Which way did they go Joe?

[_LCD2YOU]

They went south to the east coast of Africa - You can trace the DNA from a tribe there to Israel.

Which would mean that Lehi and company stopped for generations and integrated (ie had sex with) with the locals.

2 promblems:

1: That would indicate decades of travel as they stopped and raised families. Or Lehi and the boys jumped off the ship to explore the various "red light districts" along africa to dip their wicks.

2: Why is there no dna matches in Meso American Indians and Isreal?

[_LCD2YOU]

Off the subject but I've never fully understood nevemo's who research the church history in this way. I'm interested in Catholicism and will look up this or that but not to the point of disproving the religion or going on-line to debate with Catholics.

What do you suggest? Using the official history? Those are lies. Oh, I started looking and I found issues. The wall of silence. Cognative disassociation from very intelligent people who went into "Mo-bot" mode when they found something that didn't agree with what the brethren had decreed.

Sorry, I have a problem of thinking for myself.

As for Catholicism, go ahead and rake the Cathoic Church, as I'll help. Studying Mormonism led me into looking critically at all religions, including the one I was born into.

[_Blixa]

Hi, LCD2YOU.

Here is a discussion of the NHM "bullseye" which you might find of interest. I've posted it here before, so you could easily pull up previous discussion of it and the issue itself.

________________________


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 separate 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. The "NHM" find is a classic example of the fallacy of irrelevant proof.

[_charity]

I guess when all you got is belief and superstition go with what you got.

Snarky.

All you know the Easter bunny could have been leading them. There's a term for you, "Eyes wide shut'.

Of course when Joseph created the Book of Mormon from his imagination he knew that he had issues with the ship. Those are all "ships" too, right? Be very careful how you answer that because I will promise you it will come back to haunt you.

Bring it on.

The "lord" could have Nephi build an airplane. Rockets would have been a good method too. Perhaps it was an airship.

Only snarky remarks?

Oh, I know of the Book of Mormon.

We could tell you didn't know what the Book of Mormon says. Your posts have demonstrated a real ignorance of the subject. If you want to discuss it you should at least know what you are talking about. It think it was Mark Twain that said Better keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

So why don't you use something other than the Book of Mormon? I know, you can't!

Since I gave you a list of outside references, I did just that.

When I took debate in high school, the teacher told us that if even one argument posed by the other side stood unrefuted, we lost. I have posted 5, and all you have done is be snarky. You lose.

[_the road to hana]

I stayed up extra late, just for you.

Where Joseph Smith got it right. And this took about 20 minutes.

Book of Mormon: Nahom as a place for mourning, with the death of Ishmael
Bullseye: Real place named NHM, where the Book of Mormon says it would be, and it has a large burial ground associated with it. (NHM wasn’t on any maps Joseph could have seen.)

Book of Mormon: A valley with a stream that never quit, with fruit trees.
Byllseye: There really is such a place, exactly where the Book of Mormon says it should be.

Book of Mormon: Nephi finds metal to smelt for tools.
Bullseye: Yemeni government discovered iron ore in sufficient quantities to be mined in the right area.

Book of Mormon: A son of king Zedekiah survives. Named Mulek.
Bullseye: Lachish letters prove existence of Malkiyah, the “little king.”

Book of Mormon: Egyptian names Paachhi, Pahoran, Pacumeni.
Bullseye: Names confirmed. Not known in Joseph Smith’s time.

That's it?

[_BishopRic]

I guess when all you got is belief and superstition go with what you got.

Snarky.

All you know the Easter bunny could have been leading them. There's a term for you, "Eyes wide shut'.

Of course when Joseph created the Book of Mormon from his imagination he knew that he had issues with the ship. Those are all "ships" too, right? Be very careful how you answer that because I will promise you it will come back to haunt you.

Bring it on.

The "lord" could have Nephi build an airplane. Rockets would have been a good method too. Perhaps it was an airship.

Only snarky remarks?

Oh, I know of the Book of Mormon.

We could tell you didn't know what the Book of Mormon says. Your posts have demonstrated a real ignorance of the subject. If you want to discuss it you should at least know what you are talking about. It think it was Mark Twain that said Better keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

So why don't you use something other than the Book of Mormon? I know, you can't!

Since I gave you a list of outside references, I did just that.

When I took debate in high school, the teacher told us that if even one argument posed by the other side stood unrefuted, we lost. I have posted 5, and all you have done is be snarky. You lose.

Your teacher was wrong.

[_LCD2YOU]

See the Mo arguemnet is "Can anyone else write a book like that?' And the answer is "Yes, it's called the Q'ran".

I won't comment on the quality of the theology between the two. There are others who can do that. Ask Kevin. He has a lot to say about Islam.

The history nature isn't comparable. It's apples and oranges. The Q'ran is non linear. The Book of Mormon is a complicated history for one people for about 1,000 years, with another history added in. The interweaving takes charts to follow. It certainly is not something a person could have memorized and recited each day for the 80 day period of translation. And it was also not read off pages, as many witnesses attest.

The saddest thing about what you just wrote above is that you actually believe that. I hope not.

You seem to have a keen mind but you go into Mo-bot mode and you refuse to see the wool being pulled over your eyes.

1: The Book of Mormon is not all that complicate. "Lord of the Rings" is far more complicated.

2: The "interweaving histories" has no evidence, period. Even a Mormon scholar admitted that there is no "Mormon Archeaology".

3: The time frame is what the authors claim, that does not follow they were telling the truth. Parts could have been written beforehand and incorporated later.

4: Yeah, like the witnesses didn't stand to make gain by going along with the decpetion. As with many criminals (conmen) they never think they'll get caught. So don't say the standard refrain, "Why would they sign something if they knew they'd get into trouble?". Why does a bank robber rob a bank? They're going to get caught, right?

And despite your claims to the contrary, the issue keeps on coming up. It is not dead but actually quite robust and is far more a valid point where Joseph got his ideas then him seeing Moroni, Jesus or the Easter Bunny.

Very few people argue that Joseph Smith made it up by himself. There are only a couple who keep bringing up either Spaulding or Rigdon as the authors because the evidence is so slim. But, yes, it does crop up from time to time. But then there are simpletons who every once and while bring up the "adieu" argument, too.

[/quote]Good thing then I never said Joseph Smith made it up by himself now did I? I mean it would be much easier for you to read what I say, not what you want to hear, but then again, Mo-bots have special filters.

No, Joseph stole from other sources and most likely had help writing it. This help does not mean that someone was in lock step and knew what they were writing a bunch of tall tales someone would turn into a cult. All that matters is that whatever the source, the Book of Mormon is (con)man made, not a gospel.

Oh, yes, if you read both the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews you would have known not to embarrass yourself like this.

I never said it was word for word.

Pretty weak for having to back down.

Back down? You yes. Your arguemnet there was weak so of course you had to back down.

Fortunately for me, I didn't have to do anything other than point out your own strawman.

But as the supposed Hebrews in the Book of Mormon never followed dietary law or any other Hebrew Law that I can see it is interesting don't you think?

I don't know where you get what kind of laws the Lehites followed. One of the picky little complaints of one anti-Mormon website is that there isn't any talk about dietary laws at all in the Book of Mormon. But you anti-Mormons keep falling into the trap of the absence of evidence being the evidence of absence. Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Seems to me to still be a very important part of Jewish culture. Do you know any Jews that follow Kosher Laws? See even today they are very strict.

No, a more likely story is that Joseph was unaware of it so therefore it it is not in his story. It is not "evidence of absence" alone. Coupled with all of the other things left out of the Book of Mormon, it paints a picture of a bright and gifted conman who was smart but not smart enough to know he had very few facts to go on.[quote=charity"]And then there is also the possibilty that some or all of the Mosaic law was changed for this group of people. I haven't heard that anyone else has suggested this, just me. But we believe in continuing revelation. Certainly the Lord was leading and guiding the Lehites. Their circumstances were very different from the land they left, who knows what the Lord could have changed for them.[/quote]A perfect apologist responce. When confronted with change, make the "immutable rule of God's law" mutable to suit one's belief. Good start of a new thread. Thanks charity.

Did you read what I wrote? I stated that as Joe Jr. was wrong about so much he really didn't have much in the way of sources, just a few smttering of a map here, a story or two there, the KJV of the Bible and he at least read "A view of the Hebrews" once.

And didn't you read what I wrote? It isn't just one thing off a map, or a story or two. The list is enormous of those "just a name off a map" or "a story or two" so that it gets to be really hard to maintain without access to a pretty phenomenol library.[/quote]Oh I did read what you wrote. You claim things but then back nothing up.

See, I'm looking for oh, EVIDENCE and you have squat.

Pray tell what "lucky guesses" from Joe Jr. are you going on about? The Book of Mormon is a story. Could you enlighten me, since I'm new and all according to you, and tell me what Joseph got right?

I will be glad to. But I have to leave now to go spend the evening in the temple, and won't be back until too late. Tomorrow I am hosting a luncheon, so I won't be able to get to respond to you until tomorrow evening or Thursday. I ask for you patientce.

Okay.

I will want to take this to a new thread.

[_charity]

Hi, LCD2YOU.

Here is a discussion of the NHM "bullseye" which you might find of interest. I've posted it here before, so you could easily pull up previous discussion of it and the issue itself.

________________________


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.

Blixa, you are right about there being no vowels. But why don't you deal with those three consonamts? How many place names contain those three consonants in that order? And how many consonants could be used to designate that one specific place? Pretty good hit, even without the vowels.

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.

Blixa knows that successfully archeology often depends on continuous location of a site. People in the early 1800;s could point to a place and say that is where Jericho used to be. Maybe they were off a bit, but that gave the archeologist a place to stick his shovel in the dirt. And she also knows that there are no continuosly occupied sites in the New World.

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.

And since when are vowels consistent and reliable? And it is now 1400 years+ when the name was pronounced there. Care to guess how the natives now pronounce Louisville? Or Pendelton? or New Orleans? And we have the all the vowels and consonants right in front of us. Luvull. Peneltun. Nawleenz.

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."

Strong's was published in 1890, 60 years after the Book of Mormon. Opps, Blixa. Bad move.,

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".

I have some experience with the "ch" sound. I live in the Northwest. The Indians had a cheif named Ta[ch]oma. How do the whites pronounce it? Tacoma. Tachoma. Tahoma. Those three variations are sprinklined all over the region. When one language comes in contact with another, we don't always have complete agreement on pronounciation.

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.

Is that a concession that you can't refute this argument?

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. [/quote]

But yuo use it when you want to try to prove that Joseph ad access to arcane maps. Pick your argument and stay with it.

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.

That they were in some areas which were more dangerous than others should not be lignored. When they were close to a population center, there wouldn't be the trouble with marauding bands of thieves. Did the pioneers circle their wagons at Fort Hall? Duh.
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.

You are sure guessing here. You don't have any information so you ask the stupid "why" question. "Why" only works with you have a way to answer it. You don't. But it sounds good.

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."

Militates? That is not a killer blow.

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.

Your linguist can beat up my linguist? Chose your argument. I would like to see a source, with names, please.

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.

But places where it is in the directions and times in the text, makes this a different case.

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. The "NHM" find is a classic example of the fallacy of irrelevant proof.

The argument against NHM is evidence of the "whistle past the graveyard" of critics and anti-Mormons.

[_LCD2YOU]

I guess when all you got is belief and superstition go with what you got.

Snarky.

An unfortunate but true statement.

You have faith, that's fine, but when faith blinds you to the facts, that's an issue.

As for snarky, didn't you draw first blood about my arguements and most likely myself being sophmoric?

Pot? Kettle?

All you know the Easter bunny could have been leading them. There's a term for you, "Eyes wide shut'.

Of course when Joseph created the Book of Mormon from his imagination he knew that he had issues with the ship. Those are all "ships" too, right? Be very careful how you answer that because I will promise you it will come back to haunt you.

Bring it on.

I have and you are unable to respond save for hand waiving.

The "lord" could have Nephi build an airplane. Rockets would have been a good method too. Perhaps it was an airship.

Only snarky remarks?

Actually the description you posted from Nephi essentially "built like nothing of man", at the time could describe an airship. It could describe a rocketship. It could have been a teleporter. After all, it was "nothing like men's stuff, correct?"

Oh, I know of the Book of Mormon.

We could tell you didn't know what the Book of Mormon says. Your posts have demonstrated a real ignorance of the subject. If you want to discuss it you should at least know what you are talking about. It think it was Mark Twain that said Better keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

And that Ad hom was for what?

Like I said, I know about the Book of Mormon. I may not know chapter and verse, but the beauty of the internet means that it is at my fingertips.

As for the rest, like your comments about Thor crossing the Pacific in 4 months when that was clearly not the case, perhaps you are in far more need to listen to your own advise. Don't you think? I forgot, looking at your responces and what you post as evidence, you don't.

You want snarky? You have not seen it yet.

So why don't you use something other than the Book of Mormon? I know, you can't!

Since I gave you a list of outside references, I did just that.

Which have been shot down.

When I took debate in high school, the teacher told us that if even one argument posed by the other side stood unrefuted, we lost. I have posted 5, and all you have done is be snarky. You lose.

This is the most telling.

I asked you for refs. You said you'd come back. I waited.

Now you post and expect instant responses.

You're a fraud and charity for you is in name only.

Don't worry, If you haven't noticed, I'm getting to and blowing away what you've been posting already.

I'll ghet to your, er, entertaining hand waving exercises in time.

See, last night I went to my girls Holiday Recital and then we went out to watch hockey and eat hot wings.

Today, I get this in during conference calls.

What did you ask of me?

Oh yes, patience.

But you are incapable of reciprocating.

Charity? My hairy, muscular buttocks.

[_Blixa]

I'm sorry charity, I didn't make it clear since I thought everyone but LCD2YOU had been here when this argument was first discussed, but these are not my arguments, so your point-by-point with snarky name references ("Blixa knows..." etc.) are pretty wide of the mark. The arguments are Don Bradley's and I merely reposted them because I thought LCD2YOU would find it of interest. I don't really care a great deal about debating the historicity of the Book of Mormon: it doesn't strike me as an urgent issue, though I recognize that it is of greater interest for others. That's why I directed LCD2YOU's attention to this argument. Providing texts to students is what a teacher does, engaging in illogical and condescending snarkfests is not.