I examined the Lehi Trail website and read the article you referenced. I must say, the connection between NHM and Nahom is certainly a "possibility". That assertion is not made in the article, though, and statements that could assert such are expressed with indefinites, like "felt confident ", "it seems increasingly likely", "may be directly related", "is likely", "may well", and "It remains possible". Also, the article states, "the earliest known reference to NHM (usually given as NiHM, NeHeM, NaHaM etc) dated to about the First Century AD", indicating that several vowel combinations have been found, Nahom not being only one of them. (Of course, I understand the problem of vowels, transliteration, and pronunciation of early names.)
I must say, this lends hope that some proof of a fact from the BoM may someday be found, but this article, while representing a "possible" outcome, is not proof. Do you agree?
Perry
From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:16:33 -0700
For many reasons, the evidence (archaeological and otherwise) for the existence of Book of Mormon places, languages, etc is not as easy to find as is the case with the Bible. In other words, everyone knows where Jerusalem of the Bible was and is at, few think they know where Zarahemla of the Book of Mormon was at, although there is ongoing research along these lines and several researchers are confident they have located many places named in the Book of Mormon. An exception to this barren landscape is the place called Nahom, mentioned in 1 Nephi 16:34: "Ishmael died, and was buried in a place which was called Nahom."
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
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:23 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
> Perry wrote:
> > "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.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet access. https://broadband.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
---------- "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.
