considering the positive claims to evidence - 3

[_Buffalo]

Were 19th century people aware of the existence of oases? Is that was Joseph was imagining for Bountiful?

In any case, wouldn't ANY fictional book of this type get a hit or two by chance? The more details there are, the more likely there are chance hits - ie Lovecraft's Cthulhu or Tolkein's hobbits, which are actually more dramatic hits than either bountiful or NiHM.

[_honorentheos]

Stem -

I'm going to point out where the "Echo's and Evidence's" quote is misleading so you can think about it some more -

The inscriptions appear on small votive altars given to the Bar'an Temple near Marib by a certain Bicathar of the tribe of Nihm.64 This tribe is known from Islamic sources that date to the ninth century AD, fifteen hundred years after Lehi and Sariah.65 In this later period the tribe dwelt south of the Wadi Jawf, near Jebel (or Mount) Nihm, where it currently resides.

All of the above is taken to be inpartial information that most of us would agree is factual. Now -

66 The inscriptions, which date to the seventh and sixth centuries BC, certify that the Nihm/Nehem/Nahom area lay in the same general region, almost fourteen hundred miles south-southeast of Jerusalem.67 In the world of archaeology, written materials are valued above all other evidence, and these inscriptions secure the general location of Nahom.68

You stated that I was overreaching with my claims based on the evidence. I'm curious that you don't see the above two sentances being extreme overreaching on the part of the author. Notice how conviently he makes the transition from Nihm --> Nehem ---> Nahom? And then tells you that the NHM inscription "secures the general location of Nahom"?

Only, it didn't. It takes the evidence (Nihm) and assumes it can be located to a district ina city in Yemen (Nehem) that we can then assume equals the BoM-attested "Nahom". The majority of that chain was self-generated rather than derived from evidence. There are a lot of assumptions made that take advantage of the incredibly vague so-called details that we are given in the Book of Mormon. You tell keithb above that “The likelihood on that basis alone, that those same consonants lined up nicely in the only location that fits the narrative, all the sudden seems near impossible, if you ask me. We can't possibly be looking all over the Arabian Peninsula because other locations do not fit the narrative of hte (sic) text.”

You seem to be unaware that this isn’t the first Nehom candidate proposed. And that it won’t likely be the last. Did you happen to read the Don Bradley quote that Runtu posted? Don’s comment about how inexact the narrative is has to be considered on your part. I attempted to outline this when I quoted 1 Nephi 16. If you were to use the Book of Mormon alone and draw on a map where Lehi’s party traveled you wouldn’t be able to draw a line. If you assume that they came down the east coast-line of the Red Sea yet are traveling in the wilderness, where would you place them on that map and why? Again just using the text itself.

Don is exactly right in stating that you could not use the text to pinpoint any such location geographically. Instead, what the apologetic is doing is taking a potential candidate and inductively locating the narrative to geography. You say it’s the “only location”. Today, most would agree it’s the best location possible, but it’s not the “only” location.

The first paragraph quoted contains the valid evidence that can be distilled from the alters in question. Beyond that, it all becomes speculation.

So this brings us back to my other points that you feel are over-reaching. The NHM combination isn’t a perfect fit, but only allows you to guess there may be a “Nehom” hiding in the linguistic tribal name of the past of that group. Most of the apologetics build on the information from historic maps that suggest that the region mapped as Nehhm and potentially available to someone in the 19th century west (meaning - Euroamericas) is a potential match for the more precise, existing Nehem of Safa’a, Yemen. And it could be. BUT -

Where you seem to fall flat here is not realizing that all of this is reaching. And it doesn’t take into account the problems it adds to the Book of Mormon that I have been trying to get you to acknowledge are created if one then assumes this is that case. These problems deal with the fact the account describes the party following the Red Sea, and specifically mentions being guided to the most fertile parts of the land, yet also describes them as doing so as a party hiding from other people. It seems to indicate that the person writing it envisioned travel within a region that was predominately unpopulated and required Nephi and co. to live off the land entirely for their sustenance. Yet, the text as you are accepting it, down to pinpoint accuracy, places them along a major trade route that leads them into one of the most prosperous kingdoms of the ancient world - the Sabaeans. Much like the problems this creates in the New World, we have the people of Lehi’s party describing themselves as if they were cut-off from the rest of mankind even though the context appears to require that they had interactions with others. The Nahom reference is so notable for this very reason - it stands out as a potential link to an external piece of evidence.

Once you accept that NHM is evidence of the Book of Mormon’s peoples being in a given location at a certain time (around 600 BC along the incense/spice/silk road), you have to start dealing with all that this means, stem. Not just that you can figure out a way to migrate the letters NAHOM -> Nehhm ->Nehem -> Nihm.

It is true we simply do not know whether the name of the tribe was adopted previously from the place or the other way around. But it is certainly not unreasonable for a foreign hebrew speaking party to adopt the concept of nahom from nihm. I think, in other words, you overtstate your case.

Did you happen to read this after you wrote it? “It’s certainly not unreasonable …adopt…etc., etc…you overstate your case”. Ok.

But he got a major hit, a major stroke of unbelievable luck if he was guessing.

Stem - again, he didn’t get a major hit. If this were a game of battleship, Joseph Smith called out, “somewhere on the Arabian peninsula” and you are seeing the “pink” peg that resulted as a potential match if one takes liberties with the information. The name itself can be explained readily by the 19th century authorship model by acknowledging that the root NHM is included in many other names that Joseph Smith could have derived from a readily available text written in that region. Where would he find such a text? The Bible, maybe?

Is that reaching beyond the evidence at this point? Sure, but it’s not over-reaching further than the pro-Nahom argument. And it explains the other evidence that your NHM theory does not - that overall a 19th century author is more likely than a 7th century BC author to describe the Arabian peninsula the way the Book of Mormon describes it.

That’s what I getting at, Stem. The 19th century authorship model is not excluded, nor is it really damaged by the current state of the NHM evidence. On the contrary, I’d argue it brings to light other weaknesses in the Book of Mormon text that make an ancient author from that region who actual traveled through that area less likely by what it doesn’t say as well as what it does.

Which brings us back to the OP, stem. NHM is evidence for the Book of Mormon, but it is weak evidence. See how much you have to add or guess at to make it fit? There you go. Does a critic have to guess at explanations to take it into account? Yes, which is why it still gets floated as being “the best archeological evidence” for the Book of Mormon we have. I don’t think that the critical explanations (i.e. - where did Joseph Smith come up with the name, Nahom? And how would he have known that a fertile location like Wadi Sayq existed in the region) are fatally flawed by any stretch. I see the problems of non-contact/ the Book of Mormon getting the regional context wrong being more problematic myself. Obviously, your mileage varies on this. But please don’t argue that someone s over-reaching like this when the NHM argument is built on the stuff.

Also -

(I)'m not sure I see the contradictions here. And the alters weren't found in Marib but near Marib.

See? What exactly does this mean to your theory? If the temple is just outside the city or in the city doesn’t seem to improve your argument at all. It’s still the temple at Marib whether you call it the Ba’ran temple in or near Ma’rib. It’s a temple to a sun god, and it contained three alters with Nihm on them, and they were at a big f-in city with a dam and canals that were in place at a time when Lehi would have lived if he were not a fictional character. When the tour guide sells the site in his books and faith-promoting tours on “walking in the footsteps of Lehi” he isn’t making the distinction you are, Stem. Kinda like the Catholic church operating sites where Jesus was born, buried, etc. It’s meant to help you as a believer feel the spirit - for a fee.

[_Darth J]

Not a single person has addressed my questions about the Bloop.

Therefore, I will take it that the point is conceded that the Bloop is evidence that The Call of Cthulhu is a true story.

[_keithb]

But it just so happens that one of the few place names mentioned in the Book of Mormon that most likely indicates a name adopted from the local understanding, happens to coincide nicely with the known geography of hte peninsula and the most likely scenario of what route Lehi and company would have travelled. The likelihood on that basis alone, that those same consonants lined up nicely in the only location that fits the narrative, all the sudden seems near impossible, if you ask me. We can't possibly be looking all over the Arabian Peninsula because other locations do not fit the narrative of hte text.

I think that other posters have pretty well refuted the notion that Lehi would have traveled along a route that would have led him through this city. Also, I've already explained in my last post reasons why a combination of three consonants lining up "nicely" as you put it isn't really impressive, even if we accept the fact that Lehi could have traveled along this route, which I don't.

I think your numbers do not consider all the known facts regarding the claims in the Book of Mormon. Its been a while since I've involved myself in statistics, I'd have to review a few things to get it all correct, but I feel fairly confident your attempt does not take all the parameters into account here.

Well, it hasn't been a long time since I've been involved in statistics, and I stand behind the analysis, the work behind which I laid out clearly in my last post.

Look, my guess is that you would have accepted the combination of the letters NHM for a city anywhere in the Arabian peninsula and claimed that Lehi traveled directly through that route. For such a large geographical area, a 2000 cities, towns, etc. estimate is very, very conservative. Also, as I said, not all combinations of three consonants are equally likely in the Hebrew language, so the sample size of ~10K would also be reduced from the initial 22^3 upper bound. So, even assuming a uniform distribution of three letter combinations through the 2000 cities (which is what I did), then you have a very conservative estimate of a 20% chance that Joseph Smith guessed NHM by chance, without any outside help.

However, if you assume that certain 3 consonant combos tend to be more probable and that Joseph Smith could have reasonably inferred those combos through the Bible, then it becomes much more likely than 20% that Joseph Smith could have guessed NHM through chance. In any case, I'm not impressed.

[_moksha]

"With just a pocket full of Nahom, a ship of curious design and a sky full of stars, I can sail on until morning."
- Captain Elbow, The City Creek Mutiny, Neverland Press, 1943

[_stemelbow]

Stem -

I'm going to point out where the "Echo's and Evidence's" quote is misleading so you can think about it some more -

The inscriptions appear on small votive altars given to the Bar'an Temple near Marib by a certain Bicathar of the tribe of Nihm.64 This tribe is known from Islamic sources that date to the ninth century AD, fifteen hundred years after Lehi and Sariah.65 In this later period the tribe dwelt south of the Wadi Jawf, near Jebel (or Mount) Nihm, where it currently resides.

All of the above is taken to be inpartial information that most of us would agree is factual. Now -

If you agree, then I miss your whole point that the alters were found IN Marib, then. Now you agree they were not found in Marib. Oh well.

66 The inscriptions, which date to the seventh and sixth centuries BC, almost fourteen hundred miles south-southeast of Jerusalem.67 In the world of archaeology, written materials are valued above all other evidence, and these inscriptions secure the general location of Nahom.68

You stated that I was overreaching with my claims based on the evidence. I'm curious that you don't see the above two sentances being extreme overreaching on the part of the author. Notice how conviently he makes the transition from Nihm --> Nehem ---> Nahom? And then tells you that the NHM inscription "secures the general location of Nahom"?

It may be a little over-reaching sure. If nahom is a place, which for the sake of scrutinizing the text you must accept, then any match, or near match, of its general location and name seems like a hit, to "secure the general location of Nahom". Of course over-reaching occurs somewhat when you take a serious attempt to discover whether the text can have validity.

Only, it didn't. It takes the evidence (Nihm) and assumes it can be located to a district ina city in Yemen (Nehem) that we can then assume equals the Book of Mormon-attested "Nahom".

That would be the responable approach to determining whether the text speaks of genuine possibilities or not, sure. That is the point.

The majority of that chain was self-generated rather than derived from evidence.

The "majority"? Again I think you are over-stating your case.

There are a lot of assumptions made that take advantage of the incredibly vague so-called details that we are given in the Book of Mormon. You tell keithb above that “The likelihood on that basis alone, that those same consonants lined up nicely in the only location that fits the narrative, all the sudden seems near impossible, if you ask me. We can't possibly be looking all over the Arabian Peninsula because other locations do not fit the narrative of hte (sic) text.”

You seem to be unaware that this isn’t the first Nehom candidate proposed.

It does not matter. Whether other attempts have been made to authenticate the text or not. It just so happens this one fits so nicely.

Continued...

[_stemelbow]

And that it won’t likely be the last. Did you happen to read the Don Bradley quote that Runtu posted? Don’s comment about how inexact the narrative is has to be considered on your part. I attempted to outline this when I quoted 1 Nephi 16. If you were to use the Book of Mormon alone and draw on a map where Lehi’s party traveled you wouldn’t be able to draw a line. If you assume that they came down the east coast-line of the Red Sea yet are traveling in the wilderness, where would you place them on that map and why? Again just using the text itself.

I believe this has been addressed by the scholarship. I did read Don's response. It was okay in a way, but he didn't really address the claims, so much. He merely contested that he doesn't buy it. So? If ya think about it. All we know are some pretty vague allusions to direction, and location. With those vague allusions in place, we have before us a location that fits the bill. If you and Don disagree I'd like to see why other than, skepticism.

Don is exactly right in stating that you could not use the text to pinpoint any such location geographically. Instead, what the apologetic is doing is taking a potential candidate and inductively locating the narrative to geography. You say it’s the “only location”. Today, most would agree it’s the best location possible, but it’s not the “only” location.

There is no other way to do it, considering the vagueness of the narrative. But considering that which the narrative gives us, this really comes out as a nice match.

Where you seem to fall flat here is not realizing that all of this is reaching. And it doesn’t take into account the problems it adds to the Book of Mormon that I have been trying to get you to acknowledge are created if one then assumes this is that case. These problems deal with the fact the account describes the party following the Red Sea, and specifically mentions being guided to the most fertile parts of the land, yet also describes them as doing so as a party hiding from other people.

Let us consider again, then, anew, your three problems with the text...

How does traveling near the Red Sea cause a problem? It obviously does not suggest that they follow the Red Sea the whole way.

What does being guided to the most fertile parts of the land have to do with it?

Where does it say they are hiding from other people throughout their journey?

It seems to indicate that the person writing it envisioned travel within a region that was predominately unpopulated and required Nephi and co. to live off the land entirely for their sustenance.

CFR. i don't' think you've established all of this. They were travelling for years, not for a short while. What may ahve been true for part of the journey may not have been true for another part.

Yet, the text as you are accepting it, down to pinpoint accuracy, places them along a major trade route that leads them into one of the most prosperous kingdoms of the ancient world - the Sabaeans. Much like the problems this creates in the New World, we have the people of Lehi’s party describing themselves as if they were cut-off from the rest of mankind even though the context appears to require that they had interactions with others. The Nahom reference is so notable for this very reason - it stands out as a potential link to an external piece of evidence.

Continued...

[_Runtu]

Not a single person has addressed my questions about the Bloop.

Therefore, I will take it that the point is conceded that the Bloop is evidence that The Call of Cthulhu is a true story.

It's a direct hit. What are the odds that the bloop would happen almost exactly where it was supposed to happen? Must be true.

[_Buffalo]

Not a single person has addressed my questions about the Bloop.

Therefore, I will take it that the point is conceded that the Bloop is evidence that The Call of Cthulhu is a true story.

It's a direct hit. What are the odds that the bloop would happen almost exactly where it was supposed to happen? Must be true.

[_honorentheos]

Stem-

Two requests:

First, I'd be interested in your opinion, simply stated as "Agree" or "Disagree", regarding the following statement: "The site where the three alters were found bearing the NIM inscription is likely the same site that is called Nahom in the Book of Mormon."

Second, you disagree with much of what I see as contradictions with between the Book of Mormon and what is necessitated by the inclusion of the NHM altars as evidence for Lehi's route (i.e. - that being guided to the most fertile parts of the land along the Red Sea, or to a major city in the Kingdom of Saba imply that Lehi's party would have interacted with others and were generally traveling along populated route). I'd like to see you take some time, copy 1 Nephi 16, and use the Book of Mormon text to explain you position. I think this is reason given that I've already done so. My opinion is that the text does not support your argument, but I'll hold judgment until you've had an opportunity to explain the text yourself.

Remember, the entire point of the NHM evidence is that it supposedly damages the theory that a 19th century author could have written the Book of Mormon. That is what you are supposed to be showing, not how the NHM evidence can be stretched to fit the narrative and vice-versa.

Thanks.