I thought you wanted to discuss the claims that NHM correspond with Nahom in the BoM? I am not prepared to say much about the valley of Lemuel, the river of Laman, shazer, irreantum, or any other place name. I have however brushed up on the issue of Nahom, and would be delighted to participate in a light discussion on that topic.
Sargon
Mormonism is historically false in every possible way!
It is my understanding the part of the LDS case wrt NHM is that it is located "just where the BoM says it would be, that is SSE of the valley of Lemuel and West of Bountiful. So part of the issue of Nahom relates to the confidence level one can have wrt the location of the other two sites. Hence I thought it appropriate to address those issues as well. In any event NHM is up next.Sargon wrote:I thought you wanted to discuss the claims that NHM correspond with Nahom in the BoM? I am not prepared to say much about the valley of Lemuel, the river of Laman, shazer, irreantum, or any other place name. I have however brushed up on the issue of Nahom, and would be delighted to participate in a light discussion on that topic.
Sargon
Well they could be used as a support, but I don't believe they originally were. The original basis was that a region called NHM is located in an area that was a probable turning point(literally) for the travelers, a location near where the frankincense trail turns east. The region also hosts a number of unique burial grounds, and the BoM mentions the burial of Ishmael in this region.
There is much debate about how the word NHM should or could have been pronounced, but at least one source I have read claims it would have probably been originally pronounced Naham.
To the anti-mormon world, the facts are inconclusive. That is one thing we actually agree on. But what we disagree on is the degree of probability. For us it is miraculous that Joseph Smith named an area whose name is not found in any other part of Arabia, and whose location is a very probable turning point for a eastward journey, and who has a unique burial tradition.
I could be wrong on any of these facts, but this is my understanding. I also dont claim to a linguist of any sorts. If you are interested in a highly technical debate you are talking to the wrong guy.
Sargon
There is much debate about how the word NHM should or could have been pronounced, but at least one source I have read claims it would have probably been originally pronounced Naham.
To the anti-mormon world, the facts are inconclusive. That is one thing we actually agree on. But what we disagree on is the degree of probability. For us it is miraculous that Joseph Smith named an area whose name is not found in any other part of Arabia, and whose location is a very probable turning point for a eastward journey, and who has a unique burial tradition.
I could be wrong on any of these facts, but this is my understanding. I also dont claim to a linguist of any sorts. If you are interested in a highly technical debate you are talking to the wrong guy.
Sargon
Let us not confuse what science reveals, with what we interpret science to reveal, and what we want science to reveal.
I am happy to see that you have familiarized yourself with the issue. It allows me to jump right to the analysis. Here (IMHO) are the assumptions that must be made in order for the NHM altar finds to be viewed as authenticating the BoM:
1) that the city described in the BoM was named by locals and not the Lehi group. The inscription on the altars are not Hebrew....so if Nahom was a Hebrew name...then the LDS would have to concede that it was merely a coincidence. LDS apologists point out that the passage in the BoM is in the passive tense. It reads "the place which was called Nahom". Again, the BoM does not specify who called the place Nahom.....given the various interpretations that LDS apologists allow for the BoM in order to avoid anachronisms, it is somewhat odd that they should derive any conclusion from the usage of the passive tense.
2)assuming #1 is correct, that Nahom and NHM are connected in that both are derivatives/variants of the same name or that one is a variant of the other. Apparently you are aware of the linguistic debates that exist......and I am no more of a linguistic expert than are you.
3) assuming #1 and #2 are correct, that a Nihmite tribe would have a city named Nahom. Certain LDS declare that it only stands to reason that a Nihmite tribe would have a city that is callled by a variant of the tribal name. I admit that I don't know to what extent such should stand to reason. How many of the 12 hebrew tribes had such a city? If 10%, 50%, or 90%, to what extent do ancient hebrew tendencies apply to the ancient arabs?
4) assuming the above are correct, that the city of Nahom was located near Marib (where the altars were found). The altars merely state that they are donated by a member of a certain tribe. Such does not require the tribe to be located in the immediate area. At most, the tribe in question would need to have some connection with Marib..... such a connection could exist between Marib and a tribe located anywhere along the frankincense trail. A place called Nehem was located in the approximate area in certain 18th/19th century maps. On one hand, the LDS apologists deny that JS ever saw such maps. On the other, if Nehem is to be of any use in locating ancient Nahom, it requires one to assume:
a) that Nahom and Nehem are variants of the same name; and
b) that Nehem is/was located at the same place as ancient Nahom.
5) assuming the above are correct, that the city of Nahom was located at the exact place where the incense trail turned east (traveling from the north). This is of lesser importance (b/c the BoM doesn't ever say how far SSE Nahom was), but the LDS apologists like to point to this in order to claim that (amazingly) JS has the Lehi group following the exact path of the old frankincense trail....which would be a striking coincidence. I don't know that such would be such a striking coincidence. If one is fabricating a story about a group that is told to leave Jerusalem (and eventually sail to a new land leaving from Arabia), and the author of the story has (even) a crude map of Arabia that shows the deserts of Arabia, how else than by traveling SSE and then East is the author going to get the group to a point of departure on the southeast coast of Arabia? Further, I understand that the incense trail often changed its route....in order to avoid taxation from various stops along the way.
(Other assumptions may occur to me as I ruminate further, but those are the ones that I have thought of for now.)
1) that the city described in the BoM was named by locals and not the Lehi group. The inscription on the altars are not Hebrew....so if Nahom was a Hebrew name...then the LDS would have to concede that it was merely a coincidence. LDS apologists point out that the passage in the BoM is in the passive tense. It reads "the place which was called Nahom". Again, the BoM does not specify who called the place Nahom.....given the various interpretations that LDS apologists allow for the BoM in order to avoid anachronisms, it is somewhat odd that they should derive any conclusion from the usage of the passive tense.
2)assuming #1 is correct, that Nahom and NHM are connected in that both are derivatives/variants of the same name or that one is a variant of the other. Apparently you are aware of the linguistic debates that exist......and I am no more of a linguistic expert than are you.
3) assuming #1 and #2 are correct, that a Nihmite tribe would have a city named Nahom. Certain LDS declare that it only stands to reason that a Nihmite tribe would have a city that is callled by a variant of the tribal name. I admit that I don't know to what extent such should stand to reason. How many of the 12 hebrew tribes had such a city? If 10%, 50%, or 90%, to what extent do ancient hebrew tendencies apply to the ancient arabs?
4) assuming the above are correct, that the city of Nahom was located near Marib (where the altars were found). The altars merely state that they are donated by a member of a certain tribe. Such does not require the tribe to be located in the immediate area. At most, the tribe in question would need to have some connection with Marib..... such a connection could exist between Marib and a tribe located anywhere along the frankincense trail. A place called Nehem was located in the approximate area in certain 18th/19th century maps. On one hand, the LDS apologists deny that JS ever saw such maps. On the other, if Nehem is to be of any use in locating ancient Nahom, it requires one to assume:
a) that Nahom and Nehem are variants of the same name; and
b) that Nehem is/was located at the same place as ancient Nahom.
5) assuming the above are correct, that the city of Nahom was located at the exact place where the incense trail turned east (traveling from the north). This is of lesser importance (b/c the BoM doesn't ever say how far SSE Nahom was), but the LDS apologists like to point to this in order to claim that (amazingly) JS has the Lehi group following the exact path of the old frankincense trail....which would be a striking coincidence. I don't know that such would be such a striking coincidence. If one is fabricating a story about a group that is told to leave Jerusalem (and eventually sail to a new land leaving from Arabia), and the author of the story has (even) a crude map of Arabia that shows the deserts of Arabia, how else than by traveling SSE and then East is the author going to get the group to a point of departure on the southeast coast of Arabia? Further, I understand that the incense trail often changed its route....in order to avoid taxation from various stops along the way.
(Other assumptions may occur to me as I ruminate further, but those are the ones that I have thought of for now.)
I don't believe either of us could begin to properly estimate what probability should be placed on the correctness of making the above 5 five assumptions. I note, however, if we put a 50% probability on 4 of the assumptions and disregard the fifth then there is but a 6.25% probability that we even have to get to the consideration of whether the NHM inscription is evidence for the authenticity of the BoM or merely a coincidence. In that case I would describe a 6.25% chance of NHM becoming evidence as less than "inconclusive".Sargon wrote:To the anti-mormon world, the facts are inconclusive. That is one thing we actually agree on. But what we disagree on is the degree of probability.
are you sure about this?For us it is miraculous that Joseph Smith named an area whose name is not found in any other part of Arabia,...
the burial tradition seems irrelevant....wouldn't they simply bury the fellow where he died?....and not look for a place with a local (pagan) burial tradition?...and whose location is a very probable turning point for a eastward journey, and who has a unique burial tradition.