God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I didn't copy that map, I think it was the Arabic scholar. He sent me the link. You can check it yourself in Google maps. Your map above shows Nehem is north of Sanaa. The Bar'an Temple is in Marib. If you check Google maps the distance between Sanaa and Marib is 107 miles. 

I still couldn't find a legend or any indicator showing that distance, so I consulted Wolfram Alpha, and found the distance from Sanaa to Marib to be about 75 miles, while the distance from Sanaa to Nehem looks to be about half that, maybe 37 miles at most.  Of course these are not distances that Clan Lehi traveled, but only distances given for our perspective on the landscape of ancient Saba.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

He is not saying Lehi traveled to Marib, please read what he is saying https://goo.gl/3wEUGT

Lehi had no reason to go to Marib. Remember that the Bar'an Temple is in Marib?  

Well, if you admit that Clan Lehi had no reason to go to Marib-Bar'an, as I have already pointed out to you, why then does the pretend "scholar" show us a crow-flies cross section of mountains and gorges between the two locales?  That is dishonest at best.  First, no one travels as the crow flies, but follow regular trails and wadis when they do travel.  Second, Clan Lehi buried Ishmael at Nahom and then traveled "nearly eastward from that time forth" (1 Nephi 16:34, 17:1).  The description of their travel conditions is quite harsh (1 Ne 17:1-4).  Someone reading that account might want to sit down and find a reasonable route from Nehem eastward toward the coast of Oman following the lowland piedmont to the west of the high mountains.  Why would anyone make a silly proposal doing something else?  Unless, of course, the intention was deliberately anti-intellectual.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

https://goo.gl/3wEUGT

Okay, but that vast cemetery is not in the Nehem region and nowhere near Bar'an. To ask again Robert, do you have evidence that the Nehem region in the middle of dangerous mountains dates to 600 BC? and do you have any evidence that NHM inscription near Bar'an refers to Nehem? 

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.  Again, we are not dealing with proof here, but only with a plausible scenario, which is what we do in archeological and historical studies.  Taking a written text and reconstructing the events helps us understand it better.  Some of the blanks can be tentatively filled in, but not all questions can be answered.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

Quote

 

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It is possible, but Arabic scholar says there are many other family tribal names in the Baran temple site. Perhaps the NHM inscriptions in North Arabia are more related to Nehem than NHM in the Bar'an Temple.  

 

 

Of course there are many other tribes, clans, and names listed at the Bar'an temple site.  That is only natural.  However, to suggest that inscriptions from North Arabia would be more closely related to Nehem than the Bar'an Temple instances is just plain silly -- First because those North Arabic instances are from many centuries later and from a long distance away, and written in a very different Arabic dialect (Safaitic & Hismaic).  Second, why would you even make such an anti-intellectual suggestion?  I have pointed this out to you before, and still you persist in making that silly suggestion.  Why?

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

He made no such claim, he said there are many tribal names in Baran Temple. 

It was me wondering if NHM in North Arabia is more related to Nehem/NHYM in the mountains.  Robert, do you have evidence that the Nehem region in the  middle of dangerous mountains dates to 600 BC?  

You have this obsessive-compulsive thing about mountains being ugly and dangerous, which I don't understand, while the Nehem disrict is mostly in a flat, high plateau.  Of course the only reason for mentioning it is because it just happens to be on the heavily traveled caravan trail going north to the Mediterranean area.  To read your objections one would have to suppose that there never was a Kingdom of Saba (Sheba) and that the regular incense caravans did not exist.  All just fantasy, Sam?  You really ought to try dealing with real history.

We don't know whether it was called NHM in 587 BC, but that is certainly a possibility, and it coincides with the turning of Clan Lehi in that area from moving south to begin moving east.  Maybe not a coincidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay. Let's get things clear. Baran' Temple is not in Nehem, Nehem is in dangerous mountains for travelers.  

Never said it was, but you keep making the false claim that dangerous mountains prevented people from traveling, as though mountains and  only mountains existed in The Yemen, and that those mountains were ugly and dangerous.  One would have a hard time imagining how people in the Kingdom of Saba got around if it was as impossible as you suggest.  Indeed, how did they manage to mount such large incense caravans on a regular basis?  Where did the caravans travel?  On magic carpets, like Aladdin?  Are you being deliberately silly?  I really don't get it.  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I still couldn't find a legend or any indicator showing that distance, so I consulted Wolfram Alpha, and found the distance from Sanaa to Marib to be about 75 miles

Okay you earlier told me " NHM altars are found at a temple only 25 miles from the massive, ancient burial ground within the well-known tribal area of NHM"

Now you are telling me the distance is about 75 miles. So we now agree the "well-known" Nehem tribal area is nowhere near NHM in Bar'an? 

To be clear your claim that "ancient burial ground" is in Nehem is not accurate. There is no large burial ground in the Nehem tribal area.

What a mess.  

Quote

Sanaa to Nehem looks to be about half that, maybe 37 miles at most.

Yes, but the Bar'an temple is nowhere near Sanaa or Nehem .

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 to suggest that inscriptions from North Arabia would be more closely related to Nehem than the Bar'an Temple instances is just plain silly -- First because those North Arabic instances are from many centuries later and from a long distance away, and written in a very different Arabic dialect (Safaitic & Hismaic).  Second, why would you even make such an anti-intellectual suggestion?  I have pointed this out to you before, and still you persist in making that silly suggestion.  Why?

You are missing the point. First, I am not saying NHM inscriptions in North Arabia are related to Nehem. Second, your claim that "North Arabic instances are from centuries later" is not accurate, you just told me "We don't know whether it was called NHM in 587 BC, ". There is no evidence that Nehem near Sanaa dates to 587 BC .Third, the NHM inscriptions in North Arabia and Nehem may be from the same time period. Fourth, for me comparing the NHM in Ba'ran to Nehem is like comparing NHM inscriptions in North Arabia to Nehem. We just don't know. 

It is all a mess. NHM altars are not in Nehem. There is no cemetery in Nehem. 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course there are many other tribes, clans, and names listed at the Bar'an temple site.

Exactly

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if you admit that Clan Lehi had no reason to go to Marib-Bar'an, as I have already pointed out to you, why then does the pretend "scholar" show us a crow-flies cross section of mountains and gorges between the two locales? 

He is telling us the distances between Marib-Bar'an (NHM altars) and Nehem.  He doesn't have Lehi going to Marib-Bar'an. 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Never said it was, but you keep making the false claim that dangerous mountains prevented people from traveling, as though mountains and  only mountains existed in The Yemen

Nehem is the the middle of a vast mountain range, see the map. To get to Nehem from Jerusalem you have to cross a lot of mountains. 

On the maps where do you see the worst mountain range? The worst mountain range in Arabia is the one that takes you from Jerusalem to Nehem.  Why would God take Lehi and his family to Nehem? See the maps below. 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One would have a hard time imagining how people in the Kingdom of Saba got around if it was as impossible as you suggest. Indeed, how did they manage to mount such large incense caravans on a regular basis? Where did the caravans travel? On magic carpets, like Aladdin? Are you being deliberately silly? I really don't get it

Not saying it is impossible. Are you sure that no one from  Sanna died crossing the mountains? Lehi and his clan had the advantage of being guided by God.  I see no reason why God would direct them to Nehem. 

 

"Nehem relative to west coast. Map also shows Baran temple, some 60+ miles away, as well as Ruwaiq mountains burial site, some 100+ miles away."

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/15/2017 at 4:39 PM, RevTestament said:

The tribe of NHM was apparently a powerful local tribe with a large burial ground used for the whole area.

There was no large burial ground in the Nehem tribal area.The massive burial ground is actually located in Ruwaiq, not Nehem. Ruwaiq is no where near Nehem tribal area, and nowhere near NHM in Ba'raan. Second,  Nehem is about 100 miles away from Ba'raan, and even farther away from Ruwaiq. It is all a mess, I need someone to explain. Please.

Edited September 16, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

. It is all a mess, I need someone to explain. Please.

Explanations are given and then you tell people they are wrong.

It comes across as you looking for agreement, not explanation.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There was no large burial ground in the Nehem tribal area.The massive burial ground is actually located in Ruwaiq, not Nehem. Ruwaiq is no where near Nehem tribal area, and nowhere near NHM in Ba'raan. Second,  Nehem is about 100 miles away from Ba'raan, and even farther away from Ruwaiq. It is all a mess, I need someone to explain. Please.

So you are saying, without any documentation, that anyone dead in the Nehem district had to be taken over 100 miles away to Ruwaiq for burial.  Unbelievable, Sam.  Are you really that gullible?  You yourself emphasize the ugly, dangerous mountains, and then you insist that dead bodies have to be hauled long distances for burial through such horrible conditions?  Will the real Samuel please stand up?  The "mess" you complain about is largely  in your mind.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There was no large burial ground in the Nehem tribal area.The massive burial ground is actually located in Ruwaiq, not Nehem. Ruwaiq is no where near Nehem tribal area, and nowhere near NHM in Ba'raan. Second,  Nehem is about 100 miles away from Ba'raan, and even farther away from Ruwaiq. It is all a mess, I need someone to explain. Please.

It's only a "mess" to those apparently trying to portray a messy picture. There is no necessity for a huge burial ground in Nihm. Aston notes there were others north of Mar'ib. He also says "a below-ground area of multi-level burial tombs catering for more than twenty thousand burials, for example, was constructed adjacent to the Awwam temple at Maʾrib, with a smaller number of elaborate above-ground mausoleums. There are, of course, also a number of smaller burial areas of great antiquity scattered at various other locations of modern Nihm." https://www.academia.edu/13256024/The_Origins_of_the_Nihm_Tribe_of_Yemen_A_Window_into_Arabias_Past p. 147

He also notes that the name shows up in some ancient history of the Yemen area. Yemeni historian al-Hamdani’s geographical work  Sifat Jazirat al-Arab, and the tenth volume of  al-Iklil, both written about 900 AD, mention Nihm often. Importantly, Hamdani discusses the Bakil tribes in about the first-century AD. The name also appears on palm sticks, and other places, all pointing to Nihm being a fairly well known ancient Yemeni tribe of the Saba'a kingdom. The NHM tribal area fits the expected geographical description of where the Lehites turned east to get to the coast. If the shoe fits so well, I don't see your problem with it. In my book it's a done deal, and I consider myself a somewhat skeptical person.

Quote

Nehem is the the middle of a vast mountain range, see the map. To get to Nehem from Jerusalem you have to cross a lot of mountains. 

On the maps where do you see the worst mountain range? The worst mountain range in Arabia is the one that takes you from Jerusalem to Nehem.  Why would God take Lehi and his family to Nehem? See the maps below. 

Although you addressed this to Robert, I will answer it. There was a well-traveled caravan trail through the mountains and along the inner plateau of Arabia. I personally do not believe that Lehi's group traveled that path, but it would have been easy enough. You can see it on all kinds of maps. I believe Lehi's group followed the coastal plain - another fairly easy course to travel, although probably more challenging from the standpoint of water. I assume they would have made use of local wells. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay you earlier told me " NHM altars are found at a temple only 25 miles from the massive, ancient burial ground within the well-known tribal area of NHM"

Now you are telling me the distance is about 75 miles. So we now agree the "well-known" Nehem tribal area is nowhere near NHM in Bar'an? 

You are the one originally declaring that Nehem and Bar'an were "nowhere near" each other, and both of us were working from the claims of others, and both of us were wrong about the actual distances.  The distance I had been told was too small, yours was too large.  So what? The notion that the Lehites were going to need to travel to Bar'an was always ridiculous, and still is.  The notion that NHM was a name present in Lehi's day in South Arabia is still correct, even though you attempted to claim that it wasn't.

Quote

To be clear your claim that "ancient burial ground" is in Nehem is not accurate. There is no large burial ground in the Nehem tribal area.

What a mess.  

Yes, but the Bar'an temple is nowhere near Sanaa or Nehem .

So the burial grounds in Nehem are not large enough for you?  And you are claiming then that all bodies were taken over a hundred miles away from Nehem for burial?  Could you please CFR that claim?

Quote

You are missing the point. First, I am not saying NHM inscriptions in North Arabia are related to Nehem. Second, your claim that "North Arabic instances are from centuries later" is not accurate,

False.  You certainly did make that claim repeatedly, and then you also falsely claim that the North Arabic inscriptions are not from centuries later than Nahom.  You are playing games now, Sam.  Very deceptive shell games.

Quote

you just told me "We don't know whether it was called NHM in 587 BC, ". There is no evidence that Nehem near Sanaa dates to 587 BC .Third, the NHM inscriptions in North Arabia and Nehem may be from the same time period. Fourth, for me comparing the NHM in Ba'ran to Nehem is like comparing NHM inscriptions in North Arabia to Nehem. We just don't know. 

The facts about the late North Arabic graffiti are settled matters, not in dispute.  They cannot be from the period ca. 587 BC when the Lehites passed through.  They are centuries later and cannot be related.  Of course I never said that the Nehem north of Sanaa existed by that name in 587 BC, but only that the tribal name is known in South Arabia in that very time period.  Again, you are playing the old switcheroo shell game, Sam.  No honest attempt to engage in sincere discussion.

Quote

It is all a mess. NHM altars are not in Nehem. There is no cemetery in Nehem. .......................................

Again, CFR that there is no cemetery in Nehem.

Quote

He is telling us the distances between Marib-Bar'an (NHM altars) and Nehem.  He doesn't have Lehi going to Marib-Bar'an. 

Then why did your pretend "scholar" present us with a cross-section view of the mountains and gorges between the two locations?  Again, it is part of your and his bait & switch tactic.  Chicanery instead of discussion.

Quote

Nehem is the the middle of a vast mountain range, see the map. To get to Nehem from Jerusalem you have to cross a lot of mountains. 

On the maps where do you see the worst mountain range? The worst mountain range in Arabia is the one that takes you from Jerusalem to Nehem.  Why would God take Lehi and his family to Nehem? See the maps below. 

Not saying it is impossible. Are you sure that no one from  Sanna died crossing the mountains? Lehi and his clan had the advantage of being guided by God.  I see no reason why God would direct them to Nehem. 

"Nehem relative to west coast. Map also shows Baran temple, some 60+ miles away, as well as Ruwaiq mountains burial site, some 100+ miles away."

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

You know nothing of traveling from Jerusalem to Nehem, nearly all of it flat, including the high elevation plateaus.  Large camel caravans made the trip regularly, and it was the lifeblood of the Kingdom of Saba (Sheba).  They traveled through dry wadis and over vast upland areas, always finding the easiest route.  Your version of that is tantamount to declaring falsely that the Mormons had to travel through rough mountains en route to Salt Lake City from Iowa, when nearly all of it was low plains and high plains, with some river fords here and there.  Join the real world, Sam.

Of course, Clan Lehi traveled in the lowland coast plain (Tihama) all along the Red Sea for years before turning east, rather than on the regular caravan route, so it may have been much rougher going for them sometimes.  But that is for another discussion.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Not saying it is impossible. Are you sure that no one from  Sanna died crossing the mountains? Lehi and his clan had the advantage of being guided by God.  I see no reason why God would direct them to Nehem. 

There is a lot we do not know about the area during the time of Lehi. We do not know how extensive the area that was know as Nehem on the map. That map was made some eight or nine hundred years after the events narrated in the Book of Mormon and depicted the names and areas as they existed at the time the maps were made.  That map was made  People that have actually visited the area, such as Warren Aston, have informed us that the extensive burial grounds are within forty kilometers which is about twenty-five miles of Marib. Whether the Book of Mormon Nahom meant the same or did not mean the same as the Nehem on the amp is really irrelevant. What it meant to a native of the area or what it meant to the Lehi party and how they would pronounce it is mostly irrelevant. The relevant fact is that there was an already existing area called Nehem/Nahom/NHM with archeological  evidence that the name dates back to the Book of Mormon times.

Now, there may have been more places called Nahom or Nehm, or Nehem, or Naham, or Nahum in Arabia. Yet, how many have been found on any maps? The sheriff policing the law of very large numbers is having a hard time finding those numbers here. 

Now, would Lehi and company take the time to go out of their way (if in fact they knew their way more than a day in advance) to bury Ishmael in a place dedicated to such a purpose rather than burying him along the trail? I do believe that they would. Maybe someone that is more conversant with ancient Israel and their burial practices can enlighten us. Lehi and company spent about eight years in various parts of the wilderness after leaving Jerusalem. There is pretty good evidence that they spent a good amount of time, maybe a couple or three years in the Valley of Laman. And they certainly spent more than a few months at Bountiful while building the ship. But there is a lot of time for which we have but scanty details. There is a whole lot that Nephi just does not say. 

To repeat the meme. No proof, but very plausible evidence.

Glenn

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Explanations are given and then you tell people they are wrong.

It comes across as you looking for agreement, not explanation.

Looking for everything.  

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are saying, without any documentation, that anyone dead in the Nehem district had to be taken over 100 miles away to Ruwaiq for burial.  Unbelievable, Sam.  Are you really that gullible? 

Not what I said. Do you any documentation that massive burial grounds are in the Nehem tribe area? 

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It's only a "mess" to those apparently trying to portray a messy picture. There is no necessity for a huge burial ground in Nihm. Aston notes there were others north of Mar'ib. He also says "a below-ground area of multi-level burial tombs catering for more than twenty thousand burials, for example, was constructed adjacent to the Awwam temple at Maʾrib, with a smaller number of elaborate above-ground mausoleums. There are, of course, also a number of smaller burial areas of great antiquity scattered at various other locations of modern Nihm." https://www.academia.edu/13256024/The_Origins_of_the_Nihm_Tribe_of_Yemen_A_Window_into_Arabias_Past p. 147

Yes, we can agree on that, it makes more sense. The only reason I said there is no massive burial ground in Nehem because you earlier told me "The tribe of NHM was apparently a powerful local tribe with a large burial ground used for the whole area". So yes, I can accept smaller burial areas near Nehem.  

Please, I don't trust Aston. I explain in the OP why for me he doesn't have enough credibility. 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are the one originally declaring that Nehem and Bar'an were "nowhere near" each other, and both of us were working from the claims of others, and both of us were wrong about the actual distances.  The distance I had been told was too small, yours was too large.  

Okay good. We are making some progress now. 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The notion that the Lehites were going to need to travel to Bar'an was always ridiculous, and still is.  

Yes. I am not sure why you think I was saying that. CFR for "the massive, ancient burial ground within the well-known tribal area of NHM" 

I am talking about the Nehem tribe North of Sanaa. 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, CFR that there is no cemetery in Nehem.

I retract. I meant there is no massive burial ground in Nehem. The massive burial ground is located in Ruwaiq, not Nehem. 

CFR for your claim. I will reply to the rest of your comments tomorrow Brother Robert.

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/14/2017 at 10:19 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

I know the feeling, God also told me he wont allow me to retire early to look for Nephites, letting me go to South America.

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/14/2017 at 9:19 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 I don't think Nahom was found because I believe God hided archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon to test our faith.  It makes sense that God hided (or removed) everything to test our faith. 

God covers up the evidence to test the faith of people who already believe in the BOM narrative and this evidence would only enhance the faith that they already have.  I don't see any rational reason for this.  It also raises questions of how serious God really is about all of this stuff.  Why should we promote the Book of Mormon if God is actively working against it and to make efforts as difficult as possible?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

  Why should we promote the Book of Mormon if God is actively working against it and to make efforts as difficult as possible?

He is testing our Faith, see divinely approved deception.

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

 It also raises questions of how serious God really is about all of this stuff.  

Why would God lead the Lehi clan to a dangerous mountain range?   

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

Why would God lead the Lehi clan to a dangerous mountain range?   

Do you believe that God led the early LDS to Utah?

Do you know how many died on the way because of the dangers of the trip?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

Any number of reasons. More food, more water, less chance of discovery, etc., etc., etc..

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

.................................... Not what I said. Do you any documentation that massive burial grounds are in the Nehem tribe area? 

Yes, we can agree on that, it makes more sense. The only reason I said there is no massive burial ground in Nehem because you earlier told me "The tribe of NHM was apparently a powerful local tribe with a large burial ground used for the whole area". So yes, I can accept smaller burial areas near Nehem.  

Please, I don't trust Aston. I explain in the OP why for me he doesn't have enough credibility. ..................................................................... 

You first gave me a fairytale that Aston believes in ancient astronauts, but no documentation for that ridiculous claim.  At least Warren Aston has been there several times and understands the lay of the land.  Here is a photo of him at Bar'an with a NHM altar:

 

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes. I am not sure why you think I was saying that. CFR for "the massive, ancient burial ground within the well-known tribal area of NHM" 

I am talking about the Nehem tribe North of Sanaa. 

I retract. I meant there is no massive burial ground in Nehem. The massive burial ground is located in Ruwaiq, not Nehem. 

CFR for your claim. I will reply to the rest of your comments tomorrow Brother Robert.

As RevTestament said:

Quote

It's only a "mess" to those apparently trying to portray a messy picture. There is no necessity for a huge burial ground in Nihm. Aston notes there were others north of Mar'ib. He also says "a below-ground area of multi-level burial tombs catering for more than twenty thousand burials, for example, was constructed adjacent to the Awwam temple at Maʾrib, with a smaller number of elaborate above-ground mausoleums. There are, of course, also a number of smaller burial areas of great antiquity scattered at various other locations of modern Nihm."   https://www.academia.edu/13256024/The_Origins_of_the_Nihm_Tribe_of_Yemen_A_Window_into_Arabias_Past p. 147.

I accept Aston's perspective on that.  Makes more sense than my earlier insistence on a huge burial ground in Nehem.  After all, I have  not been there.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe that God led the early LDS to Utah?

Do you know how many died on the way because of the dangers of the trip?

God had Utah prepared for them. I doubt God had Nehem (North of Sanaa) prepared for the Lehi clan. If you look at the map there are at easier ways to Bountiful. One of the easier ways is a shortcut to Bountiful. Lehi clan had no need to cross a long and dangerous mountain range. As for early LDS they had no other way to go to Utah.  

 I can't think of a good reason why God would take them to Nehem (North of Sanaa). Oh by the way, the Book of Mormon says "And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea."  Nehem (North of Sanaa), NHM in Bar'an, and the massive burial ground in Ruwaiq are nowhere near the coastline. 

1 Nephi 16: 14 is proof that Nahom hasn't been found, WOW why I didn't think of 1 Nephi 16:14 before. The Book of Mormon Nahom is in the coastline.  It was after Nahom that the Lehi clan travels eastward 1 Nephi 17:1. 

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Any number of reasons. More food, more water, less chance of discovery, etc., etc., etc..

More food and water? How? 

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Of course I never said that the Nehem north of Sanaa existed by that name in 587 BC, but only that the tribal name is known in South Arabia in that very time period.

I understand Robert. You are assuming Nehem (north of Sanaa) and NHM of Bar'an is the same tribal name. NHM of Bar'an and Nehem (north of Sanaa) are two different Arabic languages, Old Arabic was different. As I understand the meaning of Nehem (north of Sanaa) is nihm. Notice that nhmyn and nihm are not the same.  Nehem (north of Sanaa) is an Islamic name. 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  You certainly did make that claim repeatedly, and then you also falsely claim that the North Arabic inscriptions are not from centuries later than Nahom.  You are playing games now, Sam.  Very deceptive shell games.

My point is that we need to be careful about assuming that NHM of Bar'an and Nehem (north of Sanaa) are the same name. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You first gave me a fairytale that Aston believes in ancient astronauts, but no documentation for that ridiculous claim.  At least Warren Aston has been there several times and understands the lay of the land.  Here is a photo of him at Bar'an with a NHM altar:

He wrote a book.

Robert, 1 Nephi 16:14 says, "And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea." Nahom is in the coast. It was after Nahom that the Lehi clan went eastward (1 Ne 17:1). 

Bar'an and Sanaa are nowhere near the seacoast. Why didn't I think of 1 Nephi 16:14 before. It makes sense that Nahom is in the coast,  do you notice in the maps that the ugly mountains are not in the sea coast?  The coastline was a much easier path.  Lehi clan didn't have to cross a long and dangerous mountain range. 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I accept Aston's perspective on that.  Makes more sense than my earlier insistence on a huge burial ground in Nehem.  After all, I have  not been there.

Well, thank you for recognizing a mistake. It is okay, I made a lot of mistakes too. What Aston doesn't make clear is if the "smaller burial areas of great antiquity" are in the Nehem tribe region north of Sanaa. 

Aston says, "twenty thousand burials, for example, was constructed adjacent to the Awwam temple at Maʾrib," 

Okay, but do the inscriptions in Ba'ran mention a NHM tribe/family region? Arabic scholar told me there is no Nihmite family/tribe region near Ba'ran.

Why are burial grounds near Ba'raan, Ma'rib relevant?  Ba'raan, Mar'rib inscriptions don't mention an NHM region.  

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Calm]

"God had Utah prepared for them."

In what fashion had God prepared Utah for them and the dangerous mountains and other dangers they had to travel through resulting in many, many deaths.

------

Do you not think that Lehi and his group might need to hide for two reasons...one,to hide from those who plotted Levi's death and two, those who were seeking recovery of the brass plates and revenge for Laban's death?  And then there are the thieves who pick off smaller, unprotected caravans.

Easy physical routes often have plenty of man made dangers.  One of the reasons to eat raw meat is to avoid fires that can draw attention from long distances.

They needed a place to build a ship.  God prepared Bountiful for them.  

So what is the difference between the groups where they go if God is protecting them and providing miracles like having them thrive on raw meat.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

"However, I am a little skeptical because Aston also finds "overwhelming evidence that earth is being, and has always been, visited by a variety of extra-terrestrial races"."

And Linus Pauling, considered by some one of the 20 top scientists of all time, had the hobby of claiming megadoses of Vitamin C could cure practically everything.  His later obsession does not destroy his original good work.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

1 Nephi 16: 14 is proof that Nahom hasn't been found, WOW why I didn't think of 1 Nephi 16:14 before. The Book of Mormon Nahom is in the coastline.  It was after Nahom that the Lehi clan travels eastward 1 Nephi 17:1. 

Traveling along the coastline would not fit Nephi's description of a "nearly eastward" trek. A coastline travel to either of the sites currently considered as possible candidates for Bountiful would be in a nearly northward direction.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Nehem (north of Sanaa) is an Islamic name.

Yes, because the Islamic rule came to the area sometime after 630 A.D. We do not really know what influence that had on area names and tribal influences. I goofed on my earlier assertion that the map was made eight of nine hundred years after the events in question. My brain was not functioning. That map was made some 2000 plus years after the events in question. Perhaps things circa 600 B.C. was a bit different than they were when that map was made?

Glenn

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

He is testing our Faith, see divinely approved deception.

Why would God lead the Lehi clan to a dangerous mountain range?   

I do believe God has hid up things to the last, but believing that He is hiding this locale from us, and is tricking us with a different locale is a bit too much for me. The BoM itself seems to indicate that the very earth will bring forth evidence for it, and I believe archaeology has done that. I believe the NHM sites are more evidence that when put altogether will demand a verdict.

As for dangerous mountains - really? What is so dangerous about them? NHM appears to have been located in a large basin/plateau area with well-traveled routes coming and going. It's not like they were hauling their donkeys over cliff precipices or the like. It was probably the first populated area they came to after leaving the coastal plain, and so was a natural place to stop.

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

God had Utah prepared for them. I doubt God had Nehem (North of Sanaa) prepared for the Lehi clan. If you look at the map there are at easier ways to Bountiful. One of the easier ways is a shortcut to Bountiful. Lehi clan had no need to cross a long and dangerous mountain range.

Ya'know, I have to disagree. I don't see a better way looking at the map, except by boat. However, by that time, Judah had apparently lost control of ancient Elat, and they probably didn't have the money any longer to hire a boat anyway. That left a long land journey. What "easier" route do you see? Crossing the internal desert of Arabia would have killed them. It would have been shorter, but a lot more desert. As it was they were eating raw meat in the empty quarter. Most of the people in Arabia live along the coasts for a reason - that is the more fertile parts of the land.

Quote

As for early LDS they had no other way to go to Utah.  

 I can't think of a good reason why God would take them to Nehem (North of Sanaa). Oh by the way, the Book of Mormon says "And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea."  Nehem (North of Sanaa), NHM in Bar'an, and the massive burial ground in Ruwaiq are nowhere near the coastline. 

1 Nephi 16: 14 is proof that Nahom hasn't been found, WOW why I didn't think of 1 Nephi 16:14 before. The Book of Mormon Nahom is in the coastline.  It was after Nahom that the Lehi clan travels eastward 1 Nephi 17:1. 

More food and water? How? 

Those large mountains you see as "dangerous" were their life line. They sucked moisture from the Red Sea out of the sky and brought precipitation to the mountains where you find the oasis and springs needed to sustain crops and wildlife to this day. Most of the Saudis live in and around those "dangerous" mountains. In actuality they are not dangerous at all. They are the lifeline of the inhabitants. Without them it would probably be like the Sahara there - or at least like the central, barren deserts of Arabia. The coastline presented a fairly easy route of travel away from the larger armed caravans, and probably at the time the occasional stream, wadis, oasis. It is where other Semitic peoples lived - the sons of Abraham and Keturah, who had villages and wells etc. It was probably the shortest logical route to take given all these variables. I would really like for you to show a better one. It is quite possible that Lehi had at least some experience trading with the Midianites, and as Semitic peoples, they probably had less language barriers than they would have encountered in Africa. As it turns out Phoenicia wasn't a good option either unless they had money for a boat, because Nebuchadnezzar put it to siege as well. So I really would like to hear your better option for them. And I will help you out. Once you get to the southern coast of Arabia, the sea cliffs become major obstacles in places.

As for 1 Nephi 16:14 that is a major indicator that they followed the coastal plain route, and stayed near the Red Sea which they probably could see from the mountains from time to time.  But at some point they had to leave that coastal plain to get to Bountiful. And at that point is when Ishmael died and you will notice that the text doesn't say they followed that course exactly, but says:

33 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time.

34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.

NHM Yemen is a turning point for the ancient caravans. From there there was a chain of 3 major cities eastward in Yemen to give them a start through the empty quarter. It is the natural turning point. Waiting to turn would only make their course longer and more difficult since the coastal plain eventually disappears. So go ahead show your "easier" shorter route. I challenge you. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

22 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 He also says "a below-ground area of multi-level burial tombs catering for more than twenty thousand burials, for example, was constructed adjacent to the Awwam temple at Maʾrib

I don't understand why burial grounds near Ba'ran, Ma'rib are relevant because there are dozens of family/tribe names near Ba'ran, Ma'rib.  The NHM inscriptions in Ba'ran don't mention a NHM region, place, city, town. "Nihmite" could simply be a family name. There is no reason to believe NHM inscriptions refer to a place. 

Secondly, Bar'an, Ma'rib are nowhere near the sea coast.   

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

33 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time.

It says "traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning". Nehem north of Sanaa is about 150 miles away from the sea coast, and the NHM site near Bar'an is about 250 miles away.  I don't see how going to Sanaa or Bar'an is "nearly the same course".  Secondly, Sanaa and Bar'an are in the east, there would to no point to turn "eastward" if you are already going east. 

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I do believe God has hid up things to the last, but believing that He is hiding this locale from us, and is tricking us with a different locale is a bit too much for me. The BoM itself seems to indicate that the very earth will bring forth evidence for it, and I believe archaeology has done that. I believe the NHM sites are more evidence that when put altogether will demand a verdict.

The NHM altars don't mention an NHM location. The only NHM-like region is north of Sanaa, at least 100 miles away and about 1,000 years apart.   

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

As for dangerous mountains - really? What is so dangerous about them? NHM appears to have been located in a large basin/plateau area with well-traveled routes coming and going. It's not like they were hauling their donkeys over cliff precipices or the like. It was probably the first populated area they came to after leaving the coastal plain, and so was a natural place to stop.

If you look at the map you see only one long and ugly mountain range in Arabia, that is the same one that gets you to Nehem north of Sanaa.  There is no reason why God would take them to Nehem north of Sanaa.  

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Traveling along the coastline would not fit Nephi's description of a "nearly eastward" trek.

That was to go to Bountiful. If you look at the map "south east direction" is the coastline. 

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Yes, because the Islamic rule came to the area sometime after 630 A.D.

So we agree NHM in Bar'an is no the same name. 

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you not think that Lehi and his group might need to hide for two reasons...one,to hide from those who plotted Levi's death and two, those who were seeking recovery of the brass plates and revenge for Laban's death?  And then there are the thieves who pick off smaller, unprotected caravans.

Easy physical routes often have plenty of man made dangers.  One of the reasons to eat raw meat is to avoid fires that can draw attention from long distances.

Good point, but the Book of Mormon says Lehi clan did go "forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea." The seacoast was an easier route, and  Sanaa and Baraan are nowhere near the Sea Coast.    

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite