who is likely Yadaʻ-il Dharih II (about 630 B.C.) or perhaps Yadaʻ-il Bayyin II (about 580 B.C.), both contemporary with Lehi, as pointed out by Kenneth Kitchen, cited by Warren Aston (note 11, Kitchen. Documentation for Ancient Arabia, 2:744).

*  Dan T. Potts, “The mukarrib and His Beads: Karib’Il Watar’s Assyrian Diplomacy in the Early 7th Century B.C.,” 2003, online at  https://www.academia.edu/1901538/Potts_2003_Karibil_Watar_and_Assyrian_diplomacy .

Quote

You told me above "the point wasn't ever that they were at the same location as the NHM cemetery".  Nehem (tribal territory) is located in the ugly mountains, not in the NHM site.  

The burial sites may not be related to NHM. 

Again you quote out of context.  I actually said: ". . . the point wasn't ever that they were at the same location as the NHM cemetery, but rather that the name occurs in nearby inscriptions during the time of Lehi, demonstrating beyond dispute that the name was well-known in Lehi's day."  Moreover, the tribal territory and cemetery of NHM includes a great deal of flat land, as at the Bar'an Temple (see the photos I uploaded to this board).

Quote

It is not hard to find rocks, altars, inscriptions that match Biblical names in archaeological sites of Arabia. The fact that we find NHM in North Arabia means we need to be more careful. 

The late Safaitic & Hismaic graffiti which you cited from many centuries after Lehi in North Arabia, are (as I have already pointed out) irrelevant.  What it should tell you is to be more careful about trying to feed a phony bill of goods to us on this board.

Quote

The question is debatable. There is nothing well-established in the dating of the NHM altars, it is mostly just an educated guess.  

It is easy to find possibilities, we are more interested in what is more probable.  Did we find Nahom? I doubt it. 

Exactly what we expect from flippant ill-wishers.  An impromptu dismissal without serious consideration.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Ancient South Arabia (Arabia Felix) was already producing high carbon steel in 1100 B.C.

Would you be so kind as to provide source(s) for this? Thanks in advance.