Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[PoliSciProf]

Here is a very good article re this topic:

[Index of /~plporter/lds(name removed by moderator)rogress/bomnot.htm](Index of /~plporter/lds(name removed by moderator)rogress/bomnot.htm)

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

From Wikipedia :

LDS scholars now consider the location and tribal area of NHM in the Jawf Valley in Yemen (15° 51’ 0" North, 44° 37’ 0" East, GPS coordinates 15.88, 44.615) to be the only plausible location for the place referred to as Nahom in the Book of Mormon.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom#Proposed_location_of_Nahom

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom has shown he is very willing to debate things he cannot prove…but cannot answer why he accepts the things from js he likes…including how the b of m came to be…but rejects those he does not like…like Cumorah.

Again, if you have to pick and choose the doctrines and teachings you like from someone, you have proven by your actions that he is not a prophet

 

[Tarquin]

1 of 3

From Wikipedia :
LDS scholars now consider the location and tribal area of NHM in the Jawf Valley in Yemen (15° 51’ 0" North, 44° 37’ 0" East, GPS coordinates 15.88, 44.615) to be the only plausible location for the place referred to as Nahom in the Book of Mormon.

Thanks, RebeccaJ, but …

No, no, no. The Wikipedia heading is “Proposed location of Nahom”. TomNossor said (underlining mine),

Tarquin;11835455:

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.”
. . . NHM is not a city. It is not a place. It is the name of a tribe. If there were a Lehi, there is as yet nothing connecting him to this tribe.

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.

NHM (the name of a tribe) is “clearly related” to a place, obviously meaning the alleged place “Nahom.” “Clearly” related. “Clearly.”

“pronounced many different ways” - what are those many ways? (Maybe he means the word can be pronounced in many different ways, rather than the word is pronounced in many different ways?

Now, I will agree with what I hope is not overbearing confidence that “a place is a place,” and with what I hope is pardonable boldness when I venture even farther to say that the Book of Mormon character Lehi allegedly named “a place” Nahom. However, I will not agree until it has been demonstrated - which is more than speculating with some abandon - that there really is some as yet undetected “clear” relation between the Arabian tribe and the alleged Jewish-Egyptian Nahom-place.

 

[Tarquin]

2 of 3
The following are a pertinent part of the puzzle:

In 1976, it was originally speculated by Lynn M. Hilton that Nahom might correlate with the location of the village of Al Qunfudhah in Saudi Arabia (Hilton & Hilton 1976). In 1978 Ross T. Christensen noted the existence of a location in Yemen called “Nehhm” on an early map produced by Carsten Niebuhr as the result of a scientific expedition sent out by King Frederick V of Denmark (Christensen 1978, p. 73). After doing extensive research over several years at the site in Yemen, the location of Nahom was associated with the existing location and tribal name NHM (usually vocalized as NIHM or NEHEM or NAHM) by Warren and Michaela Aston in 1994 (Aston & Aston 1994). LDS scholars now consider the location and tribal area of NHM in the Jawf Valley in Yemen (15° 51’ 0" North, 44° 37’ 0" East, GPS coordinates 15.88, 44.615) to be the only plausible location for the place referred to as Nahom in the Book of Mormon.

After reading that, I found the Mormon Church 1978 ‘Ensign’ reference (Christiensen), where I read:

In 1763 Carsten Niebuhr prepared a map of Yemen (South Arabia or “Arabia Felix”) as a major project of the scientific expedition sent out by King Frederick V of Denmark. The name “Nehhm” appears on that map. It was a small administrative district located among the mountain valleys some 100 miles east of Luhaiya and about 25 miles north of the capital, Sana. (See accompanying map….)

I also went to the February 2001 issue of the Mormon ‘Ensign,’ which reports,

A group of Latter-day Saint researchers recently found evidence linking a site in Yemen, on the southwest corner of the Arabian peninsula, to a name associated with Lehi’s journey as recorded in the Book of Mormon.
Warren Aston, Lynn Hilton, and Gregory Witt located a stone altar that professional archaeologists dated to at least 700 B.C. This altar contains an inscription confirming “Nahom” as an actual place that existed in the peninsula before the time of Lehi. The Book of Mormon mentions that “Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom”….
This is the first archaeological find that supports a Book of Mormon place-name other than Jerusalem or the Red Sea, says Brother Witt.

I also read for the umpteenth time, Aston’s “Newly Found Altars from Nahom” in the “Journal of Book of Mormon Studies” at Brigham Young University’s online Maxwell Institute:

The distance from Jerusalem to the Nahom region and the nearby city of Marib is approximately 1,400 miles. The Bar’an site lies about three miles from the ruins of the original city of Marib.

Not wishing to draw a premature conclusion, I examined several maps to locate the Jawf Valley (which see), and to see the relative locations and distances of al-Luhayya to Sana’a,
and Sana’a to Marib.

So which of these places is Nahom? Jawf? 25 miles north of Sana’a? 120 miles east of Sana’a?
Am I understanding the articles incorrectly? Am I reading the maps incorrectly?
And where exactly is this place called Nahom?

 

[Tarquin]

3 of 3

A second problem. Aston writes,

At the same time that the Bar’an excavation was completed, a French team conducted the first archaeological examination of a huge area of ancient burial tombs at ‘Alam, Ruwayk, and Jidran, just 25 miles north of Marib. While there are isolated burial tombs scattered throughout the Nahom region, this vast cemetery covering many square miles and numbering many thousands of tombs is the largest burial area known anywhere in Arabia.
If in fact Nahom extended into this region in ancient times, this burial area now takes on special significance. The tombs date back as far as 3000 B.C., evidence of the large population in the area even earlier than the generally accepted dates of the Sabaean period,

For now, I’ll leave the readers to draw their own conclusions from this, in re population, history, and onomastics; they should be obvious.

Finally, if the altars are accepted as evidence, due to the similarity of three letters, for the reality of Lehi and of his naming the place Nahom (without indicating whether that is a Hebrew or an Egyptian name), then are they not also equally evidence for the shocking fact that Lehi worshipped a moon (or sun) god, Ilmaqah/Almaqah?

It now seems abundantly clear that Lehi was an apostate Jew who tried to flee the Lord’s judgment, which the true Prophet Jeremiah said everyone had to endure until the time when the Lord would once again deliver them from bondage. There was no reason for Lehi to flee the Babylonian captivity since the Lord himself said he would free his chosen people (the ones who accepted his punishment) from their due bondage, in his own due time. Lehi ran from God’s decree, sought to overturn God’s justice, tried to negate God’s will and providence, thereby losing God’s blessing both for himself and for his posterity. No wonder the Nephites all perished! And then he went off and worshipped a moon god instead of the true God of Israel:

“The inscription on the second touring altar did not mention Nahom but contained a typical dedication: “'Il-'Amir son of 'Ammi-'Ahir, son of ‘Athyan, has dedicated [the person] Yitha’-radum. By 'Athtar, and by Ilmaqah, and by Dhat-Himyam.” The beginning of the text is marked with a symbol unique to the god Ilmaqah and was usually used by royalty and their officials in dedicatory inscriptions to the moon god.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Seems it is to be placed somewhere in the lands of the Sabaeans, who were pagans not Jews and built altars to honor the seven planets.

So, just another case of Mormons overlaying belief. History being what one wants to believe, is done with everything, including Christianity. It is a tedious approach, without intellectual merit.

 

[Tarquin]

It is probable that the term Nahom was spelled with the rasped or fricative Hebrew letter for “h” (het or chet) whereas the name Nihm, both in modern Arabic and in the ancient Sabaean dialect, is spelled with a softer, less audible h sound… One has to assume, it seems to me, that when the members of Lehi’s party heard the local name for “the place that was called Nahom” they associated the sound of that local name with the term Nahom, a Hebrew word that was familiar to and had meaning for them.
S. Kent Brown - director of the BYU Jerusalem Center
Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol.8, Iss.1, pp.66-68

“Nahom” does not seem to have been an actual Hebrew word. I have not found a non-Mormon instance of its occurrence yet. Nor, as best as I have been able to discover yet, is ‘nahom’ a reformed Egyptian word either, although it could conceivably be some form of ‘nhm’ (jubilate).

 

[kimg901]

I very much disagree, and I thought I might comment on this.
I came to know Christ as a LDS in ways that I failed to connect in Catholicism.
I have felt His love. I have felt His call out of sin. And I have felt Him leading me when I could not make it on my own.
I am not interested in sharing your faith commitments that lead to the above statement.
Charity, TOm

You cannot come to know Christ if you follow Mormonism. Your whole religion is based on Jesus/God failing. I don’t know about you but the Jesus I worship does not fail nor does the Father.

 

[kimg901]

So now this b.o.m could have happened in Yemen? So what of America? Mormonism is confusing.

 

[TOmNossor]

I said, “NHM is a tribe name, but it is clearly related to a place pronounced in many different ways.”
Then this becomes the stepping off point for a lot of comment.

No, no, no. The Wikipedia heading is "Proposed

location of Nahom". TomNossor said (underlining mine), NHM (the name of a tribe) is “clearly related” to a place, obviously meaning the alleged place “Nahom.” “Clearly” related. “Clearly.”
Actually, I was responded to you saying that NHM is not a place but a tribe name (until you reproduced this quote detached from your statement, it seemed very clear).

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.

I said it was clearly a place AND it was pronounced in many different ways. Do you now acknowledge that the statement you made was wrong? Was the bluster, “you have been corrected” a product of your dogmatic knowledge that the BOM is not what I believe it to be?

Now, it is a place located on rare maps in a specific location (more on location uncertainty that you mention later) that fits into Lehi’s journey with multi-point connections (Jerusalem, river, valley, direction, NHM/Nahom/???, direction, Bountiful, ore, honey, timber, …). Nothing said to me in this thread has done anything but reinforce that this is so significant it creates some type of response that leaves me wondering what is going on for the responders.

“Pronounced in many different ways” is evidenced in 1-2 of the reports from LDS as they explored the region AND by the reproduction on maps of multiple different spellings. But in the great scheme of things it is not too important.

Now, I will agree with what I hope is not overbearing confidence that “a place is a place,”

and with what I hope is pardonable boldness when I venture even farther to say that the Book of Mormon character Lehi allegedly named “a place” Nahom.
A minor correction here. Lehi “named” a number of places after his family or what he experienced there. “Nahom” and Jerusalem are the only places that Nephi did not name on his own (in the Old World at least). And it is interesting that they are exactly where they should be.

Now, I will agree with what I hope is not overbearing confidence that “a place is a place,”

and with what I hope is pardonable boldness when I venture even farther to say that the Book of Mormon character Lehi allegedly named “a place” Nahom. However, I will not agree until it has been demonstrated - which is more than speculating with some abandon - that there really is some as yet undetected “clear” relation between the Arabian tribe and the alleged Jewish-Egyptian Nahom-place.
The “Arabian tribe” is clearly related to a place that is associated with the altar inscription NHM that was present in 600BC when Lehi walked through this exact region.
Nahom is not a “Jewish-Egyption” place. You introduced to this thread the idea that Nahom was related to “mourning” in some ancient language and then criticized it as if it weakened the arguments I was making. I just told you your criticism proved too much because an ancient Jew in Arabia MIGHT make the connection and find it noteworthy regardless what a 400AD Mesoamerican thought about it when he wrote in reformed Egyptian (or what a 1830’s farm boy thought about it when he translated into English). This criticism is created by you introducing evidence you claim is pro-LDS and then criticizing it (I know LDS authors first offered this “evidence,” but it in no way detracts from the multi-point connections I have offered).
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

In post #603 you detail a lot of research you did. That is a lot of work to go through when you started this saying that there really is not much evidence associated with my 10 point connection (this book offers 81 things).

So which of these places is Nahom? Jawf? 25 miles north of Sana’a? 120 miles east of Sana’a?

Am I understanding the articles incorrectly? Am I reading the maps incorrectly?
And where exactly is this place called Nahom?

My initial answer is the one that associates with the GPS coordinates RebeccaJ pulled from Wikipedia.
That being said, we have a starting point in Jerusalem, a direction, PLACE, a turn, and a finishing point at Bountiful. Since Lehi didn’t record the directions as “due east, heading 091” the locations associated with the handful of inscriptions on altars seem to work fine. I will acknowledge that the presence in 2014 (or 1780 or 1830) of Nahom locations more than 120 miles apart makes it easier to hit the general direction markers of direction from Jerusalem, NHM, direction to bountiful. But using that to discredit this multi-point connection, would make William Dever sigh at you with derision. This is just what one must deal with when trying to reconstruct something that happened 2600 years ago. It is simply untrue that Nahom’s are everywhere and we were bound to find one because it is so ubiquitous.

Finally, if the altars are accepted as evidence, due to the similarity of three letters, for the reality of Lehi and of his naming the place Nahom (without indicating whether that is a Hebrew or an Egyptian name), then are they not also equally evidence for the shocking fact that Lehi worshipped a moon (or sun) god, Ilmaqah/Almaqah?

First, as I said above, Lehi made it a point to say this place was “called Nahom” in contrast to his naming of other places.
Next, NO, I do not think your point is significant at all. Lehi said they buried Ismael at this place that was called Nahom. He did not say anything about worshiping with the folks who named Nahom, Nahom. I really think you are stretching here. The folks who called Nahom, Nahom had a religion that Lehi should have not embraced if the BOM is true. The BOM says nothing about Lehi embracing their religion and does not evidence he did.
I have a vague recollection that some LDS once found evidence that a band of Jews influenced the religion or legends of some group somewhere around here. Perhaps that piece of LDS thought is what you are critiquing (again introducing something neither I nor the BOM said so you can criticize it). Let me say for the record: “I think some LDS apologetic arguments have almost zero evidentiary value.” (this specific one may be in that group).

I spend much of my work day evaluating signals using statistical tool so I can know where in our manufacturing process there is a real problem and where there is noise that I should not chase. The tools used and the data gathered are custom designed to make statistically significant signals stand out and noise fall away. There are only a few tools in anthropology/ethnohistory that attempt to do the same things when investigating ancient documents. None of them work with anywhere near the precision my tools offer me. That being said, I have focused on multi-point connections because I think it should be clear to those trained and untrained in statistical analysis that as a connection integrates with other connections the evidentiary power increases quickly. Nahom with 10 or 81 points is just such a connection. It is my non-profession opinion that its strength as positive evidence for the BOM is incredibly significant. I do not think it reasonable to believe the BOM included the types of details we found for Lehi’s journey unless it was produced through contact with someone who did Lehi’s journey.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom has shown he is very willing to debate things he cannot prove…but cannot answer why he accepts the things from js he likes…including how the b of m came to be…but rejects those he does not like…like Cumorah.

Again, if you have to pick and choose the doctrines and teachings you like from someone, you have proven by your actions that he is not a prophet

Hello TK,
I thought this deserved a little comment.
I claim proof in the same ways all Christians might claim proof for the resurrection of Christ. I think there is evidence that is best explained by the BOM being what I claim it to be and evidence against this. On balance, I think the evidence points to the BOM being what I claim it to be and not what those criticizing it here claim it to be.

There are aspects of the CoJCoLDS that I am not interested in defending because I think we lose spectacularly in our efforts to explain them in a faithful way. My faithful explanation is about 90% handwaving IMO and it is the best I can find or I would embrace a different one. I do not claim these are not part of the CoJCoLDS because I cannot “prove” them. I accept them and recognize I cannot defend them to my satisfaction.

There are aspects of the CoJCoLDS that I do not accept because the evidence points away from them AND I do not think I should embrace them. I am not a “young earth creationist,” because the evidence suggests this view is not true AND LDS scriptures (more so than the Bible) allow for creation narratives to have non-literal days AND back in 1917 or so the leaders of the CoJCoLDS debated this and were not of the same opinion (and no, I do not think this was a time when God should have popped into the Salt Lake Temple to give the correct answer).

There are aspects of the CoJCoLDS that I do not accept because I think they are wrong and there IMO is every reason to reject them. Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. David O. McKay (and McConkie) claimed that the restriction on the priesthood was not a product of revelation to the church. So I reject the idea that if the CoJCoLDS is started by God and sustained by God, God is a racist. Instead, I recognize that Joseph Smith was much less racist then his 1840’s environment and Brigham Young was probably more racist than his 1850’s environment. Such human failings are part of my church. Where I Catholic the fate of unbaptized children would fit in this category. I would reject the most clear read of Tradition because I find it repugnant AND I find at least limited warrant to do so. By my BIASED weighing of this it is much easier for me to be a faithful LDS who does not believe God was involved in the priesthood ban than it would be for me to be a faithful Catholic who believes hell is not the destiny of the unbaptized infant.

Anyway, I hope that gives you a little more insight into how I navigate the waters of being a faithful LDS who does not accept all the things critics claim I should (or the MUCH smaller set of things that my co-religionist in the majority accept, but seldom if ever suggest I should/must accept).
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, The north is not north and the south is not south, approach, is one I had not heard before. if this must be applied to Mesoamerican location/direction descriptions, then it must be applied to Nahom. I dunno where that places things.

This all reminds me of a Mormon Sunday school lesson I had once, where the teacher placed Lehi & Co. landing somewhere in Chile. I thought it was awesome that an actual place could be named in relationship to the Book of Mormon, as I had never heard that it could. This would have been mid 1970s. When I got home from church I told my dad of this awesome thing I learned, and all he said was that it was on the wrong side of the Americas, that they landed from the east. I was somewhat puzzled and disappointed. I thought I had learned something that was empirically set. No. Just conjecture, like your own conjecture.

Hahahahaha. Too funny Tom, don’t you think? Your musings are a waste of time. Fifty years from now Mormon “apologetics” will have Nahom in Morroco, or China…I think that is where my Sunday school teacher had it placed (in China). If north is not north and south is not south, it could be Denmark for all you know.

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom: Hello TK,
I thought this deserved a little comment.
I claim proof in the same ways all Christians might claim proof for the resurrection of Christ. I think there is evidence that is best explained by the BOM being what I claim it to be and evidence against this. On balance, I think the evidence points to the BOM being what I claim it to be and not what those criticizing it here claim it to be.

Not sure how you can say that. No one can prove the Resurrection. I take the word of the Apostles who were there. But there is no real proof of it other than the LACK of proof. For example, if He had not risen, most certainly, we would know the location of His grave. Anyway, I have never said ALL things must be be proven…there should be room for SOME faith. Your problem is, while we are walking the streets of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and walking thru the Garden of Gethsemene, and staring at the Red Sea, you are speculating about places it is hard to get any five mormons to agree to…while LDS arcaeologists have stated there is no real evidence. If that is what you call proof, I have a bridge to see you…and yes, I do not have speculate where the bridge is

Tom: There are aspects of the CoJCoLDS that I am not interested in defending because I think we lose spectacularly in our efforts to explain them in a faithful way. My faithful explanation is about 90% handwaving IMO and it is the best I can find or I would embrace a different one. I do not claim these are not part of the CoJCoLDS because I cannot “prove” them. I accept them and recognize I cannot defend them to my satisfaction.

That is a cop out. You can;t explain it because there is no explanation. The horrible backtracking of people who claimed to talk to Jesus either means Jesus is an idiot who cannot make up His mind, or your folks are not prophets. There is no middle ground. Which choose ye?

There are aspects of the CoJCoLDS that I do not accept because the evidence points away from them AND I do not think I should embrace them. I am not a “young earth creationist,” because the evidence suggests this view is not true AND LDS scriptures (more so than the Bible) allow for creation narratives to have non-literal days AND back in 1917 or so the leaders of the CoJCoLDS debated this and were not of the same opinion (and no, I do not think this was a time when God should have popped into the Salt Lake Temple to give the correct answer).

There are aspects of the CoJCoLDS that I do not accept because I think they are wrong and there IMO is every reason to reject them. Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. David O. McKay (and McConkie) claimed that the restriction on the priesthood was not a product of revelation to the church. So I reject the idea that if the CoJCoLDS is started by God and sustained by God, God is a racist. Instead, I recognize that Joseph Smith was much less racist then his 1840’s environment and Brigham Young was probably more racist than his 1850’s environment. Such human failings are part of my church. Where I Catholic the fate of unbaptized children would fit in this category. I would reject the most clear read of Tradition because I find it repugnant AND I find at least limited warrant to do so. By my BIASED weighing of this it is much easier for me to be a faithful LDS who does not believe God was involved in the priesthood ban than it would be for me to be a faithful Catholic who believes hell is not the destiny of the unbaptized infant.

For you to admit they are wrong is to admit your leaders were not prophets. They spoek from God. Either you accept them as prophets or say they were wrong. Again, you cannot have it both ways.

Tom: Anyway, I hope that gives you a little more insight into how I navigate the waters of being a faithful LDS who does not accept all the things critics claim I should (or the MUCH smaller set of things that my co-religionist in the majority accept, but seldom if ever suggest I should/must accept).

Yes. You accept the LDS church has some good, but are not led by true prophets. I know many lds who believe that way
Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre1]

I am reading a book from Amazon called Unsaintly Saints: The Mormons in Their Own Words.

It is a collection of quotes from Mormon leaders arranged by topic. I have seen or cited many of the quotes on these fora, but the book contains hundreds more that I had not seen before. Each quote has its accompanying citation with a complete bibliography at the end.

An excellent source.

Paul

 

[TexanKnight]

I am reading a book from Amazon called Unsaintly Saints: The Mormons in Their Own Words.

It is a collection of quotes from Mormon leaders arranged by topic. I have seen or cited many of the quotes on these fora, but the book contains hundreds more that I had not seen before. Each quote has its accompanying citation with a complete bibliography at the end.

An excellent source.

Paul

just bought it…interesting book. How ANYONE could accept people like js and BY as prophets is beyond me…

 

[Stephen168]

I think there is evidence that is best explained by the BOM being what I claim it to be and evidence against this. On balance, I think the evidence points to the BOM being what I claim it to be and not what those criticizing it here claim it to be.

But it is not what Joseph Smith claimed it is be, as recorded in Mormon Scripture. Those that are criticizing it here are requiring it to be true as define by Mormon Scripture. We are talking about a guy that claimed to restore Christianity and the same guy said the Book of Mormon was about the source of ALL the American Indians.

There are aspects of the CoJCoLDS that I do not accept because I think they are wrong and there IMO is every reason to reject them. Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. David O. McKay (and McConkie) claimed that the restriction on the priesthood was not a product of revelation to the church. So I reject the idea that if the CoJCoLDS is started by God and sustained by God, God is a racist. Instead, I recognize that Joseph Smith was much less racist then his 1840’s environment and Brigham Young was probably more racist than his 1850’s environment. Such human failings are part of my church.

Yes, I agree that the Mormon Church is based on human failings. The same guys that said the Book of Mormon was about the source of ALL the American Indians also invented exaltation, polygamy, Melchizedek Priesthood, excommunicating Apostles, prophets leading the church, blood atonement, and water baptism on behalf of the dead.
As a Catholic you don’t have to reject Christian Scripture.

 

[Tarquin]

I said, “NHM is a tribe name, but it is clearly related to a place pronounced in many different ways.”
Then this becomes the stepping off point for a lot of comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin
No, no, no. The Wikipedia heading is “Proposed location of Nahom”. TomNossor said (underlining mine), NHM (the name of a tribe) is “clearly related” to a place, obviously meaning the alleged place “Nahom.” “Clearly” related. “Clearly.”

Actually, I was responded to you saying that NHM is not a place but a tribe name (until you reproduced this quote detached from your statement, it seemed very clear).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarquin
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.

I said it was clearly a place AND it was pronounced in many different ways. Do you now acknowledge that the statement you made was wrong? Was the bluster, “you have been corrected” a product of your dogmatic knowledge that the BOM is not what I believe it to be?

I had to look up ‘bluster.’ The definition that seems most to fit the present context is “noisy, empty threats or protests; inflated talk.”

TomNossor, you had written,
“Why do you claim Nahom is not archeological evidence for the BOM? I am unfamiliar with this claim. Perhaps you are unaware that there are Altars inscribed to identify this place dating to Lehi’s time? Anyway, if there is some technicality the demands Nahom does not fit into the category “archeological evidence for the BOM,” because it is not archeology, I do not know this and will proceed until you correct me.”

You were saying that you were “unfamiliar” with the claim that “Nahom is not archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.” That claim is all over the internet and in print. If you had not encountered it previous to this thread, you are extremely poorly read on the subject. You said that until I corrected you, you would proceed as though “Nahom” fits into the category ‘archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon;’ presumably you would cease your procession if I corrected your mistaken belief that “Nahom” fits into the category of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (and not just on some minor “technicality”). I intended no threat or empty protest, nor did I intend to express myself in inflated language. What I said was, “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.”

As for “Nahom” specifically. There are no altars identifying the “Nahom” of the Book of Mormon. Not a single one! That is why it is not archaeological evidence. There are no street signs. There are no Egyptian documents. There are no Greek or Roman or Persian or Arabic or Hindu or Mayan or Olmec documents describing any “Nahom” through which a handful of alleged refugees from God’s wrath had stopped to bury someone. So far, it is no more than “a notable coincidence” that a tribe has its name on an altar on the Arabian peninsula, somewhere along the unpopulated wilderness of which Lehi is alleged to have trekked.

“You have been corrected.” The presumed “technicality” you seek is in the fact that the place-name “Nahom” appears on no altar, and there is no place “clearly” identified as Lehi’s Nahom (or any other Nahom as far as I’ve been able to determine so far) anywhere else.

No, I do not acknowledge that the statement I made was wrong. There is no Book of Mormon “Nahom” located anywhere that was named or is named “Nahom,” and has the slightest connection with the Book of Mormon “Nahom.” Nor was there an Ishmael whose daughters wept nor were there a Laman and Lemuel who required supernatural events to obey their younger brother in order to assure the survival of the Nephites who were exterminated.

 

[Tarquin]

Now, it is a place located on rare maps in a specific location (more on location uncertainty that you mention later) that fits into Lehi’s journey with multi-point connections (Jerusalem, river, valley, direction, NHM/Nahom/???, direction, Bountiful, ore, honey, timber, …). Nothing said to me in this thread has done anything but reinforce that this is so significant it creates some type of response that leaves me wondering what is going on for the responders.

You have said the issue of Nahom is not a powerful argument,
yet you continue to argue it vehemently.
The Book of Mormon “Nahom” is located on no map.
I do not argue against the existence of many rivers, valleys, and directions. I have personally encountered ores, honey, and timber almost everyplace I have ever been in America and Asia. Does that mean I was in “Nahom”?

It may be that nothing said in this thread dissuades you from your beliefs. It is impossible for me to think that the arguments against the existence of the Book of Mormon “Nahom” have actually, directly “reinforced” those beliefs.

“Pronounced in many different ways” is evidenced in 1-2 of the reports from LDS as they explored the region AND by the reproduction on maps of multiple different spellings. But in the great scheme of things it is not too important.

“In the great scheme of things,” the Book of Mormon itself is not too important.
If “Nahom” or its spellings and pronunciations are not important, don’t bring them up. There are words that Mormons desperately attempt to associate with the “Nahom” of the Book of Mormon. But there is no Book of Mormon “Nahom” in the region nor on the map reproductions with “different spellings.” They are not different spellings of the Book of Mormon “Nahom.” If they were, it could be demonstrated by relatable evidence rather than relying entirely on suppositions and speculation.

Originally Posted by Tarquin
Now, I will agree with what I hope is not overbearing confidence that “a place is a place,” and with what I hope is pardonable boldness when I venture even farther to say that the Book of Mormon character Lehi allegedly named “a place” Nahom.

A minor correction here. Lehi “named” a number of places after his family or what he experienced there. “Nahom” and Jerusalem are the only places that Nephi did not name on his own (in the Old World at least). And it is interesting that they are exactly where they should be.

A couple of major corrections here.

1. By “a place,” I did not mean “only one place.” You have again read too much into my words. I was using the word “a” in its primary indefinite role, as in “some place,” “an unspecified place.” I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is.
2. You use the word “exactly” differently from me. You seem to use it to mean the very opposite, as the argument for horses in the Book of Mormon is that they are “not horses,” and the argument that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “one God” means they are “three Gods,” so you use “exactly” to mean “not exactly.”
3. You say that Nahom and Jerusalem are “exactly where they should be.” Do you mean the city of Jerusalem in Israel, and the “place” of “Nahom” as identified by pagan altars? I won’t question the Old World Jerusalem, as its existence is amply verified historically, geographically, politically, religiously, culturally, and linguistically. Although I do not see anywhere in the Book of Mormon that describes “exactly where [it] should be.”

As for the American “Jerusalem” in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 9 says it was inundated. Is that the city you believe is under Lake Atitlan? What archaeological evidence connects that city with the “Jerusalem” of the Book of Mormon, beyond the fact that it is under water?

1. You want to claim that “Nahom” is “exactly where [it] should be”?? Where, exactly, does the Book of Mormon say “Nahom” should be? Exactly? There is no exactly. Was Lehi going southeast – 15 degrees east of south? or, 25 degrees east of south? or, 85 degrees east of south? or, 85 degrees east of south for a few weeks (how many?), then 15 degrees east of south for a few weeks (how many?)? To travel some indefinite degrees “southeast” can wind you up in the proverbial anywhere.

Mormons already argue that new places are sometimes given the name of old places. So any identification of places along the way might not refer to the original place with those names. They might be heretofore unexplored spots to which Lehi applied old, familiar names. One notable example is the New World “Jerusalem”, a Lamanite city and land in land of “Nephi”. That, obviously is not the Jerusalem of the Bible. Therefore, everything identified by name along Lehi’s journey in the Old World is suspect. Were the locations named in the Book of Mormon what the Bible and ancient peoples knew them to be? Or are they renamings of new places using the names of familiar places? Nobody knows.

Book of Mormon geography is painfully INexact.