Glenn101 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Read or said, it is just a minor detail. It is much more than a minor detail. Reading something, especially in an unfamiliar script is much different from hearing it. It is much like a person from Boston would pronounce chance (sounds like chonce to me) as opposed to a redneck like myself that will pronounce it with a short "a" sound but is spelled the same. When the cartographers made their maps, they wrote down the names the way they sounded to them. There were no markers telling them "Welcome to Nehem." And they had difficulty in understanding how to spell the names based on the pronunciation especially with the different dialects that were spoken in the area. 4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Anyway, a relevant fact is that the Book of Mormon makes no mention of outsiders, in order for the wordplay argument to work we have to assume Nephi clan had some contact with the Nhm tribe. We also have to assume Nephi heard the "H" as a soft h. There are a lot of assumptions we have to make, what we know simply doesn't fit nicely without making assumptions. Lastly, we have to assume ancient Hebrews did wordplay for Arabic sites. Actually it is not relevant at all. It would have been impossible for the Lehi clan to have traveled through that area without coming into contact with local tribes. Every water hole was known in that arid region, and claimed by one tribe or another. It was the most precious commodity in the land, as precious as life itself. The only way that Lehi and family could have avoided having to pay for water enroute would have been to find temporary streams of water that came to be during the rainy season or to dig their own wells as they went. I don't know what you are going on about one of Hebrew descent making wordplays about a site in Arabia. It is an interesting idea, and it very possible that was Nephi's intent because the Lehyite party did not name the place themselves. Nephi could just as well have said that Ismael died ans was buried in the wilderness. Maybe you need to spend a few years studying Hebrew and the Jewish customs. Of course you probably would have any instructor committing suicide (or homicide) with the way that you continually ignore the information that has been provided to you by different people. 4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I understand, but that still allows for plenty of ambiguity. Exact details, no, but still those boundaries, the lay of the land, and the travel narrative give us enough to go on know that Nephi's narrative is very plausible. Glenn
clarkgoble Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 12 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Anyway, a relevant fact is that the Book of Mormon makes no mention of outsiders, in order for the wordplay argument to work we have to assume Nephi clan had some contact with the Nhm tribe. We don't know what the 116 pages says - 1 & 2 Nephi are primarily religious sermons. But if Jacob is worrying about polygamy that strongly suggests they've encountered outsiders. And the broader text clearly has them meeting outsiders - the Muelikites.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: These are the normal assumptions made by non-Mormon biblical scholars everyday. Since you don't understand scholarship, you automatically reject it. Assumptions, exactly right. Just because wordplay for Nahom is possible doesn't mean it has to be wordplay. 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You insist on strawman readings which would take you to Baghdad instead of Bountiful. Robert, you told me "we are not talking about modern land navigation with the magnetic compass". You told me that because I pointed out that Nihm is not south east from the Valley of Lemuel using google earth and a compass. Are we going to use exact directions yes or no? 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is the way anti-Mormon evangelicals think, which is one reason why two evangelical scholars, Owen & Mosser concluded that their fellow evangelicals had already lost the debate with the Mormons Very good, but I am Not an evangelical. I am arguing that we can't make an objective conclusion because we don't have enough information. I am also arguing that coincidence is a reasonable assumption. Robert, do you see enough information to conclude that NHM is Nahom? 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 1 & 2 Nephi are primarily religious sermons. But if Jacob is worrying about polygamy that strongly suggests they've encountered outsiders I understand, but book of Mormon makes no mention of them. Why would Nephi do wordplay for Nahom without mentioning the NHM tribe? I doesn't make sense. Why would wordplay be important for a religious sermon anyway? 11 hours ago, Glenn101 said: It would have been impossible for the Lehi clan to have traveled through that area without coming into contact with local tribes I understand, but why do you think Book of Mormon doesn't mention them? Why would Nephi do wordplay for NHM without mentioning the tribe? Also, I read the nihm tribe moves all the time, there is no stable NHM territory.
Glenn101 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 29 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I understand, but why do you think Book of Mormon doesn't mention them? Why would Nephi do wordplay for NHM without mentioning the tribe? Also, I read the nihm tribe moves all the time, there is no stable NHM territory. Nephi tells us why. Read the Book of Mormon. Nephi is constrained by his writing materials and chose very carefully what he included on those plates. He was picking and choosing what he included from material already on the large plates. He did not include anything about using any type of beasts of burden for the trek either. But no rational person would have carried all of their provisions and tents in back packs. The Nihm tribe is no part of the word play that Nephi is using. He is working against the name of the region in which Ishmael was buried and the mourning of Ishmael's daughters. Now the probable word play is not crucial to the plausibility of the travel narrative, but it does add, at least to me, a touch of authenticity to the story line. You may have noted (or not) that Ishmael's daughters, the women (oh the sexist Lehites, etc.) were the only ones noted as mourning. Maybe a little self education on Hebrew funeral practices would enlighten you as to why that is authentic. Please get back to me on the current roaming grounds of the Nihm tribe. I do believe that you will find that they still sojourn in the same general area that they did when the maps showing Nehem were made. 48 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I am also arguing that coincidence is a reasonable assumption. Why is coincidence a reasonable assumption? Why is coincidence more reasonable than reading that travel narrative and concluding that the narrator had either heard the information or had actually traveled the route? The rarity of the place name NHM is just one part of the equation. Every added detail adds another layer of complexity that makes a coincidence less likely. No one really has come up with any way to quantify the odds on this so I just go with a more or less likely viewpoint. Glenn
Robert F. Smith Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Assumptions, exactly right. Just because wordplay for Nahom is possible doesn't mean it has to be wordplay. It does not have to be wordplay. That is your dishonest strawman claim, which no one here has made. Once again, you have made your ignorance the measure of all reality. Quote Robert, you told me "we are not talking about modern land navigation with the magnetic compass". You told me that because I pointed out that Nihm is not south east from the Valley of Lemuel using google earth and a compass. Are we going to use exact directions yes or no? Scholars assume that people in the real world do not behave like digital machines. This is particularly true of ancient peoples. For you it is either digital or nothing. An honest man would simply agree that small deviations from directions are entirely reasonable. A dishonest man will play childish games. Quote .................. but I am Not an evangelical. Then why do you think and talk like one? Quote I am arguing that we can't make an objective conclusion because we don't have enough information. I am also arguing that coincidence is a reasonable assumption. Robert, do you see enough information to conclude that NHM is Nahom? Of course, if your reasoning is deeply flawed and unscholarly, nothing will be acceptable to you unless it can meet your ridiculous prior beliefs. Quote I understand, but book of Mormon makes no mention of them. Why would Nephi do wordplay for Nahom without mentioning the NHM tribe? I doesn't make sense. Why would wordplay be important for a religious sermon anyway? Nephi is writing decades later. As an Israelite he can presumably do what Israelite writers frequently do: Insert various literary features here or there. Your same question could be asked of any number of biblical passages, which likely make no sense to you. As non-Mormon scholar John Bright observed (in my first college text on the Bible): Quote Genesis narrative is painted in blacks and whites on a simple canvas with no perspective in depth. It depicts certain individuals and their families who move through their world almost as if they were alone in it. Bright, A History of Israel, 1st ed. (London, 1960), 67. Quote I understand, but why do you think Book of Mormon doesn't mention them? Why would Nephi do wordplay for NHM without mentioning the tribe? Also, I read the nihm tribe moves all the time, there is no stable NHM territory. Bedouin tribes frequently move. That is what they normally do. That is what it means to be Bedouin. However, they move within their regular territory, which can be huge. They do not leave their regular territory because they would then be encroaching on the territory of another tribe. The same basic rules apply to a pride of lions. Edited October 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith
SamuelTheLamanite Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It does not have to be wordplay. Good! I am glad we came to an agreement. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Scholars assume that people in the real world do not behave like digital machines. This is particularly true of ancient peoples. For you it is either digital or nothing. An honest man would simply agree that small deviations from directions are entirely reasonable. A dishonest man will play childish games Please tell me what you mean by small deviations. For me a small deviation is Bountiful being north east of Nihm. I am not playing games Robert, with "small deviations" you allow for plenty of ambiguity. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Then why do you think and talk like one? Robert, I am the total opposite of an evangelical. We can't conclude NHM in Nahom without enough information. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Nephi is writing decades later. As an Israelite he can presumably do what Israelite writers frequently do: Insert various literary features here or there. Your same question could be asked of any number of biblical passages, which likely make no sense to you. As non-Mormon scholar John Bright observed (in my first college text on the Bible): The stories in the Bible where you find wordplay aren't history Robert, the stories are oral traditions, wordplay was used to make a theological point. The story of the Lehi journey is different Robert, it just a tradition, is it? Secondly, you have to assume Hebrews did wordplay for an Arabic site with the wrong H, we have to make a lot of assumptions. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Of course, if your reasoning is deeply flawed and unscholarly, nothing will be acceptable to you unless it can meet your ridiculous prior beliefs. Just relax. Without enough information I cannot conclude NHM is Nahom. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Bedouin tribes frequently move. That is what they normally do. That is what it means to be Bedouin. However, they move within their regular territory, which can be huge. They do not leave their regular territory because they would then be encroaching on the territory of another tribe. The same basic rules apply to a pride of lions. Thank You for confirming my point. Regular territory can cover hundreds of miles Robert, but either way there is no NHM tribe territory. 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The same basic rules apply to a pride of lions. For sure, you are allowing for more ambiguity. I wish you could see it. 6 hours ago, Glenn101 said: The Nihm tribe is no part of the word play that Nephi is using. He is working against the name of the region in which Ishmael was buried and the mourning of Ishmael's daughters. I know, but I don't understand why Nephi would care to do wordplay, but not mention the outsiders. There is no evidence the NHM tribe called a region NHM. 6 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Please get back to me on the current roaming grounds of the Nihm tribe. I do believe that you will find that they still sojourn in the same general area that they did when the maps showing Nehem were made. Okay, but according to Robert the same general area can be huge, it covers hundreds of miles. 6 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Why is coincidence a reasonable assumption? Why is coincidence more reasonable than reading that travel narrative and concluding that the narrator had either heard the information or had actually traveled the route? The rarity of the place name NHM is just one part of the equation. Because we have to make more assumptions for the NHM argument to work, many more. A theory with less assumptions is better, coincidence is just one assumption, and it is reasonable as it has been demonstrated. A tribe doesn't have to called it's territory with the same name, and as Robert confirms the Nihm tribe moves frequently in a huge area. Edited October 25, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Good! I am glad we came to an agreement. Please tell me what you mean by small deviations. For me a small deviation is Bountiful being north east of Nihm. I am not playing games Robert, with "small deviations" you allow for plenty of ambiguity. Robert, I am the total opposite of an evangelical. We can't conclude NHM in Nahom without enough information. Like most evangelicals your thinking is narrow, superficial, and meaningless. Like most evangelicals you reject sound scholarship in favor of off the wall supposition -- and wild supposition at that. Any anthropologist would be astonished at your rejection of regular directions in favor of precision on the one hand, and free association on the other. Ancient peoples could see the sun during the day and the stars at night, leaving them no doubt as to the general direction being followed. Since Bountiful is clearly not NE of Nihm/Nahom, one can only understand your comments as deliberately obfuscating -- another tendency of evangelicals. You need to consult with a college professor in your town and ask him some hard questions about geographic directions. You are so wrong it is painful. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: The stories in the Bible where you find wordplay aren't history Robert, the stories are oral traditions, wordplay was used to make a theological point. The story of the Lehi journey is different Robert, it just a tradition, is it? Secondly, you have to assume Hebrews did wordplay for an Arabic site with the wrong H, we have to make a lot of assumptions. Your statements here are blatantly false. Again, it might have helped if you had read something about wordplay in the ancient Near East (I gave you some good sources, which you promptly ignored). Both Genesis and I Nephi are historical narrative texts. The many wordplays in them exist for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they are inserted just for fun -- they are punny (get it, Sam?). The various people composing such stories can be very clever, and love to pass on folklore in a literary way. Wordplay is only one of the many literary devices used by them. Being stubborn is not the same as being scholarly, Sam. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: ........... Without enough information I cannot conclude NHM is Nahom. You have a predisposition to deny the obvious, which is your right. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Thank You for confirming my point. Regular territory can cover hundreds of miles Robert, but either way there is no NHM tribe territory. For sure, you are allowing for more ambiguity. I wish you could see it. You insert the supposed "hundreds of miles," Sam, not me. As usual, your instant denial is a reflex for you, perhaps based on your ignorance of what Bedouin do. For you lack of precision (ambiguity) is a defect. For the anthropologist it is indicative of reality. Your shallow evangelical mind again, Sam. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I know, but I don't understand why Nephi would care to do wordplay, but not mention the outsiders. There is no evidence the NHM tribe called a region NHM. ............A tribe doesn't have to called it's territory with the same name Tribal regions normally carry the name of the tribe, as in this case. How do you think that it got the name, Sam? 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Okay, but according to Robert the same general area can be huge, it covers hundreds of miles. ............A tribe doesn't have to called it's territory with the same name Deliberately misstating what I said again, Sam. An honest man would have no problem inserting the correct knowledge about the Bedouin into his comments. You feel compelled to twist the facts. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Because we have to make more assumptions for the NHM argument to work, many more. A theory with less assumptions is better, coincidence is just one assumption, and it is reasonable as it has been demonstrated. ........................................., and as Robert confirms the Nihm tribe moves frequently in a huge area. All scholars make reasonable assumptions based on fact and careful analysis -- something you can't be bothered with. We have been over many of these points in detail earlier, but (like an Alzheimers patient) your memory is absent. My recommendation is that you take several college courses on Bible. Say, for example, "The Bible as Literature": MIT has a good home study course -- https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/literature/21l-458-the-bible-spring-2007/ . Harvard has a couple of free courses on the OT -- http://www.openculture.com/2014/02/harvard-presents-two-free-online-courses-on-the-old-testament.html (they list a couple of courses from Yale as well) If those don't satisfy you, I can list others, Sam. At a minimum, you desperately need information about the real world. 1
Glenn101 Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Because we have to make more assumptions for the NHM argument to work, many more. A theory with less assumptions is better, coincidence is just one assumption, and it is reasonable as it has been demonstrated. A tribe doesn't have to called it's territory with the same name, and as Robert confirms the Nihm tribe moves frequently in a huge area. Sam, the LDS researchers and scholars are not the ones making the assumptions about Nehem and the Nihm tribe territory. Ryan pointed you to the existing information about the archaeologists who have been working in the area. They are the ones that made those inferences. Where they see a natural, logical connection, you see coincidence. You have to make assumptions for your anti-scholarship assumptions to be even remotely plausible. You are nitpicking directions and playing contrarian to all of the established research and scholarship on the subject, without being able to cite any scholarship or research to support your thesis. Robert has repeatedly given you references to assist you in your understanding of the points he is making. So has Ryan. You seem to be ignorant of all of the research and scholarship that has already been done by LDS and non-LDS although you have been given the references. In other words, it appears that your thesis is based merely on an uninformed opinion. Glenn
MDalby Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) Isn't it past time to come to the conclusion that Sam is not sincere in this discussion. As Daniel Peterson puts it, we could show Sam an altar with an engraving that said, “I, Nephi, was here” and Sam would still deny it. Sam will look at the sun at noonday and say it is midnight. This is an exercise in futility. Edited October 25, 2017 by MDalby 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 3 hours ago, MDalby said: Isn't it past time to come to the conclusion that Sam is not sincere in this discussion. As Daniel Peterson puts it, we could show Sam an altar with an engraving that said, “I, Nephi, was here” and Sam would still deny it. Sam will look at the sun at noonday and say it is midnight. This is an exercise in futility. Not at all, I would be very impressed. I am just being careful because we currently don't have enough information and we have to make plenty of assumptions. 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Like most evangelicals your thinking is narrow, superficial, and meaningless. Like most evangelicals you reject sound scholarship in favor of off the wall supposition -- and wild supposition at that. Any anthropologist would be astonished at your rejection of regular directions in favor of precision on the one hand, and free association on the other. Ancient peoples could see the sun during the day and the stars at night, leaving them no doubt as to the general direction being followed. Since Bountiful is clearly not NE of Nihm/Nahom, one can only understand your comments as deliberately obfuscating -- another tendency of evangelicals. You need to consult with a college professor in your town and ask him some hard questions about geographic directions. You are so wrong it is painful. I am not, Ryan told me that going more than 100 miles south of Nihm would make Bountiful north east, we are not using exact directions, are we? A straight line east that takes you to Bountiful is about 200 miles north of Nihm. Will clarify when I come back. Talk to you later.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You have a predisposition to deny the obvious, which is your right. If it is obvious to you we are not going to get anywhere in our conversation, to me it is not so obvious. Can we please have a conversation?
Glenn101 Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: A straight line east that takes you to Bountiful is about 200 miles north of Nihm. No one is talking about a straight line east, except you. The narrative in the Book of Mormon states "nearly eastward." This has already been discussed before. You are nitpicking with the directions. The Nehem area noted on the maps is just a few degrees off due east. Glenn
Ryan Dahle Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I am not, Ryan told me that going more than 100 miles south of Nihm would make Bountiful north east, we are not using exact directions, are we? You have misrepresented me, once again. I said that as you get further and further south, the direction changes from "nearly eastward" to more and more of a northeast direction. However, I never suggested that 100 miles south would change the route into a cardinally exact northeast direction to Bountiful. Even if you traveled the nearly 250 miles south to the ocean, the Dhofar region would still be more eastward than northward. In any case, it doesn't matter because the best possible site for Bountiful is only a few degrees north of due east from the Nihm tribal area. By cardinal direction standards, it is almost directly due east. Please refrain from attempting to represent my views, especially when you try to use them to in some way strengthen your position. I don't know what the odds are for finding Nahom, but I do know that so far your record for accurately representing the intent and meaning of my statements is 0%.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: If it is obvious to you we are not going to get anywhere in our conversation, to me it is not so obvious. Can we please have a conversation? I have been trying to have a conversation with you for some time, and occasionally you actually respond to points I have raised. The real difficulty here is your outright rejection of fact, and your unwillingness to deal with it. Directionality is only one among many issues in which you reject the ordinary understanding of straightforward fact.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Not at all, I would be very impressed. I am just being careful because we currently don't have enough information and we have to make plenty of assumptions. I am not, Ryan told me that going more than 100 miles south of Nihm would make Bountiful north east, we are not using exact directions, are we? A straight line east that takes you to Bountiful is about 200 miles north of Nihm. Will clarify when I come back. Talk to you later. Again, the use of ordinary directions is beyond your capacity here. You clearly have no idea what "north" is.
strappinglad Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 Having followed this thread off and on for 22 pages , I have learned a great deal about a relatively small detail from the BoM. However, I am reminded of a statement a friend once made about is dad. He said, and I quote , " His mind is like concrete, all mixed up and set !" 1
Rajah Manchou Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Again, the use of ordinary directions is beyond your capacity here. You clearly have no idea what "north" is. Been trying to follow this frustrating conversation. It seems we are trying so hard to follow cardinal directions when the Nephites are in Arabia, but as soon as they arrive in Mesoamerica, its no problem to be very flexible with what north is. Is this because the Nephites would have been influenced by the Mesoamerican idea of what north was? At what point did the use of ordinary directions shift in the Book of Mormon?
SamuelTheLamanite Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Please refrain from attempting to represent my views, especially when you try to use them to in some way strengthen your position. I don't know what the odds are for finding Nahom, but I do know that so far your record for accurately representing the intent and meaning of my statements is 0%. Okay, I stand corrected. Ryan, do you feel I am "deny the obvious" for not concluding that Nephi is doing wordplay for Nahom? 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Again, the use of ordinary directions is beyond your capacity here. You clearly have no idea what "north" is. Robert, I know what north is, but we are not using ordinary directions because nihm north of Sanaa is not south east from the valley of Lemuel. The point I am trying to make is that the directions given by the Book of Mormon are not very useful. That is all, but I don't wish to continue with this point. 19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Tribal regions normally carry the name of the tribe, as in this case. How do you think that it got the name, Sam? By "normally" we mean not always. Please give me a reference that the region has the same name as NHM tribe. If the NHM tribe is always moving I don't see how there can be an NHM territory. 19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: All scholars make reasonable assumptions based on fact and careful analysis -- something you can't be bothered with. We have been over many of these points in detail earlier, but (like an Alzheimers patient) your memory is absent. My recommendation is that you take several college courses on Bible. Say, for example, "The Bible as Literature": I told you I agree it is possible, what is the careful analysis that Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom? 5 hours ago, Glenn101 said: No one is talking about a straight line east, except you. The narrative in the Book of Mormon states "nearly eastward." I know.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said: Been trying to follow this frustrating conversation. It seems we are trying so hard to follow cardinal directions when the Nephites are in Arabia, but as soon as they arrive in Mesoamerica, its no problem to be very flexible with what north is. Is this because the Nephites would have been influenced by the Mesoamerican idea of what north was? At what point did the use of ordinary directions shift in the Book of Mormon? Yes, I pointed that earlier in the thread too, Edited October 26, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
strappinglad Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 If North is so obvious at any time and under all circumstances , why would one ever need a compass? 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) never mind. Edited October 26, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
Glenn101 Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: By "normally" we mean not always. Please give me a reference that the region has the same name as NHM tribe. If the NHM tribe is always moving I don't see how there can be an NHM territory. Sam you have been given the references. Ryan gave you a list of several non-LDS scholars that have concluded that the Nehem area most probably was the tribal area of the Nihm tribe. You have not done your homework. Robert and Ryan are not just voicing their own opinions but are voicing opinions based upon their research and the research of many others. You have given none of us any reason whatsoever to accept any part of your thesis. You can cite no authority, no research, nothing and you do not seem to have informed yourself via the scholarship that has been done. You keep making an assertion that the Nihm tribe moved around a lot, but you have cited no article or person. You just said in another post that you "read somewhere." Below are quotes that I read and where I read them. Warren P. Aston in the Journal of Arabian Studies: Arabia, the Gulf, and the Red Sea: presented a paper entitled "The Origins of the Nihm Tribe of Yemen: A Window into Arabia's Past" quotes two authorities on the subject. Paul Dresch: "Tribes, Government, and History in Yemen" The first thing to be noted about Yemeni tribes is that they have been where they are for a very long time. The names Hashid and Bakil are pre-Islamic. Many of the lesser tribal names go back a thousand years, and there are few names of present-day tribes that one cannot trace back at least to the seventeenth century. Tribes as such do not move. Nor do they over-run each other. Robert Wilson: "Al-Hamdani’s Description of Hashid and Bakil”, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 11 (1981), pp. 95–6." Substantial traces of the pre-Islamic (tribal) order continued to exist well into the Islamic period. Over the past ten centuries there is little or no evidence of any major tribal movements in this part of Yemen, and the overwhelming impression is one of minimal change, even if tribal alliances have from time to time altered or developed." Robert and Ryan have also provided you with references that are the basis for their opinions. You do not seem to have read any of them, or if you have read them do not understand any of them. Glenn
Robert F. Smith Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 57 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: ................................... Robert, I know what north is, but we are not using ordinary directions because nihm north of Sanaa is not south east from the valley of Lemuel. The point I am trying to make is that the directions given by the Book of Mormon are not very useful. That is all, but I don't wish to continue with this point. Get a paper map of the Middle East (you can print them from the internet) and draw some directional lines on it, North, Northeast, Eastnortheast, etc. Try to figure out how you would actually describe real directions from point A to point B. Make several tests to your own satisfaction until you have mastered directionality. Then apply that knowledge to I Nephi. If you still have difficulty, then ask a friend to do the same independently. This should be relatively easy. 57 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: By "normally" we mean not always. Please give me a reference that the region has the same name as NHM tribe. If the NHM tribe is always moving I don't see how there can be an NHM territory. So, why haven't you answered the question I asked? How do you imagine that the Nihm territory got its name? Do you even believe that there is a Nihm territory, and that there is a tribe by that name? Furthermore, do you also believe that a pride of lions has a territory and that it moves around within that territory -- for hunting and patrol? Does the concept even make any sense to you, for Bedouin and for lions? Have you ever read anything about Arab tribes? You might enjoy reading about some Arab tribes in the area of Lehi's first encampment -- T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, online at http://www.limpidsoft.com/small/sevenpillars.pdf . It was made into a 1962 movie, "Lawrence of Arabia." There is also a nice documentary about him and the WW I Arab Revolt -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNumspRA8k4 .
Robert F. Smith Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 2 hours ago, strappinglad said: If North is so obvious at any time and under all circumstances , why would one ever need a compass? Yes, and at night one can establish North simply by looking at the Northstar, Polaris. Boy Scouts do it all the time. During daytime, one merely bisects the direction from sunrise to sunset by 90 degrees (right angle):
Robert F. Smith Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Yes, I pointed that earlier in the thread too, The debate about Mesoamerican directions is irrelevant to Arabia, where there is not and never has been a debate.
Recommended Posts