The Nahom Follies

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You know what the best thing in the world to do when you're fleeing a city and want to remain incognito? Mark your whereabouts every so often so no one can track you down. Makes sense to me!

Also, when you're talking about possible routes they took to get to water in order to eventually take an incredibly retarded ocean faring route to the 'mericas, has anyone noticed the apologists tout crossing the Arabian empty quarter as viable option?? How in the “F” would a family and others from Jerusalem have the first clue to survive crossing the empty quarter? Not only cross it, but keep everything else they brought with them alive, too. Next thing you know apologists will claim the empty quarter could have been, possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of, absolutely sure of it, who knows, no one can disprove that it wasn't some sort of tropical paradise where travelers could live off the land and get water as they meandered across the peninsula.

There is absolutely nothing about 'NHM' that makes any sense, whatsoever.

[_Themis]

I think that we're visually looking more at Bountiful than Nahom.

Again, it's just another interesting thing we find in the Book of Mormon. A narrative that shows Lehi and Co. traveling in a pattern and through country with a NHM and a Bountiful in locations that can be interpreted to match with the real world. It seems as though at every turn we have Joseph taking this and taking that in order to put a cohesive Book of Mormon narrative together that in some ways can amaze us.

Regards,
MG

I'm curious where we have a NHM location? I know there are more then one site where we can find the inscription of NHM, but I'm curious if any, including the 2 sites(I believe) that apologists like, are used to name the location?

[_mentalgymnast]

You know what the best thing in the world to do when you're fleeing a city and want to remain incognito? Mark your whereabouts every so often so no one can track you down.

They lived in tents and didn't cook their meat. Could you be a bit more explicit as to how Lehi and Co. were 'mark[ing]' their whereabouts as they made their journey to 'Bountiful'? Apparently they did remain incognito...so what were they doing that would cause them to be 'marked men/women' as they traveled in the wilderness?

Also, when you're talking about possible routes they took to get to water ... has anyone noticed the apologists tout crossing the Arabian empty quarter as viable option?

And it wasn't, why?

How in the f*** would a family and others from Jerusalem have the first clue to survive crossing the empty quarter? Not only cross it, but keep everything else they brought with them alive, too.

9 And it came to pass that the voice of the Lord spake unto my father by night, and commanded him that on the morrow he should take his journey into the wilderness.

10 And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness.

11 And it came to pass that we did gather together whatsoever things we should carry into the wilderness, and all the remainder of our provisions which the Lord had given unto us; and we did take seed of every kind that we might carry into the wilderness.

12 And it came to pass that we did take our tents and depart into the wilderness...

...and we did take our bows and our arrows, and go forth into the wilderness to slay food for our families...we did go forth again in the wilderness...keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea...we did travel for the space of many days, slaying food by the way, with our bows and our arrows and our stones and our slings.

16 And we did follow the directions of the ball, which led us in the more fertile parts of the wilderness...And it came to pass that the Lord was with us...

And so great were the blessings of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon raw meat in the wilderness, our women did give plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings.

3 And thus we see that the commandments of God must be fulfilled. And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them, and strengthen them, and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did provide means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness.

4 And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight years in the wilderness.

5 And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea...

Next thing you know apologists will claim the empty quarter could have been, possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of, absolutely sure of it, who knows, no one can disprove that it wasn't some sort of tropical paradise where travelers could live off the land and get water as they meandered across the peninsula.[

For those that would like to get the fleshed out version of the story, go to 1 Nephi Chapters 16-17...and check out:

http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Faith-S-K ... B0013N02YM

There is absolutely nothing about 'NHM' that makes any sense, whatsoever.

Soundbite criticism.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I think that we're visually looking more at Bountiful than Nahom.

Again, it's just another interesting thing we find in the Book of Mormon. A narrative that shows Lehi and Co. traveling in a pattern and through country with a NHM and a Bountiful in locations that can be interpreted to match with the real world. It seems as though at every turn we have Joseph taking this and taking that in order to put a cohesive Book of Mormon narrative together that in some ways can amaze us.

Regards,
MG

I'm curious where we have a NHM location? I know there are more then one site where we can find the inscription of NHM, but I'm curious if any, including the 2 sites(I believe) that apologists like, are used to name the location?

Are you, along with Chap, confusing Nahom with Bountiful? I think there is an agreed upon ONE site for Nahom and a couple for Bountiful. But I could be mistaken. Here is a source that might help:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

Are you, along with Chap, confusing Nahom with Bountiful? I think there is an agreed upon ONE site for Nahom and a couple for Bountiful. But I could be mistaken. Here is a source that might help:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

Regards,
MG

No. It's been a while but thought there was a couple of sites where the NHM has been found. It's not important since what I am asking is about how NHM is being used. I am not aware of any evidence it is used as name for the location, but for the tribal name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

[_honorentheos]

Are you, along with Chap, confusing Nahom with Bountiful? I think there is an agreed upon ONE site for Nahom and a couple for Bountiful. But I could be mistaken. Here is a source that might help:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

Regards,
MG

No. It's been a while but thought there was a couple of sites where the NHM has been found. It's not important since what I am asking is about how NHM is being used. I am not aware of any evidence it is used as name for the location, but for the tribal name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

Terryl Givens states that the discovery of the altars "may thus be said to constitute the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon."

That's a fairly honest statement that, when thought through, is rather damning. When one considers that to Joseph Smith the entire frontier in the 1830's was littered with the remains of Nephite hosts and their civilizations, and measures the distance between this and Givens' statement, one ought to be convinced archeology has nothing positive to say about the Book of Mormon and much that it has said to shoot down theory after theory. There is this subtle implication in Givens' statement that up until the discovery of the NHM inscriptions archeology has been silent regarding the Book of Mormon. Not so. Not by a long shot. It's just not been supportive.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Nahum the name of a book of the Bible. Case closed.

Good point. It is also worth remembering that Joesph Smith learned how to READ by reading the Bible. Actually, many children who read learned that way. A lot of times, the Bible was the only book in their homes.

And Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph's mother) wrote in her journal about Joseph making up extremely inventive stories "on the fly" to amuse younger cousins, siblings, etc. And those stories were often about tribes, etc., which resembled the Bible, but were different.

If, as a boy, Joseph learned to read by reading the Bible, and the Bible was one of the few books he gravitated to on a daily basis, then it would make sense that he studied it pretty carefully.

[_Themis]

Terryl Givens states that the discovery of the altars "may thus be said to constitute the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon."

That's a fairly honest statement that, when thought through, is rather damning. When one considers that to Joseph Smith the entire frontier in the 1830's was littered with the remains of Nephite hosts and their civilizations, and measures the distance between this and Givens' statement, one ought to be convinced archeology has nothing positive to say about the Book of Mormon and much that it has said to shoot down theory after theory. There is this subtle implication in Givens' statement that up until the discovery of the NHM inscriptions archeology has been silent regarding the Book of Mormon. Not so. Not by a long shot. It's just not been supportive.

Ya it is an interesting admission. This is why I am asking about how NHM is being used as a name for this location. From what I can see it is not being used in this way at all, so how can it be viewed as evidence for the Book of Mormon location Nahom?

[Guest]

DrW -

There likely have been shifts in climate and ecology in that area over the thousands of years. I think you need to make your judgement based on historical reconstruction of ancient habitats.

To my knowledge, it has never been possible to build sea going vessels in Oman from locally sourced materials. Period.

The traditional design for sea going vessels in the Indian Ocean and along the Arabian coast is the lateen rigged dhow. This design was developed in India no earlier than 600 BCE (and possibly much later).

Fact is that the Omanis traditionally obtained their dhows from the India. Wood for these vessels came from the forests of Kerala. Today in the Gulf region there is still dhow building in the UAE and Oman. However, they are not built from local materials. Pretty much everything is imported.

Dhows are designed and used as coastal cargo vessels (smaller ones were also used for fishing). Dhows are not open ocean vessels. Take a look at lateen rigging. The wooden spars, carrying the entire weight and wind load of the entire sail area, transect the mast. And there really is no way to effectively reef the sails. How would this sail plan would hold up in the open ocean in high winds and 20 foot waves?

As I have mentioned before, dhows are built on keels, and big dhows (20 to 30 man crew) require big keels. Anciently in the Gulf, for example, the main source of wood for keels were cedars imported from Lebanon. I can pretty much guarantee that no tree native to UAE, Oman, or Yemen (now or in 600 BCE) would suffice for the keel of a 30 man dhow.

To claim that a small band of unskilled workers could build an open ocean transcontinental vessel from materials locally sourced along the coast of Oman in 600 BCE, or at any other time in human history, is to ignore reality.

[_DrW]

Duplicate.