Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[Tarquin]

This book offer 81 things, but I only highlighted the 10 that most struck me.

the book I recommended lists 81

(81 points in the book I reference) are incredibly powerful.

…Nahom fitting into the 10 or 81 points offered IMO is quite powerful …

… and so on. I have recently read Mormon scholar Dr. Ralph A. Olsen’s A More Promising Land of Promise For the Book of Mormon. He identifies more than 181 points based on substantial evidence and sound reasoning, to present a sustained, powerful argument that the Book of Mormon took place in Malaysia. I will list just a few points here because of my weakness is writing.

1. Lehi was wealthy (1 Nephi 3:24). If Mesoamerica had been his destination, he could have purchased a ship … and taken a far shorter … voyage to America via the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Instead, the Lehites walked south and east.
2. Every step of the tortuous way through Arabia took them farther from America and closer to the Malay Peninsula. The account specifically states that they journeyed towards the land of promise (1 Nephi 5:22), i.e., AWAY FROM America TOWARD the Malay Peninsula.
3. (paraphrased). “Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days” (1 Nephi 1:4). Jerusalem was not a port. “With livestock and families aboard they would have been required to go ashore frequently for supplies.” “A continuous coastline extends from southern Arabia to the Malay Peninsula but not to America”. “Ships in the Aegean Sea in about 700 B.C. … hugged the coast and beached their boats each night.”
4. The Lehites built a boat …. They loaded it with animals and with families. They sailed to the land of promise in “many days” (not weeks or months) (1 Nephi 18:23). They reported having had no problems … (other than one storm). They had no navigational expertise at all yet did not get lost. The accounts indicate a short voyage from southern Arabia, along the southern coast of Asia, to a promised land within a reasonable distance (… the Malay Peninsula).”
5. The Promised Land was to be kept from the knowledge of other nations (2 Nephi 1:8). The great diversity of languages in America provides assurance that other ‘nations’ had been present for thousands of years. By including Polynesia in the concept of ‘Promised Land,’ Mala can accommodate the scripture. Many islands had been unknown to others until after European explorers arrived after 1500 A.D.
6. … they had landed on a peninsula (Alma 22:32). Their Land of Promise was nearly surrounded by water and was connected by a narrow neck of land to a mainland. The Malay Peninsula provides an excellent setting. … America has no suitable peninsula to match the accounts.
7. … Sorenson has to assume that the term ‘north’ does not really mean ‘north’. He skews directions about 60 degrees counter-clockwise. This allows him to propose that the Land of Promise extended diagonally across Tehuantepec. Yet the Lehites had a compass (1 Nephi 18:12; 18:21; Alma 37:38; 37:43-45), and they knew they were going precisely south-southeast when they were traveling along the Red Seacoast (1 Nephi 16:13). The Malay Hypothesis accommodates Book of Mormon directions very well.
8. Narrow Neck of Land. At the Desolation-Bountiful border, the neck of land was so narrow that a Nephite … could cross it in 1.5 days (Alma 22:31-32). With its Isthmus of Kra, only about 26 miles across, Mala provides an excellent setting. In the dense vegetation of tropical forests, it is far ore likely that a Nephite would travel 26 miles in 1.5 days (distance across Kra) than 130 miles in1.5 days (distance across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec). The evidence supports Mala.
9. Dragons were indigenous to the Komodo Islands (Komodo Dragons) near the Malay Peninsula. Reference is made to fighting like dragons in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 20:11; Alma 43:44). This indicates to me that they had actually seen dragons fight and had drawn pictures of them on the gold plates. If Book of Mormon people were on the Malay Peninsula, they could have been familiar with dragons. America had none.
10. Poisonous serpents came forth. They poisoned many people and caused flocks to flee southward (Ether 9:31-35). America had no flocks and no suitable serpents during Book of Mormon times. Venomous snakes in America do not pursue people or animals. The Mala Land Northward had both! The “Dusky Hamadryad” of southern Burma is a venomous serpent. It is “very fierce and is always ready not only to attack, but to pursue, who opposed.” … The odds of Joseph Smith knowing about this serpent and concocting the account in Ether are nil.

#34 – Volcanic Explosion!
Cataclysmic events are reported in the Book of Mormon at the time of the crucifixion. (3 Nephi 8). The destruction and great loss of life and days of darkness were probably caused by a violent volcanic explosion, with accompanying earthquakes and fires and tsunamis. Volcanoes in Central America extrude lava but evidence of auditable explosion is lacking. Native writer, Ixtlilxochitl, reports some trembling of the earth, some broken rocks, a temporary darkening of the sun and no loss of life at all.
The Malay Peninsula is a reasonable place to look for confirming evidence. The very unstable Pacific fault line runs just offshore from the peninsula. Within historical time, at least two extremely violent volcanic explosions (Krakatoa and Tamboro) have occurred along this fault line. The recent deadly quake and tsunami in 2004 also serve as reminders. Both of these explosions were followed by several days of darkness from dust blown into the atmosphere.

These are just a few of the faithful doctor’s points. The cumulative effect of all his points are a powerful confirmation that the events in the Book of Mormon took place in Malaysia.

 

[taylorf]

Your statement “millions covering thousands, …” fails to recognize that the New World did not preserve information like the Old World did. The real problems I have dealt with in this thread and a few others comprise less text than Lehi’s journey. And less text than Lehi’s journey plus the other positive evidences for the BOM.

Nope. Nothing to do with record keeping. Giving you the benefit of the doubt on records…see Tarquin’s reply that eloquently describes my point. NOTHING exists to prove that the Nephite/lamanite/jaredite civilization even existed as described in the BoM.

As for records…interesting that information preservation was sub-par for the Nephites considering that from the very beginning Nephi just had to kill Laban to get the brass plates since it was vital to PRESERVE the information recorded therein. Not to mention the plates of the jaredites. And the gold plates. Thousands of years and yet this is all that “survives”.

Doesn’t matter anyway…you’ve always got Teotihuacan.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

General notice:
Hot Topic for the week of 3/31.
Please remain on topic.

 

[Erich]

Speaking of chariots…There were no large domesticated animals to pull a wheeled vehicle, chariot or otherwise, in the Americas. So there was not a parallel development of the axel-wheel combination to the Old World. But of course, Lehi & Co. should have introduced the technology of the axel-wheel to the Americas, if we have stories of their people using chariots. Again, there is no evidence to support this.

No books, no gold plates, no silver plates, no stone tablets, not stelae, no monuments, no inscriptions, neither coins nor weights, no tribal histories, no tribal legends, not tribal names, no personal names, no topographic names, no religious terms, no political terms, no military terms, no equine terms (“horse” often being “big dog”; why didn’t they call dog “little horse” since dogs obviously came later than horses in America), nothing relating to Book of Mormon, except by, as you say, a tremendous “stretch,” as to which “true believers” are wont to appeal in the absence of real evidence.

And no honey bees in North America during BOM times, either. Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.

 

[Tarquin]

Omni 1:20 They wrote on stone, more durable than paper and papyrus, where are the stones inscribed in reformed Egyptian?

And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

Helaman 3:13, 15 There are many books and many records. Some must have survived in the desert. After all, according to foremost Mormon apologists, the presence of a wild barley in Arizona is evidence that the Nephites raised domesticated barley as a staple in Mesoamerica. So why shouldn’t we believe the same people who took their weakest barley strain to Arizona also took at least some of their many records - maybe the ones on raising barley - to that same place where they took the barley?

And now there are many records kept of the proceedings of this people, by many of this people, which are particular and very large, concerning them.
But behold, there are many books and many records of every kind, and they have been kept chiefly by the Nephites.

Jarom 1:14 The kings kept records, and these royal government documents would have been taken care of at least as meticulously as those of merchants and physicians:

And I, Jarom, do not write more, for the plates are small. But behold, my brethren, ye can go to the other plates of Nephi; for behold, upon them the records of our wars are engraven, according to the writings of the kings, or those which they caused to be written.

The writings of the kings “or those which they caused to be written” - obviously, the kings themselves wrote some records; then they assigned the writing of other records to certain of their subjects. A lot of records. And a king wouldn’t write on just anything. He would use the best quality instruments of all, material able to withstand the temperature and moisture of his land. Clay tablets, stone, metal plates. Not to be deposited in the wilderness, but stored in royal libraries and temples, large structures that can stand for centuries. These records have not been found in any of the temples or structures or remains of structures anywhere in Mesoamerica, nor anywhere in Arizona.

OR - if I am mistaken, where can we locate images and/or transliterations of these documents?

 

[TOmNossor]

First let me say, the existence of names is not in itself archaeological evidence. Similar, even identical names found in different ethnic groups is not evidence that those groups are closely related. “Lee” is an obvious example. So is “Alma,” as a matter of fact: Latin, Mormon English, Hebrew, Hungarian. Sorry, no Egyptian. Whether it’s used as a boy’s name or a girl’s name, doesn’t matter to me. Many names are used for both boys and girls. Names like “Lee” and “Kim” appear in different cultures (Chinese/English, Welsh/Korean), with no connection between the names.

I agree and have posted here that the existence of names is not evidence of much.
There was an Olemec king named Kish evidenced in the scant writing that has survived. There is a Jaradite king named Kish. If the BOM is true history, it is most likely that the Olemec king Kish and the BOM king Kish are the same fellow. Name, place, and timeframe fit. I have acknowledged however that this is not a strong piece of positive evidence.

As for Nahom specifically. There are no altars identifying Nahom. Not a single one! That is why it is not archaeological evidence. So far, it is no more than “a notable coincidence.”

There is an altar with the only inscription that could exist NHM. In 600BC, the inscription would be NHM not anything else. To demand that it is something else is asking for evidence that archeology with NEVER provide. That IMO is a problem. I cannot follow you in testing BOM evidence with tests that no archeologist believes it could ever pass.
I think there should be ancient documents that explain that Peter passed his authority to the Bishop of Rome if this is such an important link in the chain. Catholics must disagree. (some 3rd or 4th century Christian agreed with me and after the fact produced such documents, but all Catholic and non-Catholic historians believe it is a forgery). You may think this is an invalid test. If Newman’s development theory is a Catholic theory perhaps you are right. But such a document could have been created in the 1st century rather than in the 3rd or 4th. But, archeology that list Nahom instead of NHM is not something that COULD exist. 600BC Hebrew would not have included vowels. So your test is an impossible test. I suspect all Catholic will reject my expectation for passing authority from Peter to the Pope, but it is something that is missing not something that could not possibly exist because the people in the 1st century would not produce something like that. Your test is something that is impossible to pass and I reject it.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You have been corrected.I am not willing to make that assumption. NHM is not a city. It is not a place. It is the name of a tribe.

This is not correct either. NHM is the name of a tribe, but it is clearly related to a place. A place pronounced today in many different ways. When it became known as a place we do not know, but that it is a place and was a place in the past is true.

If there were a Lehi, there is as yet nothing connecting him to this tribe.He would not have needed a map. He would only have needed a Bible: 1 Chronicles 4:19 (Naham

), Nehemiah 7:7 (Nehum), and Nahum 1:1 (Nahum) could have been on his mind when he came up with the very similar sounding “Nahom.” No map necessary. No book on phonetics. Don’t get too excited. Lehi never named any place “NHM”.
I lack the faith you have in the anti-NHM. It is quite similar to the faith atheists have in the lack of a Davidic tribe (this was something I just listened to that made most of the points I have been making here).
It is possible that Joseph Smith had the Bible on the brain when he offered “Nahom,” but that would not explain why this place was in the correct orientation relative to Jerusalem, the Frankincense trail, the eastward turn, and bountiful. Also unexplained would be why Lehi claimed it was called Nahom rather than follow his more common (and a common ancient) practice of naming it for himself.

Speculations on a phonetic shift for whatever-NHM to NaHoM are naïve. The professors who argue, apparently naively or hopefully, for such a shifting, so far as I have seen, have provided no standard rule for such shifts. A vowel shift

is a systematic change of vowels in a language. I have only read of speculation that the vowels in NHM have changed, not that they have changed systematically. In other words, to get from NHM to Nahom may be an arbitrary, unsystematic change. If a shift law if presented and it works, I’ll be happy to accept that Nahom became whatever .
I have no “system” to apply to this. It is true that foreign visitors have taken the place NHM that exists and written it with different vowels and have commented on the different pronunciations they heard from natives. My point is not that whatever Nahom was pronounced is in 600BC when Lehi walked by absolutely transforms to Nehem or … but rather that this change in vowels is common.

Regarding your multi-point geography, the geography in the Book of Mormon is so utterly, painfully vague, that it has been applied to

Malaysia and to Africa: “It is a documentation of the ancestors of the African people, after Lehi and his children, our ancestors, the first Israelis to settle in Africa, were instructed by God to depart from Jerusalem and settle in our continent.”. Book of Mormon geography fits much better into the Malaysian scenario than into the American one, limited or unlimited geography notwithstanding.

The Nahom geography includes a river and valley outside of Jerusalem, directions “south-southeast” from Jerusalem down the Frankincense trail to Nahom. Then turning “eastward” to arrive at a place with resources like Bountiful.
I looked through your Malaysia for the BOM. I do not think anything in that system includes the interlocking conditions present for Mesoamerican cement which is unique to Mesoamerica, but the Nahom interlocking conditions fit, and volcanism may.
As far as the BOM being “utterly, painfully vague” it was never intended to be a history or geography book. That being said, Sorenson has identified 500+ points offered in the BOM that he fits into his Mesoamerican geography.

Finally, let me say again. There are two places in all of the proposed BOM travel that we know what they were called in 600BC through 400AD. Other places were either named by BOM peoples in a way that implies they were not universally called this “that we called the valley of Lemuel” OR are known through Archeology to have changed names multiple times with a loss of previous names. Those two names are Jerusalem and Nahom. Jerusalem is of course a major city that has been Jerusalem since 600BC. Before NHM alter inscriptions faithful LDS used the BOM to reconstruct Lehi’s journey from Jerusalem and placed Nahom in the proper geographic location. The altar inscriptions were found later. NHM was once criticized (by Dan Vogel, a respected BOM critic) as being too late. This was true, but is no longer true as non-Mormon archeology now suggests 800BC to 600BC dating. Combined with the surrounding geography, resources, ancient trails, and … Lehi’s journey is far more than just coincidence or wishful Mormon fantasies. This is IMO BOM archeology. I see you disagree, but try as I might, I cannot dissuade myself from the belief that this is BOM archeology and it is much more than some 19th century fellow could have put in a book of fiction.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Besides, remember, the Book of Mormon was translated from Egyptian, not Hebrew. Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley had suggested that “Nahom” was related to an Arabic word for “sigh or moan” or a Hebrew root for “to comfort or console.” (I think we both read the same set of articles.) But the “H” in both of these is a different letter than the “h’ in “Nahom.” Stephen D. Ricks didn’t want to give up, though, so he suggested that Lehi was engaging in word-play. Here’s the problem, Tom, and it’s kind of big. The Book of Mormon wasn’t written in Arabic or Hebrew. It was written in Egyptian. The characters might have been re-formed, okay. But, still, it’s Egyptian. And in ancient Egyptian, “nhm” means “jubilate.” Jubilate! Where Ishmael is buried, and his daughters weeping, Lehi jubilates

. Nibley and Dicks and Peterson weren’t willing to point that out, were they? And the prophet of the Church is just going to stand there and say nothing to help with “the most correct” scripture of all.
I have read a number of things. I do not think I have related the tidbit you just did. It was mentioned in an article I mentioned in my previous responses today.
Your Egyptian / Reformed Egyptian idea I do not think undermines it much if at all as how such a thing is related in the BOM does not invalidate how it would be experienced by Jews traveling through Arabia.
Here is the article:
mormoninterpreter.com/book-of-mormon-minimalists-and-the-nhm-inscriptions-a-response-to-dan-vogel/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mormoninterpretermp3+%28Interpreter%3A+A+Journal+of+Mormon+Scripture+%28MP3%29%29&utm_content=FeedBurner
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;11834511:

RebeccaJ;11827336:

Mormonism begins and is founded on a denial of the continuity of Christ’s Church. Impossible to accept, without accepting that God is weak and reliant on the strengths of humans.

The Jews rejected Christ and still do because He was not the conquering king they expected. How could the “suffering servant” who did not evidence He was the conquering king be the Christ. You and I agree that the “suffering servant” isn’t inconsistent with an all powerful God, but for some reason you believe the absence of apostolic authority requiring a restoration is only explainable if “God is weak.” I disagree.

Christ is triumphant. He no longer suffers and did not leave us as orphans to suffer in darkness. He lives as does His Church, which is His Body. Do you really think Christ lives while His Body, the Church, did not and does not?

“But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ and manifests through us the odor of the knowledge of him in every place.” 2 Cor 2:14
Your initial statement was false. It is predicated upon what you expect of God not upon what is possible for God to do. I will repeat that your demanding that Christ established a church whose authorities will NEVER be replaced by future revelation/restoration is precisely the position Jews take/took. Christ was not exactly as they expected so He is not God. The restoration of authority is not something you think should be part of God’s plan so you call it “only explainable if ‘God is weak.’” But you are like the Jew of Jesus’s day here.
I have not on this thread or any thread I am aware of suggested that God was absent from the world and leaves any human “as orphans to suffer in darkness.” Before Christ came Jews were not “orphans to sufferer in darkness.” After the apostolic authority was not passed to Catholic or Orthodox Bishops, Christians were not “orphans to suffer in darkness.” Millions of folks in American were not “orphans to suffer in darkness” either, but perhaps that is your view for them?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Your initial statement was false. It is predicated upon what you expect of God not upon what is possible for God to do. I will repeat that your demanding that Christ established a church whose authorities will NEVER be replaced by future revelation/restoration is precisely the position Jews take/took. Christ was not exactly as they expected so He is not God. The restoration of authority is not something you think should be part of God’s plan so you call it “only explainable if ‘God is weak.’” But you are like the Jew of Jesus’s day here.
I have not on this thread or any thread I am aware of suggested that God was absent from the world and leaves any human “as orphans to suffer in darkness.” Before Christ came Jews were not “orphans to sufferer in darkness.” After the apostolic authority was not passed to Catholic or Orthodox Bishops, Christians were not “orphans to suffer in darkness.” Millions of folks in American were not “orphans to suffer in darkness” either, but perhaps that is your view for them?
Charity, TOm

Christ did not claim to ‘restore’ Judaism. Christianity is not Judaism as Mormonism is not Christianity.

Joseph Smith invented an new religion he did not ‘restore’ Christianity. Mormonism is an invention not a restoration.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your initial statement was false. It is predicated upon what you expect of God not upon what is possible for God to do.

It is predicated on what Jesus said and believing Him. I don’t believe in the precocious God of Mormonism.

I will repeat that your demanding that Christ established a church whose authorities will NEVER be replaced by future revelation/restoration is precisely the position Jews take/took. Christ was not exactly as they expected so He is not God. The restoration of authority is not something you think should be part of God’s plan so you call it “only explainable if ‘God is weak.’” But you are like the Jew of Jesus’s day here.

I don’t believe Christianity is a restoration of Judaism, in any way, shape, or form. You have no evidence that it is, only what you want to believe.

I have not on this thread or any thread I am aware of suggested that God was absent from the world and leaves any human “as orphans to suffer in darkness.” Before Christ came Jews were not “orphans to sufferer in darkness.” After the apostolic authority was not passed to Catholic or Orthodox Bishops, Christians were not “orphans to suffer in darkness.” Millions of folks in American were not “orphans to suffer in darkness” either, but perhaps that is your view for them?
Charity, TOm

-LDS claim all Sacraments performed by Catholic and Protestant churches are null and void.

-LDS claim for 1800 years there was no place for anyone, in the whole world, to find the fullness of truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That is what I call Jesus leaving us to suffer in darkness.

 

[TexanKnight]

I just absolutely love the fact that Mormons like Tom will believe everything js said regarding the Book of Mormon, until it is something that proves him wring, like Cumorah, then they choose not to believe him.

That is the definition of a false prophet

 

[Tarquin]

There was an Olemec king named Kish evidenced in the scant writing that has survived. There is a Jaradite king named Kish. If the BOM is true history, it is most likely that the Olemec king Kish and the BOM king Kish are the same fellow. Name, place, and timeframe fit.

I … have posted here that the existence of names is not evidence of much.

I … have posted here that the existence of names is not evidence of much.

But you continue to belabor it as though it were one of the most powerful of evidence.

If the BOM is true history, it is most likely that the Olemec king Kish and the BOM king Kish are the same fellow.

I see absolutely not one single thing to connect the two to be “most likely” the same person. You will need to develop an argument for that, or let it drop as an inconsequential coincidence.Robert L. Smith takes U-Kix-Kan (the letter ‘x’ being pronounced as ‘sh’) as “Kish”. I don’t know that the Olmec were in the habit of calling their kings by an abbreviated name. Were they? Does the Book of Mormon explain that “Kish” was not the king’s full name, that his full name was Ukishkan???

Smith’s interpretation depends on his dating of Jaredite civilization. Olmec culture has been dated roughly from 1500 to 400 BC. Also relevant is the existence of pre-Olmec cultures in the same area, dating as far back as 2500 B.C. The beginning of the Book of Mormon takes place around 600 BC; so, other dates are dependent on that. The Jaredites got their start at the Tower of Babel, so their dating is problematic. This looseness of dating allows Smith to equate the Olmecs/Tultecas with the Jaredites and dates them from 2500 to 600 BC; the Mayas with the Lamanites/Nephtes and dates them 600 BC to 1519 AD; finally the Zapotecs with the Mulekites, dated 580 to 200 BC. Are there any legitimate non-universal correspondences between actual Olmec and alleged Jaredite cultures or between the other two pairs of cultures?

Daniel Johnson on the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum notes that the actual name is Ukixkan or even Ukixchan (the letter ‘x’ being pronounced as ‘sh’), not “Kish,” and that “Archaeologists are unsure if he was a real person or not”! Smith also admits “Kish is found in the Old Testament” – surprise again! – “as the name of several individuals, including the father
of Saul, first king of Israel.” Ah, that pesky Bible again, with names that also show up in the Book of Mormon. In this case, it seems to be that a Hebrew name is showing up in the allegedly preserved Adamic language name. But if we explain this similarity of names by convergence, then that weakens the old NHM argument, since the similarities of real-world NHM and Book of Mormon world Nahom could also be ascribed to a convergent development of names to the point that two names with utterly different histories share the same (consonantal) sounds (and totally different meanings!). In addition, the argument would seem to include a claim that the Olmec word “Kish” is a cognate of the Jaredite (Adamic tongue) word “Kish” and thus both refer to something sharp or used in blood-letting, a needle or a spine. What does the Adamic/Jaredite word “Kish” mean in English?

It will help, of course, if something is found to show that Kish’ father was Corom and his son was Lib, or U-corom-kan and U-lib-kan. Not very likely. By the way, if tiny bits of archaeological residue such as the Palenque tablets are to be used in this way, then perhaps you will stop complaining that the environment somehow prevents anything to remain of the Book of Mormon civilizations, for there is a lot more material that has survived from as far back as “Jaredite” times. “Ukixkan” isn’t a single name on a small desert altar. It is a name that appears on a complex of writing at Palenque. Meanwhile, I invite you to draw the connections between the Palenque tablets and other material at Palenque, to Kish and the Jaredites.

Joel Skidmore, who is one of those who believes Ukixkan was mythological, is of the opinion that “kix” is “more of a nickname” than a genuine theophoric or a name with an active reference to sacrifice. However, he also suggests, in The Rulers of Palenque “While the idea of a king at the site of Palenque in 987 BC would still have to be considered the stuff of legend, there remains an outside chance the Uk’ix Chan is a dimly remembered Palenque lord who acceded elsewhere ….” Skidmore holds up hope for Kish believers.

If “Ukixkan” is “Kish,” then how is “Kuk Bahlam,” the founder Kish’ dynasty, “Jared,” the founder of the Jaredite dynasty? However difficult it is to extract Adamic “Kish” from Olmec Ukishkan, deriving “Jared” from Kuk Bahlam must be insurmountable to a sane mind.

 

[Tarquin]

Originally Posted by Tarquin
As for Nahom specifically. There are no altars identifying Nahom. Not a single one! That is why it is not archaeological evidence. So far, it is no more than “a notable coincidence.”

There is an altar with the only inscription that could exist NHM. In 600BC, the inscription would be NHM not anything else. To demand that it is something else is asking for evidence that archeology with NEVER provide.

I do not understand your point. Are you arguing in a circle?: NHM could only be NHM because it is Nahom? Or NHM could only be Nahom because it is Nahom?? Or are you saying that there was no other way to spell the Book of Mormon word “NaHoM”? I don’t understand what you mean.

Again, the inscription on the altar is NOT the name of a place. Please understand the difference between Lehi naming a place “Nahom” and a tribe wandering around with a name containing the same or similar consonants. I do not believe that the similarity of the consonants in Dakota with Dakatua is evidence that the Sioux Indians sailed over from Papua New Guinea. Why should I think that Nhm and Nhm have any more connection than those do? I do, really, understand that there is, really, often an actual, definite, etymological connection between the name of a place and the name of a tribe. I know that happens. I know it is real. What I do not know is any evidence connecting the so-called Book of Mormon place “Nahom” with a totally unrelated and unrelatable non-Mormon tribe “NHM”. A Mormon apologist, and a good one, locates the “NHM tribe as he calls it, around “the highlands east of the city of Sana’a, west of the city of Marib and along the south rim of the Wadi Jawf. That the name of the NHM tribe was given to this region in antiquity was suggested initially by Christian Robin in his study Les Hautes-Terres du Nord-Yemen avant l’Islam I: Recherches sur la geographie tribale et religieuse de awl~n Qu~'a et du pays de Hamd~n, published by the Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch Instituut in Istanbul (1982, pp. 27, 72-74). This earlier observation is buttressed by the fact that the three altars dedicated by a member of the NHM tribe came to the Bar’an Temple in Marib during the seventh or sixth century b.c., forming clear indicators that tribal members were living not far from Marib, the capital of the Sabaean kingdom.”

Sana’a, Marib, Wadi Jawf, Bar’an, Sabaean, but no “Nahom,” try as he might. I wonder why the Book of Mormon doesn’t also credit Lehi with having named Sana’a, Marib, Wadi Jawf, Bar’an and so on. I haven’t read Christian Robin’s study, so don’t know what it says. Given the distortion of evidence by Mormon archaelogists - initially claiming that “NHM” referred to the place “Nahom,” not a tribe, I don’t have much hope that Robin provides that much support to the Nahom-NHM argument. I could be wrong. (But I’m not.)

Finally, if Nahom is the Book of Mormon’s best evidence – and given the amount of time and energy spent on it, in contrast to other alleged evidence, it certainly often seems the best evidence – then, support for the Book of Mormon is impossibly weak. If we are to believe the Book of Mormon on the basis of our faith and good feelings, why did God leave behind this teaser that “proves” the Book of Mormon is true? If this “proves” the Book of Mormon true, why are we told to “ask God” if it’s true, since it’s obviously true if there is a place called Nahom some place.

If in the wildest imagination NHM were evidence of Nahom, then the question of the thread remains, what about archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon? Nahom is about as peripheral as you can get without leaving the Book of Mormon entirely. Just as well you could use the word “Jerusalem” in the Book of Mormon to “prove” it is true, because archaeologists know there is a Jerusalem – and it’s a city, not a tribe. It’s nice that there are homonyms in the world, and Nahom and NHM, to say nothing of Nahum, are nearly homonyms. Homonymy alone is not evidence of relationships. Etymologists have to show the steps that connect them. There are no steps between the imaginary place “Nahom” and the actual, physical tribe “Nhm”. Honestly.

 

[Tarquin]

I cannot follow you in testing BOM evidence with tests that no archeologist believes it could ever pass.

That’s okay. I couldn’t even follow myself if I were doing that. But then, I am not doing that

I think there should be ancient documents that explain that Peter passed his authority to the Bishop of Rome if this is such an important link in the chain. Catholics must disagree. (some 3rd or 4th century Christian agreed with me and after the fact produced such documents, but all Catholic and non-Catholic historians believe it is a forgery). You may think this is an invalid test. If Newman’s development theory is a Catholic theory perhaps you are right. But such a document could have been created in the 1st century rather than in the 3rd or 4th.

You realize how totally irrelevant that is to archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, don’t you? Is it the case when Mormons see they are losing an argument, they attempt to deflect attention by trying to attack a belief (they presume) their critic has?

But, archeology that list Nahom instead of NHM is not something that COULD exist. 600BC Hebrew would not have included vowels. So your test is an impossible test.

1. I never proposed such a test! Your claim that I did is a straw man, so you go ahead and argue it with yourself, but please leave me out of it.
2. You do not know that the word “Nahom” in the Book of Mormon was a Hebrew word. (If it was, prove it.) It may have been, in fact undoubtedly was, a reformed Egyptian word. That is why earlier I proposed “jubilate” as the meaning, because Egyptian “nhm” has been translated as “jubilate.”
3. Yes, a connection between Book of Mormon “Nahom” and the tribe “NHM” “COULD” exist. Could, could, could. However, that connection is yet to be shown. To say that Nephi wrote that his father named a place Nahom is one thing. To say that a tribe has been found with the name “NHM” is another thing. Therefore:

• (A) The theoretical connection between
• • (1) Lehi naming a place “Nahom” and
• • (2) a tribe carrying the name “NHM”
• (B) is yet to be demonstrated,
  notwithstanding all the many, many pages that Mormons have composed trying to do so. Some day such a connection may be made. But it has not yet been made. It is as yet only a tenuous conjecture.

What would the nature of such a connection be, you ask? I’m glad you asked. A Rosetta Stone. Only, it needn’t be anything nearly as elaborate as that icon. It could be a simple document, in Greek or Latin, in Rome or Greece or Arabia or Judea or America or Malaysia. A document that transliterates the Hebrew (or Aramaic or Arabic or reformed Egyptian) into Latin or Greek, including representation of the vowels. Even that, imo, is not sufficient evidence for the Book of Mormon, but it is more than what Mormons currently have, and it is possible despite your cry that it is not. Maybe Herodotus wrote about his visit to the Nehimites, I don’t know. Why don’t you go and search that out and report back.

Hebrew in 600 BC, I suspect all Catholic will reject my expectation for passing authority from Peter to the Pope, but it is something that is missing not something that could not possibly exist because the people in the 1st century would not produce something like that. Your test is something that is impossible to pass and I reject it.

You are responding to my statement, “There are no altars identifying Nahom. Not a single one! That is why it is not archaeological evidence.” N.B.: “identifying.” You are therefore saying that it is impossible to find an altar identifying Nahom. I agree. It is impossible, because no Book of Mormon “Nahom” existed.

Please note, I did NOT refer to an altar with the “letters” ‘a’ and ‘o’ on it. That is part of your straw man argument. Stop thinking so small-mindedly, thinking two letters prove anything. I wrote “altars identifying Nahom,” not “altars spelling Nahom.” An altar said “Nehimite” or whatever. The altar did not say, “At the city of Nahom” or even “the city of NHM”.

 

[Tarquin]

NHM is the name of a tribe, but it is clearly related to a place. A place pronounced today in many different ways. When it became known as a place we do not know, but that it is a place and was a place in the past is true.

That’s wonderful! You have no idea how hard I have tried to locate a place “Nahom.” Please provide longitude and latitude so I can look it up on google map. I have searched for some place called “Nahom” all along the shoreline of Arabia, into Pakistan, and couldn’t find anything to give me hope. But if you know it is “a place pronounced today in many different ways,” please provide the location so I can study up on it. Thank you.

I lack the faith you have in the anti-NHM. It is quite similar to the faith atheists have in the lack of a Davidic tribe (this was something I just listened to that made most of the points I have been making here).

I lack the faith you have in anti-archaeology, anti-Malaysia, anti-Catholic, and Anti-Anti (a city in the book of Mormon) . So I guess we are both equally faithless.

It is possible that Joseph Smith had the Bible on the brain when he offered “Nahom,” but that would not explain why this place was in the correct orientation relative to Jerusalem, the Frankincense trail, the eastward turn, and bountiful. Also unexplained would be why Lehi claimed it was called Nahom rather than follow his more common (and a common ancient) practice of naming it for himself.

You’re right. I forgot about Nephi’s mention of the Frankincense trail. I suppose you also think that looking at an illustration of the Old World in his Bible (or wherever) didn’t provide Joseph Smith with any helpful clues to the lay of the land, either. Where is that, in the “book of Bruce” or in the “book of Tom”?
Do you really need an explanation of why a person does NOT name a place after himself? That’s kind of funny. If everyplace were named Lehi, how would anyone know where they were! Anywhere there were cities and lands of Lehi a-plenty already. Read the Book of Mormon and look at a map of New England.

 

[Tarquin]

Cognitive Dissonance

Your Egyptian / Reformed Egyptian idea I do not think undermines it much if at all as how such a thing is related in the BOM does not invalidate how it would be experienced by Jews traveling through Arabia.

Exactly! Because the Book of Mormon is not “falsifiable.” Anything will “prove” the Book of Mormon, one way or the other. No disproof is possible. Nothing can disprove it because nothing can disprove it; therefore whatever seems to disprove it actually just proves it differently.

 

[TOmNossor]

TomNossor, I would like you to consider this. When you feel the Book of Mormon is being criticized, and you speak in its defense, ask yourself why you are saying what you are saying. I have had to do that with my belief in the Bible. Regardless of whether the Bible is true or not, when it would be criticized, I would naturally defend it. Unfortunately, I often did not know enough details to give an adequate response. I spoke out because I believed it and thought I had to defend it, not because I had considered the issues in question. Do you defend the Book of Mormon because you believe it, or do you believe it because you have been considering questions regarding its legitimacy, and have been looking at those questions, searching out the details – in the Scriptures and in the Prophets – as well as in History and according to reasoning. I don’t mean formal logic. That’s horrible. It’s like math. You have to have a grasp of some of it, but the more advanced you get into it, the more painful and difficult it becomes. Still, we can add and subtract, divide and multiply; and we can certainly act on that level and even beyond, when it comes to reasoning about things.

The hardest thing is, that when I see that history, my honest objective reasoning, the Bible itself, and the people I trusted to teach me about the Bible, do not match my firmly held belief – the hardest thing was to set that belief aside – reject it – for what the Bible actually said, in the light of history, when a modicum of reasoning (however limited it may be, in my case) was applied to it. I have changed my beliefs in Bible passages, sometimes radically. Can a Mormon do this, I wonder. What I see in your comments about volcanoes, suggests you are where I once was, with the Bible. You seem to believe the Book of Mormon absolutely and without question. You are emotionally invested more than you are intellectually invested in it. Some people criticize an aspect of it, saying it’s not true. You immediately jump to the defense, certain you are right. But in the process you say things that it is incredibly obvious are not true. When I point this out to you, will you change your mind, and say the description of volcanoes in the Book of Mormon is actually less detailed (if not altogether non-existent) than the details of the Tambora volcano event?

This post should be responded to. I love math and logic is up there too BTW (not that I am good at logic, but I could math you …).
First, I do not know where I said “less detailed than Tambora event.”
Second, I have changed my views on the BOM and some theological points before. Sometimes I have felt reason drag me kicking and screaming from where I once was. But…

I have no illusions that I (like everyone in this thread) am immune from bringing biases into the discussion. A number of times I have tried to set aside my biases and see where I would fall. As a Catholic I never felt drawn to Atheism, but I considered it. When I became a LDS and I conducted this exercise a long time ago, I thought it might be possible I was to become a Catholic again. Numerous times I found something that meant the apostasy happened and Catholicism was so obviously flawed I could just sweep it away, but as I looked further I found that intelligent Catholics for whatever reason had dealt with this issue and maintained their belief. I will relate one.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I have no illusions that I (like everyone in this thread) am immune from bringing biases into the discussion. A number of times I have tried to set aside my biases and see where I would fall. As a Catholic I never felt drawn to Atheism, but I considered it. When I became a LDS and I conducted this exercise a long time ago, I thought it might be possible I was to become a Catholic again. Numerous times I found something that meant the apostasy happened and Catholicism was so obviously flawed I could just sweep it away, but as I looked further I found that intelligent Catholics for whatever reason had dealt with this issue and maintained their belief. I will relate one.
I was told that the ECF would lead me to Catholicism. I decided to read all of the earliest of the ECF: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. I remember well reading 1st Clement. I was sitting in our old house reading a printout and after the 2nd or 3rd thing hit me, I screamed, “This guy has no idea he is Pope.” I have learned both positive things and negative things for Catholicism concerning Clement’s papacy and how it relates to 1st Clement since then, but I with a number of Catholics still believe that he had no idea he was the Vicar of Christ and had authority over all eastern and western bishops.
Now, I expect that if I was a committed Catholic, Horses in the BOM would be enough to reject the book and move on with more productive areas that can grow my walk with God. I doubt I would have dug through Nahom and …. But, I evaluated Catholicism from the outside and when I see folks like Dave Armstrong ask doubting Catholics to not to adopt “private judgment” when evaluating this or that problematic issue for Catholicism and I think it an appropriate exhortation for them, but one I should not follow from the outside.
I think it reasonable for LDS to do the same when evaluating troubling issue too. But, I have attempted to divorce myself from any non-evidence based concept of the CoJCoLDS as Christ’s church so that I might weigh evidence for and against objectively. I surely fail as I do not think perfect objectivity is possible. But as best I can tell, the CoJCoLDS makes a better evidence based case for my continued affiliation than any competing belief structure. The BOM is a big part of this. Nahom supports horses and the BOM supports other issues.
Concerning my private judgment and the re-making of Mormonism. I am well aware of quotes that seem to imply to be a LDS is to be brain dead and just do what leaders tell you. I am also aware of numerous times leaders have said those quotes should not be read like that. So I do not. I am aware of many disagreements present within the thoughts and writings of past LDS leaders and the fairly clear teaching that the prophet is not infallible. So I do not believe he is. That being said, there are aspects of the CoJCoLDS I have felt strong desires to remake in my own way, but I didn’t believe our history and teachings allowed for this. So, I defer to the leaders of my church. But none of these provides sufficient evidence to tip the scales away from Joseph Smith as guided by God and Thomas Monson as his successor.

I am not sure if you are “a man with no church.” As one there is some increased detachment that I lack. Even if that is true, I saw you reference “reading the same articles” and some other things in this thread. I have been applying whatever objectivity and intellect I can muster to these questions for a long time. I could reject the BOM because of horses, but I think Nahom more than supports that problem by itself. I also believe that being an “anti-religion” Protestant is not Christ’s plan for leading His children home, so I evaluate other forms of Christianity with their problems and evidences (mostly Catholicism). I tell God daily that He should guide me. I am not opposed to following God when my intellect points me in a different direction. So, God could tell me to be a Catholic and not give me an adequate way of explaining away the BOM as I would need to do because of my intellectual witness of the BOM. I tell God and myself I would obey such a call, but as best I can tell I have not received it yet. Alternatively, God could direct me to intellectual solutions to all my Catholic problems and give me intellectually satisfying explanations for the BOM without giving me a spiritual witness opposed to my previous spiritual witness. In both of these scenarios, I would be in a place some of my fellow religionists are (both LDS and Catholics as I understand it) where my spiritual witness tells me one thing and my intellectual witness tells me something else. That would be tough. I will not deny that I am thankful that is not where I am (what I call my “dark night of the soul” lasted only 30 hours but it still sucked), but it is certainly not for lack of evidence gathering both pro and con. And not for lack of asking God to direct me in His ways.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

(2)

“Far more detailed”? Who do you think you are kidding? There is not even mention of a volcano!
…
(Having read this, I am more persuaded that Joseph Smith may indeed have been describing this volcano, or an even larger one. Although there are elements in his story that echo wonders from the book of Revelations.)
So, you started you post saying the BOM did not well describe a volcano. After pasting in some historical references to volcanos, you decided that perhaps the author of the BOM had some familiarity with volcanos AND the cataclysm in the BOM parallels in ways that allow you to make this connection.
There are multi-point details that caused you to change your assessment, many of which are not even contained in your description, but still you became “more persuaded” that author of the BOM (who you claim to be Joseph Smith) was describing volcanos.
Add to this:
Volcanos happened in Mesoamerican and are dated as best we can to the correct time.

And that is what I am claiming as a multi-point connection (I will deal with my additional claim about Joseph not being volcano-knowledgable shortly, but I am glad we agree (at least for a few second as I am confused by your later comments) that the BOM cataclysm reasonably is linked to large scale volcanic activity.

In your next thread we have many things I will sample some.
Some flippancy like this:

“city . . . did take fire

” – Maybe a horse kicked over a lantern in a barn
Perhaps…

Some little bits that work for Sorensen’s location:

“city . . . did sink into the depths of the sea” – not into the crater of a volcano

Volcanos have been linked to creating “sunken cities.” And consistent with Sorensen’s geography there are archeological ruins submerged under Lake Atitlan.

But most of what you say is:

Tarquin:

not

volcano, volcano, volcano and volcano

So, I am actually at a loss as to how to read you. In post #514 you start by saying that the BOM does not describe with any detail a volcano. Then you relates some descriptions of a volcano and say that “Joseph Smith may indeed have been describing this volcano, or an even larger one.” Then in post #515 you return to the “no volcano” meme.

It is precisely the parallels of the BOM description to the detailed volcanic descriptions that lead to this being worth more than Kish or even a single submerged city.

Now, let me deal with:

(Having read this, I am more persuaded that Joseph Smith may indeed have been describing this volcano, or an even larger one. Although there are elements in his story that echo wonders from the book of Revelations.)

Did Joseph read about Tambora or some other volcano?
Joseph was 12 when the eruption occurred. All contemporary accounts of him have him not being much of a reader. But I do not doubt he heard about it.
The multitude of things you relate in post #515 are things that are documented in multiple sources as being connected to volcanos, not in 1-2 descriptions of Tambora that MAY have made it to Joseph Smith between his 12th year and his bringing forth the BOM. Also, in one respect your “not volcano, volcano, volcano and volcano” is worth mentioning. The upstate NY author of the BOM who describes destruction at the hands of a volcano seems likely to mention a number of things that were not mentioned in the BOM, like “volcano.” It is the detail of the description (detail that lead you to say, “Having read this, I am more persuaded that Joseph Smith may indeed have been describing this volcano, or an even larger one”) that leads to the volcano theory. If the detail of the description is a product of natural research on the part of Joseph Smith, it is quite peculiar indeed that the BOM never mentions volcano. Much less peculiar would be Mormon not mentioning this where it to have been something he knew because it was linked to the coming of Christ to the Americas 350+ years before he was born.
Charity, TOm