Nahom has been found
In Lehi's travels through the Saudi Arabian peninsula, he names many locations (Laman, Lemuel, etc). One location, however, seems to already have a place name: Nahom. It is the location where Ishmael is buried and his daughters mourn for him. According to Nephi's description of their travels, this Nahom is located somewhere in southwestern Arabian peninsula.And sure enough, This year (2000) it was announced that an altar was found with the name, "Nahom" on it! It dates back to Lehi's time (600 BC), and it is in the location Nephi described.
Such information was not available in Joseph Smith's day. In fact, this area has only been researched in the last few years.
For more info on it, see: Gregory Witt's Lehi's Trail website
In answer to DaveM's question,
" Blaine, if we could prove one
> passage as being false,
would you accept the notion that the whole book
> is untrustworthy?
That is not to say that it would not contain some
> truth, but if we know
one passage is false, then that means anything it
> says needs to be
tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as
> being trustworthy
to others. Blaine, would you agree with this
>
approach?"
I have to
answer that since, as DaveM has himself stated, " Math is strictly
deductive
(isn't it?) meaning that its conclusions are known to be true
with certainty
whereas science and objective theology uses inductive
inference and
its conclusions are tentative."
I would have to say I doubt I would see any "proof" as being final. However, you are welcome to present such evidence as you feel might be conclusive.
Shalom, peace,
Blaine
> > "If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM
> > that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about
> > it's fictional nature stands."
> >
> > That is interesting about the barley, but it
> > hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage
> > between the barley the BoM other than in name only.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for, Perry. If you would
> accept the lack of barley in the New World as evidence of the Book of
> Mormon being false, then it seems to me that you should accept its
> documentation of having existed here in a previous time as evidence of
> support for the Book of Mormon. Exactly what are you looking for?
>
> You know that I think the Book of Mormon is bogus, but I'm trying to
> understand the nature of the proof you seek.
>
> It seems to me that the best approach is not to look for proofs within
> the book, but to show one falsehood. Blaine, if we could prove one
> passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book
> is untrustworthy? That is not to say that it would not contain some
> truth, but if we know one passage is false, then that means anything it
> says needs to be tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as
> being trustworthy to others. Blaine, would you agree with this
> approach?
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
