stemelbow wrote:Here is my analysis of that silly article previously linked, which many critics here are holding up as some fine fact-based analysis.
Says the article in question:Recently, the LDS church has claimed a stone was found in Yemen which confirmed an event in the Book of Mormon, because it bore the inscription “NHM” which, according to LDS apologists, corresponded to the Book of Mormon place name “Nahom”. This inscription was subsequently presented as airtight evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon
Where was this presented as airtight evidence? I have seen many apologists explain that it is evidence but nothing near airtight. And where did the Church claim "a stone was found in Yemen which confirmed an event in the Book of Mormon"? Absolutely no references for some odd reason.
Many readers have read about the finding of ancient votive altars in Yemen that appear to bear the Book of Mormon place-name Nahom. This significant find has been noted in the Ensign magazine, in the April 2001 general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in a recently published volume by Terryl Givens in which he refers to these altars as "the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon" and "the most impressive find to date corroborating Book of Mormon historicity."
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=255
Efforts at confirming Mormonism is all about finding any scrap of information that might somehow be stretched to suport the fabricated events, geography etc in the Book of Mormon.
Oh...so confirming Mormonism "is all about finding any scrap of information that might somehow be stretched to support the fabircated events" and he uses this one example as his support? Whatever. That's simply biased non-evaluated opinion and inuendo.
No, it isn't. Looking for various parallels between LDS scriptures and the real world is the entire extent of "Book of Mormon archaeology."
If you dispute that, then show me a Nephite artifact.
. So to appeal to the inscripton “NHM” as proving the location “Nahom” is really unfounded. In any case, this is not the first time LDS explorers have tried to match a location with the place Nahom.
no references and rather irrelevant. its not really unfounded though. We'll continue just for you guys...
It is completely relevant to his argument that LDS apologists are painting a target around where the arrow landed.
As for previous claims about where Nahom is supposed to be:
"Comment", Ensign, Aug. 1978
To make matters worse for the LDS apologists, the only evidence we have for the correct vowel-substitution/pronunciation of NHM is the extant pronunciation: “Nihm”. Furthermore, it is extemely unlikely a tribal place name changed its pronunciation. Remember the inscription is most probably a tribal name, not merely a location. Are we to suppose the pronunciation was changed from Nahom to Nihm? This is an assumption that we simply cannot make without forcing the evidence.
nothing here really but opinion. Not necessarily a bad opinion but one that doesn't take into the LDS arguments at all.
Then why IS it likely that a tribal place name changed its pronunciation?
According to this argument, the correct name of “NHM” must be “Nahom” because the place is found near a cemetery and the word “nahom” means “to be sorry”.
How about an reference? Who's argument is he even addressing here?
But Nahom is different. The name in Hebrew seems to mean “mourning,” or perhaps “comfort” or “consolation.” Was it a burial ground—a cemetery—to which the local people led the mourning travelers when one of their leaders died? (See Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, pp. 90–91.) Perhaps it was similar to the cemetery which Gerald W. Silver, who accompanied the Hiltons, photographed near Al Qunfudhah. (See Ensign, October 1976, p. 54.)
http://lds.org/ensign/1978/08/comment?lang=eng
There are a number of problems with this suggestion. For one thing, if the consonants “NHM” are pronounced as written, it should be pronounced with the H as hard, not soft (this is what we find in “nahom” to be sorry”). So the sound would be like “ch” as in Scottish “loch” and we should expect to read of a Book of Mormon placename of “Nachom, not “Nahom.” The Book of Mormon placename doesn’t fit the Hebrew word “to be sorry”.
I find this to be a rather weak effort to dismiss, with no references at all. The place, as argued by apologists, is adopted or adapted from the local name. We simply would not know what NHM would transliterate into reformed egyptian writing. It seems rather contrived on such grounds. Who knows if reformed egyptian has the hard "H" as suggested. Of course this is all dependent on his source in the first place, which he won't provide us for some reason.
I wonder if you realize that you just completely gutted the Nahom argument.
In any case, why should we expect this tribe to call itself after an ancient cemetery? The presence of an cemetery nearby is irrelevant, as most, if not all, other tribes had cemeteries too.
this simply doesn't work. Who knows exactly what the tribe name came from? It just so happens that the local name, if transliterated by hebrews had something to do with sorrow, and one died, then the fit seems quite square.
This being the argument your previously claimed that nobody was making.
Several locations with names somewhat like “Nahom” are to be found in the Arabian paninsula. Given the fact that Arabia is a Semitic-language area bordering the lands of the Bible, this should come as no surprise. The work of the Hiltons and others in finding these locations only serves to show the imprecision of the Book of Mormon description. After all, if the detail is so good, why the to propose several candidate sites? This is clearly not the case with Biblical archaeology, which, as has been shown, has one location for Jericho, one location for other Old Testament towns, cities, rivers, and mountains. Not so with the Book of Mormon. Why not? The simple fact of the matter is, the Book of Mormon description is general enough to be worthless. The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target.
This is severly ignorant of the apologists arguments. What's to even address here other than he simply is arguing a strawman?
He is addressing the fact that with so many candidates available, it is not a very impressive bull's eye, nor very persuasive to be claiming "This is the place!" about this latest proposed location.
Lehi and his family had been commanded by God not to light fires. Why would this commandment be given? There would have to be a good reason, as they could not cook their meat, and would thereby violate the Torah. Was it supposed to be a secretive trek? If so, why would they go to the populated location of NHM? This doesn’t make sense.
What is he establishing as any evidence to support his notion that they went to a largely populated place? my goodness they could have been outside the large population and still been in the place that was called Nahom. But we get no references for his claims. While they weren't to light fires, just after this occurence, it does not necessarily mean they did not have contact with a populated place before their speedy flight and not lighting fires.
"Let's sneak into this established tribal area and bury Ishmael before anyone sees us!"
Lindsay mentions that Ishmael, one of the companions of Lehi on the trip, died at Nahom, and that there was “considerable mourning at Nahom.” Why would the NHM tribe name themselves after a passing-through traveler who died there centuries later? This likewise makes no sense.
Oh my goodness is he finally revealing a source? It doesn't matter though. Its not argued that Nahom was named after Ishamel's death. Largely ts argued that Nahom was adopted/adapted from the place that locals called it.
Making the apologetic attempt to show a parallel between Ishmael's death and "mourning" irrelevant.
