God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours 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? 

The debate about Mesoamerican directions is irrelevant to Arabia, where there is not and never has been a debate.

[Rajah Manchou]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The debate about Mesoamerican directions is irrelevant to Arabia, where there is not and never has been a debate.

So north in the first two books of the Book of Mormon is north as we know it today, and north in everything after 2nd Nephi is a sort of quincunx system?

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So north in the first two books of the Book of Mormon is north as we know it today, and north in everything after 2nd Nephi is a sort of quincunx system?

If you were going to create a division for the Book of Mormon in this regard, it couldn't come at a better place internally. Why? The Book of Mormon alleges that the first two books of the Book of Mormon were written by Nephi some time in the mid 6th century B.C. The Book of Mormon alleges that the rest of the Book of Mormon was written by the father-son duo of Mormon and Moroni in the middle of the 4th century AD (a millennia later).

[Rajah Manchou]

51 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If you were going to create a division for the Book of Mormon in this regard, it couldn't come at a better place internally. Why? The Book of Mormon alleges that the first two books of the Book of Mormon were written by Nephi some time in the mid 6th century B.C. The Book of Mormon alleges that the rest of the Book of Mormon was written by the father-son duo of Mormon and Moroni in the middle of the 4th century AD (a millennia later).

We had discussed in another thread the very likely scenario that Mormon/Moroni also rewrote the writings of Nephi on tumbaga plates. I'm just trying to resolve if Mormon and Moroni would have been aware of cardinal directions as they were in the Old Wold, and knowing that, would have still used a Mesoamerican quincunx system. 

For the record, I've never understood the quincunx system as it pertains to making the Isthmus of Tehuantepac into the narrow neck of land divided by a north/south line. It seems particularly problematic if Mormon and Mornoi had known north in Arabia was a different kind of north.

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We had discussed in another thread the very likely scenario that Mormon/Moroni also rewrote the writings of Nephi on tumbaga plates. I'm just trying to resolve if Mormon and Moroni would have been aware of cardinal directions as they were in the Old Wold, and knowing that, would have still used a Mesoamerican quincunx system. 

For the record, I've never understood the quincunx system as it pertains to making the Isthmus of Tehuantepac into the narrow neck of land divided by a north/south line. It seems particularly problematic if Mormon and Mornoi had known north in Arabia was a different kind of north.

I am not personally vested in any geographic model - so I am not all that concerned with specific interpretations of the directions. But I have a lot of reasons for not believing that Mormon and Moroni rewrote the writings of Nephi.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So north in the first two books of the Book of Mormon is north as we know it today, and north in everything after 2nd Nephi is a sort of quincunx system?

 

That would be a discussion for another thread.  However, it would be most correct to say here and now that directionality in the ancient Near East is well understood, and not just restricted to Nephi's small plates.  If you wish to go over ancient Near Eastern directionality, this would the best place to do it.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We had discussed in another thread the very likely scenario that Mormon/Moroni also rewrote the writings of Nephi on tumbaga plates. I'm just trying to resolve if Mormon and Moroni would have been aware of cardinal directions as they were in the Old Wold, and knowing that, would have still used a Mesoamerican quincunx system. 
......................................

It is generally agreed among BofM scholars that the small plates of Nephi were never edited by Mormon or Moroni.  Mormon edited the Book of Lehi, which was lost early on.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Robert, when I told you Nihm is not south east from the valley of Lemuel you should have told me it is nearly south-south east. I overlooked that simple fact, but it is just a minor mistake. Like I said it is a point I no longer wish to continue with. You told me "we are not talking about modern land navigation with the magnetic compass",  it seems like we are.  

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

Robert I understand, but I also understand there are many tribes in Yemen, and all of them move. Because Nihm moves it is likely it shares the general area with other tribes, am I right? 

I ask because I can't find Nihm on modern maps, I looked everywhere. 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Glenn101]

25 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert I understand, but I also understand there are many tribes in Yemen, and all of them move. Because Nihm moves it is likely it shares the general area with other tribes, am I right? 

I ask because I can't find Nihm on modern maps, I looked everywhere. 

 

Sam, you did not respond to the references that I gave you concerning tribal movements in the area, but are still talking about tribal movement as if it were an established fact, which flies in the face of the acknowledged scholarship. So I am going to repeat those references for you.

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."

Now, if you will check out this link (you will have to translate it to English) you will note that there is still a region called NHM, and the Nihm tribe still is operating in the same region.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, when I told you Nihm is not south east from the valley of Lemuel you should have told me it is nearly south-south east. I overlooked that simple fact, but it is just a minor mistake. Like I said it is a point I no longer wish to continue with. You told me "we are not talking about modern land navigation with the magnetic compass",  it seems like we are.  

Again, it may not make any sense to you, since you don't understand navigation without a magnetic compass, but ordinary people do know how to get from one area to another without using a magnetic compass.  In fact, I have described how that is done on this thread, and you seem to realize how ridiculous and embarrassing to you your claims have been up till now.  Just imagine how you might have described the direction you were going a couple thousand years ago in South Arabia.  You need to put yourself in their shoes and be honest about it.

41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert I understand, but I also understand there are many tribes in Yemen, and all of them move. Because Nihm moves it is likely it shares the general area with other tribes, am I right? 

Tribes form alliances, and most are based on smaller clans and family relationships, so yes you will find tribes in the Nihm district which are grouped and related in specific ways (you even mentioned that earlier in this thread, listing the various related groups).  Many have settled in villages in the past century.  I am more concerned with the pastoral Bedouin mode of life in the recent and ancient past.  These tribes have been around for thousands of years.

41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I ask because I can't find Nihm on modern maps, I looked everywhere. 

The Nihm نهم district is listed regularly in news reports due to fighting in the area, and you can see it llsted on this map -- 

 Nihm District (Arabic: مديرية نهم‎‎) is a district of the Sana'a Governorate, Yemen. As of 2003, the district had a population of 41,502 inhabitants.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihm_District .  You can also find a color-coded tribal map of Yemen in Arabic at https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2876/10846669493_17fe8a560f_b.jpg .

[MDalby]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, it may not make any sense to you, since you don't understand navigation without a magnetic compass, but ordinary people do know how to get from one area to another without using a magnetic compass.  In fact, I have described how that is done on this thread, and you seem to realize how ridiculous and embarrassing to you your claims have been up till now.  Just imagine how you might have described the direction you were going a couple thousand years ago in South Arabia.  You need to put yourself in their shoes and be honest about it.

Tribes form alliances, and most are based on smaller clans and family relationships, so yes you will find tribes in the Nihm district which are grouped and related in specific ways (you even mentioned that earlier in this thread, listing the various related groups).  Many have settled in villages in the past century.  I am more concerned with the pastoral Bedouin mode of life in the recent and ancient past.  These tribes have been around for thousands of years.

The Nihm نهم district is listed regularly in news reports due to fighting in the area, and you can see it llsted on this map -- 

 Nihm District (Arabic: مديرية نهم‎‎) is a district of the Sana'a Governorate, Yemen. As of 2003, the district had a population of 41,502 inhabitants.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihm_District .  You can also find a color-coded tribal map of Yemen in Arabic at https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2876/10846669493_17fe8a560f_b.jpg .

 

Robert,

That map cannot be correct.  Sam said, he looked everywhere.  It just isn't possible.

 

[Glenn101]

36 minutes ago, MDalby said:

 

Robert,

That map cannot be correct.  Sam said, he looked everywhere.  It just isn't possible.

 

Maybe Sam misquoted himself and really meant to say that he could not find it everywhere he looked.

Sadly though, Robert has been beating Samuel over the head with references and information that pretty much destroys any of Sam's ideas and Sam has yet to acknowledge any of them. There is something wrong there and I do not know whether he is incapable of understanding it or if he just deliberately ignores anything that he does not agree with.

Glenn 

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is generally agreed among BofM scholars that the small plates of Nephi were never edited by Mormon or Moroni.  Mormon edited the Book of Lehi, which was lost early on.

I don't have much of an opinion on the matter. But if they small plates were not edited, then that would mean they were not on tumbaga. Is that generally agreed?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, it may not make any sense to you, since you don't understand navigation without a magnetic compass, but ordinary people do know how to get from one area to another without using a magnetic compass

Yes Robert, I didn't tell you people can't. I told you I overlooked that fact that the Book of Mormon says "south-south east", not "south east", and it is mostly accurate to say "south-south east". So you can argue that Nihm is almost south-south east from the proposed valley of Lemuel using a compass. You misunderstood what I said, I was praising the directions given by the Book of Mormon.  And Nephi was using the Liahona, it was like a compass.  

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Sadly though, Robert has been beating Samuel over the head with references and information that pretty much destroys any of Sam's ideas and Sam has yet to acknowledge any of them

 I do acknowledge some of my ideas are wrong, I even said "I stand corrected".  However,  there is still not enough information to conclude that Nihm is Nahom, or that Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom. My main argument that coincidence is a reasonable possibility still stands, I see no "obvious fact" like Robert claims.  Coincidence is a good possibility because it is still true that we have to make a lot of assumptions such as Nephi hearing a soft "H". Robert is right to point out it is possible, he gave me some examples, but just because is possible doesn't mean it is true. Assumptions can be helpful, especially in ancient history, but it doesn't mean assumptions are facts. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[MDalby]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Sadly though, Robert has been beating Samuel over the head with references and information that pretty much destroys any of Sam's ideas and Sam has yet to acknowledge any of them. There is something wrong there and I do not know whether he is incapable of understanding it or if he just deliberately ignores anything that he does not agree with.

Glenn 

I know Glenn, I am being a little course with Sam because I think he is being less than genuine in this thread.  It literally took me 30 seconds to find it so I don't think he put much effort into this search.

Google search for Nihm

I think this could have been a good discussion if Sam was intellectually honest in this thread.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

 ...................................  there is still not enough information to conclude that Nihm is Nahom, or that Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom. My main argument that coincidence is a reasonable possibility still stands, I see no "obvious fact" like Robert claims.  Coincidence is a good possibility because it is still true that we have to make a lot of assumptions such as Nephi hearing a soft "H". Robert is right to point out it is possible, he gave me some examples, but just because is possible doesn't mean it is true. Assumptions can be helpful, especially in ancient history, but it doesn't mean assumptions are facts. 

There will never be enough information to satisfy the ultra-skeptic who places false definitions and false assumptions on everything.  That is a typical problem in any discussion.  The real question is whether a false set of premises will ever give us a logical conclusion.  The acid test is whether you are able to take a college course and pass an exam on the material you have studied.  You already know the answer to that one from personal experience, and your professor won't be mollified by your claiming that you didn't have enough information.  He expects good, reasonable conclusions based on the material studied in class.  If you can't give that to him, he will grade you accordingly.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

12 minutes ago, MDalby said:

I think this could have been a good discussion if Sam was intellectually honest in this thread.

Well, you don't have to participate if you think I am not being honest. 

I told Glenn above, "I do acknowledge some of my ideas are wrong, I even said "I stand corrected". However, there is still not enough information to conclude that Nihm is Nahom, or that Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom. My main argument that coincidence is a reasonable possibility still stands, I see no "obvious fact" like Robert claims. Coincidence is a good possibility because it is still true that we have to make a lot of assumptions such as Nephi hearing a soft "H". Robert is right to point out it is possible, he gave me some examples, but just because is possible doesn't mean it is true. Assumptions can be helpful, especially in ancient history, but it doesn't mean assumptions are facts." 

How I am not being intellectually honest? If you don't answer my question i'll ask you to leave this thread. 

4 hours ago, MDalby said:

That map cannot be correct.  Sam said, he looked everywhere.  It just isn't possible.

Making fun of me? Please leave, not nice! 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

There will never be enough information to satisfy the ultra-skeptic who places false definitions and false assumptions on everything.  

Not at all, an ultra-skeptic doesn't acknowledge that it is possible. I said it is possible many times. You on the other hand haven't acknowledge that coincidence is a good possibility. Many LDS scholars say wordplay for Nahom is just a possibility, they don't argue it is an obvious fact. 

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  You already know the answer to that one from personal experience, and your professor won't be mollified by your claiming that you didn't have enough information.  He expects good, reasonable conclusions based on the material studied in class.  If you can't give that to him, he will grade you accordingly.

You are assuming there is enough information Robert, and you are underestimating the coincidence possibility. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I don't have much of an opinion on the matter. But if they small plates were not edited, then that would mean they were not on tumbaga. Is that generally agreed?

Tumbaga is a nice theory, but we don't actually know what was used.  I state my general views in my “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=81 .

[MDalby]

9 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Well, you don't have to participate if you think I am not being honest. 

I told Glenn above, "I do acknowledge some of my ideas are wrong, I even said "I stand corrected". However, there is still not enough information to conclude that Nihm is Nahom, or that Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom. My main argument that coincidence is a reasonable possibility still stands, I see no "obvious fact" like Robert claims. Coincidence is a good possibility because it is still true that we have to make a lot of assumptions such as Nephi hearing a soft "H". Robert is right to point out it is possible, he gave me some examples, but just because is possible doesn't mean it is true. Assumptions can be helpful, especially in ancient history, but it doesn't mean assumptions are facts." 

How I am not being intellectually honest? If you don't answer my question i'll ask you to leave this thread. 

Making fun of me? Please leave, not nice! 

Sam, I don't have enough space in a post to cut and paste how you are not being intellectually honest.  Post after post you exhibit that you do not have an unbiased, honest approach in this discussion.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Not at all, an ultra-skeptic doesn't acknowledge that it is possible. I said it is possible many times. You on the other hand haven't acknowledge that coincidence is a good possibility. Many LDS scholars say wordplay for Nahom is just a possibility, they don't argue it is an obvious fact. 

You are assuming there is enough information Robert, and you are underestimating the coincidence possibility. 

Depends on what you mean by "obvious fact," a phrase I did not use about wordplay.  You have the habit of continually misstating facts and opinions.  Moreover, you don't know what "many LDS scholars" think because you seldom read anything by them.  You have no backup for your empty statement about "many LDS scholars."  I cite my sources, while you can't even follow an elementary discussion.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends on what you mean by "obvious fact," a phrase I did not use about wordplay.  

Do you acknowledge that coincidence is a reasonable possibility? 

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, you don't know what "many LDS scholars" think because you seldom read anything by them.  You have no backup for your empty statement about "many LDS scholars." 

How do you know? For example "the Semitic name Nahom can refer to mourning and consolation, and may also refer to groaning and complaining, giving it special significance in Nephi's account as a possible Hebraic wordplay."

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

I am not making stuff up. 

[Okrahomer]

On 10/23/2017 at 1:02 AM, Okrahomer said:

Not that it will make the slightest difference to you, but it was Mormon actually.  Mormon Nephi wrote these words as an abridgement of Nephi’s record, and it was he who made the decision to include the name of Ishmael’s burial place along with a description of his daughters’ exceeding mourning.

Mormon’s abridgement Nephi does not tell us where Lehi was buried.

Samuel:  I’m coming back to this exchange between you and me, because upon rereading it, the proverbial light flickered on:  The small plates of Nephi were not abridged by Mormon (see The Words of Mormon). So you were correct to point to Nephi as the author of 1 Nephi.  I’m so sorry—especially for the smug tone of my post.  (By the way:  if my mistake has already been pointed out:  thank you to that person!)

I have to say that I have enjoyed this thread of yours—in a perverse sort of way.  There are aspects of the Nahom story that I had never read about or considered until they were discussed here.  Anyway, I hope you will accept my apology.

[Rajah Manchou]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, it would be most correct to say here and now that directionality in the ancient Near East is well understood, and not just restricted to Nephi's small plates.  If you wish to go over ancient Near Eastern directionality, this would the best place to do it.

My feeling is that directionality has always been well understood. As you describe earlier, "at night one can establish North simply by looking at the Northstar, Polaris." The Tehunatepec model is where it becomes overly complex.

How could the Lehites lose the concept of north when Guatemala City and Nehem are at roughly the same latitude? It makes me wonder if the Book of Mormon was set south of the equator, where the night sky Lehites were familiar with in the Old World was different from the night sky of the New World, forcing adoption of a new directional system. But there isn't much evidence that they adopted a new directional system to begin with. Why would they? Yes, a conversation for another thread.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 I do acknowledge some of my ideas are wrong, I even said "I stand corrected".  However,  there is still not enough information to conclude that Nihm is Nahom, or that Nephi was doing wordplay for Nahom. My main argument that coincidence is a reasonable possibility still stands, I see no "obvious fact" like Robert claims.  Coincidence is a good possibility because it is still true that we have to make a lot of assumptions such as Nephi hearing a soft "H". Robert is right to point out it is possible, he gave me some examples, but just because is possible doesn't mean it is true. Assumptions can be helpful, especially in ancient history, but it doesn't mean assumptions are facts. 

Sam, making assumptions is inherent when looking at history as it unfolds to the archaeologists. They look at the data and make logical inferences from it. The Ba'ran inscriptions are not the only evidence for the existence of the Nihm tribe in the region. I would suggest that you read an article by Warren P. Aston that he presented in "Journal of Arabian Studies: Arabia, the Gulf, and the Red Sea," entitled "The Origins of the Nihm Tribe of Yemen: A Window into Arabia's Past." Therein he outlines the evidences available for the continued existence of the Nihm tribe dating back to at least the eighth century BCE, and evidence that the tribe continues to occupy pretty much the same territory attested to on the Nahom maps. He also points out how rare the NHM is the place name.

Whatever you are basing your opinion on, it not based upon the available evidence nor the opinions of the non-LDS archaeologists that have worked the area. If you do not accept the scholarship that has been done on this, there is very little that we can discuss. Scholarship does have its limits, i.e. limited by the available evidence. But it is the best way we have to make sense of the data that is coming to light.

Glenn