Robert F. Smith Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 50 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: .......................................................... 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. That is not what cinepro's comment on probability said. In addition, this shows how hypocritical it is of you to claim that Bar'an NHM cannot mean the same thing as NHM district. Probability alone should make your case for you, but you have apriori views which prevent you from drawing reasonable conclusions. 1
carbon dioxide Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 On 9/14/2017 at 9:19 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said: IWarren Aston. 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". For Aston there are a lot of archaeological evidences for ancient astronauts. Even if true, what does it matter? If a well respected authority on cancer research believes in a government coverup of aliens visiting the earth, what does that have to do with his expertise on the issues of cancer?
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 18, 2017 Author Posted September 18, 2017 Just now, carbon dioxide said: Even if true, what does it matter? If a well respected authority on cancer research believes in a government coverup of aliens visiting the earth, what does that have to do with his expertise on the issues of cancer? No because the conspiracy theory has nothing to do with his field
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 18, 2017 Author Posted September 18, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Calm said: The name, possibly; the name and location is much more unlikely given the number of locations they could be from. There are many tribes and thousands of inscription rocks in south Arabia. NHM is just one of the many tribe name inscriptions near Bar'an, but the Nehem region itself is not near Bar'an. I think your argument works if someone predicted the exact location of Book of Mormon's Nahom. To my knowledge no one predicted Nahom was north of Sanaa before looking at the tribe names and inscriptions. Secondly, scholars have known for a long time that Nehem tribe region is north of Sanaa Quote The first could be thousands of thousands of families, the last looks like it has been narrowed to maybe two possible families Tribe names are very common in inscription rocks. 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: 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 Thank You! 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is not what cinepro's comment on probability said. In addition, this shows how hypocritical it is of you to claim that Bar'an NHM cannot mean the same thing as NHM district. Probability alone should make your case for you, but you have apriori views which prevent you from drawing reasonable conclusions. He said, "it's misleading to only consider the probability of events after they occur (i.e. the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy). What if I told you that a woman named Kate Bradley won a lottery with odds of 350 million to 1. That's pretty slim odds, and it may sound like a miraculous event. But what if the day before the lottery drawing, I told you that over 50 million people had purchased over 200 million tickets for the lottery. What would you say the chances of someone winning the lottery would be? It's not unreasonable to assume that someone might. But it would be amazing to name the specific person the day before. But that's not what happened; we only cared about Kate Bradley after she won.So think about stories about LDS missionaries. Finding a long-lost relative or golden contact is like winning the missionary lottery. And certainly after it happens, the odds of two specific people meeting in that specific time and place are astronomical. But that's only after the story happens.But look at it the way we looked at the lottery before the drawing. There are 70,000+ missionaries in the world. Each day, they go out and spend 12 hours doing everything they can to meet people. They knock on doors. They talk to people on buses. They street contact. Let's say the average missionary is meeting 10 people a day. That would be 700,000 contacts each day. Over the course of a year, that would be over 250 million "contact" points between missionaries and people on the street. So now you can ask "Out of 250 million contacts each year, what are the odds that a missionary is going to run into a long-lost family member or golden contact?" Robert, If you have many tribes and thousands of inscription rocks in Arabic Arabia, then it means we are probably going to find many tribes in inscriptions that match Biblical names. However, just because they match Biblical names doesn't mean they are related. Edited September 18, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
Glenn101 Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. I am having difficulty imagining a trip down of any length along the coastline of the Red Sea. It is a very narrow and even today inhospitable stretch with very little in the way of cultivation. Waterfall in the region averages about four inches now, although that figure may have been different in Lehi's day. According to Warren Aston his research indicates that there were no significant settlements or trails along that coast until the ninth century A.D. Without aid from the Lord (which is possible but not mentioned) finding enough water would have been almost impossible. The only times streams would have flowed is during the winter or wet season. If Lehi had left during that season they possibly could have survived until they cut off into the mountains. But there is also the problem of food. Sam pointed out in the text where the part killed food along the way. But wild life pretty much stays where water can be found. I do not believe that the party would have found very much game on the coastal plain. There is also the description of "the more fertile parts" as they travel and going to less fertile parts. That does not describe the coastal plain even today after wells have been drilled for water for the settlements. We do not know exactly what Nephi meant when he was talking about the being in the wilderness in the borders near the Red Sea. I do not know even imperfectly what he meant. Midian (now Al-Bad') was a stop on the Frankincense trail and eighteen miles from the wadi that is thought by some to be the Valley of Lemuel. The wilderness through which that trail runs could be that which Nephi was referring to and would not have required much changing of directions. Whatever the case, the party would have had to follow or parallel the trail closely at some point for the nearly eastward swing to make sense. Glenn
carbon dioxide Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: No because the conspiracy theory has nothing to do with his field And if Ashton believes in aliens visiting the earth even if he was to base his views on archaeology it still has nothing to do with Nahom. An archaeologist can be wrong on one thing and right on another. A doctor of medicine can be wrong on one thing and right on another. I just don't see the point of raising the issue other than you just want to smear him because you think bringing it up somehow devalues an unrelated issue perhaps out of fear.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 (edited) Quote 52 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: I am having difficulty imagining a trip down of any length along the coastline of the Red Sea. It is a very narrow and even today inhospitable stretch with very little in the way of cultivation. Waterfall in the region averages about four inches now, although that figure may have been different in Lehi's day. According to Warren Aston his research indicates that there were no significant settlements or trails along that coast until the ninth century A.D. Without aid from the Lord (which is possible but not mentioned) finding enough water would have been almost impossible. The only times streams would have flowed is during the winter or wet season. If Lehi had left during that season they possibly could have survived until they cut off into the mountains. But there is also the problem of food. Sam pointed out in the text where the part killed food along the way. But wild life pretty much stays where water can be found. I do not believe that the party would have found very much game on the coastal plain. There is also the description of "the more fertile parts" as they travel and going to less fertile parts. That does not describe the coastal plain even today after wells have been drilled for water for the settlements. The once plentiful game animals in the mountains near the Hijazi coastal-plain (Tihama) ate the once plentiful plants available then, and that was the animals' primary source of water -- while predators got their water primarily from the bodies of their kills. Among the animals available then, there was the leopard, oryx, ibex, gazelle (reem), caracal, hedgehog, mongoose, hyena, honey badger, red fox, wolf, hamadryas baboon, etc. https://destinationksa.com/fauna-of-saudi-arabia/ . I once watched a Druze man dress and cook a large hedgehog in Israel. Lots of excellent meat. Here is an expert description of that actual coastal area and mountains of Hijaz: Quote “ . . . the narrow western coastal plain of the Hijaz receive relatively abundant, if seasonal rainfall, and their populations developed sophisticated systems of water management at a very early period. By contrast, the plateau behind the mountains consists mainly of various types of desert – sand, gravel, earth, broken lava, flint, etc. – most of which need only water to produce abundant herbage. They are criss-crossed by ancient wadi systems (dry, or seasonal, water-courses), testifying to periods of extreme rainfall in the remote past which have left vast subterranean lakes or aquifers which can often be tapped by relatively shallow wells. In addition there are numerous oases where the surface, or subsurface, waters from large catchment areas collect and where both horticulture and agriculture have been practiced for millennia.” Piotr Bienkowski and Alan Millard, eds., Dictionary of the Ancient Near East (Phila: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 24, online at https://books.google.com/books?id=KdlhaAfK1sYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false . I will insert a map of the Hijaz in the next post, since this system will not allow me to do so here and now. However, I do need to add here some basic information about the Hijaz: Quote “ . . . a region in the west of present-day Saudi Arabia. The region is so called as it separates the land of the Najd in the east from the land of Tihamah in the west. It is also known as the "Western Province." It is bordered on the west by the Red Sea, on the north by Jordan, on the east by the Najd, and on the south by 'Asir Region.[2] Its main city is Jeddah, but it is probably better known for the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina.” * * * * “The Hejaz is the most populated region in Saudi Arabia; 35 % of all Saudis live in Hejaz.” * * * * “The Hejaz includes . . . a water source, now dried out, that used to flow 600 miles (970 km) north east to the Persian Gulf via the Wadi Al-Rummah and Wadi Al-Batin system. Archaeological research led by of Boston University and the University of Qassim indicates that the river system was active in 8000 BCE and 2500–3000 BCE,” eventually dried out. --citing Sullivan, Walter (1993-03-30). "SCIENCE WATCH; Signs of Ancient River". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-06-25; Kesting, Piney. "Saudi Aramco World (May/June 2001): Well of Good Fortune". Retrieved 2014-04-07; "Al-Hijr Archaeological Site (Madâin Sâlih)". UNESCO. Retrieved 2014-04-07 “Hejaz,” Wikipedia, online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hejaz . Quote 52 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: We do not know exactly what Nephi meant when he was talking about the being in the wilderness in the borders near the Red Sea. I do not know even imperfectly what he meant. Midian (now Al-Bad') was a stop on the Frankincense trail and eighteen miles from the wadi that is thought by some to be the Valley of Lemuel. The wilderness through which that trail runs could be that which Nephi was referring to and would not have required much changing of directions. Whatever the case, the party would have had to follow or parallel the trail closely at some point for the nearly eastward swing to make sense.......... From the time that Lehi arrived in his new Valley of Lemuel and River of Laman, Nephi provides a consistent description of travel within sight of the Red sea all along the way. That is the Tihama, pure and simple, and writer Paul Salopek walked the 780 miles along the Red Sea coast of the Hijaz (from Aqaba to Jidda), as pictured in this map from National Geographic, online at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/hejaz-desert/salopek-text . We need to read the Book of Mormon text as simply and directly as possible in such instances. The inland incense caravan trail just does not accord with the text at all. Edited September 18, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Glenn101 said: I am having difficulty imagining a trip down of any length along the coastline of the Red Sea. It is a very narrow and even today inhospitable stretch with very little in the way of cultivation. Waterfall in the region averages about four inches now, although that figure may have been different in Lehi's day. According to Warren Aston his research indicates that there were no significant settlements or trails along that coast until the ninth century A.D. Without aid from the Lord (which is possible but not mentioned) finding enough water would have been almost impossible. The only times streams would have flowed is during the winter or wet season. If Lehi had left during that season they possibly could have survived until they cut off into the mountains. But there is also the problem of food. Sam pointed out in the text where the part killed food along the way. But wild life pretty much stays where water can be found. I do not believe that the party would have found very much game on the coastal plain. There is also the description of "the more fertile parts" as they travel and going to less fertile parts. That does not describe the coastal plain even today after wells have been drilled for water for the settlements. We do not know exactly what Nephi meant when he was talking about the being in the wilderness in the borders near the Red Sea. I do not know even imperfectly what he meant. Midian (now Al-Bad') was a stop on the Frankincense trail and eighteen miles from the wadi that is thought by some to be the Valley of Lemuel. The wilderness through which that trail runs could be that which Nephi was referring to and would not have required much changing of directions. Whatever the case, the party would have had to follow or parallel the trail closely at some point for the nearly eastward swing to make sense........... Here's the map of the Hijaz which I promised in the last post:
nealr Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I understand Sir, we know that already. No, you still do not understand, and are ignoring the bulk of my comment where I try to explain it. Let me put it simply. According to all the scholars I quoted: NHM on the altars = same tribe and place as later Nihm/Nehem. That's what you are not understanding. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: 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. I like Robert. I consider him a friend. I think he is a very smart man. But I am not Robert. He and I do not have identical views. And I am not accountable for what he has said on here. So I simply to do not understand why what he has said is relevant. I have provided a quote, multiple times from Alexandra Sima (one of the leading experts on South Arabia) wherein he does, in fact, identify the NHM on the altars with the Nihm region. I've also explained that most of the experts consider it a tribal name, but that it is the same tribe from the same place as the later Arabic sources. You have simply ignored this, or declared it irrelevant, but so far as I can tell do not even understand it, and so cannot competently judge its relevance. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: 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. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that basic rules of exegesis needed to be explained here. So lets make this clear: you absolutely cannot interpret "borders" as used in 1 Nephi 16 in isolation from how it is used in 1 Nephi 2. And you are ignoring everything I explained about how even if your interpretation is granted, that last reference to being in the boarders is ~1000 miles north of where Nahom must be, and how they could have gotten to the other side of the mountains without a significant, long-term shift in direction. The bottom line is there is nothing in the text that actually places Nahom near the sea, so it does not matter that its not. That is why even those who agree that borders likely means coast (i.e., Robert and RevTestament) still disagree with the conclusion you are reaching. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: You don't seem to understand coincidence Neal. Perhaps you need to start reading Cinepro page 5. How's this for understanding coincidence: a couple months ago, someone visited the blog Studio Et Quoque Fide and made virtually the same arguments you are making, in the same incoherent fashion, and demonstrated the same obsession with probability, yet, like you, didn't really seem to grasp how probability works. And another commenter on that same blog who claimed to know Arabic made all the same arguments as your "Arabic expert." Is that all really coincidence? Somehow, I don't think it is. I think you are that same commenter, who also comments on another discussion board as "Doubting Thomas," who does not actually believe in the Book of Mormon, and is (as others have already pointed out) merely pretending to be a believer on this discussion board. Here's the thing. I think it's you who does not really understand coincidence, and I'll tell you why. You see, I admit that I am no expert, but I did take an introduction to statistics class a few years ago at an accredited university, and was repeatedly praised in class for my exceptionally high test scores (including two where I got above 100% thanks to extra-credit). So I like to think I know something about how probability and coincidence works, even if its relatively basic. And to me, much of what you are saying simply doesn't make any sense, and you seem unable to grasp any kind of critique of it. But like I said, I am no expert, so maybe it really is me who is wrong? Well, after reading basically these same arguments on the aforementioned blog a couple months ago, I talked to a friend of mine who is working on a post-doc right now. His graduate work has involved a lot of math and statistical modeling. I reviewed these arguments with him--the same arguments that you are now making--and he thought they manifest an utter failure to grasp sound statistical reasoning. 3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: 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. OK, so here's the thing. A statement like this should be pretty testable. If thousands of inscriptions means it is a virtual guarantee for there to be a tribe or place name NHM, then we logically should be finding NHMs nearly everywhere thousands of inscriptions occur. But do we? Well, that's for you to prove, my friend. There are hundreds of thousands of inscriptions from Mesopotamia. By your logic, we should be able to find several different places or tribes called NHM in that corpus, so start digging. Of course, the thousands of Old South Arabian inscriptions are not all "around Bar'an" as you would have it. They are scattered across South Arabia. Your logic is flawed for several reasons. For one thing, you simply do not understand that more inscriptions does not increase the likelihood that a tribe or place of a specific name existed. It only increases the likelihood that we would be able to find that tribe or place mentioned in written sources. The probability of a tribe by a specific name existing would have to be measured using the actual number of tribes we can document as existing. And of course, had the NHM tribe wound up pretty much anywhere besides Northern Yemen (near Wadi Jawf), like say southern Oman instead, then we wouldn't be having this conversation because no one would consider that to be anywhere near where Nephi's Nahom could be. So the question is not just what the probability is that a NHM tribe would show up somewhere in those inscriptions, but of all the places NHM could show up, that it would show up in a place that could reasonably be interpreted as Nephi's Nahom. And then there is the dating factor. How many inscriptions date to at least the early Sabian period (8th-4th century BC)? And how many tribes are mentioned in just those inscriptions? And then how many of those tribes can even be located with a reasonable degree of certainty on a map? And of those, how many are in a place that could reasonably fit Nephi's Nahom? These are just some of the many factors that need to considered in trying to evaluate this whole probability thing. Someone better trained than I am in statistics could surely think of dozens more. I don't know what those probabilities would be. I would be very interested in seeing a responsible statistical study that tried to figure them out. But what I do know is that these kinds of mitigating factors begin to reduce the probability that this is all a coincidence. Eliminate? Of course not. The chance of coincidence is never eliminated. But it reduces that chance and I suspect it makes it fairly unlikely. How unlikely? Well, absent a serious statistical study with actual data, none of us really know, and so I honestly doubt trying to have an extended conversation about it is going to be the least bit productive. 4 hours 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". Oh, you have "another method", and so obviously we shouldn't use the method that is commonly used by biblical scholars with PhDs who have decades of experience and are building on more than a centuries worth of knowledge in reconstructing the ancient geography of Israel. It would just be silly to use their methods over that of an anonymous commenter on the internet, who isn't even being forthright about who he is and his agenda for being here. How absurd of me. Of course there are a ton of names similar to biblical names. And sure, that's a factor in considering the likelihood of a "Nahom" like name showing up. But you also have to factor in that while there are thousands of biblical names to compare it against, there is only one relevant name in all of the Book of Mormon. In fact, "Nahom" is the only unique Book of Mormon name that is in position to be tested with inscriptional evidence, since the rest of the names in 1 Nephi are private names given by Lehi and his family, and we lack readable inscriptions and toponyms for the right time period for anywhere in ancient America. So out of hundreds of names in the Book of Mormon, what are the odds that the one and only one that can be tested with inscriptional evidence actually has some inscriptional evidence for it? No other name in all the Book of Mormon has the N-H-M sequence with no extra consonants. So what are the odds of random chance putting that name where it is in the Book of Mormon? And what are the odds of different Book of Mormon names matching with inscriptional evidence for the location of a tribe or place in the Wadi Jawf area, had they randomly been the names that occurred in 1 Nephi 16:34 instead? That is to say, if Book of Mormon names were randomly redistributed and the place in 1 Nephi 16:34 ended up being Zarahemla instead, is there a ZRHML in the inscriptions that dates to the right time period and is reasonably located to fit the narrative? What about a YRSN (Jershon)? Or AMMNYHH (Ammonihah)? Or a even an NFY (Nephi)? I could go on, but the point is there are hundreds of names in the Book of Mormon, and any one of them could have theoretically ended up in 1 Nephi 16:34, and this also has to be factored into any account of "coincidence." Could this kind of evidence be mustered for all of them, had they been there? Just some of them? Or is Nahom the only one that ends up fitting? Again still just scratching the surface. I may not "understand coincidence"--I certainty don't understand statistical reasoning well enough to know how to start putting together a statistical test that could bring all these different factors into account. Maybe I am even wrong about some of these things. But I know enough to be quite certain that you have not really thought through all the factors involved in assessing the probability of coincidence here. 2
nealr Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 4 hours ago, RevTestament said: 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 That's all fine and good. I haven't the slightest problem with a person interpreting "borders" as "coastline" or whatever and believing that they traveled along the coastal plain, especially if they can muster a coherent argument for it, as you have done here. I do have a problem with someone simply pointing to passages, making no argument and providing no interpretation, and acting like the occurrence of a word like "borders" which is used in some confusing and ambiguous ways in the text is definitive evidence against something, especially when some of the brightest minds who have read this text in the past (Nibley, the Hiltons, Potter and Wellington, Aston, and Kent Brown, for instance) have read it differently and argued for an alternative interpretation. 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 18, 2017 Author Posted September 18, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, nealr said: No, you still do not understand, and are ignoring the bulk of my comment where I try to explain it. Let me put it simply. According to all the scholars I quoted: NHM on the altars = same tribe and place as later Nihm/Nehem. That's what you are not understanding. I understand Sir, but the NHM altars themselves are not in Nihm/Nehem tribal region. 9 hours ago, nealr said: I could go on, but the point is there are hundreds of names in the Book of Mormon, and any one of them could have theoretically ended up in 1 Nephi 16:34, and this also has to be factored into any account of "coincidence." Could this kind of evidence be mustered for all of them, had they been there? Just some of them? Or is Nahom the only one that ends up fitting? Yes. Had the name in 1 Ne 16:34 been Gareb, Nebat, Bunah or many other Biblical names (probably hundreds) we would still find inscriptions in South Arabia that match, some of them would be tribe names or regions. I found 25 Old Testament names that match in just a small sample. Secondly, had there been no Nehem tribe in Arabia we wouldn't be having a conversation about Nahom. Thirdly, thank you for accepting "Of course there are a ton of names similar to biblical name". Quote Of course, the thousands of Old South Arabian inscriptions are not all "around Bar'an" as you would have it. They are scattered across South Arabia. I didn't say "all" Sir, but thanks for accepting there are thousands in Old South Arabia. It's the same thing Sir, we are looking at South Arabia 9 hours ago, nealr said: And what are the odds of different Book of Mormon names matching with inscriptional evidence for the location of a tribe or place in the Wadi Jawf area, had they randomly been the names that occurred in 1 Nephi 16:34 instead? No one predicted Book of Mormon Nahom to be in the Wadi Jawf area or nearby. Like Cinepro said, "it's misleading to only consider the probability of events after they occur". No one was talking about the probability of finding Nahom before realizing there is a Nehem tribe in Arabia. There are many inscriptions and tribes in South Arabia, so there is no surprise to find a Nehem tribe in South Arabia. 9 hours ago, nealr said: I'm sorry, I didn't realize that basic rules of exegesis needed to be explained here. So lets make this clear: you absolutely cannot interpret "borders" as used in 1 Nephi 16 in isolation from how it is used in 1 Nephi 2. And you are ignoring everything I explained about how even if your interpretation is granted, that last reference to being in the boarders is ~1000 miles north of where Nahom must be, and how they could have gotten to the other side of the mountains without a significant, long-term shift in direction. The bottom line is there is nothing in the text that actually places Nahom near the sea, so it does not matter that its not. That is why even those who agree that borders likely means coast (i.e., Robert and RevTestament) still disagree with the conclusion you are reaching. I am not ignoring everything I am telling you. Neal, it is very easy to understand a text on how you want to understand it. However, the Prophet Joseph Smith is quoted as saying that “Lehi went down by the Red Sea to the great Southern Ocean, and crossed over to this land" Orson Pratt said, "By revelation from the Lord they traveled southwest from the city of Jerusalem, and after reaching the Red Sea they continued along its eastern borders and afterwards bent their course eastward, arriving at the Indian Ocean" Of course after someone (LDS) discovered Nehem, then Nahom couldn't be near the Red Sea anymore. Honestly, why would Nephi keep mentioning the Red Sea? "that last reference to being in the boarders is ~1000 miles north of where Nahom must be" Yes, exactly As for you accusing me of being an Anti-Mormon I am not! Months ago I was debating some guy with the username "brotherjake", I learned it from him. Hopefully you don't accuse me of being "brotherjake" now. Edited September 18, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 18, 2017 Author Posted September 18, 2017 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Here's the map of the Hijaz which I promised in the last post: See what I told Neal please 'Yes. Had the name in 1 Ne 16:34 been Gareb, Nebat, Bunah or many other Biblical names (probably hundreds) we would still find inscriptions in South Arabia that match, some of them would be tribe names or regions. I found 25 Old Testament names that match in just a small sample. Secondly, had there been no Nehem tribe in Arabia we wouldn't be having a conversation about Nahom. Thirdly, thank you for accepting "Of course there are a ton of names similar to biblical name".'
Robert F. Smith Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 18 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: ......................... 'Yes. Had the name in 1 Ne 16:34 been Gareb, Nebat, Bunah or many other Biblical names (probably hundreds) we would still find inscriptions in South Arabia that match, some of them would be tribe names or regions. I found 25 Old Testament names that match in just a small sample. Secondly, had there been no Nehem tribe in Arabia we wouldn't be having a conversation about Nahom. Thirdly, thank you for accepting "Of course there are a ton of names similar to biblical name".' Of course, and I have already pointed out to you that Semitic languages are related. So it should be no surprise that they share names and root-words in common in the Near East. However, you should observe that Nahom is not actually in the Bible, even though the related root-word Nahum (the prophet) does occur. In addition, what is particularly striking is that the root NHM shows up just where Clan Lehi ends up by simply continuing in their South-southeast direction down the Arabian peninsula, and from where they turn East. You tend to attribute everything to coincidence, while at the same time making up your strange rules -- such as that God would not allow anyone to discover Nahom. Will the real Samuel stand up? Once again, Sam, notice how Clan Lehi's SSE direction down the Tihama lines up with Sanaa and therefore Nehem: 1
nealr Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: As for you accusing me of being an Anti-Mormon I am not! Months ago I was debating some guy with the username "brotherjake", I learned it from him. Hopefully you don't accuse me of being "brotherjake" now. Oh, you got it from BrotherJake, now? Then why, pray tell, were you earlier claiming to be in direct correspondence with an Arabic expert? Struggling to keep your story straight, are we? I'll bet there is enough content here and in the comments section of that blog post to run a stylometric analysis, if we wanted to. 46 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Yes. Had the name in 1 Ne 16:34 been Gareb, Nebat, Bunah or many other Biblical names (probably hundreds) we would still find inscriptions in South Arabia that match, some of them would be tribe names or regions. I found 25 Old Testament names that match in just a small sample. Secondly, had there been no Nehem tribe in Arabia we wouldn't be having a conversation about Nahom. Thirdly, thank you for accepting "Of course there are a ton of names similar to biblical name". Umm ... these names are not in the Book of Mormon, and so a theoretical random rearranging of the names in the Book of Mormon could never produce any of those names. To this specific point, biblical names are irrelevant. But even still, can you show me on a map where those places or tribes are located? Does is reasonably fit the narrative? Where are t the dates of the inscriptions which mention these? Are they actually from around Lehi's time? And so on. You are ignoring the vast majority of factors that need to be evaluated. You continue to think the mere existence of a name makes the point, but it does not. 51 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: No one predicted Book of Mormon Nahom to be in the Wadi Jawf area or nearby. Like Cinepro said, "it's misleading to only consider the probability of events after they occur". No one was talking about the probability of finding Nahom before realizing there is a Nehem tribe in Arabia. There are many inscriptions and tribes in South Arabia, so there is no surprise to find a Nehem tribe in South Arabia. I understand all that. That is why we need to consider all the various factors I previously mentioned, including the probability of any given name found in the Book of Mormon being attested in the early Sabean (8th-4th century BC) inscriptions as a tribal or place name, located somewhere that reasonably fits the narrative of 1 Nephi 16. If we found that any (or at least several) Book of Mormon names could fit just as well with the evidence, then that would increase the probability that the Nahom/NHM correlation is pure coincidence, and determining this probability is one factor that can help prevent us from only considering the probability of something after it occurs. Of course there are several more. But notice, please, that I am not talking about biblical names. 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I understand Sir, but the NHM altars themselves are not in Nihm/Nehem tribal region. No they are not, but that is irrelevant to the point because non-LDS scholars still take them as evidence that the same Nihm/ Nehem tribe and region existed in the 6th-7th century BC. 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: "that last reference to being in the boarders is ~1000 miles north of where Nahom must be" Yes, exactly OK, so do you understand, then, that the last reference to boarders and the Red Sea, being ~1000 miles north of Nahom, cannot be used as evidence that Nahom is near the Red Sea? Because if you do, you are contradicting yourself here: 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Of course after someone (LDS) discovered Nehem, then Nahom couldn't be near the Red Sea anymore. Honestly, why would Nephi keep mentioning the Red Sea? Nephi doesn't keep mentioning the Red Sea. He mentions it for the last time nearly a ~1000 miles before reaching Nahom. So a better question is, if Nephi is still near the Red Sea, why doesn't he keep mentioning it? You literally have no evidence that Nahom must be near the Red Sea, and your "Yes, exactly" quoted above basically concedes that point. And I've already point out, Nibley and the Hiltons had Nephi on the east side of the mountains before Nehem was discovered in by Ross Christensen in 1977. So no, it was not after someone discovered Nehem that Nahom was moved away from the Red Sea. LDS scholars already suspected Nahom was on the eastern side of the mountains when Nehem was noticed on an old map. It was not moved to the east to fit the evidence. Look, here's the bottom line. If you really think that there is a high probability that the Nahom/NHM/Nihm could all be a coincidence, then prove it. Do some real, rigorous statistical analysis, that takes all the relevant factors into consideration, not just the occurrence of other biblical sounding names in the South Arabian Corpus. Then get it peer-reviewed and published, with your real name attached to it, so that others with expertise in statistics and probability could examine and critique it. Until you do that, though, there really isn't much point in even having this conversation, because your opinion on the matter has no more grounding than any other. From what I can tell, it is not well-grounded in a solid grasp of the argument for associating Nahom with NHM/Nehem, its not well grounded in a competent understanding of the inscriptional data from South Arabia and how expert scholars have interpreted it, and it is not well-grounded in sound statistical reasoning. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: ................... but the NHM altars themselves are not in Nihm/Nehem tribal region. Scholars extrapolate from available evidence. Thus, some scholars reach the reasonable (but unproven) conclusion that the name NHM at Bar'an is related to the Nehem tribal region. Being anti-intellectual, such extrapolation is hard for you. 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Yes. Had the name in 1 Ne 16:34 been Gareb, Nebat, Bunah or many other Biblical names (probably hundreds) we would still find inscriptions in South Arabia that match, some of them would be tribe names or regions. I found 25 Old Testament names that match in just a small sample. Secondly, had there been no Nehem tribe in Arabia we wouldn't be having a conversation about Nahom. Thirdly, thank you for accepting "Of course there are a ton of names similar to biblical name". ...................................... It is true that "had there been no Nehem tribe in Arabia we wouldn't be having a conversation about Nahom," with the additional evidence from Bar'an of course. But it is not true that hundreds of other Semitic root-words could have been there and that we can therefore just mix & match them as we please. We must at least have some close matches, and we do in Nahom. 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: No one predicted Book of Mormon Nahom to be in the Wadi Jawf area or nearby. Like Cinepro said, "it's misleading to only consider the probability of events after they occur". No one was talking about the probability of finding Nahom before realizing there is a Nehem tribe in Arabia. There are many inscriptions and tribes in South Arabia, so there is no surprise to find a Nehem tribe in South Arabia. False. Finding Nehem, NHM, and Nahom in such close proximity in both time & space is pretty remarkable, and it does defy the odds. Particularly when taken together with all the other descriptive evidence (linguistic, literary, geographical, etc.) which occurs in 1 Nephi. Scholars work with the preponderance of evidence. 2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: ........................................................ Orson Pratt said, "By revelation from the Lord they traveled southwest from the city of Jerusalem, and after reaching the Red Sea they continued along its eastern borders and afterwards bent their course eastward, arriving at the Indian Ocean" Of course after someone (LDS) discovered Nehem, then Nahom couldn't be near the Red Sea anymore. Honestly, why would Nephi keep mentioning the Red Sea? ................................................... Your map here is the best evidence that Nahom need not have been near the Red Sea, and the BofM does not place it near the Red Sea. In fact, a line drawn from the Straits of Tiran SSE along the Red Sea coast takes you directly to Sanaa. Nephi has the Clan traveling SSE in 1 Ne 16:13, and continuing to travel "in the borders near the Red Sea" in 16:14. They had already been living in and traveling in the borders near the Red Sea for some time (1 Ne 2:9 "by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea," and 2:8 "And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof"). However, the last mention of the Clan traveling near the Red Sea was at 16:14. Since then we find them hunting in the mountains (16:30) and moving in the same general direction they had been going previously, SSE (16:33), into the mountains. It is only then that Ishmael dies and is buried in a place called Nahom. Your map here shows just what that means, because they clearly did not change direction and follow the jutting coastline south. Their SSE direction took them directly to Nehem.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 14 hours ago, Glenn101 said: ............................................. We do not know exactly what Nephi meant when he was talking about the being in the wilderness in the borders near the Red Sea. I do not know even imperfectly what he meant. ............................................ Hi Glenn, Just thought I would mention some biblical and pseudepigraphal usage of "border(s)": Hebrew gebul "border" in Num 21:13, Judges 11:18 (River Arnon is the border of Moab), Num 34:6 (the great sea for a border); cf. Josh 15:2,5,47, Isa 15:8. Hebrew gelila "border" in Joshua 22:10 (the borders of Jordan) Jubilees IX, 4, "borders on the Red Sea, and all the waters of the desert close to the tongue of the sea"; Charlesworth, OTP, II:74 has "near the Red Sea" 2
Glenn101 Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: We need to read the Book of Mormon text as simply and directly as possible in such instances. The inland incense caravan trail just does not accord with the text at all. I agree with that, and I have been trying to formulate something that would fit that text. My main struggle was with the water supply. One of your quotes provided a possible answer concerning vast underground aquifers that could be tapped with relatively shallow wells. This coupled with the possibility that the Lord instructed Lehi to leave during the wet season could well have provided them with the water they needed. "And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer." If they left the valley on its southern end that direction of travel would take them to wards the Red Sea (if the Valley of Lemuel is the Wadi Tayyib Al Ism) and actually should have at least got them to the Red Sea. (I am rethinking some of my paradigms here.) From there they traveled "many days" until they stopped to rest for the "space of a time." Was that a figure of speech or was a "time" a specific period of time for the Jews? Reading some articles here and there suggests that a "time" was a year. But it was at this point that Nephi broke his steel bow and the bows of his brothers had lost their spring. I believe that Revtestament spoke of the bow possibly corroding causing it to break. I find that very plausible considering the fact that the air is laden with moisture along the Red Sea coastline. There is constant evaporation from the Red Sea due to the high temperatures observed in the area but little rainfall except in the wet season. I had the opportunity to stand a quarterdeck watch once while porting in Abu Dahbi and was amazed at the amount of condensation that formed on the canvas canopy over night. At one point water was was dripping off almost as if it was being rained on. That high moisture could also be the cause of the brothers' bows losing their spring. The party was close to a climbable mountain at that point because that is where Nephi was sent to hunt for food. That point also was possible where the party actually went through the mountains, and it could have been close to Mecca as that is where there is a gap between the northern and southern ranges. How navigable that gaps is I have yet to ascertain. Maybe someone can help me out there. Glenn and paradigms mixed up.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 18, 2017 Author Posted September 18, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, nealr said: Oh, you got it from BrotherJake, now? Then why, pray tell, were you earlier claiming to be in direct correspondence with an Arabic expert? Struggling to keep your story straight, are we? Or you can ask me to clarify. Brother Jake and Cinepro told me about probabilities, the Arabic expert is someone else. 5 hours ago, nealr said: Umm ... these names are not in the Book of Mormon, and so a theoretical random rearranging of the names in the Book of Mormon could never produce any of those names. To this specific point, biblical names are irrelevant. Old Testament names are relevant because Book of Mormon 's Nahom and Old Testament names like Nahum probably share a common ancestor. Old Testament names are also relevant because the Book of Mormon has many of them. But sure I can rearrange Book of Mormon names. No problem. I will have them available tomorrow. 5 hours ago, nealr said: . But even still, can you show me on a map where those places or tribes are located? Does is reasonably fit the narrative? Where are t the dates of the inscriptions which mention these? Are they actually from around Lehi's time? And so on. Sure. Tribes, Lehi''s time, and so on. I will also give you that tomorrow, I will work on it tonight. But will only be five examples. 15 hours ago, nealr said: So out of hundreds of names in the Book of Mormon, what are the odds that the one and only one that can be tested with inscriptional evidence actually has some inscriptional evidence for it? that is one aspect of the Book of Mormon. There are many possible aspects. Had there been no Nehem tribe in Arabia we wouldn't be talking about Nahom. No one predicted Nahom north of Sanaa before looking at the tribe names. I myself predict I am going to find at least five tribes dating to Lehi's time that match both Old Testament names and other Book of Mormon names. 5 hours ago, nealr said: I understand all that. That is why we need to consider all the various factors I previously mentioned, including the probability of any given name found in the Book of Mormon being attested in the early Sabean (8th-4th century BC) inscriptions as a tribal or place name, located somewhere that reasonably fits the narrative of 1 Nephi 16. If we found that any (or at least several) Book of Mormon names could fit just as well with the evidence, then that would increase the probability that the Nahom/NHM correlation is pure coincidence, and determining this probability is one factor that can help prevent us from only considering the probability of something after it occurs. Of course there are several more. I understand too. I will give you five examples tomorrow of both Book of Mormon names and Old Testament names. Remember, we do probabilities before looking for something, not after finding it. 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: False. Finding Nehem, NHM, and Nahom in such close proximity in both time & space is pretty remarkable, and it does defy the odds. We will see. There over 14 thousand rock inscriptions in Old South Arabia. See what I told Neal above. There is no need for astronomical coincidences. Edited September 18, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
PeterPear Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Scholars extrapolate from available evidence. Thus, some scholars reach the reasonable (but unproven) conclusion that the name NHM at Bar'an is related to the Nehem tribal region. Being anti-intellectual, such extrapolation is hard for you. It is true that "had there been no Nehem tribe in Arabia we wouldn't be having a conversation about Nahom," with the additional evidence from Bar'an of course. But it is not true that hundreds of other Semitic root-words could have been there and that we can therefore just mix & match them as we please. We must at least have some close matches, and we do in Nahom. False. Finding Nehem, NHM, and Nahom in such close proximity in both time & space is pretty remarkable, and it does defy the odds. Particularly when taken together with all the other descriptive evidence (linguistic, literary, geographical, etc.) which occurs in 1 Nephi. Scholars work with the preponderance of evidence. Your map here is the best evidence that Nahom need not have been near the Red Sea, and the BofM does not place it near the Red Sea. In fact, a line drawn from the Straits of Tiran SSE along the Red Sea coast takes you directly to Sanaa. Nephi has the Clan traveling SSE in 1 Ne 16:13, and continuing to travel "in the borders near the Red Sea" in 16:14. They had already been living in and traveling in the borders near the Red Sea for some time (1 Ne 2:9 "by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea," and 2:8 "And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof"). However, the last mention of the Clan traveling near the Red Sea was at 16:14. Since then we find them hunting in the mountains (16:30) and moving in the same general direction they had been going previously, SSE (16:33), into the mountains. It is only then that Ishmael dies and is buried in a place called Nahom. Your map here shows just what that means, because they clearly did not change direction and follow the jutting coastline south. Their SSE direction took them directly to Nehem. Well, everyone knows Ishmael waited to die until he reached Nehem or Nahom. To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual. Nahom or Nehem is known to have gravesites, so naturally, Ishmael who loved his family, waited to die until he reached Nehem so that his sons and daughters would not have to dig a burial plot out in the wilderness. To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual. And naturally Nehem or Nahom was inhabitated. And surely, the inhabitants of Nehem or Nahom would have provided better food and water to help Ishmael recover from his arduous journey through the Wilderness, which killed him. To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual. As you stated earlier: "We need to read the Book of Mormon text as simply and directly as possible in such instances." To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual. Because the Prophet Mormon wrote: "I am Mormon, and a pure adescendant of Lehi. I have reason to bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (and bno one knew it save it were himself and those whom he brought out of that land) So naturally, Lehi's "Clan" as you have liked to call it, encountered other people when Ishmael decided to die only until the Clan arrived in Nehem or Nahom. To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual. And Nahom is mentioned in 1 Neph 16:34, and in verses 35, 36, the daughters of Ishmael murmured and wanted to return to Jerusalam. Nehem and Nahom did not have the Shopping Malls they desired. To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual And in verse 37, Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael wanted to slay their father, Lehi. But because they were in Nehem or Nahom, they were not intelligent enough to recruit any of Nahom's inhabitants to overpower Nephi and Lehi. To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual Summary: Yes, Ishmael waited to die in Nahom, because it's been discovered that Nahom or Nehem has many gravesites. And the daughters of Ishmael wanted to return from the Wilderness back to Jerusalem, because Nahom wasn't in the wilderness. And the rebellious sons Laman and Lemuel couldn't find any residents of Nahom to hire to take them back to Jerusalem nor recruit to kill their father and younger brother. To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual
Glenn101 Posted September 18, 2017 Posted September 18, 2017 1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: We will see. There over 14 thousand rock inscriptions in Old South Arabia. See what I told Neal above. There is no need for astronomical coincidences. And in those 14 thousand inscriptions how many times does NHM show up, and where? If NHM was a fairly common name during that period of time you would have a point. Glenn
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 19, 2017 Author Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Glenn101 said: And in those 14 thousand inscriptions how many times does NHM show up, and where? NHM in Old South Arabia database Central Minaic DhM 386 » s³lʾ Nbṭʿṯ[tr b]4ḥtn ywm nhm[ ... ...] « Ḥaḍramitic Barīra 6 » 1Nhm 2| bn (R)3s¹m « 3 hours ago, PeterPear said: Well, everyone knows Ishmael waited to die until he reached Nehem or Nahom. It is just a coincidence Edited September 19, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite 1
RevTestament Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: NHM in Old South Arabia database Central Minaic DhM 386 » s³lʾ Nbṭʿṯ[tr b]4ḥtn ywm nhm[ ... ...] « Ḥaḍramitic Barīra 6 » 1Nhm 2| bn (R)3s¹m « Sam, did you lift that picture from Warren Aston's paper? Be honest...
Glenn101 Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 22 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: NHM in Old South Arabia database Central Minaic DhM 386 » s³lʾ Nbṭʿṯ[tr b]4ḥtn ywm nhm[ ... ...] « Ḥaḍramitic Barīra 6 » 1Nhm 2| bn (R)3s¹m « It is just a coincidence You did not provide any context for your references. But we are already talking about a NHM in Southern Arabia. Geographical area wādī al-Jawf Country Yemen for your Central Minaic DhM 386 » s³lʾ Nbṭʿṯ[tr b]4ḥtn ywm nhm[ ... ...] reference. Geographical area Wādī Jirdān Country Yemen for your Ḥaḍramitic Barīra 6 » 1Nhm 2| bn (R)3s¹m « reference. Both from the same area that we are talking about. 2
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 19, 2017 Author Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) 57 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Sam, did you lift that picture from Warren Aston's paper? Be honest... No. Here is the source. 18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: You did not provide any context for your references. But we are already talking about a NHM in Southern Arabia. Yes. I am working on Neal's challenge Edited September 19, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite 1
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2017 Posted September 19, 2017 4 hours ago, PeterPear said: .................................................... Summary: Yes, Ishmael waited to die in Nahom, because it's been discovered that Nahom or Nehem has many gravesites. And the daughters of Ishmael wanted to return from the Wilderness back to Jerusalem, because Nahom wasn't in the wilderness. And the rebellious sons Laman and Lemuel couldn't find any residents of Nahom to hire to take them back to Jerusalem nor recruit to kill their father and younger brother. To think otherwise would be anti-intellectual Hi Pete. This confirms for me that your reptilian brain is on the high road to an anti-intellectual denouement.
Recommended Posts