The reason NHM is profound is not merely that it is an inscription that dates to the correct timeframe for Lehi’s journey
Profound would be Ishmael’s crypt with “I, Lehi, buried my friend Ishmael here.” Profound would be tales in Arabia of a band of Jews with “plates” of Prophets. Profound would be Muhammad reciting a 115th Surah al-Liahona:
“By the day and by the night;
did not the Lord send the Lehi into the wilderness,
and led him nearly southward,
across the waters;
An inheritance for the obedient,
a curse to the disobedient.”
Profound would be identical times, not a vague “timeframe.”
Profound would be exact directions,
not the helplessly vague “into the wilderness” and the equally unhelpful “down by the borders near the shores.”
it falls in the exact right place
Nothing in that story is exact. There is no map-locable site in the Nahom narrative, outside Old Testament sites.
one walks from Jerusalem
“from” - In what direction? “into the wilderness.” Inexact.
turns at Nahom
“turns” - hopelessly inexact, nowhere located, neither in the Old Test. nor BOM nor “modern revelation.”
arrives at Bountiful on the Red Sea
No "Bountiful " location is specified in the Old Test. nor BOM nor in “modern revelation.” “on the Red Sea” Inexact. Unprofound.
Linked to this journey are some 50 or so other points of geographical reference that point to NHM as being Nahom.
First, they are not linked geographically nor toponymically to Nahom. How are they linked? In the imagination. The alleged links are locations but are not themselves linked within the BOM narrative to “Nahom”. There is nothing like, “We left the Valley of Sariah. went 20 miles to the Oasis of Sam, barely a stone’s throw from Nahom.” That would be somewhat exact and evidence of a realistically complex geography. The BOM does not have a realistically complex geography.
You may call this coincidence if you wish, but I still think it significant.
Of course you do. You are emotionally invested. I sincerely do not consider it even a coincidence, for nothing coincides! Real map locations show no correlates with “Nahom”!
Finally, why do you speak of NHL? Is that just a typo? The Altar is NHM, the place in the BOM is Nahom.
The altar does not have “Nahom” on it. At best it has what can be transliterated as “nhhm”. The word in the BOM is “Nahom.” That would have been written in 600 BC as NHM. There is no guarantee that Hebrew ‘h’ would have been the same as the ‘h’ on the altar, since Hebrew, Arabic, and Egyptian each possessed more than a single fricative commonly transliterated by ‘h’. Ishmael’s corpse was not in the altar nor near it. That would have qualified as corroborative. There was no reference to Jews, Jehovah, Brass Plates, Promised Land, Messiah. If you find the letters ALM beginning a Koranic Surah, Muslims cannot explain its meaning, saying Allah will reveal it later, might you be tempted to argue (for the sake of their salvation) that ALM is the “ALMA” in the BOM, thus “proving” a direct link between the Koran and its fulfillment in the BOM!? You can’t get much more exact and profound than that.
You say the “place” in the BOM is “Nahom.” Yes. The name of the place in the BOM is Nahom. Note that the name of the place where the altar is, is not Nahom.
You say “The Altar is NHM.” That is incorrect. The altar apparently has no name. There is an inscription with letters transliterated as “nhhm.” They are not translated as the name of the place, and they are not (except by desperate Mormons) translated as Nahom. They are, apparently, the name of a TRIBE. Not a city. Not an altar. Not a place. Not a link to the BOM. But a tribe unmentioned in the BOM. Now had the tribe been mentioned, that would have been more exact, and had the rest of the altar scratchings been included in the BOM, or mention of the nearby cemetery, that would have been exact. But as for the rest: not exact, not even coincidences, just unmentioned dots tugged crudely towards a disconnected word in the BOM.
Over and over I say that I do not care that Joseph Smith didn’t know where the BOM took place.
One step towards realizing Smith was not a prophet, nor translator, nor attentive to detail (the BOM makes that painfully obvious), nor cared whether his story was consistent or not.
If the truth claims I believe are True, Joseph Smith being ignorant of the place setting of the BOM fits within that context.
Smith being ignorant of the details of his story fits the opinions of many who have rejected his claims.
It 600 points of geographic data in the text as extracted by Sorenson and listed in his books. The 600 points are in the BOM not in Joseph Smith’s writings or thoughts or …
Irrelevancies. To say nothing of conflict of interest.
I am surely not intentionally distorting anything.
You knew I was referring to what Smith knew and said, yet argued against my remarks based on someone after Smith. Smith had no way to benefit from that later person. Hence, my remarks were distorted. You then said that you had known I as talking about Smith’s knowledge. Hence, the distortion was intentional. I forgive you.
But neither were you specifying anything in the BOM with any degree of exactness.
I am accepting your premise that Joseph Smith didn’t write a book based on a real geography. I just believe Joseph Smith “translated” a book based on real geography.
But that certainly is not my premise!
Smith did write a book obviously based on U.S. geography. Along the way he used fictitious names and places, Nahom being one.
How does being stained by the fall affect infallibility?