Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_Trevor]

Knowing the facts is pretty important. Knowing what falsehoods are out there that masquerade as facts is useful only to know what other people are saying. If you were to start reading a history of George Washington, say, and one of the first sentences you read was that he was born in England and learned the carpenter's trade, what would your opinion be of the rest of the volume? I would think if I were trying to learn something about George Washington, I would put that book down and pick up a more accurate work. I wouldn't want to waste my time on something that had inaccuracies of that magnitude. Even if now and again, there was some nicely accurate fact. I really can't believe you would just plow on through a book you knew from the start was not accurate.

Well obviously, charity, and since you refer to no specific examples regarding the material in this thread, which does not in any way deal with the life of George Washington, I will take your observation for precisely what it is worth unless you provide them--nothing.

Why wouldn't I? I am not a historian. Let the experts deal with the little bits and pieces from their expertise and experience. You make a virute sound like a vice. I didn't read an entire book. Shock. Horror. I often skim novels, too. I guess that puts me in literary purgatory.

I appreciate all you have done to help me understand exactly how little I should regard your apologetics. It will save me the time of having to read or respond to anything you write. I think this about wraps it up for me.

[Guest]

Knowing the facts is pretty important. Knowing what falsehoods are out there that masquerade as facts is useful only to know what other people are saying. If you were to start reading a history of George Washington, say, and one of the first sentences you read was that he was born in England and learned the carpenter's trade, what would your opinion be of the rest of the volume? I would think if I were trying to learn something about George Washington, I would put that book down and pick up a more accurate work. I wouldn't want to waste my time on something that had inaccuracies of that magnitude. Even if now and again, there was some nicely accurate fact. I really can't believe you would just plow on through a book you knew from the start was not accurate.

Kinda like this :)

I wish also to mention here, that the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that, said title page is not by any means a modern composition either of mine or of any other man's who has lived or does live in this generation." (Smith, Joseph, Jr. Times and Seasons. 3:943.)"

Link to huge image of the Book of Mormon's title page

[_charity]

I appreciate all you have done to help me understand exactly how little I should regard your apologetics. It will save me the time of having to read or respond to anything you write. I think this about wraps it up for me.

Your dismissal doesn't worry me a bit, Trevor. I like to chose my sandboxes, too. I hope you find one you like to play in.

[_cosmo junction]

Sure the name NHM was in the Bible. But NHM in the right place, within the right context ... It isn't exactly like talking about finding canoes in Minnesota!

I used to think NHM/Nahom was interesting, until I looked a little further into how the Hilton's went about their research.

There are a couple of ways at looking at the naming of Nahom. Either Nahom was already named as NHM when Lehi and his family arrived there, or it was not already named Nahom and was afterwards called that because of the what happened in the Book of Mormon story.

In the second example, the Hebrew word "to be sorry" appears to be a good fit since there is an ancient cemetery near NHM. However, the inscription NHM is found on the altar as the name of a tribe and not a place-name. How likely is it that an ancient Arabian tribe would take on a Hebrew name based on something that happened to Lehi's group passing through the area?

Additionally, and perhaps more telling, well before the NHM inscription find, the Hiltons and others who had been searching Arabia for evidence had identified several places with names like Nahom in the Arabian peninsula.

If there were only place with such a name, and it turned out to be conceivably where Lehi's group stopped, this evidence would be somewhat impressive. That one of several such places would turn out to be somewhere in the range of where Lehi and the others could have gone is not as impressive.

As for the location of NHM being "in the right place," it is significant that the Book of Mormon iteself doesn't specifically say "right where it should be." If it did, LDS scholars would have been looking for it only in the vicinity of the NHM altar find, not in all the other places considered by the Hiltons. So, "right where it should be," was not so easily found after all, and appears to have been the result of drawing a big circle and casting about until a place-name, or tribe name in the case of NHM, fell into their laps.

The fact that the Book of Mormon account did not allow them to predict where NHM could be found shows that NHM is only retrospectively "right where" Nahom should be.

The more likely answer, to me, is that Joseph or someone else saw the name "Nehem" on the 1818 Pinkerton map and this place-name found it's way into the Book of Mormon.

Just sayin.'

*Sources:

Hilton, Lynn M & Hope A Hilton (October 1976), "In Search of Lehi's Trail--Part 2: The Journey," Ensign: 34-35

Hilton, Lynn M & Hope A Hilton (1996), Discovering Lehi: New Evidence of Lehi and Nephi in Arabia, Cedar Fort, Inc.

[_beastie]

Very interesting, cosmo. Thanks for the additional information.

The more likely answer, to me, is that Joseph or someone else saw the name "Nehem" on the 1818 Pinkerton map and this place-name found it's way into the Book of Mormon.

I don't even think that is necessary. An entire book in the Bible is called "Nahum", and some translations even have the actual name Nahom.

[_charity]

Sure the name NHM was in the Bible. But NHM in the right place, within the right context ... It isn't exactly like talking about finding canoes in Minnesota!

I used to think NHM/Nahom was interesting, until I looked a little further into how the Hilton's went about their research.

There are a couple of ways at looking at the naming of Nahom. Either Nahom was already named as NHM when Lehi and his family arrived there, or it was not already named Nahom and was afterwards called that because of the what happened in the Book of Mormon story.
.

A couple of ways. Only one is really viable.

Lehi named many places on their journey. After his children. Valleys and rivers, etc. (1 Nephi 2:8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.)

But when they come to Nahom, he doesn't say they named it. Nephi says (1 Ne. 16: 34) "And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom."

[_Trevor]

Your dismissal doesn't worry me a bit, Trevor. I like to chose my sandboxes, too. I hope you find one you like to play in.

Well, my hope is that we can both be here peaceably. I will not return the favor of inviting you to leave. Why?

There are lots of folks here who like you and want you to hang around. Frankly, I often don't understand where they are coming from, other than the fact that outside of your apologetics you seem like a nice person. In fact, I would bet that I would rather socialize with you than some other folks on this board. Don't worry, I am not fishing for a reciprocal statement.

You are correct in saying that you are not a historian and that you are not a scholar. You have revealed one of the fundamental problems in all of these discussions. Very few people here are. Naturally, these boards would be a no go if they were limited to those who are. In fact, often, in spite of many apologist protestations to the contrary, amateurs can make important contributions.

The thing is, they are careful in their methodology. I invite you to actually read the C/D/V book carefully and not dismiss it out of hand. You don't have to of course. I only object to you bashing to others what you have not read carefully yourself.

And finally, I apologize for dismissing you. I would not dismiss you, only things you write that are not based on any careful study and reflection.

[_Trevor]

For cosmo junction:

1. The "match proves nothing since it's not really a match"

Hebrew doesn't have vowels, so the Hebrew name NHM (nun-chet-men) could be transliterated to Nahom. But since we don't know what vowels were supposed to be used, any other vowel permutation is equally likely: Nahum, Niham, Noham, Nuhim, Nuham and so on (25 different combinations are possible in fact, 30 if the second vowel is left out completely). 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. If it is so easy to locate, why the continued list of contenders? After all, in Biblical geography, we know there is one Jericho (located), one Babylon (located), one Nazareth (located), and so on. Mormons can't even positively locate one supposed town from the Book of Mormon.

2. The only existing pronunciation for NHM is NOT nahom!

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.

3. What about the "but 'nahom' means to be sorry and the altar was found near a cemetery" claim?

nahom: a Hebrew word (Strong's 5162) which means "to be sorry, to console oneself, to repent, to regret, to comfort or to be comforted."

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".

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".

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.

4. What of the claim that the proposed location for "Bountiful" pinpoints Nahom?

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.

5. NHM too populated for a sneaky trek.

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.

6. Ishmael irrelevance:

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.

7. Grammatical issue:

Even if it were derived from "NHM", the word "Nahom" cannot be shown to be an independent word. In other words, it could be the case that the placename was "Nah" and the -om part is merely a suffix. This point further militates against an identification of "NHM" with a placename called "Nahom."

In the message board discussion referenced above, David Wright notes an error on the part of LDS apologist John Tvedtnes. Tvedtnes, inhis article "Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon," associates Nahom with Hebrew n-kh-m, but errs when he suggests that Nehhem in Yemen is the same root. Nehhem has a soft "h" but NHM has a hard "h" as in Scottish "loch" as we saw earlier. Since the two roots (n-h ans n-ch) differ, there is no point in making an association between them, and in fact it is wrong to do so.

8. Book of Mormon derivation of words: no fixed method, all have separarte origins. Inexplicable.

Another point to consider is the inconsistent and uncheckable etymology of Book of Mormon words. How is "Nahom" explicable in terms of the general etymology of Book of Mormon placenames? As noted in the comments on the board links above, there are a number of curious Book of Mormon place names whose derivations are given. Examples include: "Irreantum" = "many waters" (1 Ne. 17:5), "Rabbanah" = "powerful or great king" (Alma 18:13), "Rameumptom" = "the holy stand" (Alma 31:21), "Liahona" = "a compass" (Alma 37:38), "deseret" = "a honey bee" (Ether 2:3), "Ripliancum" = "large, or to exceed all" (Ether 15:8). The point of the matter is, do these words have Old World roots? Do they have further derivatives in New World usage? One would expect the they should have, but nothing to support this expectation has been forthcoming. Instead, LDS scholars provide separate theories for each Book of Mormon place name. In contrast, when studying the Bible, the place names are derived from Hebrew or a local dialect. Again we see that the Book of Mormon cannot stand up to professional linguistic analysis.

This inability to withstand professional scrutiny simply isn't good enough. It is clear the Book of Mormon place names can't establish any sort of validity through etymological or linguistical analysis. And there is a very good reason for this. The book is a phoney.

9. Exodus 15:22-27 indicates the existence of oases in the desert. Smith would have known this. Bountiful is the oasis mentioned in 1 Nephi 17:5. The fact that Smith mentions an oasis in the Book of Mormon therefore proves nothing.


Conclusion

The Nahom case provides evidence, not of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but of the willingness of LDS scholars to look anywhere in their despair to find a shred of validation for their erroneous beliefs. The "NHM" inscription is the most important piece of geographical "evidence" Mormons have for their claims. The refutation of this inscription in regard to the Book of Mormon placename "Nahom" shows once again that there is no archaeological suppport from Mormonism, and no amount of appealing to "plausibility" will alter that fact. As mentioned at the top of this article, the "NHM" find is a classic example of the fallacy of irrelevant proof.

[_Runtu]

Trevor (and Blixa),

NHM is really the strongest piece of evidence they have, and as this post shows, it's incredibly flimsy. Absence of evidence, and all that, but crappy evidence is indeed proof of the desperation of some apologists.

[_cosmo junction]

For cosmo junction:

3. What about the "but 'nahom' means to be sorry and the altar was found near a cemetery" claim?

nahom: a Hebrew word (Strong's 5162) which means "to be sorry, to console oneself, to repent, to regret, to comfort or to be comforted."

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".

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".

Thanks, Trevor.

Charity, if, as you say, NHM was already there when Lehi arrived, and was not named by Lehi as "to be sorry," then why do apologists accentuate the Hebrew "origin" of the place-name?

Just curious as to your answer.