Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Facsimile 3 ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 01:45PM

In the Wikipedia article below, read the section titled: Kingdom of Saba (8th century BCE - 275 CE). The NHM inscribed altars were built by the Sabaean kingdom at their capital, Ma'rib (and site of the great Marib Dam, which had been gone for 1,260 years when the BoM was published). Setting aside the anti-BoM criticism that NHM actually translates to a tribe name and NOT a place name (i.e. the Nihm tribe), how can anyone reconcile the 1 Nephi account of a hungry, thirsty wilderness with a prosperous kingdom like the Sabaeans? Ishmael dies while Lehi's party is camped in their tents near Nahom, yet the daughters of Ishmael complain loudly about their hunger, thirst, and fatigue, and that they will perish in the wilderness with hunger (1 Nephi 16:33-35).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history_of_Yemen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marib_Dam

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heresy ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 01:51PM

deleted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2012 01:52PM by Heresy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jesus Smith ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 01:52PM

That's a great catch--that the land was not a dry, empty desert at the time. Then again, the BoM talks about the liahona guiding them to the more watered, fertile lands...

You may find this thread interesting:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,89416,89416

I'll repeat only what I wrote there (out of respect for the others' words). NHM and Nahom are found on maps of JS's era...
--

Nahom was listed in the 1760s travels of Carsten Niebuhr. The travels were cataloged in 1792 by Robert Heron in a two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s first work titled Niebuhr’s Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East. Could Joe Smith or others of his time and location have had access to these maps? Yes. There are two library catalogs in Pennsylvania (Allegheny College & Philly Medical School) that both listed that they had in the library the travel logs and maps of Carsten Niebuhr. See
http://books.google.com/books?id=YmwpAAAAYAAJ&dq=Pennsylvania%20library%20catalog%20%20Niebuhr%E2%80%99s%20Travels&pg=PR2#v=onepage&q=%20Niebuhr&f=false
&
http://books.google.com/books?id=K5xAAAAAYAAJ&dq=allegheny%20college&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q=niebuhr&f=false
for the references.


There was one false lead to a copy of this book that may have had a link to Solomon Spalding, but it turned out not.

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/25605/


The latter proving that strange coincidences linking names happen all the time, but can be just chance. Nahum, Nehhm, Nahom (spelled only this way in the BoM) in the arabian peninsula is more than likely merely coincidence. A name picked from the bible, and then due to the vague nature of the BoM, it can be easily correlated to an actual one within a 1000 miles of where the BoM event supposedly took place.

In any event, there are so many opportunities for archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon, but none do. For example, the climatic point of the BoM is its account of the visit of Christ to America, leaving utter demolition behind (3 Ne 8-9) and a massive, industrious, utopian, christian society that lasted 200 years (4 Ne). The latter is unheard of in all history, which is replete with violence, if not wars, in every decade of time. Yet, not a shred of evidence of these momentous events and societies exist any where in America, limited or otherwise. The vikings visited a remote (limited geography) location of icy Canada and left lab-fulls of trace evidence. Smith's Nephite population claimed to spread from sea to sea over the face of the whole land leaves nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2012 01:55PM by Jesus Smith.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facsimile 3 ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 01:57PM

Good comments...thanks.

Yes, you are right about the Liahona leading them through the more fertile parts of the wilderness. I guess the operative term though would be "wilderness".

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facsimile 3 ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 01:53PM

Sorry, I meant to include this link as well. It seems that there were a number of maps with the place name "Nahom" in the Arabian peninsula that predate the Book of Mormon.


http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=17&num=1&id=464

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: The Oncoming Storm - bc ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 02:00PM

Good thinking.

I'm actually completely willing to accept the NHM Nahom connection if someone is willing to accept that the rest of the Book of Mormon is that accurate in translation.

Of course that means you definitely have to accept that:
horses are horses
chariots are chariots
barley is barley
etc.

As soon as an apologist tries to argue that the Book of Mormon is a to the letter, to the word accurate translation half of the apologetic answers disappear.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Not logged in. ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 02:22PM

They find one insignificant detail that looks like it supports an insignificant incident the BoM (but might only be a coincidence), and trumpet it as a vindication of JS.

At the same time, however, they conveniently overlook or concoct ridiculous "explanations" for a gazillion huge, glaring discrepancies between the BoM's description of life in the New World and what actually existed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facsimile 3 ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 04:29PM

Wow, I totally overlooked that obvious problem. Yes, it would NOT be in the best interest of apologists to accept a tight translation--too much baggage.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brethren,adieu ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 04:34PM

But, but, but, the book of mormon was translated through the gift and power of god! It has to be perfect!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Joseph Smith, Jun. ( )
Date: July 30, 2012 04:43PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: koriwhoremonger ( )
Date: July 31, 2012 06:24PM

As weak and flacid as it is, it's the best they can come up with. It makes me chuckle when an apologits tosses this gem out there and actually thinks it is some kind of slam dunk.

Yeah, I was born at night, but not last night.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: snowowl ( )
Date: July 31, 2012 03:36PM

Of course, the easiest explanation is to look where Joseph Smith obtained most of his names and used as they were found or in which vowels or consanants were simply changed to give the appearance of a new word - the Bible:

NAHOM
Place in Arabian desert, 1 Nephi 16:34

A biblical derivative: from NAHAM, 1 Chronicles 14:19, NAHUM, Nahum 1:1-3

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Chicken'n'Backpacks ( )
Date: July 31, 2012 03:52PM

facsimile3 wrote: "how can anyone reconcile the 1 Nephi account of a hungry, thirsty wilderness with a prosperous kingdom like the Sabaeans?...the daughters of Ishmael complain loudly about their hunger, thirst, and fatigue, and that they will perish in the wilderness with hunger (1 Nephi 16:33-35)."

That's easy:

Sabaeans: "Oh, God, mormons--don't answer the door."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facsimile 3 ( )
Date: July 31, 2012 07:05PM

Ha ha! No doubt. :-)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: canadianfriend ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 01:36AM

One time I was travelling through upstate New York, when I discovered, in the distance, a large letter M. I was sure that it must have been the birthplace of Mormon, or perhaps Moroni. As I neared the sacred structure I found, much to my disappointment, that it was actually a McDonald's. I consoled myself with the purchase of a quarter-pounder, and continued my journey, undeterred, in search of more evidence.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: The Oncoming Storm - bc ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 07:52AM

Thank you for sharing your spiritual quest with us :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Mathew11 ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 12:31PM

Several theories are presented here:

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm#nhm

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dreamer ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 02:23PM

facsimile3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, I meant to include this link as well. It
> seems that there were a number of maps with the
> place name "Nahom" in the Arabian peninsula that
> predate the Book of Mormon.
>
>
> http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/
> ?vol=17&num=1&id=464



Somebody ought to tell this guy:

http://www.angelfire.com/pq/pacumenispages/arabia.html


A snip from the link:

“snip>>>Rarely if ever do we have a situation in archeology when 'X' marks the spot, but in the context of the aforementioned information, I would suggest that this very nearly qualifies as just such a case. The detailed directions of the Book of Mormon, as well as its descriptive lay of the land, matches in minute ways that of the known world of Arabia, locating the Lehite expedition at two specific locations virtually unknown in Joseph Smith's day, but confirmed only recently by science.”


But it gets better, further on he contradicts himself and admits that it was known in Smith’s day, but somehow miraculously knows that Smith did not know it.


"snip>>>….And in fact, even in spite of the evident contradiction, I will agree with you that Nahom and Nahum are the same word, and that Joseph Smith's scribe (accidentally or intentionally, it does not matter) altered the given KJV rendering.”



Now it’s the scribe’s fault, not Smith’s. There’s no mention of where God is in this Divinely Revealed most correct book on the earth. God’s lack of revealing this error to Smith’s scribe and based on the writers apologetic techniques he likely believes God was napping and Smith had a severe head cold that day, causing Smith to be less alert. He allows made up excuses to validate his position, and looks at one similar point, but denounces all the misses that would indicate there is no correlation between NHM and Nahom.



“snip>>Of course, your attempt is to show plagiarism, an understandable contention given your environmentalist presupposition. Be that as it may; given the close proximity of NHM to where Joseph Smith says Nahom should be, with its geographic relationship to Jerusalem and Wadi-Sayq, his is by far a more compelling witness. After all, that is the central question you never directly address - how did Joseph Smith know it was there? It is simply not enough to flatly deny this parallel in the face of this evidence, or at least in so doing, your credibility hovers nearly in the same sphere as the Holocaust deniers. This gaping "Black Hole" (to steal a term) in the development of your alternative theory underscores the paramount and fundamental issues of presupposition and the rigorous pursuit of scientific method.”


Yes folks, this author brings in a holocaust comparison! I only wish he’d use the same scientific method he wants everybody else to use.



“snip>>However, since it is your unwitting contention that Joseph Smith placed the Lehites in the far south west corner, I think it only fair to assume that he also knew about NHM. The question must be, from where? The Astons do a reasonably thorough job in demonstrating the extreme rarity of this knowledge in 1830's scientific community. Perhaps Joseph Smith had the 1762 French Map? Perhaps some other map? This is a possible connection - but what are the odds? Incalculably long. Nor does such a theory answer the entire equation, as any map of the time will fail to identify Wadi-Sayq, not discovered for well over a hundred years later.”


The writer claims that since Tanners assume that according to the book of Mormon the Lehites are placed in the far south west corner, this gives the writer grounds to assume that Smith must have known about NHM. Problem is that God, the alleged prophets source of revelation, would have known that it was NHM and told Smith to write the word NHM, not Nahom, which word Naom has no connection with that location whatsoever. The writer sights long odds that are incalculably long as a reason why Smith wouldn’t have access to the maps of his time, but he doesn’t link the same criteria and uses incalculably looong odds in trying to take an obscure reference of a burial of Ishmael and link it to NHM.
The writer fails to mention what relevance the discovery of Wadi-Sayq is to his story.



“snip>>My point in all of this is that you are using the same method as that used by the Simpson defense, but on the Book of Mormon. Since (I assume) you adhere to the theology of sola scriptura and the doctrine of the closed canon, your presuppositions cannot allow for an historically authentic Book of Mormon, hence you must look, at all costs, elsewhere for explanations as to how Joseph Smith acquired the necessary knowledge to synthesize his story; otherwise your entire theology falters. Your presupposition, then, puts you immediately at odds with scientific method.”



This doesn’t make sense. An example of cognitive dissonance at its saddest. If someone here can make any sense out of what he’s saying, please explain it to me. Is his definition of scientific method merely accepting that the book of Mormon is correct thereby not allowing anyone to look elsewhere for sources where it was derived?



“snip>>It is my understanding that your alternative explanation requires Joseph Smith to obtain information through his early nineteenth century, frontier New York environment. But to argue such a thing - Joseph Smith slavishly pouring over book after book - tacitly admits that the information in the Book of Mormon is factually accurate. I see this as a huge problem for you, for if you can never prove that he read this or that book, or at least provide a reasonable probability for it, the question must inevitably press you harder and harder: How did Joseph Smith acquire his knowledge?”



How on earth is this a huge problem for the Tanners argument? It is more of a problem for this writer. Missionaries, under all the prophets direction, teach that the bom is revealed by God’s wisdom, revelation to the prophet Smith. Since there is no factually accurate account within the bom it shows that not only was God the revelator absent of wisdom or input, but Smith and his group read snipets of information available and spun it into a story. It also shows that Smith was not a good researcher to include specific details, or else he purposely spun a story. I’ve heard it said that if a person wants a story to be believed, make it as peculiar as you can. The more peculiar the story the more believable people think it is.



“snip>>But let us assume, for the sake of this discussion, that the alternative proposals introduced in your article are in fact true; Joseph Smith acquired and studied Geography Made Easy, from which he created or augmented his Arabian journey story. After all, you claim that "in this book, we find everything Joseph Smith would need to make-up a story of a trip through Arabia." Everything? The Hounds of Dogmatism howl no louder than they do here. Where does Geography Made Easy discuss NHM? Where is there a discussion of ancient burial grounds dating to 3000 B.C.? Where is there mention of the highly fertile Wadi-Sayq, with its geographic relationship to NHM, as well as descriptions of its topographical, geological, and flora and fauna composition? The fact is, the author of your so-called "sourcebook" did not even conceive the existence of such places, did he?”



This man can’t think clearly at all. Since there is no discussion of NHM in the book Geography made easy, it would explain why Smith made no discussion of NHM. There was nothing to plagiarize and therefore it didn’t show up in the bom as NHM. Likewise, Smith’s bom made no mention of ancient burial grounds dating to 3,000 bce. The bom doesn’t make reference to a highly fertile ground in relationship to NHM – that’s a stretch of imagination proposed by the apologist. I have not read the book Geography made Easy, but would like to get hold of one and compare that to Smith and this apologist.




“snip>>If Joseph Smith used a certain book (or books) as a source, why did not his contemporary critics accuse him of the same thing you are now accusing him of, i.e., borrowing? After all, they would have had just as much access to whatever book Joseph Smith allegedly used, and they certainly had the ambition to uncover his fraud, as the caustic tone of much of their writing reveals. Can we really pit the cunning of a twenty three year old farm boy with his third grade education against the sophistication and research capabilities of the myriads arrayed against him? But you would have me believe, in the face of this improbability, that for over one hundred and forty years this little borrowing went unnoticed? And in that time, just how many thousands of critics have tried to undermine its claims at every turn? “




It is my understanding that Smith’s contemporaries did accuse Smith of fraud, which is the reason for their disbelief in the bom. It annoys me when an apologist like this one fall back on the old fasle excuse that smith was a 23 yr old farm boy with a grade 3 education and couldn’t have done this. Smith was 25 when the book was published and he was not an ignorant farm boy, as his conniving and conning show that his mind was capable of thinking up many schemes. His original scribe, Harris, had prosperous finances and was known as a visionary fanatic. Harris took papers to Anthon, a professor of linguistics. What kind of knowledge and plagiarism they obtained from the unwitting professor, and then taken back to be used in their book of Mormon, is suspicious in itself. He traded up in scribes to Cowdery, a minister who an educated school principal, and also a publisher and in 1836 became a lawyer.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/days-never-be-forgotten-oliver-cowdery/11-oliver-cowdery%E2%80%99s-legal-practice-tiffin-ohio

This is not a stupid man by any stretch of the imagination. To think that Smith wasn’t educated and influenced by his scribe is to blindly close one’s eyes to their roles within the organization. Hiram Page studied medicine, not a stupid man. Page, Whitmers and Cowdery were all related through marriage. Whitmer was a businessman, and wondered why Page and Cowdery’s venture to Canada to sell the book of Mormon hadn’t been successful. Perhaps as a more cunning businessman he should have went in their place, with better success of selling the book and spared us all this agony. There is a little debate as to Smith Senior being a mason prior to the book of Mormon. His knowledge and network would have been far greater than the above writer would want you to believe.



“snip>>>But it wasn't until Hugh Nibley's speculations (there is that naughty word again) that such a possible parallel was even considered, and not for many years after that that research was put into it. This all, over a century and a half later, precipitating your efforts to determine what book Joseph Smith used, and voila!, Geography Made Easy! But that book as a source breaks down because the book contains no details pertinent to the Book of Mormon descriptions. Neither does it appear to have been readily available to Joseph Smith's contemporaries, to say nothing of Joseph Smith's access to the book. Thus, based upon such flimsy arguments, that Joseph Smith checked out books from his local library to write the Book of Mormon, you simply cannot convince me to reject the Astons' proposal. Period.”



This writer uses the same speculations he criticizes the Tanners for using. The book of Mormon contains little to no details pertinent to the NHM descriptions either, so I have no idea what type of point this man is trying to use to validate his assumptions. The writer makes an assumption that the book “didn’t appear” to have been readily available to Smith’s contemporaries. Harris travelled to see a linguistic professor, for goodness sake, and the writer doesn’t think they would travel to have access to information that might help their book story? Forget about local library, they were known to have travelled to get information to benefit the book of Mormon. They claim they went to the linguistic Professor Anthon to confirm writings, and we will have to trust their word that they didn’t go to get information and then form it into their book?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: The Oncoming Storm - bc ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 02:35PM

There will be many willing to preach to you apologetics... mingled [dapper eye raise] with faulty archeology.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jesux of Nazdaq ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 02:54PM

dreamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> facsimile3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> “snip>>My point in all of this is that you are
> using the same method as that used by the Simpson
> defense, but on the Book of Mormon. Since (I
> assume) you adhere to the theology of sola
> scriptura and the doctrine of the closed canon,
> your presuppositions cannot allow for an
> historically authentic Book of Mormon, hence you
> must look, at all costs, elsewhere for
> explanations as to how Joseph Smith acquired the
> necessary knowledge to synthesize his story;
> otherwise your entire theology falters. Your
> presupposition, then, puts you immediately at odds
> with scientific method.”
>
>
>
> This doesn’t make sense. An example of
> cognitive dissonance at its saddest. If someone
> here can make any sense out of what he’s saying,
> please explain it to me. Is his definition of
> scientific method merely accepting that the book
> of Mormon is correct thereby not allowing anyone
> to look elsewhere for sources where it was
> derived?

I took it to mean, other Xtians (the Tanners here) claim there can't be a BoM because the Bible is complete. But if there's physical evidence to support the BoM, then the jig is up for the other Xtians claiming it.

What he says is that they can't ignore evidence because that wouldn't follow the correct scientific method.

However, the NHM "evidence" is cherry picking at its best as well. The pot calling the kettle a jerk...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: nancy rigdon ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 07:12PM

A name carved on a stone PROVES the book is from God.

How could a book produced a couple of thousand years after an event, and without the help of modern archaeology, get something right about a detail of an ancient time? The only conclusion is that the author (or translator) of the book had Divine help--the book MUST be from God.

For years a certain passage in the book was ignored but only under the light of modern scholarship has a connection going back thousands of years been established. A name carved on a stone PROVES that the Book MUST be exactly what it claims to be--divine.

Of course the book I'm talking about is the Quran. In the Quran the battle of wits between Pharaoh and Moses is discussed. In a few of the passages the Quran has the Pharaoh telling his minister, Haman, to do something.

Only in modern times after the deciphering of ancient Egyptian hierglyphs has it been found that there actually WAS an official in ancient Egypt named Haman. In Vienna there is a stone with a funeral inscription for a governor named "Haman."

Of course, since ancient Egyptian didn't use vowels the name is written "Hmn," but this is a small thing to quibble about.

So if Mormons claim that three consonants on a stone in Yemen PROVE the Book of Mormon then they must accept that three consonants on an ancient Egyptian funeral inscription currently residing in a museum in Vienna PROVES the Quran also.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elby ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 09:22PM

nancy rigdon Wrote:

> Of course the book I'm talking about is the Quran.
> In the Quran the battle of wits between Pharaoh
> and Moses is discussed. In a few of the passages
> the Quran has the Pharaoh telling his minister,
> Haman, to do something.
>
> Only in modern times after the deciphering of
> ancient Egyptian hierglyphs has it been found that
> there actually WAS an official in ancient Egypt
> named Haman. In Vienna there is a stone with a
> funeral inscription for a governor named "Haman."
>
> Of course, since ancient Egyptian didn't use
> vowels the name is written "Hmn," but this is a
> small thing to quibble about.
>
> So if Mormons claim that three consonants on a
> stone in Yemen PROVE the Book of Mormon then they
> must accept that three consonants on an ancient
> Egyptian funeral inscription currently residing in
> a museum in Vienna PROVES the Quran also.


Is that a true story or are you just making a point?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: nancy rigdon ( )
Date: August 01, 2012 10:47PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Mormunster ( )
Date: August 02, 2012 12:35AM

In the Bible there is a book called the Book of Nahum. All he had to do was copy the name from the Bible and change the u to and o and because Hebrew doesn't have vowels it counts as some miraculous match.

Most of the things that "Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have known" were readily available at the time he was producing the this BS just from other sources.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dougie ( )
Date: July 08, 2014 11:38PM

What does the rest of the inscription with NHM say?
My theory is that the NHM on the altar is for Nahum who mentions the warriors of Put and their relationship to Thebes of Egypt when it was destroyed as a reference to how Nineveh would be destroyed. Nineveh was indeed destroyed. Some place Put in modern day Yemen. So the Yemen people of Put were paying respect to Nahum, and did not wish to be destroyed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bentleye ( )
Date: July 09, 2014 12:18AM

In a lot of those middle eastern language, they only write the consonants. They think that NHM is a Nahom. I believe that it is actually Anaheim. It is a prophecy of Disney Land.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  **     **   ******    *******   **     ** 
 ***   **   **   **   **    **  **     **  **     ** 
 ****  **    ** **    **        **     **  **     ** 
 ** ** **     ***     **         ********  **     ** 
 **  ****    ** **    **               **  **     ** 
 **   ***   **   **   **    **  **     **  **     ** 
 **    **  **     **   ******    *******    *******