God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

Yes, the lowland coastal plain (called Tihama in Arabic) which Clan Lehi used as their main route south-southeast for so long can be much easier in some, but not all areas.  However, the inland incense camel caravan route is even easier and was much traveled -- the main route north and south for many centuries.  1 Nephi 16:14 doesn't tell us that Nahom is on the coast, although that is one possible interpretation.  We don't encounter Nahom until 1 Ne 16:34.  Meantime, Nephi tells us that they did a lot of hunting, and that took place in mountain areas, as he states in 16:30.  So we don't know where they were when Ishmael died, but it doesn't seem likely to have been on the coast.  You yourself continually emphasize the mountains, and that is where game is to be found, and that is what Nephi is doing, as guided by the Liahona --  supplying food to the family through his hunting prowess.

13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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.  

Of course the Bar'an altars don't mention a Nehem region, but no one said they did (another straw man from you).  The NHM altars only show that the tribal name was in used in Lehi's time.  A real "scholar" could not miss that point.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

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. 

False.  We have no reason to suppose that NHM is not the same name in both locations.  Islam is not a language, and no Muslim would ever speak of Nehem being "an Islamic name."  It is an Arabic name, likely in the same location since ancient times, even though we can't prove it.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course the Bar'an altars don't mention a Nehem region, but no one said they did 

So it means the burial sites near Marib are irrelevant. "The NHM altars only show the tribal name was in used in Lehi's time". So it is good we agree Mormon scholars have no idea where Nahom is. As for the NHM altars dating to Lehi's time it is just an educated guess. An educated guess means it is not well established. The Arabic scholar told me Vogt dated the altars after Lehi.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  We have no reason to suppose that NHM is not the same name in both locations. 

They are at least 75 miles away from each other, and at least 1,000 years apart. You earlier told me "they are from centuries later and in a very different area. " What you told me earlier is backfiring now. 

Arabic scholar told me NHM in Bar'an and NHM north of Sanaa are different languages. I guess he means NHM in Bar'an is Old Arabic.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  1 Nephi 16:14 doesn't tell us that Nahom is on the coast, although that is one possible interpretation.  We don't encounter Nahom until 1 Ne 16:34.  Meantime, Nephi tells us that they did a lot of hunting, and that took place in mountain areas, as he states in 16:30.  So we don't know where they were when Ishmael died, but it doesn't seem likely to have been on the coast.

 Both Bar'an and Sanaa are in the East. Lehi clan didn't travel East before Nahom. Why would the turn Eastward if they were already going East? Makes no sense. It doesn't seem likely that Lehi clan was 150+ miles East of the Red Sea coast. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Islam is not a language, and no Muslim would ever speak of Nehem being "an Islamic name."  It is an Arabic name, likely in the same location since ancient times, even though we can't prove it.

Arabic scholar told me NHM (nihm) tribe name comes from this guy  (حبشي بن قيس النهمي). I don't know, but what I do know is that both Bar'an and Sanaa are nowhere near the sea coast. To get to Bar'an or Sanna from the sea coast you have to go 150+ miles East. . 

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[nealr]

Reading this thread was exceptionally painful. So much misinformation. Let me see if I can help out a bit. I'm not sure who SamuelTheLamanites anonymous Arabic expert is (actually, I have a hunch), but almost nothing he has said matches the professional published literature on the topic.

Dating of the Altars

I have personally sought out every published date I could find for altars DAI Bar'an 1988-1 (also listed as DAI Bar'an 1988-2 in some publications), DAI Bar'an 1994/5-2, and DAI Bar'an 1996-1, which are colloquially called the "NHM altars" in Mormon circles. They are consistently dated to around the time of Lehi:

Burkhard Vogt, “Les Temples de Maʾrib,” in Yemen au Pays de la Reine de Saba, ed. Christian Robin and Burkhard Vogt (Paris, FR: Flammarion, 1997), 144: 6th-7th century BC.

K. A. Kitchen, Documentation for Ancient Arabia, 2 vols. (Liverpool, UK: 1994–2000), 2:18: 6th-7th century BC

Alexander Sima, “Religion,” in Queen of Sheba: Treasures from Ancient Yemen, ed. St John Simpson (London, UK: The British Museum Press, 2002), 166: 6th-7th century BC

Norbert Nebes, “Zur Chronologie Der Inschriften Aus Dem Barʾān Temple,” Archaologische Berichte aus dem Yemen 10 (2005): 119: aSabB, defined as ca. 685 BC on p. 115 n.34.

The Gorsdorf and Vogt radiocabon dating paper does not provide any dating for the altars in question. It provides radiocarbon dates from the site. On p. 1366 it states that the samples from Period II (which includes temple 3, 4, and the forecourt) provide a terminus ante quem, which is a latest possible date for that phase of construction. The earliest of these dates is 520-390 BC, which simply means that everything in Period II was built sometime before this. On p. 1367, they explain that the beginning of Period II is unknown, but that the forecourt was likely built between the late 6th century to the late 5th century BC, and that either date allows for construction and use of temple 3 before hand. So they don't give an exact date for the construction of temple 3, but one can reasonably extrapolate from all of that that it was built no later than the 6th century BC. Nebes (above) on p. 115 dates the construction of temple 3 to the 8th-7th century BC, and suggests that a few inscriptions were made during this time. This would seem to include the NHM altars, since they are dated to this same time period by Nebes (ca. 685 BC) and he dates the "classical" phase of construction (which most of the rest of the inscriptions belong to) to much later. Whether we follow Nebes (ca. 8th-7th century BC) or Gorsdorf and Vogt (ca. 6th century BC) on the construction of temple 3, it would appear to be built before or close to the time of Lehi.

Since the altars mention a ruler named Yada'il, this has some potential to narrow down the dates, but not by much. Rulers named Yada'il from the 8th-6th centuries BC include: Yada'il Dharih I (ca. 740-720 BC), Yada'il Dharih II (ca. 650-620 BC), or Yada'il Bayyin II (ca. 590-575 BC). Given the dating from Nebes of ca. 685 BC, I'd say Yada'il Dharih II is most likely. 

Note that the person said to be a Nihmite in the inscription is the grandfather of the dedicant, Bi'athtar. So even if it is only a 6th century BC inscription from a little later than Lehi (unlikely, in my opinion), the fact that it attests to Nihmites two generations earlier would still mean that the Nihm tribe was in the area around Lehi's time. 

NHMyn as Tribal or Place Name

In form, it is a nisbe, so it means that a person is  "of NHM." This could be a place name, but it is most consistently interpreted as a tribal name. I'm not sure if nisbes can be interpreted as family names, but I haven't seen anyone interpret the NHMyn of the altars as being a family name. Sima (above) translates nhmyn as "from Nihm," and says that "The dedicant, Bi'athtar ... comes from the Nihm region, west of Marib" (pp. 166-167). This is in the same general area as Nehem/Nihm today. Vogt (above) and Kitchen (in Aston's publications) translate nhmyn as "Nihmite". Vogt says that the Bi'athtar on the altars is from the Nihm tribe (tribu de Nihm), which was located "at the time without doubt north of Jawf, today northeast of Sanʾa" (p. 144, originally in French: "à l’époque sans doute au nord du Jawf, aujord’hui au nord-est de Sanʾâ"). Like Sima, he is clearly connecting the NHMyn  on the altars to the Nihm/Nehem tribal territory today, and locating it in the same general area. Peter Stein, Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München. Band 1: Die Inschriften der mittel- und spätsabäischen Periode (Tübingen and Berlin, GER: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 2010), 23, fig. 1 maps out "place, tribal, or regional names mentioned in the minuscule inscriptions" (originally in German: "anderer in den Minuskelinschriften erwähnter Orts–, Stammes– oder, Landschaftsname"), which date to a later time-period (late BC to early AD) and places NHM (Nihm) in the same general area as it is located today, based on the occurrence of  NHMyn in a list of tribal names (YM 11748) dated to ca. 4th century BC-4th century AD. Although this is later, I point it out because it is the same form of the name as found on the altars (the nisbe). In general, Stein lumps together nisbe, stamm (tribe), under the "toponym" umbrella, which of course means "place names." 

My point in all of this is the published literature that I have been able to consult consistently interprets NHMyn in the altars from Bar'an and other places as a reference to either a place or a tribe, and consistently locate that place or tribe in the general area where the current Nehem/Nihm tribal territory is today.

Northern and Western Arabia NHM Inscriptions

To my knowledge, none of these record a tribal or place name. They are all either personal names or simply the word nhm. This is why they are totally irrelevant. I've personally gone through the databases of Arabian inscriptions, and the only region where I've found examples of nhm in some form marked as a place or tribal name is in southwest Arabia. If there is a tribal name or place NHM from another region, you've gotta show me the evidence, not just point to any and all inscriptions that mention a "NHM".

EDIT: Just added italics to publication titles, because I'm OCD like that. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by nealr

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Never mind. 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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. 

Are you denying there was a NHM place? It is on old maps - it was a region. The Nehmite inscriptions just serve to give the locality an obvious family/tribal name and perhaps more importantly a date for when Nehmites lived in the area. That is their importance I believe. 

Quote

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

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. 

Looking at a map, it is plain if they stayed on their SSE direction, they would have gone up into the mountains at about the border of present day Yemen. That is because the mountains and the coastline turn about due south. Since they were due to turn east, the NHM region was on their direct path. They basically had to go through it to take their eastward path unless you are placing Bountiful on the east coast of Arabia or something.  I believe the NHM region was the whole valley to the cliff faces to the north. There are known ancient burial grounds there north of Mar'ib. Water flowed down from the mountains to the south, and flowed northward and eastward watering a high pastoral plain. This probably would have been like heaven to them after traveling along the drier coastal plain all that time. From there a path due east would take them to the green coast of Oman, and after burying Ishmael in Nahom the text says they went east. It all fits. Why do you keep fighting it?

Quote

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.   

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.  

I have not ever brought up Sanaa. It may not have even been there in that day. I don't believe they went there. And no, Nehem is not 100 miles away from Sanaa. Look at google maps - the southern area of Nehm is about 25 miles from Sanaa. I just disagree with you Sam. I believe there is every reason God would take them through Nehm. It was again along an eastward route they would need to take to get to the coast of Oman. If they didn't turn there they would take a longer route, miss the eastward part of the trade route which went into Oman, and run into seaside cliffs eventually. The frankincense trail went eastward from Mar'ib. Mar'ib was a crossing point for the caravan trails. This is probably why it was there - plus apparently having a local water source. Get yourself a trail map and look at it. From there there were two more cities to the east, and after that desert. The trail went through that desert because that was the best route to the frankincense region of Oman. I can't think of a better route. At some point they had to go through those mountains. That was the place to do it. Looking at a modern map there is a road going to Huth, Yemen - it leads through the mountains at about the point where the coast turns south - that is my probable region of where the Lehi clan left the coastal plain and crossed over the mountains into the northern Nehm region. That is where Ishmael died. I don't know how to better say this. I am not going to keep debating with a dead horse...

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, nealr said:

Note that the person said to be a Nihmite in the inscription is the grandfather of the dedicant, Bi'athtar. So even if it is only a 6th century BC inscription from a little later than Lehi (unlikely, in my opinion), the fact that it attests to Nihmites two generations earlier would still mean that the Nihm tribe was in the area around Lehi's time. 

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Why are the NHM altars relevant? Robert above told me "Of course the Bar'an altars don't mention a Nehem region"  The Nehem tribal region north of Sanaa  is about 75-125 miles away from Bar'an, and is from different time period, at least a 1,000 year difference.   

1 hour ago, nealr said:

My point in all of this is the published literature that I have been able to consult consistently interprets NHMyn in the altars from Bar'an and other places as a reference to either a place or a tribe, and consistently locate that place or tribe in the general area where the current Nehem/Nihm tribal territory is today.

You told me I am spreading misinformation. What you mean by the same general area is at least 75+ miles away from Ba'ran and "other places". 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.""  The Nehem/Nihm tribal territory today is 150 miles East of the sea coast. The Lehi clan wouldn't need to turn "eastward' after Nahom if they were already going East. Please explain.  The east turn was after Nahom. 

1 hour ago, nealr said:

Northern and Western Arabia NHM Inscriptions

To my knowledge, none of these record a tribal or place name. They are all either personal names or simply the word nhm. This is why they are totally irrelevant. I've personally gone through the databases of Arabian inscriptions, and the only region where I've found examples of nhm in some form marked as a place or tribal name is in southwest Arabia. 

My point is that it is just a coincidence. We can also find many inscriptions in Ba'ran that match Biblical names. Just because something matches doesn't mean they are related. 

1 hour ago, nealr said:

If there is a tribal name or place NHM from another region, you've gotta show me the evidence, not just point to any and all inscriptions that mention a "NHM".

Yes, according to the 1 Nephi 16:14 it is in the sea coast. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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.

Have you read the reports by George Potter and Richard Wellington as they attempted to trace Nephi's route? They actually traveled the route and their experience will inform you why your belief that following the seacoast was an easier route. I will quote an excerpt in case you have not read it yet.

"In Lehi’s time only one trail existed that led in a south/southeast direction to southern Arabia (see 1 Nephi 16:13–14). This trail is known as the Frankincense Trail because it was used to transport frankincense (the highly prized sap from the tree Boswelia sacra) from where it grew in the more fertile areas of southern Arabia to Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Israel in the north. Thus our model for Lehi’s trail departs from previous theories that Lehi traveled down the shoreline of the Red Sea—a route that would simply have been impossible since there was no trail along the coast, nor an organized string of wells, until the ninth century ad."

Blue sea is beautiful to look at, but not so much for drinking. Lehi and family had to follow the water holes, else they would have died.

Glenn

[SamuelTheLamanite]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Are you denying there was a NHM place? It is on old maps - it was a region. The Nehmite inscriptions just serve to give the locality an obvious family/tribal name and perhaps more importantly a date for when Nehmites lived in the area. That is their importance I believe. 

I am not denying Nehem is a place, it is about 100 miles away fro Bar'an and it is from a different time period,  at least a 1,000 year difference. 

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Looking at a map, it is plain if they stayed on their SSE direction, they would have gone up into the mountains at about the border of present day Yemen. That is because the mountains and the coastline turn about due south. Since they were due to turn east, the NHM region was on their direct path. They basically had to go through it to take their eastward path 

Book of Mormon says they turned eastward after Nahom. Why would they turn eastward if they were already heading east? 

Remember they were on the sea coast before getting to Nahom. 

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

And no, Nehem is not 100 miles away from Sanaa. Look at google maps - the southern area of Nehm is about 25 miles from Sanaa. I just disagree with you Sam.

"I consulted Wolfram Alpha, and found the distance from Sanaa to Marib to be about 75 miles" - Robert Smith  

NHM in Bar'an is at least 75+ miles away from Nehem north of Sanaa. 

19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

. At some point they had to go through those mountains. 

True, but it would be much more complicated to get to the Nehem tribe region north of Sanaa. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

34 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

. Thus our model for Lehi’s trail departs from previous theories that Lehi traveled down the shoreline of the Red Sea—a route that would simply have been impossible since there was no trail along the coast, nor an organized string of wells, until the ninth century ad."

Okay. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. To get to Bountiful there are other ways that avoid the long mountain range.   

Secondly, Book of Mormon says Lehi clan turned "eastward" after Nahom.  Book of Mormon says Lehi clan was in the sea coast, if the Lehi clan turned "eastward" before Nahom they wouldn't need to "turn" eastward after Nahom. Honestly it wouldn't make any logical sense.  

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, nealr said:

This is in the same general area as Nehem/Nihm today

Corrected: The Lehi clan wouldn't need to turn "eastward" after Nahom if they were already going East. Please explain.  The east turn was after Nahom, so it can only mean nahom is near the sea coast (1 Nephi 16:14), not 150+ miles east.   

Edited September 17, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am not denying Nehem is a place, it is about 100 miles away fro Bar'an and it is from a different time period,  at least a 1,000 year difference. 

Book of Mormon says they turned eastward after Nahom. Why would they turn eastward if they were already heading east? 

Remember they were on the sea coast before getting to Nahom. 

"I consulted Wolfram Alpha, and found the distance from Sanaa to Marib to be about 75 miles" - Robert Smith  

NHM in Bar'an is at least 75+ miles away from Nehem north of Sanaa. 

True, but it would be much more complicated to get to the Nehem tribe region north of Sanaa. 

I believe the NHM region was probably bigger at the time and incorporated the whole plain from the southern mountains to the northern cliffs where cemeteries were. I acknowledge the region seems to be smaller on modern maps. Anyway in that day, Nehm was a grazing plain. That was its main value besides being a silver mining region as well. Perhaps silver is how the family name became prominent. I need to investigate that more. Anyway assuming the Nehm region incorporated most of that elevated plain, it wasn't probably more than about 2 days journey to Mar'ib from its eastern parts. You need to remember Nehm was not a city; it was region with towns in it. It was a region that probably bordered whatever region Marib was in. It really shouldn't be too surprising that a Nehmite donated altars there. It would be like advertising for all to see....

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Secondly, Book of Mormon says Lehi clan turned "eastward" after Nahom.  Book of Mormon says Lehi clan was in the sea coast, if the Lehi clan turned "eastward" before Nahom they wouldn't need to "turn" eastward after Nahom. Honestly it wouldn't make any logical sense.  

Actually, it doesn't say they "turned eastward." It says from there or that point they traveled basically due east. That meant their SSE travel had ended. Nevertheless, after a short travel through mountain passes, they would be in a region north of NHM, and would have to travel SSE a little more before continuing east at NHM assuming they were coming from the region of present day Huth.

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. To reach Bountiful there are other routes that avoid the long mountain range.  

Secondly, Book of Mormon says Lehi clan turned "eastward" after Nahom.  Book of Mormon says Lehi clan was in the sea coast, if the Lehi clan turned "eastward" before Nahom they wouldn't need to "turn" eastward after Nahom. Honestly it wouldn't make any logical sense.

Please provide some evidence that there were other routes to reach Bountiful that would avoid the long mountain range. A route along the coast was developed much later. But at the time the Frankincense trail was the only route that I have read about. It basically followed the waterholes, and those waterholes or oases were known and guarded/protected by the local tribe in control of the area. It is doubtful in a land where water was extremely scarce that there were any waterholes of any significance unknown to the locals. The trail also follows a mostly southerly direction until it took an easterly swing at Marib.

The Book of Mormon does not say the Lehi clan was on the sea coast. That is your interpretation, but that interpretation would not find any water (or food) for the party. Read the article by Potter and Wellington. It does explain the more fertile parts as noted in the Book of Mormon as laid out in the series of oases that appear on the frankincense trail.

As I noted, I am getting my information from people that have actually traveled the route. Wellington and Potter and the Astons. Their travels research provide very plausible areas where Ishmael could have been buried and the trip take a "nearly eastward" not eastward turn.

Glenn

[nealr]

28 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Why are the NHM altars relevant? Robert above told me "Of course the Bar'an altars don't mention a Nehem region"  The Nehem tribal region north of Sanaa  is about 75-125 miles away from Bar'an, and is from different time period, at least a 1,000 year difference.   

You told me I am spreading misinformation. What you mean by the same general area is at least 75+ miles away from Ba'ran and "other places". 

I don't think you are understanding the sources I am quoting and what they are talking about. What I mean by the same general area is not the Bar'an temple site. It is the region that is, to this day, known as Nehem. When Sima says that the donor, Bi'athtar, is from "the Nihm region, west of Marib," he is talking about the area that is still called Nihm/Nehem today. When Vogt says that Bi'athtar was from the Nihm tribe, he then tells where that tribe was "without doubt" located, "north of Jawf." This is the same basic area where Vogt tells us Nihm is located today, "northeast of Sana." The map I mentioned from Peter Stein does not put NHM at Bar'an, but places it right where Nihm is now (not to mention the inscription with the tribal list that is using was found right in the Wadi Jawf, not at Bar'an).

In other words, while the altars were found Ba'ran, all the experts are saying that the dedicant of the altars was not from Ba'ran, but was from Nihm/Nehem, located in the same general area as it is now, which is west of Marib, northeast of Sana, near the Wadi Jawf. 

This is why the Ba'ran altars are relevant. They attest to the Nihm tribe existing during Lehi's time, and according to multiple experts that tribe would have been located in basically the same location it is in today. Your assertion that the Nihm/Nehem tribal territory is from 1000 years later is directly contradicted here. They are interpreting the NHM of the altars as references to the same tribe and they are saying that tribe was in the same place as the Nihm/Nehem tribe of later Arabic sources. Your "Arabic expert" is contradicting what the published academic literature says on this topic when he claims otherwise, and he is doing so on the basis of a theory cooked up on the spot in some blog comments a couple of months ago, for which he has not provided any evidence, and it is directly motivated by a desire to undercut arguments for the Book of Mormon. I've cited three sources that say NHM of the Old Sabean sources was the same the Nihm of later Arabic sources. Can you show me any published academic literature that says the NHM of Sabean inscriptions is not the Nihm of later Arabic sources?

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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.""  The Nehem/Nihm tribal territory today is 150 miles East of the sea coast. The Lehi clan wouldn't need to turn "eastward' after Nahom if they were already going East. Please explain.  The east turn was after Nahom. 

There are a ton issues that need to be unpacked. To assume that "boarders" means coast runs into problems since the text also mentions "borders near the shore of the Red Sea" and more confusedly still "the borders which are nearer the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 2:5). To most people, "coast" would mean "shore", so how do you have a coast which is near the shore? And what is a coast that is near vs. nearer? I see a lot of problems with equating "borders" with "coast". Robert is the only scholar I know that interprets this as meaning that Lehites were on the coast. Since Hugh Nibley (long before the NHM altars were discovered), most LDS scholars have understood Lehi and his family to be on the east side of the mountains. In any event, 1 Nephi 16:14 is soon after they left Shazer, which is in northern Arabia and on the order of ~1000 miles north of wherever Nahom must be. That would allow for plenty of time for them to slip through a mountain pass (which would probably only take a few days to a week) and then continue along in the same general direction as before (south-southeast), thus leaving Nephi no reason to mention a major shift in course when remembering his 8-year journey some 30 or so years later. 

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

My point is that it is just a coincidence. We can also find many inscriptions in Ba'ran that match Biblical names. Just because something matches doesn't mean they are related. 

Could it be coincidence? Sure. But evidence for coincidence would be much stronger if you could identify another tribe or place in Arabia with the same name, not just inscriptions from various places that mention the word NHM. The fact that all inscriptions mentioning a tribe or place called NHM are from southwestern Arabia, and all published scholars in this topic agree that they refer to the same tribe located in the same place, and the fact that place fits the Book of Mormon description fairly well, in my opinion, reduces the odds coincidence for me. 

Since you keep bringing up biblical names, though, consider this. Modern Arabic place names that are similar to biblical names is actually a common method used by biblical geographers to try to identify biblical locations. Shouldn't we use the same method for the Book of Mormon? We have a modern Arabic tribal territory name (Nihm) which is connected to an ancient tribal name (NHM) that is similar a Book of Mormon location (Nahom). Why shouldn't we consider this at least potential evidence, given that it is the same kind of evidence biblical scholars use?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, it doesn't say they "turned eastward." It says from there or that point they traveled basically due east. That meant their SSE travel had ended.

Yes exactly. 

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 Nevertheless, after a short travel through mountain passes, they would be in a region north of NHM, and would have to travel SSE a little more before continuing east at NHM assuming they were coming from the region of present day Huth.

You are speculating. Book of Mormon doesn't say "short travel thorough mountain" and "region north of NHM". 

Here is what the Book of Mormon says. "V13 And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction.. .v14 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...v33 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." Nowhere does the text  say "we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth" before Nahom. 

59 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The Book of Mormon does not say the Lehi clan was on the sea coast. That is your interpretation, but that interpretation would not find any water (or food) for the party.

Or food? Book of Mormon text contradicts the theory "v14 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. v15 And it came to pass that we did travel for the space of many days, slaying food by the way" 

Edited September 18, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[nealr]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Corrected: The Lehi clan wouldn't need to turn "eastward" after Nahom if they were already going East. Please explain.  The east turn was after Nahom, so it can only mean nahom is near the sea coast (1 Nephi 16:14), not 150+ miles east.   

I explain this a little bit in my last post. If they are already traveling on the east of the mountains (as most scholars believe, i.e., Nibley, the Hiltons, Potter and Wellington, and Aston), there is no need to turn east before getting to Nahom. If they were traveling along the coast at this point (as Robert Smith would have it) then they could have passed through the mountains in a matter of days to perhaps a week or so, and then continued generally south-southeast. And they may have still been traveling generally southeast-ward while traveling through the mountains. They don't need to take a hard east turn to eventually have made their way across the mountains. A more gradual shift slightly more eastward, while still moving southeast generally, or perhaps even east-southeast, could certainly qualify as maintaining "nearly the same course" as before (1 Nephi 16:33). In any event, if I were writing about an 8-year-long journey 30 or so years later, I probably wouldn't mention a short week's worth directional shift.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Have you read the reports by George Potter and Richard Wellington as they attempted to trace Nephi's route? They actually traveled the route and their experience will inform you why your belief that following the seacoast was an easier route. I will quote an excerpt in case you have not read it yet.

"In Lehi’s time only one trail existed that led in a south/southeast direction to southern Arabia (see 1 Nephi 16:13–14). This trail is known as the Frankincense Trail because it was used to transport frankincense (the highly prized sap from the tree Boswelia sacra) from where it grew in the more fertile areas of southern Arabia to Egypt, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Israel in the north. Thus our model for Lehi’s trail departs from previous theories that Lehi traveled down the shoreline of the Red Sea—a route that would simply have been impossible since there was no trail along the coast, nor an organized string of wells, until the ninth century ad."

Blue sea is beautiful to look at, but not so much for drinking. Lehi and family had to follow the water holes, else they would have died.

Glenn

Potter & Wellington provide good info on the famed inland incense caravan route.  However, nothing in I Nephi suggests that Clan Lehi followed that inland route, and all indicators are that they did not.  There is no reason why they could not have found adequate water sources (springs and creeks) coming down the Tihama (lowland coast).  And RevTestament is right about their moving into the mountains up from the coast if they continued on that original, general south-southeast direction, simply because the South Arabian peninsula curves southward -- leaving Clan Lehi to make a beeline into the mountains -- where Nephi says he was hunting (1 Ne 16:30).  They had clearly left the coastal plain by then.  The next event is the death & burial of Ishmael.  Later they announce that they are turning nearly eastward (17:1), until arriving in Bountiful.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, nealr said:

I explain this a little bit in my last post. If they are already traveling on the east of the mountains (as most scholars believe, i.e., Nibley, the Hiltons, Potter and Wellington, and Aston), there is no need to turn east before getting to Nahom. If they were traveling along the coast at this point (as Robert Smith would have it) then they could have passed through the mountains in a matter of days to perhaps a week or so, and then continued generally south-southeast. And they may have still been traveling generally southeast-ward while traveling through the mountains. They don't need to take a hard east turn to eventually have made their way across the mountains. A more gradual shift slightly more eastward, while still moving southeast generally, or perhaps even east-southeast, could certainly qualify as maintaining "nearly the same course" as before (1 Nephi 16:33). In any event, if I were writing about an 8-year-long journey 30 or so years later, I probably wouldn't mention a short week's worth directional shift.

Moreover, this was not a professional land navigation exercise with magnetic compass.  One should think that they went where the game and water could easily be found, without much concern for exact directions.  To think otherwise does not accord with anthropological  experience with such tribal groups.  In other words, we need a touch of realism here.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, nealr said:

I don't think you are understanding the sources I am quoting and what they are talking about. What I mean by the same general area is not the Bar'an temple site. It is the region that is, to this day, known as Nehem.

I understand Sir, we know that already.

1 hour ago, nealr said:

 When Sima says that the donor, Bi'athtar, is from "the Nihm region, west of Marib," he is talking about the area that is still called Nihm/Nehem today.

Robert F Smith told me above "Of course the Bar'an altars don't mention a Nehem region, but no one said they did".  But even if he is talking about the area that is still called Nehem today, it still doesn't mean anything. Why? because Nehem tribal region is 150+ miles (East) of the seacoast. I would be much more impressed if it was near the Red Sea. 

1 hour ago, nealr said:

There are a ton issues that need to be unpacked. To assume that "boarders" means coast runs into problems since the text also mentions "borders near the shore of the Red Sea" and more confusedly still "the borders which are nearer the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 2:5).

Okay, you are talking about Chapter Two. 1 Nephi 16: 14 says "the borders near the Red Sea". It doesn't say anything about "nearer".  So how ever you interpret "borders", the "borders" were "near the Red Sea" according to Book of Mormon text. Nehem tribal region is nowhere near the sea. 

1 hour ago, nealr said:

Could it be coincidence? Sure. But evidence for coincidence would be much stronger if you could identify another tribe or place in Arabia with the same name, not just inscriptions from various places that mention the word NHM.

No need for that, I have another method. I can show that many inscriptions near Ba'ran can match many Biblical names. I wrote earlier "For example the Biblical name Gareb matches an inscription (Grb) in the same Bar'an region". 

Now,  dozens of tribes mentioned Ba'raan inscriptions I can sure find some that also match Biblical names. With thousands of inscriptions around  Ba'ran you are almost guaranteed to find NHM  and other tribes. 

You don't seem to understand coincidence Neal. Perhaps you need to start reading Cinepro page 5. 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So it means the burial sites near Marib are irrelevant.

Correct.  There are plenty of burial sites elsewhere, including within the Nehem district.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

"The NHM altars only show the tribal name was in used in Lehi's time". So it is good we agree Mormon scholars have no idea where Nahom is. As for the NHM altars dating to Lehi's time it is just an educated guess. An educated guess means it is not well established. The Arabic scholar told me Vogt dated the altars after Lehi.  

They are at least 75 miles away from each other, and at least 1,000 years apart. You earlier told me "they are from centuries later and in a very different area. " What you told me earlier is backfiring now. 

False.  You need to learn to accurately state what others are saying.  Here you deliberately misstate, indicating a lack of integrity by you.  A sincere reflection by you would accept that the NHM altars date to the time of Lehi, and that their value is in showing that the name NHM existed in Lehi's time.  They do not prove that the Nehem region had that name in Lehi's day.  However, only a dishonest person would insist that anyone had claimed proof.  Scholars offer reasonable interpretations of hard data.  Since you don't understand scholarship, to you it is all guesswork.  Your pretend "scholar" harps on Vogt, without even bothering to show us what Vogt actually says (and what it means).  That is a dead giveaway that an anti-Mormon POV predetermines everything he says, regardless of the hard data.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Arabic scholar told me NHM in Bar'an and NHM north of Sanaa are different languages. I guess he means NHM in Bar'an is Old Arabic.

Your pretend "scholar" ignores the fact that Semitic languages have many root-words in common from ancient until modern times.  Thus, we have many locations in biblical Hebrew which still exist today, and they maintain the same meanings.  The same applies to many Old Arabic sites which still carry the same name, with the same meaning.  Your hypocrisy in this matter is proven by your previous claim that biblical names show up in Old Arabic, which demonstrated to you that any such Book of Mormon names would only be taken from such sources.

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 Both Bar'an and Sanaa are in the East. Lehi clan didn't travel East before Nahom. Why would the turn Eastward if they were already going East? Makes no sense. It doesn't seem likely that Lehi clan was 150+ miles East of the Red Sea coast. 

Arabic scholar told me NHM (nihm) tribe name comes from this guy  (حبشي بن قيس النهمي). I don't know, but what I do know is that both Bar'an and Sanaa are nowhere near the sea coast. To get to Bar'an or Sanna from the sea coast you have to go 150+ miles East. . 

Anyone looking at a map of the Arabian peninsula can readily see that Clan Lehi would unavoidably headed right to Sanaa if they had continued on their general South-southeast direction.  Why?  Because the peninsula veers sharply off to the south, leaving Clan Lehi in the mountains -- just where Nephi says they were (1 Nephi 16:30).  They only turn deliberately eastward after Nahom (17:1).

Tell Al-Nahmy النهمي that and see what he says.  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

54 minutes ago, nealr said:

I explain this a little bit in my last post. If they are already traveling on the east of the mountains (as most scholars believe, i.e., Nibley, the Hiltons, Potter and Wellington, and Aston), there is no need to turn east before getting to Nahom. 

Yes, I didn't see your new reply. Exactly. Good point! 

See my new response above. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  There are plenty of burial sites elsewhere, including within the Nehem district.

Okay, well I am glad we are starting to agree now.  I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow. 

But I want you to read what I told Neal, please  

Quote

No need for that, I have another method. I can show that many inscriptions near Ba'ran can match many Biblical names. I wrote earlier "For example the Biblical name Gareb matches an inscription (Grb) in the same Bar'an region". 

Now,  dozens of tribes mentioned Ba'raan inscriptions I can sure find some that also match Biblical names. 

You don't seem to understand coincidence Neal. Perhaps you need to start reading Cinepro page 5. 

You said "I like and agree with cinepro's post on probability." With thousands of inscriptions near Ba'ran you are almost guaranteed to get NHM  and other tribes. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

With thousands of inscriptions near Ba'ran you are almost guaranteed to get NHM  and other tribes. 

The name, possibly; the name and location is much more unlikely given the number of locations they could be from.

Think of the difference between a family described as the Masters, the American Masters, the Masters from California, and the Masters from Redwood City, California.  The first could be thousands of thousands of families, the last looks like it has been narrowed to maybe two possible families (according to white pages.com)

Edited September 18, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, nealr said:

There are a ton issues that need to be unpacked. To assume that "boarders" means coast runs into problems since the text also mentions "borders near the shore of the Red Sea" and more confusedly still "the borders which are nearer the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 2:5). To most people, "coast" would mean "shore", so how do you have a coast which is near the shore? And what is a coast that is near vs. nearer? I see a lot of problems with equating "borders" with "coast". Robert is the only scholar I know that interprets this as meaning that Lehites were on the coast. Since Hugh Nibley (long before the NHM altars were discovered), most LDS scholars have understood Lehi and his family to be on the east side of the mountains. In any event, 1 Nephi 16:14 is soon after they left Shazer, which is in northern Arabia and on the order of ~1000 miles north of wherever Nahom must be. That would allow for plenty of time for them to slip through a mountain pass (which would probably only take a few days to a week) and then continue along in the same general direction as before (south-southeast), thus leaving Nephi no reason to mention a major shift in course when remembering his 8-year journey some 30 or so years later. 

I believe a journey along the coastal plain is the only path which makes sense given the language of the text. How can you have a border along the shore? Simple. It is a border of the plain. When you are on the plain that makes sense. On one side you have the Sea shore, and on the other you have the border where the plain meets the mountains. The mountains are really where the land has been uplifted and has eroded into peaks. On the east side it slopes down in plateaus. On the west side it is like a wall separating the coastal plain from the plateau. Since Nephi keeps mentioning the Red Sea, it makes no sense that he would be traveling along the plateau on the east side where one cannot see the sea, nor say they are following it closely.

So why would the Lord send them along the mountainous wall of the coastal plain? I think the main reason is safety. They had a small band with maybe 6-10 men capable of effective defense. That is big enough to protect themselves against a family of bandits, but nowhere near the strength of most of these caravans. Caravans were literally carrying gold. Frankincense was as valuable. They were armed, and perhaps not all of them would be friendly towards Hebrews. Further, their very presence attracted bandits, which is why they were armed, and those bandits wouldn't care whether they were robbing a caravan or a family of Hebrews.

Lastly, Nephi's bow breaking strongly suggests it had rusted. The Arabian coast is notorious for its hot, humid, corrosive air - not so on the east side of those mountains. I didn't realize Robert took my side on this issue, but he does like to be right   

[RevTestament]

41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No need for that, I have another method. I can show that many inscriptions near Ba'ran can match many Biblical names. I wrote earlier "For example the Biblical name Gareb matches an inscription (Grb) in the same Bar'an region". 

Now,  dozens of tribes mentioned Ba'raan inscriptions I can sure find some that also match Biblical names. With thousands of inscriptions around  Ba'ran you are almost guaranteed to find NHM  and other tribes. 

You don't seem to understand coincidence Neal. Perhaps you need to start reading Cinepro page 5. 

 

I think that helps the case for the NHM alters being relevant for the Hebrew Nahom. It points out these groups are both Semitic, and would share common names. Therefore, all the more likely that the Sabaen NHM is related to the Hebrew NHM despite a slightly different pronunciation of the vowels. To complicate the issue the H can also be pronounced about 3 different ways making different meanings to the words. I haven't heard you talk about this at all. You might want to look into that...if you are serious about this issue.