God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Samuel,

I realized afterword that you were saying that Lmn is arguably a toponym because "King territory is almost the same as 'tribal territory.'" Um...that honestly seems like a stretch. I guess what I am saying is that you need to demonstrate that these names you are finding are actually legitimate toponyms within the region surrounding Nehem. The fact that the inscription of a place is found in this area doesn't mean it is nearby.

Hi Ryan,

Welcome to the message board. Yes the lmn is all wrong, it is not even in south Arabia. It is a challenge to find ancient place/region names in South Arabia that match original Book of Mormon names. It is much easier with Old Testament names. I will continue to work on it, hopefully I find some interesting ones by tomorrow. 

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

For example, if someone 3 thousand years from now came to New York and found inscriptions referring to Los Angeles, Hong Kong, or London it wouldn't mean that those locations were close to the site where they were found. We know that NHM was very likely nearby because there is continuity from the modern Nihm tribe going back into pre-Islamic times. 

Yes, but the Book of Mormon doesn't give us a specific location for Nahom. Without looking at the tribe names we can only conclude Nahom is somewhere in Central/South Arabia. 

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You likewise have the burden to demonstrate that these names you are generating existed in Lehi's day and that they were place names in the specific region surrounding Nehem.

Currently database only has 7,000 texts digitized, but I think 7,000 is enough to find interesting coincidences.   

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 You have greatly aided me in my own research.

Good! I am glad. I am learning too.  

Edited September 19, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No. Here is the source.

Yes. I am working on Neal's challenge 

Sam, above you gave me the source for that Minean slab. Then you discuss its translation with Robert in which YOU give him the translation, so you know what it is, and he points out that it doesn't meet the tests for time and place here in his post: 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69570-god-probably-wont-allow-us-to-find-nahom/?do=findComment&comment=1209756493

I also point out to you that it doesn't have a proper name in it. I suppose it is possible the Minean inscription of NHM could be part of a bigger word. So then you respond with:

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

According to website one of the NHMs is the name of a man 

And ignore the translation YOU gave, and try to send me off on some wild goose chase. It just seems to me Sam, that you are being disingenuous. You don't seem willing to deal honestly with the facts.  I tell you what, when you come back with some reasonable explanation of why NHM, Yemen is not the Nahom of the Book of Mormon, I may engage you some more. Until then you have utterly and completely failed to convince me of anything or even given any kind of rational alternative. I'd say the below is strike 3. You're out.

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No idea, but I found a second inscription tribe that dates close to the time of Lehi 

Land of Moron (Ether 14:6,11) matches mrn 

[... ...]ḏn ʾmrn s¹tʾḏnt Zydt[... ...]

Geographical area Ḥijāz

Period: B  

"In the Minaic corpus Mrn as name of group or person " "Mlhm is attested once in the Minaic Corpus as a name of group." 

and because I don't know how to transliterate it is going to take me a while finding three more. But it is much easier with Old Testament names. 

You have a lot of work to do to build even a slightly convincing case that NHM, Yemen is just an insignificant chance happening when it comes to correlation with the Nahom of the BoM. As I have said since Sabaen was a Semitic sister language to Hebrew, one would expect to find some names in common - that is a long way to travel to prove nothing. In fact I think your chances to make even a rational case are about nil.  You may think Aston is nuts, but he and others have built an excellent case for NHM, Yemen being Nahom of the BoM. It is the proper area and time(very close to proven thanks to the NHM alters of Marib). Given that vowels in Hebrew seem to experience some migration over time, I think the pronunciation issue is minor. NHM, Yemen is going in my book. Absent any decent alternative, It's KO time

Edited September 19, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are citing here another instance of NHM, this one (DhM 386) probably from Baraqish, northeast of Nehem, which makes it even more clear that Nahom is not a fluke, but fits its time and place like a glove.

And please allow me to thank you, Sam, for our continuing conversation on the relative merits of Nahom (and associated issues).  This has helped clarify many elements of the textual, etymological, archeological, geographic, and chronological analysis of the case for Nahom.  You have greatly aided me in my own research.

I would say the following inscription is much more relevant than the Minaic one.

Sabaean text BynM 217 (reproduced courtesy of the CSAI, University of Pisa).

Transcription: sh  ̣r Mh  ̮bd  ̣m Nhmn
Nhmn again appearing in reference to a tribal name.

[Ryan Dahle]

46 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Welcome to the message board. Yes the lmn is all wrong, it is not even in south Arabia. It is a challenge to find ancient place/region names in South Arabia that match original Book of Mormon names. It is much easier with Old Testament names. I will continue to work on it, hopefully I find some interesting ones by tomorrow.

Well, search as many names as you like, but the total number of biblical sounding place names that you can find from all over ancient Arabia will have little bearing on the chances of Joseph Smith putting the specific 3-consonant place name in conjunction with the geographical descriptions that he gave.

 

51 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes, but the Book of Mormon doesn't give us a specific location for Nahom. Without looking at the tribe names we can only conclude Nahom is somewhere in Central/South Arabia. 

The text gives enough details to have a very good rough guess of where it would need to be if the journey is legitimate. It can't be much further north because the eastern desert is impassable to the north. And it can't be much further south because the coastline narrows, which would make the long journey to Bountiful much shorter, and which  would change the direction from "nearly eastward" to  east-northeast (assuming  Bountiful is in the Dhofar region, which is really the only feasible option). And it can't be much further east because that would be a major directional change without  mentioning it, and then all of the sudden mentioning it quite a ways after the fact (and Neal already explained why the trail works to travel southward into the Nihm region through the mountains rather than eastward from the coast). Moreover, the Nihm tribal grounds are in the general area where the known trade routes more or less turned east. Yes, there is approximation involved, and no one knows exactly where the east turn took place for Lehi's party. But the farther away you get from the 100 mile or so radius of the Nihm tribe, the more strained your interpretation of the text is going to be. 

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Currently database only has 7,000 texts digitized, but I think 7,000 is enough to find interesting coincidences.  

Interesting, perhaps. Relevant to your initial argument, not really. I live in a rural area with a limited number of nearby populations. There are hundreds of thousands of documents in and around my home town with millions of names and place names described in them, but that doesn't really affect how many populated toponyms have existed in my region for the past few centuries. Search away. I just hope you don't try to tell anyone that your results substantially affect the argument for how likely it was for Joseph Smith to have situated an nhm toponymn within the interlocking and mutually dependent geographical descriptions that he did.

Now if you actually do find a relatively large number of legitimate place names from close to Lehi's day in the general area surrounding the Nihm tribal grounds which have legitimate BofM or Bible correspondences, then that would be significant to your argument. It would be interesting and relevant. If you find 5 or less, Joseph probably still didn't have very good odds of guessing one of them. If you find several dozen, then I think your argument is more substantive. The problem is, when I have combed through the databases, it is very difficult to tell what in the heck all of these names and place names actually are. Even if an English translation is provided, you often have no idea where the place name in the inscription is actually located on a map. You don't know how prominent a tribe was or where it came from or how it evolved. In other words, unless you know a lot about ancient Arabian geography, tribal affiliations, and linguistics, it is going to be very hard to contribute anything meaningful by combing through your 7000 texts. But by all means, keep searching.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem here is twofold for you:

One the one hand, "unmistakable proof" is not only a very high bar for any assertion about anything, but it does not represent the way in which scholars go about reconstructing history.  Historians regularly find some sort of plausible explanation for the artifacts of history, attempting to go with the preponderance of evidence.  So called "proof" is simply a bridge too far -- especially for ancient history -- and there are many matters which we just can't know.  Thus, any premise including "proof" is going to bring failure to the syllogism, whatever it may claim.

Second, supernaturalism is likewise rejected by historians.  There is no logical reason to give it any credence in reconstructing history.  However, failure to recognize that supernaturalism is not part of LDS theology also leads to absurd results -- not that the hol polloi understand that, but it nonetheless carries with it the seeds of failure in reconstructing rational theology and history.  The upshot is that, like normative Christians & Jews, Mormons who believe in supernaturalism carry with them the seeds of the "death of God" and of their own apostasy.  Why?  Because a supernatural God cannot exist.

I agree with much of this, however I think when it comes to the BoM historicity question there very easily could be evidence that I would consider proof or a convincing preponderance of evidence to support at the least the existence of people that came from Israelite ancestry and who identified themselves as Nephites and Lamanities.  That is a standard that should be reasonable to accomplish if there were real people who actually existed with those attributes.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What if it wasn't supernatural at all, but merely an iPad with LED screen being read by Joseph (face in hat) as his scribes were writing it down?

Getting an iPad from the 21st century into the hands of Joseph Smith would require supernatural powers.  And getting the iPad to produce the BoM narrative would also require supernatural assistance as no AI exists today that can write such a work.   Maybe I'm missing your point?   

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Mark Bukowski and I don't believe in the supernatural, and we are faithful Saints.  That is actually the more enlightened position.  The Mormon God is a natural God

Thanks, I appreciate you both and what I've been learning.  I guess it doesn't matter whether everyone accepts me, important to remember that.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, search as many names as you like, but the total number of biblical sounding place names that you can find from all over ancient Arabia will have little bearing on the chances of Joseph Smith putting the specific 3-consonant place name in conjunction with the geographical descriptions that he gave.

 

The text gives enough details to have a very good rough guess of where it would need to be if the journey is legitimate. It can't be much further north because the eastern desert is impassable to the north. And it can't be much further south because the coastline narrows, which would make the long journey to Bountiful much shorter, and which  would change the direction from "nearly eastward" to  east-northeast (assuming  Bountiful is in the Dhofar region, which is really the only feasible option). And it can't be much further east because that would be a major directional change without  mentioning it, and then all of the sudden mentioning it quite a ways after the fact (and Neal already explained why the trail works to travel southward into the Nihm region through the mountains rather than eastward from the coast). Moreover, the Nihm tribal grounds are in the general area where the known trade routes more or less turned east. Yes, there is approximation involved, and no one knows exactly where the east turn took place for Lehi's party. But the farther away you get from the 100 mile or so radius of the Nihm tribe, the more strained your interpretation of the text is going to be. 

Interesting, perhaps. Relevant to your initial argument, not really. I live in a rural area with a limited number of nearby populations. There are hundreds of thousands of documents in and around my home town with millions of names and place names described in them, but that doesn't really affect how many populated toponyms have existed in my region for the past few centuries. Search away. I just hope you don't try to tell anyone that your results substantially affect the argument for how likely it was for Joseph Smith to have situated an nhm toponymn within the interlocking and mutually dependent geographical descriptions that he did.

Now if you actually do find a relatively large number of legitimate place names from close to Lehi's day in the general area surrounding the Nihm tribal grounds which have legitimate BofM or Bible correspondences, then that would be significant to your argument. It would be interesting and relevant. If you find 5 or less, Joseph probably still didn't have very good odds of guessing one of them. If you find several dozen, then I think your argument is more substantive. The problem is, when I have combed through the databases, it is very difficult to tell what in the heck all of these names and place names actually are. Even if an English translation is provided, you often have no idea where the place name in the inscription is actually located on a map. You don't know how prominent a tribe was or where it came from or how it evolved. In other words, unless you know a lot about ancient Arabian geography, tribal affiliations, and linguistics, it is going to be very hard to contribute anything meaningful by combing through your 7000 texts. But by all means, keep searching.

Perhaps a step by step check list of what is required would help Sam focus on useful times rather than flooding the threads with candidates that only fill requirements partially...and help those  readers like myself who are skimming to get the gist of what is going on and waiting to dig in when if a substantial new bit is added.  I think I am following (needed are name of a tribe, location, and time matches, right?) , but not positive I am getting all the needed nuances (perhaps names of individuals would work?; do they have to be in the Book of Mormon or just show it was an available option?)

BTW, I very much appreciate your writing style, very informative, but also easy to understand and enjoyable to read and absorb.  Thanks for joining the discussion.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Getting an iPad from the 21st century into the hands of Joseph Smith would require supernatural powers.  And getting the iPad to produce the BoM narrative would also require supernatural assistance as no AI exists today that can write such a work.   Maybe I'm missing your point?   

Richard Dawkins and other atheists make much of the fact that there are undoubtedly more advanced civilizations than ours in this galaxy or universe.  Dawkins correctly sees such advanced beings as "godlike."  That notion is not far from the Mormon concept of natural gods, that is gods who have control of nature to such a degree that it seems "supernatural" to lesser beings.  Indeed, any primitive people on Earth would consider modern human technology "magical" or supernatural, even though the advances are merely natural.  The logical problem is that the supernatural cannot exist.  It is an absurd notion.  So, anytime we find ourselves confronted by advanced technology, we must apply Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with much of this, however I think when it comes to the BoM historicity question there very easily could be evidence that I would consider proof or a convincing preponderance of evidence to support at the least the existence of people that came from Israelite ancestry and who identified themselves as Nephites and Lamanities.  That is a standard that should be reasonable to accomplish if there were real people who actually existed with those attributes.  

I fully agree.

[PeterPear]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hi Pete.  This confirms for me that your reptilian brain is on the high road to an anti-intellectual denouement.  

Why? Because I referred to the text of the Book of Mormon?

Vs 35 Our father is dead; yea, and we have wandered much in the wilderness, and we have suffered much affliction, hunger, thirst, and fatigue; and after all these sufferings we must perish in the wilderness with hunger.

Were they in a village or settlement when Ishmael died? No. They were in the Wilderness. The mourning daughters thus said out of fear after losing their Father.

Vs 37 And Laman said unto Lemuel and also unto the sons of Ishmael: Behold, let us slay our father, and also our brother Nephi,.....

Vs 39 And it came to pass that the Lord was with us, yea, even the voice of the Lord came and did speak many words unto them, and did chasten them exceedingly; and after they were chastened by the voice of the Lord they did turn away their anger, and did repent of their sins, insomuch that the Lord did bless us again with food, that we did not perish.

Chapter 17  Vs 1  And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth.

Who blessed them with food after Laman and Lemuel repented of their anger? The Lord. It wasn't some Nahomites keeping shop in a 7/11 on Main St., Nahom. 

Tell us oh Dr. Smith, where in the text did Lehi's and Ishmael's family encounter a village or other people at the place called Nahom? It does not. They were in the wilderness when Ishameal died. Not at a civilized location.

You referred to the text earlier. Tell us. Shows us your scholarly skills. I appeal to your pride. 

Per Dr. Nibley, Nephi wrote Nahom in the 3rd person, not as a location named by others:

“When Ishmael died on the journey, he ‘was buried in the place which was called Nahom.’ (1 Ne. 16:34.) … The Arabic root NHM has the basic meaning of ‘to sigh or moan,’ and occurs nearly always in the third form, ‘to sigh or moan with another.’ … At this place, we are told, ‘the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly,’ and are reminded that among the desert Arabs mourning rites are a monopoly of the women.” (Lehi in the Desert, pp. 90–91.)

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

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

Vs 35 Our father is dead; yea, and we have wandered much in the wilderness, and we have suffered much affliction, hunger, thirst, and fatigue; and after all these sufferings we must perish in the wilderness with hunger.

Were they in a village or settlement when Ishmael died? No. They were in the Wilderness. The mourning daughters thus said out of fear after losing their Father.

..............................where in the text did Lehi's and Ishmael's family encounter a village or other people at the place called Nahom? It does not. They were in the wilderness when Ishameal died. Not at a civilized location.

Correct.  They were in the Boondocks, and had just come into the Nehem region, not a village.  Sam says there are a lot of mountains in the area.

18 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

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

Per Dr. Nibley, Nephi wrote Nahom in the 3rd person, not as a location named by others:

“When Ishmael died on the journey, he ‘was buried in the place which was called Nahom.’ (1 Ne. 16:34.) … The Arabic root NHM has the basic meaning of ‘to sigh or moan,’ and occurs nearly always in the third form, ‘to sigh or moan with another.’ … At this place, we are told, ‘the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly,’ and are reminded that among the desert Arabs mourning rites are a monopoly of the women.” (Lehi in the Desert, pp. 90–91.)

Good quote from Hugh Nibley. However, the third person reference actually does mean that it was named by others.  How did you get so turned around, Pete?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Moreover, the Nihm tribal grounds are in the general area where the known trade routes more or less turned east. Yes, there is approximation involved, and no one knows exactly where the east turn took place for Lehi's party. But the farther away you get from the 100 mile or so radius of the Nihm tribe, the more strained your interpretation of the text is going to be. 

So just to be sure you are talking about Nihm tribe north of Sanaa correct?    . 

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 which  would change the direction from "nearly eastward" to  east-northeast (assuming  Bountiful is in the Dhofar region, which is really the only feasible option).

Okay, but looking at the map Bountiful (Dhofar) is northeast from Sanaa and the Nehem tribe. Look at the Google maps. I don't feel it is fair that you are only giving me a 100 mile radius of the Nehem tribe. The NHM inscriptions in Ba'raan are more than 75 miles away from the Nihm tribe.

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, search as many names as you like, but the total number of biblical sounding place names that you can find from all over ancient Arabia will have little bearing on the chances of Joseph Smith putting the specific 3-consonant place name in conjunction with the geographical descriptions that he gave.

Book of Mormon has about 300 names. If I could find 10 names (five unique Book of Mormon and five Old Testament) it would mean the odds of getting a right name in 1 Ne 16:34 (if we were to rearrange them) would be at least 1/30.  If I find six the odds would be 1/50. With many possible aspects about the Book of Mormon 1/50 wouldn't be so improbable. 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

needed are name of a tribe, location, and time matches, right

Yes will do. But I need more clarification on the region. 

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Now if you actually do find a relatively large number of legitimate place names from close to Lehi's day in the general area surrounding the Nihm tribal grounds which have legitimate BofM or Bible correspondences, then that would be significant to your argument.

Okay, but I need you to clarify your "would change direction" comment please. Looking at the map Bountiful is northeast from Sanaa and Nehem in Google maps. Truly east Bountiful (Dhofar) is Najran which is 300 miles north of Sanaa. 

By the way, nhr (ancient place) is near Najran, and nhr matches Nehor (alma 1:15). 

Edited September 20, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[PeterPear]

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  They were in the Boondocks, and had just come into the Nehem region, not a village.  Sam says there are a lot of mountains in the area.

Good quote from Hugh Nibley. However, the third person reference actually does mean that it was named by others.  How did you get so turned around, Pete?

If they just came into the Nehem region (which is in the Boondocks), how would they know it? Because of a lot of mountains in the area? That's novel. Was there was a road sign in the Boondocks stating, "Nahem, next 8 Exits"? "No services after Nehem" ?

Nephi was sighing or mourning with others - his wife, his sisters-in-law - from his third person perspective, he's describing or writing how the others mourned.

Nephi is the author. Not some Arabs, that they never ran into in the Boondocks. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/19/2017 at 10:57 PM, PeterPear said:

If they just came into the Nehem region (which is in the Boondocks), how would they know it? Because of a lot of mountains in the area? That's novel. Was there was a road sign in the Boondocks stating, "Nahem, next 8 Exits"? "No services after Nehem" ?

They did not know where they were in particular.  Only the local tribesmen would know that.  Nephi had been hunting in the mountains (16:30), and they had been camping in the area.  Ishmael up and died unexpectedly, and the locals probably told them the name of the general area -- Nahom.   The way we know the difference is that previous places, Valley of Lemuel, River Laman, Shazer, were named as such explicitly by Lehi.  But Nahom is different for a reason.

Quote

Nephi was sighing or mourning with others - his wife, his sisters-in-law - from his third person perspective, he's describing or writing how the others mourned.

Nephi is the author. Not some Arabs, that they never ran into in the Boondocks. 

Too bad you were never a scout, and therefore don't know what the Boondocks are (hint: wilderness).

Edited September 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And it can't be much further south because the coastline narrows, which would make the long journey to Bountiful much shorter, and which  would change the direction from "nearly eastward" to  east-northeast (assuming  Bountiful is in the Dhofar region, which is really the only feasible option). ..... But the farther away you get from the 100 mile or so radius of the Nihm tribe, the more strained your interpretation of the text is going to be.

Okay, before I continue with my project I need an explanation of why Bountiful is "east-northeast" of Nehem? You are only giving me a 100 mile radius, but Bountiful itself is not east of Nehem. See Google maps. "Nehem about thirty-five miles northeast of Sana'a", which is about 250 miles short.

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 I tell you what, when you come back with some reasonable explanation of why NHM, Yemen is not the Nahom of the Book of Mormon, I may engage you some more. Until then you have utterly and completely failed to convince me of anything or even given any kind of rational alternative. I'd say the below is strike 3. You're out.

I am still working on my project, but in the meantime please explain the above. I honestly don't see an exact place, all I see is ambiguity.

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I

Same please

Edited September 20, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, before I continue with my project I need an explanation of why Bountiful is "east-northeast" of Nehem? You are only giving me a 100 mile radius, but Bountiful itself is not east of Nehem. See Google maps. "Nehem about thirty-five miles northeast of Sana'a", which is about 250 miles short.

I am still working on my project, but in the meantime please explain the above. I honestly don't see an exact place, all I see is ambiguity.

Despite much good work done by various members of the Church I don't agree with them 100%. I don't think they have the valley of Lemuel right. I roughly agree with the above map, but I place Bountiful further west. I think it is only a few degrees off being due east from Nahom. I don't have them following the caravan route into Salaah. My route doesn't go quite as southerly nor quite as northerly on the last leg as the above map does. If all they were doing is following the caravan route, it is difficult to understand why they would need the Liahona.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, before I continue with my project I need an explanation of why Bountiful is "east-northeast" of Nehem? You are only giving me a 100 mile radius, but Bountiful itself is not east of Nehem. See Google maps. "Nehem about thirty-five miles northeast of Sana'a", which is about 250 miles short.

I am still working on my project, but in the meantime please explain the above. I honestly don't see an exact place, all I see is ambiguity...............................

 

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Despite much good work done by various members of the Church I don't agree with them 100%. I don't think they have the valley of Lemuel right. I roughly agree with the above map, but I place Bountiful further west. I think it is only a few degrees off being due east from Nahom. I don't have them following the caravan route into Salaah. My route doesn't go quite as southerly nor quite as northerly on the last leg as the above map does. If all they were doing is following the caravan route, it is difficult to understand why they would need the Liahona.

One has first to decide which "Bountiful" seems likeliest (Khor Kharfot, Khor Rori, Salalah, Mughsayl, etc.), if any, and then what the starting point may have been.  The BofM does not say that they "turned nearly eastward from" (17:1) Nahom, but rather from an unknown place or area, which may have been in the "strange wilderness" (16:38) nearby, within the Kingdom of Saba.  Sam sees only ambiguity, but the text seems pretty coherent to me, as an ancient travelogue -- especially since we find the party most likely ending at a locale called "Bountiful," which is the ancient meaning of the Mahri name Kharfot.

This often lush coastal area currently features large permanent fresh-water ponds, springs, wild honey, jumaise-sycamore fig trees, date palms, tamarind trees, acacia, frankincense and myrrh trees, iron ore at Jabal Al Akhdar, hyrax, fox, porcupine, snake, wild tahr-goat, and leopard, along with fish and lobster in the bay.  One can still find oryx in the Asir Mountains of nearby Saudi Arabia.[1]  Archeological excavation in South Arabia shows that the early period also featured teff, barley, broomcorn millet, oats, grapes, cumin, flax, garden sorrel, and corn cockle.[2]

---

[1] See the entire issue of Wildlife Middle East News (WME), 6/4 (March 2013), online at http://www.wmenews.com/newsletters/1366812925wmenews _V6_I4_eng.pdf .

[2] Gus W. Van Beek, Hajar Bin Humeid: Investigations at a PreIslamic Site in South Arabia, Publications of the American Foundation for the Study of Man, 5 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969), reviewed by Gary Wright in American Anthropologist, 72 (1970):702-703.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, PeterPear said:

If they just came into the Nehem region (which is in the Boondocks), how would they know it? Because of a lot of mountains in the area? That's novel. Was there was a road sign in the Boondocks stating, "Nahem, next 8 Exits"? "No services after Nehem" ?

Nephi was sighing or mourning with others - his wife, his sisters-in-law - from his third person perspective, he's describing or writing how the others mourned.

Nephi is the author. Not some Arabs, that they never ran into in the Boondocks. 

Yes, but Nephi is writing from decades later in the New World, a perspective which allows him to insert wordplay ("mourning") as well as to reflect on the information received from local tribesmen about the name of the area.  The colloquial notion of Boondocks includes mountains and wilderness areas in general, Pete, or were you never a boy scout?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Despite much good work done by various members of the Church I don't agree with them 100%. I don't think they have the valley of Lemuel right. I roughly agree with the above map, but I place Bountiful further west. 

Correct. So Book of Mormon description allows for at least a 500 mile radius from Najran because Dhofar (Ryan's Bountiful) is east of Najran.  

What is the name of the region where you place Bountiful?  

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 My route doesn't go quite as southerly nor quite as northerly on the last leg as the above map does.

II just need to clarify the map above shows a traveling route from Google maps

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One has first to decide which "Bountiful" seems likeliest (Khor Kharfot, Khor Rori, Salalah, Mughsayl, etc.), if any, and then what the starting point may have been.  The BofM does not say that they "turned nearly eastward from" (17:1) Nahom, but rather from an unknown place or area, which may have been in the "strange wilderness" (16:38) nearby, within the Kingdom of Saba.  Sam sees only ambiguity, but the text seems pretty coherent to me, as an ancient travelogue -- especially since we find the party most likely ending at a locale called "Bountiful," which is the ancient meaning of the Mahri name Kharfot.

My point is that Book of Mormon description allows much more than 100 mile radius from the Nehem tribe. "turned nearly eastward" can mean East, North East, and even a sightly different south east.  So we don't have a precise location, especially because we don't know where Lehi turned East, like you are telling me. We also have to decide which Bountiful. 

Just to let you know I am still working on my project, but it is going to take me some time. 

[Ryan Dahle]

Samuel,

The following image is from Google Earth. I made sure that the image was aligned to true north. The top arrow is where Aston believes the eastward turn approximately took place. The arrow below it is approximately one hundred miles south of there. The arrow below that is another hundred miles south. I think it should be obvious that the further you go south, the more "nearly eastward" turns into east-northeast, and the less room you have for a long journey. And as far as I'm concerned, there are no good candidates for Bountiful outside of the Dhofar region. If you disagree with that, then this discussion is sort of a moot point. I have talked to Aston and others about this issue, and there are no qualified LDS scholars that I know of who still believe that Bountiful was located some place other than Dhofar. 

After looking more closely at Google Earth, I am inclined to reduce the wiggle room from a 100 mile radius to a 50-75 mile radius from the current Nihm tribal grounds. And yes, I know that Aston's turn isn't within the confines of the current Nihm tribal region, and is further northwest. However, a main argument of Aston's is that the tribal region was actually bigger in antiquity. I'm not sure I agree with him there, but none of us actually know precisely where the Nihm tribal grounds were around 600 B.C. We have a very strong reason to believe the tribe was in this general area, but nearly 2600 years is a long time for boundaries to change somewhat. I guess I'm saying there needs to be some allowance for where these tribal grounds extended or were concentrated anciently. Hence the 50-75 mile radius. That gives more leeway for where the tribe and the east turn actually took place, and also plenty of area to find other ancient toponymns with Bible/BofM correlations. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

My point is that Book of Mormon description allows much more than 100 mile radius from the Nehem tribe. "turned nearly eastward" can mean East, North East, and even a sightly different south east.  So we don't have a precise location, especially because we don't know where Lehi turned East, ................................

 

8 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

.......The following image is from Google Earth. I made sure that the image was aligned to true north. The top arrow is where Aston believes the eastward turn approximately took place. ..................................................

After looking more closely at Google Earth, I am inclined to reduce the wiggle room from a 100 mile radius to a 50-75 mile radius from the current Nihm tribal grounds. And yes, I know that Aston's turn isn't within the confines of the current Nihm tribal region, and is further northwest. ..............................................

So Sam agrees that "nearly eastward" doesn't give us a precise direction, and we already know that travel in that environment is not going to be a direct route, as the crow flies, but will entail some effort just to survive in a harsh and unforgiving landscape.  The text makes that very clear.

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Richard Dawkins and other atheists make much of the fact that there are undoubtedly more advanced civilizations than ours in this galaxy or universe.  Dawkins correctly sees such advanced beings as "godlike."  That notion is not far from the Mormon concept of natural gods, that is gods who have control of nature to such a degree that it seems "supernatural" to lesser beings.  Indeed, any primitive people on Earth would consider modern human technology "magical" or supernatural, even though the advances are merely natural.  The logical problem is that the supernatural cannot exist.  It is an absurd notion.  So, anytime we find ourselves confronted by advanced technology, we must apply Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Technically, I agree that many things that societies throughout the history of the world have considered supernatural, were really just accomplished through natural means and discoveries have explained those earlier phenomena through natural means.  Of course this makes sense if we consider that more advanced civilizations and technology could accomplish things that our current culture would describe as magic and would be indistinguishable.  

I'm using the term supernatural in a more traditional way in this case.  If a higher power were intervening to transmit this story of the ancient inhabitants in the America's to Joseph Smith, then I would have to completely re-orient my world view.  I just have seen no compelling evidence to suggest that either a deity of some kind or an advanced civilization has directly intervened in the affairs of humankind.  If that evidence did come forward, it would be paradigm shifting for me on multiple levels.  

Edited September 20, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Ryan Dahle]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So Sam agrees that "nearly eastward" doesn't give us a precise direction, and we already know that travel in that environment is not going to be a direct route, as the crow flies, but will entail some effort just to survive in a harsh and unforgiving landscape.  The text makes that very clear.

Hi Bob, good to visit again.

I also agree that the "nearly eastward" doesn't mean a straight line. Not that you necessarily assumed this, but just to be clear, the lines were not proposed directional routes, but simply were to demonstrate how as one goes further and further south, the "nearly" because less and less applicable. Could someone make an argument for 100 miles south of the current Nihm tribal grounds? Sure, but it won't be nearly as "nearly eastward" compared to a journey from the current Nihm tribal region. Let's say that the Nihm tribe was 100 miles south of its current location. I think that some LDS scholars would probably assume that it was indeed the Nahom mentioned in the text and the "nearly eastward" allowed for a much more east-northeast route. However, I think there would be far less consensus over the matter. It would seem like a bit of a stretch. If it were 100 miles north of the current tribal grounds, that would be a problem because of the harsh, impassible desert. One could propose that there was a southern detour before the long journey east, but again, it would be a bit of a stretch. A 100 miles east of current Nahom, and it would be weird that Nephi didn't mention the eastward turn already (it would have had to have been a fairly sharp turn because the norther desert wouldn't allow for a gradual south-easterly route. And obviously, 100 miles west we get to the Red Sea. 

I can countenance other locations within this wide swath being potentially valid according to a liberal interpretation of the text, but the further and further we get away from the Nihm tribal ground's current location, the more and more we have to stretch the meaning of the text to make a match. I'm not saying you were disagreeing with this. I'm just clarifying my point. The place where Nehem is actually located is about as good as it gets for a match with what the text says. 

[Ryan Dahle]

Just now, Ryan Dahle said:

but simply were to demonstrate how as one goes further and further south, the "nearly" because less and less applicable.

Edit in brackets: "but simply were to demonstrate how as one goes further and further south, the 'nearly' [becomes] less and less applicable.