Reddit User Destroys NHM Argument

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's absolutely worth the read, and was so on point I saved it. I strongly recommend getting familiar with the topic so next time an apologist posts something about NHM being a bullseye you can just link them to this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... mon_nahom/

- Doc

[_Tator]

Thanx Doc, a great read for sure. I will consider this my Sunday School lesson for the week.

Oh, and thanx to Andrew.

[_Dr Exiled]

Thanks for the link. There simply isn't any justification for believing this nonsense.

[_Kishkumen]

I still contend that the name Nahom comes from the Biblical book Nahum. The Book of Nahum, written supposedly by a prophet named Nahum in the 7th century BCE, contained a prophecy, ex post facto or otherwise, of the fall of the great city of Nineveh. Nahum's name means "comforter." So, fleeing from the imminent fall of Jerusalem, the Lehite party stops in a place called Nahom, where one of the party dies, and his family goes into deep mourning, thus requiring comfort. This is what we call a literary allusion, plain and simple. And, while I welcome all attempts at interpreting a text, I think a great deal of the discussion on both sides is simply overkill.

[_Chap]

I still contend that the name Nahom comes from the Biblical book Nahum. ... while I welcome all attempts at interpreting a text, I think a great deal of the discussion on both sides is simply overkill.

The minor prophet Nahum was also the first candidate that occurred to me - and I am sure to many others - when I heard that Joseph Smith had called a place 'Nahom'.

But as for overkill - no, I respectfully dissent.

While nobody is obliged to spend time stamping on the apologist's endlessly misleading efforts to support the 'Look! We found Nahom! The Book of Mormon is TRUE!!!' schtick, I don't think one ought to blame the debunkers for dealing with the sheer mass of bunk that the apologists inflict on them.

I am glad that at least somebody is motivated to address this stuff in detail. Simply saying 'Yup. Nahum - obviously' counts for very little in the face of the huge flow of videos, articles and blogs in the other direction. And truth does matter - apart from the fact that the elegance of some of the rebuttals is almost an art form in itself.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I still contend that the name Nahom comes from the Biblical book Nahum. The Book of Nahum, written supposedly by a prophet named Nahum in the 7th century BCE, contained a prophecy, ex post facto or otherwise, of the fall of the great city of Nineveh. Nahum's name means "comforter." So, fleeing from the imminent fall of Jerusalem, the Lehite party stops in a place called Nahom, where one of the party dies, and his family goes into deep mourning, thus requiring comfort. This is what we call a literary allusion, plain and simple. And, while I welcome all attempts at interpreting a text, I think a great deal of the discussion on both sides is simply overkill.

I'm 100% in your camp on this on. We know Joseph Smith cribbed from the Bible and this is the simplest explanation.

- Doc

[_Bret Ripley]

It's absolutely worth the read, and was so on point I saved it. I strongly recommend getting familiar with the topic so next time an apologist posts something about NHM being a bullseye you can just link them to this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... mon_nahom/

- Doc

Things get a little precious in the YouTube discussion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPFob0cjfw). Mr. Cutler objects to Andrew's reference to the word used in the Arabic Book of Mormon to translate "borders" on the grounds that modern Arabic meanings may not accurately represent their ancient meanings*, but thinks it's just dandy to use a modern English thesaurus to illuminate the same word.

I don't know. There's something about the whole NHM apologetic endeavor that seems furtive yet halfhearted. It's a bit like watching a rube toss a pinch of salt over his shoulder.

* If this were something resembling a responsible scholarly discussion, Cutler's immediate response should probably be to bypass Arabic and go straight to the original language.** But maybe he observes a self-imposed quota that limits the number of cans of worms he is willing to leave lying around open.

** Upon reflection, I suppose he does -- his impulse is to make a beeline for English.

[_Kishkumen]

But as for overkill - no, I respectfully dissent.

While nobody is obliged to spend time stamping on the apologist's endlessly misleading efforts to support the 'Look! We found Nahom! The Book of Mormon is TRUE!!!' schtick, I don't think one ought to blame the debunkers for dealing with the sheer mass of bunk that the apologists inflict on them.

I am glad that at least somebody is motivated to address this stuff in detail. Simply saying 'Yup. Nahum - obviously' counts for very little in the face of the huge flow of videos, articles and blogs in the other direction. And truth does matter - apart from the fact that the elegance of some of the rebuttals is almost an art form in itself.

That's cool, Chap. I am from the Robert M. Price School of "just because they wrote it does not oblige me to dignify it with a response."

[_Kishkumen]

In a similar vein, did you catch this bit? Could Nehemia also have been a potential source for Joseph Smith?

There are a lot of Jewish ruins in Yemen, symbols all over the place. It is my opinion that the area name Nehem comes from Nehemia the Jewish prophet / historical figure, who was a big deal 5th century BC. See the Book of Nehemia. If Nehem is a reference to Nehemia, which would make a lot of sense, that is after Nephi.

Greetings, WD:

Yes, I would accept that Nehemia is also a potential allusion, since Nehemia was instrumental in the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. I don't see why the reference cannot operate as an allusion both to the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem at once. One might suppose that Nahom alludes to the fact that Jerusalem would be destroyed but then also that the Lehite party would contribute to the building of a New Jerusalem of sorts in the New World. The loss of Jerusalem causes grief, but God's promises to the righteous comfortingly point forward to restoration of Jerusalem, the Temple, and Israel.

My main point here is that Nahom works as an allusion equally well for people who believe the Book of Mormon is ancient and those who think it is the product of a 19th-century author(s). Personally, I believe the book was written in the 19th century, but I also see it as ancient in spirit--meaning that it consciously aims to restore ancient models.

For those who think it worthwhile, there is a lot to explore in the text of the Book of Mormon and the history of Mormonism that neither defenders nor critics tend to see. Defenders often hang on to the status quo view and thus are unable to see new perspectives. Critics are too busy pointing out the shortcomings of the text and apologists' views to see all that there is in it. I think the book repays serious examination, but I find the LDS view of the text is often unsatisfying.

[_Kishkumen]

And this is why I love hearing your perspective, Kish. You don't foam at the mouth, but bring a kind of noise-filtering sage to the table. What I find inspiring is that you aren't a hypocrite. You remain true to those CTR values, honestly following them to good and holy places. Makes me realize how shallow my own perspective can be.

Why, thank you, Water Dog. I am glad you feel that I bring something of value to the board.