this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023

14 points (100.0% liked)

ExMormon

755 readers

1 users here now

Reddit’s new home for ExMormon. Welcome heathens!

Be respectful (no hate, racism, anti LGBTIQIA)
No NSFW
No trading/Selling
No chat spamming/intentional reposts
Have fun!

Here’s a graphic for how the Fediverse works. (Source https://lemmy.world/post/88856 )

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

GhostCowboy76@lemmy.world

Archive of the greatest r/exmormon post ever (negativenull.com)

submitted 1 year ago by negativenull@negativenull.com to c/exmormon@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Original: https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/6jd4fm/budding_apologists_create_book_of_mormon_nahom/

I don't think I have ever seen a beating like this. Maybe the Jenkins v. Hamblin debate. Although this might be worse. What's interesting about this is you've got a guy who clearly isn't an academic, he's not a professional bible scholar or anything like that, but he completely destroys those who are. It cannot be described, only witnessed. Posting to preserve for posterity. I suspect these comments will all disappear.

It all starts with a video posted by Book of Mormon Central, Evidences of the Book of Mormon: Nahom, and then proceeds with a blog post and discussions in multiple comment areas on youtube and the blog.

If you aren't familiar with the Nahom / NHM apologetic argument, I recommend just watching the video in its entirety. Watch it either way, it's hilarious. This is supposed to be indisputable evidence of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Not only that, but the only piece of real physical historical evidence. It's a big deal.

In summary, the claim is that the Book of Mormon gives a detailed description of the route the Nephites took from Jerusalem to Bountiful, identifying places by name, landmarks, compass directions, etc., and that this description fits perfectly with the middle east in a way that would have been unknowable to Joseph Smith or any early 1800s people in America. In particular, Nephi writes that Ishmael was buried in a place called Nahom, and that they have found this exact place, by name, over in the Middle East, along with ancient tombs bearing inscriptions of Book of Mormon names. Impressive.

Lots of commenters are saying it's just a coincidence, or there are so many other anachronisms it doesn't matter, and bringing pretty typical arguments along those lines to dispute the video. Nobody disputes the Nahom finding itself Then out of nowhere this random guy Andrew shows up, claims he speaks Arabic and has traveled to all these locations in the middle east and systematically debunks the whole thing. There is no Nahom, it hasn't been found, all the claims in the video are madeup fiction.

In response to this the apologists start rubbing feces all over themselves. And then it only gets worse from there.

Here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPFob0cjfw

Here's the blog post by Neal Rappleye, where he responds to critics of the Nahom video. Some important characters. Neal Rappleye, Stephen Smoot, and James Cutler. These people are all apologists with Book of Mormon Central.

Neal posts his critique of the critics.

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2017/06/responding-to-new-video-on-nahom-as.html

In response Andrew posts:

I did my undergraduate studies in the Middle East. I speak Arabic. I lived in Yemen. I visited several of the the so-called "NHM" sites while I was still an active/believing member, including sites near Marib like the Bar’an temple, Jidran and Ruwaiq mountains, among other ruins in the region and all over the country, as well as sites in Oman like Dhalkuut.

I was excited to visit these places and see them for myself as they constituted what is literally the only piece of supposed evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. What I found was pretty underwhelming, nothing at all like what is described, and somewhat faith shattering. This video grossly misrepresents the NHM “evidence,” to the point of deception, leveraging sensationalism and sound effects to construct pseudoevidence.

Short version, point by point, every single "correlation" in this video is misrepresented.

Nehem is NOT a burial site, it's a vast mountain range. And the ruins referenced in the video are in a completely different location that is NOT in Nehem. Moreover the ruins themselves are not at a specific site, but scattered all over the place, thousands of such sites, all over the country. Going back to Nehem, it doesn't match with the text of the BOM, which describes them as following a path along the coast of the Red Sea. About 140 miles of impassable mountain range separates Nehem from the coast.

To put this in context, this is what the area looks like: http://bit.ly/2s3WAOQ

BOM doesn't say anything about turning east and passing through 140 miles of nasty mountains before getting to Nahom. It says they turned east AFTER getting to Nahom, suggesting it would be near the coast somewhere. I really can't emphasize enough how nasty the Nehem area is. Lehi slept in a tent? Good luck hauling tents over those mountains. Zero sense for a long list of reasons. Go over there and see Nehem for yourself, of all potential places for them to travel to, it is literally the worst! An impossible location.

And then getting into the language, the H and M characters in Nehem the place DO NOT match with the NHM on the altars, nor do they match with the NHM in the hebrew word "nacham" that's being referenced as a potential "word play" with the word "mourn" in the text of the BOM. There are about 4 distinct arabic letters/sounds which get clumsily described as H in English, but in the original language these are distinct letters as different as A and Z. The word "nachom" in hebrew is completely different than "nahom." Just as different as "nazom".

So you have some burial sites, literally thousands of them scattered all over the country, everywhere, found a tombstone at one location (not in Nehem) which bears the 3 characters NHM (which also don’t match the NHM characters used in the place name Nehem), and the Nehem location is completely at odds with the BOM text in terms of terrain and geography, but somehow all this is a correlation?

And then there is the "nearly eastward" business. Pick a spot literally anywhere in the Yemen, and in many parts of Saudi Arabia for that matter, head "eastward" and you'll end up at some coastline. About 1600 miles of coastline to work with. There is nothing special about vaguely saying, go south along the coast, turn east at some unspecified location, and then arrive at some other unspecified location where you can build a boat. This isn't a correlation.

The dating. The NHM altars are irrelevant for the aforementioned reasons, but nonetheless, the dating isn't credible. The altars were not dated through scientific means like radiation, etc. In context, the original dating was literally just a guesstimate based on the expertise of the german archaeologist. And that guy places the stones likely AFTER Nephi. And then the subsequent “researcher,” Aston, who pushed the dates back used even worse methodologies than the original guy. Aston isn’t a credible archaeologist, he writes conspiracy books on UFOs! Can't make this stuff up.

Adding to all this are other things I could say. There are a lot of Jewish ruins in Yemen, symbols all over the place. It is my opinion that the area name Nehem comes from Nehemia the Jewish prophet / historical figure, who was a big deal 5th century BC. See the Book of Nehemia. If Nehem is a reference to Nehemia, which would make a lot of sense, that is after Nephi.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] holycrap@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Holy shit that last post was epic.

[–] negativenull@negativenull.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CONTINUED 2

Ouch. Neal replies, mostly ignoring what Andrew says, but then some exchange happens. In the course of that exchange Andrew says some other things that are pretty interesting. In one of Neal's responses he argued that the Nephites did not travel along the coast of the Red Sea, but further inland.

Andrew replies:

Getting back to the meat of the discussion. I'd love to hear more about this argument that the Nephites didn't travel along the coast. How is that reconciled with the text which specifically says they did?

"And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea."

How does that description fit with travelling 140 or so miles inland on the complete opposite side of a mountain range?

Either way I'm still not sure how this solves the problems I pointed out. Nehem still is in the mountains. BOM doesn't describe them moving across the mountains. Why would they enter Nehem at all? If they were traveling along the famous incense trail, that would have been east of Nehem, so they would have had to go west over the mountains to get to Nehem. And again, the burial sites referenced with the inscriptions aren't in Nehem.

The video makes some very specific claims. I'm just going to quote the narrator directly.

"...a team of German archaeologists found an ancient altar in southwestern Arabia with the name of a local tribal region inscribed on its side. That name, Nehem."

This isn't true. Objectively false. An altar was found. And it has ancient writings believed to resemble the English sounds N H M. But this refers to a family/tribe, not a physical place. And it's not known that this tribal name matches with the Nehem place name. In the video a whole bunch of liberties are being taken to correlate data for which no relationship has actually been established.

"This altar, which dates back to about 800 BC"

This is in dispute, a dubious claim. But video presents it as factual.

"And its [the altar] location is exactly where you'd expect it to be..." (And at this point the map in background shows line going to Nahom.)

No, it's not exactly where you'd expect it to be.

For starters, the altar, which is what the narrator is specifically talking about, IS NOT IN NEHEM!!! The altar is at a burial site which is not in Nehem. The video is straight up lying. And as I've also pointed out, "where you'd expect it to be" is also in dispute re the text of BOM. BOM says they were at the coast, not 140 miles inland.

"Additionally, Nehem was one of the largest burial areas in ancient Arabia, making it a natural location for Ishmael's burial"

As stated, no it wasn't. Nehem had nothing to do with the burial sites referenced and was not itself a "burial area."

What do burial sites have to do with the Book of Mormon anyway? Oh, because Ishmael is buried in Nahom? So you’re saying Nehem is a special location in Yemen where everybody gets buried? Everybody comes from afar to bury in this special site? So, duh, it’s a “natural location." Let’s put Ishmael here. How cool, we found a burial site, a specific graveyard, called Nahom, the only one for hundreds of miles around, and gee golly, the BOM says Ishmael was buried in Nahom. How cool is that? Correlation after correlation after correlation. Even if Joseph Smith had seen the name Nehem on a map somewhere, I mean, there is no way he could have known it also happened to be a special sacred burial site, the only one in southwest Arabia!

Except, A&D$FG!!, Nehem is not a burial site. And therefore this “correlation” makes no sense whatsoever. If Ishmael was buried in the Nehem area of Yemen, it could have been anywhere. Under a pile of rocks on a random spot on one of the hundreds of mountains. Plus, the burial sites referenced, there are sites just like them all over the whole country. There is absolutely nothing “unique” about the Marib or Nehem regions in terms of burying people. This is completely false. You can't make the claim that this is a special "natural location" when an equivalently "natural location" exists literally everywhere!

[–] negativenull@negativenull.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CONTINUED 3

At this point Stephen Smoot chimes in, the speaker in the video. Here is his comment in quotes with Andrew's responses.

Stephen,

Thanks for the response. Let's see how this goes.

"Go ahead and tell that to S. Kent Brown and Warren Aston with a straight face."

Happy to. Actually, I'd love to get more details. The way it comes across to me is some weekend warriors wandered into Yemen like tourists, took a shuttle to some ruin sites, following some terp around, and out puked all this b.s. It has Tim Mahoney and Ken Ham written all over it.

"So on the one hand, Latter-day Saint scholars, when they don't publish in non-Mormon journals, are dismissed as "apologists" who don't dare expose their theories to peer review. But when they do, then suddenly it means "literally nothing" and is it's just an ad hominem fallacy to make mention of it."

I think you may be confusing me with someone else, because who are you talking to? When did I say anything about LDS apologists needing to publish?

Since you've brought this up though, I am not personally of the opinion that peer review is a holy grail. It can be a great thing when done right, but it can also work in the opposite direction. The devil is in those details, like who's doing the peer review for starters.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but all this NHM business is published only in LDS apologetic journals, no? Or pay to play kind of journals? The Journal of Arabian Studies that Neal cites, which Aston is published in, isn't that a pay to play journal? It's not reputable. And this is further demonstrated by Aston's citation index. Literally the only people who cite his publications are LDS apologists.

"We are now officially through the looking glass."

Ain't it great when your own crap gets flung back at you?

"For the 8,000th time: the tribal name is derived from the region that tribe resided in."

For the 8,001st time: I'm supposed to just take your word on that? The name's do not match. And, ahem, the burial site also isn't in Nehem!

You do realize the NHM radicals go with a lot of words? Like flamingos. Perhaps the NHM reference is about a tribe that lived in a little fishing village that was the home to flamingos. You can find flamingos all over Yemen and Oman, and also further north in Saudi Arabia. They are on both the west coast with the red sea and the southern coast of the arabian peninsula.

This brings up another point too. Why turn east at all? Why wouldn't Nephi be directed to Al Hudeidah? It would cut their journey in half. This is the historical shipbuilding capital of the arabian peninsula.

And what about Sinai? I'm going to have to go back to the BOM and really read the directions they give. Why do we assume they went along the coast of Saudi Arabia instead of on the other side of the red sea in Egypt? Maybe Nahom is in Eritrea and Bountiful is in Somalia? Out of curiosity I just did a quick search and you won't believe it. There is an Eritrean singer named Nahom Yohannes! This can't be a coincidence.

*"If I were to call myself Stephen the Provoite, what might we suppose about where the name comes from?" *

Well, we might suppose that you're related to Étienne Provost, perhaps you're from Quebec.

"Is that a tribal name or a geographical name?"

Tribal, that's how arabic names work. Like Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud. House of Saud is quite large. A whole country named after them, and the people are spread all over the world. As it happens there is a city in Yemen named Sauda. If all you found was SAD on a tombstone it might get really confusing trying to trace that person to a location. But it would work in your favor as a "word play" pun.

"Frankly, it is hard for me to escape the conclusion that the only reason why you are claiming "it's not known that this tribal name matches with the Nehem place name" is because you don't want it to match. Literally every single authority on this I have encountered, both Mormon and non-Mormon, conclude that the Nihm tribe and the Nehem/Nehhm region noted in later Islamic and post-Islamic sources are one and the same."

Well you're really going out of your way to be disagreeable and distract from your inability to link the two, aren't you?

The fact still is that the NHM on that stone doesn't match with the Nehem characters in arabic. Repeating myself, I'm still failing to understand the significance of this point though, because the burial location isn't in Nehem to begin with.

Off hand I'm thinking of some people we could consult though. A company in Saudi Arabia called Naham Tech, owned by the Al-Naham family. I wonder if they have any relatives buried in Saudi Arabia? Could take this research in all kinds of new directions. And then there is the Al-Naham restaurant in Doha. You know, come to think of it, that's pretty interesting. Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. Nephites didn't follow the coast along the red sea, they followed the coast along the arabian sea, but to them it looked "red" in the fleeting light! And then they turned eastward into Qatar. Northern end of the peninsula you'll find some hidden gems with enough wood to build at least one or a couple ships.

"The burden of proof (there is it) rests on you to dispute the dating of the inscriptions. Until you give me a good reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to stick with Vogt and subsequent scholars who safely date the inscriptions to the time indicated in the video."

Oh now this is really getting fun.

I'm happy to accept Vogt's dating, and this is what I've said, several times. You guys are the ones that threw him under the bus for Aston. My argument is, nope, I want Vogt back. The date you cite in the video comes from Aston, aka the Ufologist. And the reason you side with Aston is because Vogt dated the stones AFTER the time of Nephi.

But you're glossing over several of my points. One, what does the date matter to begin with when the stone is not found in Nehem? Two, while I'm accepting Vogt's dating I'm also putting in context what he actually did. All he did was offer his OPINION, pulled out of his educated arse, that the stones probably dated to 6th century BC. He didn't shine some laser beams on the rock and Siri answered back, 551 BC! How a conclusion was arrived at is very important for readers to understand.

"It's really funny, Andrew, how you came strutting in here with your opening salvo about your illustrious experience with Arabic and traveling in Yemen. Not to diminish your experience by any means, but when Neal pointed out a handful of authorities who contradict your bombastic rhetoric and sweeping claims, you suddenly accused him of appealing to authority. "

I didn't accuse anything. I pointed out what he did. He ignored effectively everything I said, motioned to some other dudes with "they're right because they said it." Funny is an understatement.

"What kind of madness is this? Either experience and academic chops matter or they don't. You can't have it both ways."

You've spun me around so many times I'm confused myself. Are you saying they do or don't matter? It kind of sounds like you're defending an appeal to authority...

"But you know what? In the end, I agree with you. This is matter of who to trust. Should I trust "Andrew," an Internet blog commenter whom I basically have to just take on his word has the experience he claims to have? Or should I trust the combined academic chops of several seasoned Near Eastern linguists and archaeologists, and other experts who have published in peer reviewed journals on this matter, and upon whom the research team at Book of Mormon Central drew when producing this video?"

Well that's quite a display of self flagellation. So your not just defending it, that's the hill you're choosing to die on. Ok.

Just to recap. You're making multilevel marketing videos that pimp a product you've never tried for yourself, and that you admit total ignorance about, which may not actually even exist, all based on the pay to play "peer reviewed" publications of a UFO conspiracy theorist and other acolytes of his.

[–] negativenull@negativenull.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CONTINUED 4

ROFL!

While all this is going on Andrew is waging a two-front war, having an exchange with James Cutler over in the youtube comments area. Neal and Stephen seem to have quit and James has taken over. Here are screen shots of the exchange, and there is one part in particular I want to save below.

http://imgur.com/kGanEvu 2) http://imgur.com/E0xG2Z6 3) http://imgur.com/O1BWyhe 4) http://imgur.com/17voN7O 5) http://imgur.com/hYx42FR 6) http://imgur.com/yUEhtWi 7) http://imgur.com/8EbLPSf 8) http://imgur.com/Ct5b1IS 9) http://imgur.com/XRHRcRS 10) http://imgur.com/RMCLSdr 11) http://imgur.com/EeqYjeJ 12) http://imgur.com/gF2aTBt 13) http://imgur.com/28jTQf4 14) http://imgur.com/SIQ9X4S 15) http://imgur.com/YXdH2zF

My summary will not do this justice. James says some pretty crazy stuff. Such as this.

Also, the evidence obviously isn't about Jewish ruins. It's about ruins that bear the name NHM. It sounds like you are confused. *No one should care about how many ancient ruins in Arabia have symbols of any kind on them, unless they bear the name NHM, because, logically, that would make this evidence less of a bullseye for the BoM.

WTF?

But this is where things take an interesting turn. James makes a new claim about the wording of a passage in 1st Nephi that isn't included in the video, but apparently has been published elsewhere in apologetic journals.

James says.

It actually says they traveled in "the borders" near the Red Sea, which, again if I am not mistaken, is quite similar to the meaning of the name "Hijaz", the name of that very mountain range running along parallel to the Red Sea coast. Another fascinating bullseye for Joseph, if he made it all up.

Andrew's responds.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The arabic "hejaz" does not mean "borders," it means "barrier," as in you cannot get across the freaking thing. It's a massive "wall of china" that prevents you from getting to the coastline. And this is why the famous incense trail was on the east side of said barrier... people would have much preferred to travel along the coast where things are green and more fertile, but the problem is you sort of have to pick one side or the other.

BTW, I'm not sure how this would be a "fascinating bullseye" for Joseph...? Can you please walk me through your logic on that? Is this another one of those absurd word plays? Joseph uses the word "border" and you interpret this to be a name of a mountain range... "in the borders near the Red Sea" actually means "in the borders mountain range near the Red Sea" Not quite as humorous as the "meat commerce" thing, but this would definitely rank pretty high on the list of SMH arguments I've come across.

James then comes back with a gigantic rant which includes this.

Andrew's comments over there get seemingly more and more desperate as the conversation continues, which to me is a clear sign of defense mechanisms getting the best of a person who could just admit they weren't as right at the end of the conversation as they thought they were going into it. Here's one example from a later portion of the conversation:

"Getting back to the meat of the discussion. I'd love to hear more about this argument that the Nephites didn't travel along the coast. How is that reconciled with the text which specifically says they did? "And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea.""

This is an obvious problem, as the text nowhere says, including in the portion quoted, that they traveled on the coast. This has been a crucial talking-past-each-other problem since the beginning. Really it's just Mormons saying something rather clear, and Andrew ignoring it. It seems like one of those situations where Andrew must have come to a really strong aha!-moment conclusion in isolation, thought it was really compelling when he came up with it, then he tested it out in public by communicating his thoughts to other people, and his brilliant objection got ran over by a bus--the bus of obvious reality. The fact is the BoM never says they traveled on the coast. It says they traveled "in the borders" and the borders were near the Red Sea. Look at a map of the Hijaz mountains, folks. Interpretations are things people can disagree about, but what Andrew has no power to change is the fact that the text never says these words: "they stuck to the coast of the Red Sea". It says something that would more reasonably mean that "the borders" they traveled in were near the Red Sea. And that's a curious expression. Since when was it a common expression to say that one has been traveling "in the borders" without specifying what is being bordered? A curious expression indeed. Not one I would easily be able to attribute to Joseph's imagination or dialect. That's why the connection with the Hijaz/Hejaz mountains makes so much sense to me. And again, the linguistic connection was already made by others who sound more knowledgeable than Andrew. Andrew can nonetheless claim he, not they, is the real expert. That's fine. I just have no reason to believe him instead of someone else if he doesn't sound more credible than them to me. Andrew hasn't really said anything to demonstrate his superior authority/expertise. Again, he hasn't even brought up the observations of these other experts.

But as far as the "barrier, not border" objection is concerned, here's a link to an actual thesaurus:

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/barrier?s=t

There everyone interested will find that, lo and behold, it turns out 'border' and 'barrier' can in some cases be synonymous. It's almost as if Andrew had said, "No, you fools! That word means 'crimson', not 'red'!" Uh ... actually, those words are a lot more similar than some people seem to think they are.

The fact that this is the sort of thing critics are now resorting to quibbling about makes it even harder for me to see how they arrived at such a disdainful and high level of certainty through purely rational and objective means.

These kinds of conversations require a lot of time out of life. There are things I could have learned about the BoM by not engaging in a lot of these conversations. I had to spend a lot of time simply going through things I've already known about for a long time to address objections that should have led a lot of people to find answers where I've found them and where anyone can easily find them. If they're interested in looking.

People, please go to bookofmormoncentral.org's archive to find the answers you're supposed to be looking for to the questions you have. If you're not averse to asking Mormons like me and others here questions, you might as well go to that archive.

I appreciate the sincere questions and objections. Andrew's objections here clearly are not sincere, but they have good answers anyway. To get a clear view of that, go to the blog post linked above.

[–] negativenull@negativenull.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CONTINUED 5

So this is where they go into full persecution complex mode. Andrew's response.

No, I have not read this paper by Jeff Lindsay that you speak of. I'm googling it up this instant as I type this.

I see a page here, "Shazer on Lehi's Trail: Perhaps More Interesting Than You Thought"

Reading this feels like reading a Star Trek blog. I've walked into a Trekkie convention. The guy Lindsay comes across to me like someone who is too smart for his own good. A rainman-like mind combined with boyish creativity and profound levels of ignorance. He ought to try writing fantasy novels and get paid for this type of work.

James, again no disrespect, but if you can't understand how fanciful this is, we are way past the point of sane discussion. The idea that the english word "borders" is a reference to the Hejaz mountains is completely and totally idiotic. It's pure fiction. And very pedestrian and uninteresting fiction at that.

Here's a sentence.

And we did go camping in the woods, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the forest, which were in the borders near the Brazos River.

Your argument, or Lindsay's rather, which you can do not more than parrot it seems, is that there is a mountain range alongside the Brazos River and that this is where we camped? No, we didn't camp on the border of the landmass, which is bordered by the river, so we're basically on the bank of the river, or pretty darn close to it, nope, there is a freaking mountain range in the middle of east texas and that's where we are!

Do you speak English? Is it your first language?

Even if the word "hejaz" meant "border," what in the sacred name of common sense are you talking about?

One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other thing!

But again, "hejaz" doesn't mean "border" it means "barrier." These are different meanings. James, please take an English 101 course when you go to college. Different words have different meanings. One word can also have multiple meanings.

Point - to point your finger at someone, the knife has a sharp point, james doesn't understand the point of this discussion.

Languages are amazing.

A thesaurus is not a list of words that mean the exact same thing. It does group synonyms, but usually there aren't that many of those and the longer part of the list is "related" words. Go back and take a look at that link. Notice how they color code things? There is a short list of words that are considered to be close to the same meaning in orange... with varying shades of orange. And then below that is "more words related to barrier" Pretty far down that list you find "boundary," which lists "border," along with other words like brink, compass, frontier, outpost, rim, skirt, terminal, etc. But that's not all, there are other related words too further down. Like dike, levee, embankment, citadel, detention, captivity, among others, but my favorite, straitjacket! I think that is the most sensible parallel of all... the Book of Mormon is a mental straitjacket. Joseph was trolling you when he wrote "borders near the red sea."

Forgive me, James. Yes, I am making fun of you, but I do so lightheartedly.

What's funny though is using your logic here, we could just crack open a thesaurus, go through the whole book of mormon, and replace any word that suits us with another "related" word from the thesaurus, and completely change the meaning of the whole book into something we could produce some physical evidence for.

Languages also aren't the same. Just because a certain rule works in English doesn't mean it works in Arabic. Just because an English thesaurus shows two words as being related does not mean that an Arabic thesaurus will too. The etymology and meaning of the words is completely different.

Again I repeat though, and for the last time, "hejaz" does not mean borders. It means barrier. The HJZ roots have other meanings too, "to hold back, restrain, hinder, prevent, to keep away, to block off, to close, to bar, to isolate, confine, seclude, to make inaccessible, to arrest, to detain" Shall I go on? None of the meanings are to border something, edge or boundary, etc. There is a word for that though, "mahdood"

You use this apples to oranges example of "crimson" vs "red." Those are both colors. border and barrier do not mean the same thing at all. these are not synonyms. and yes, you are a fool if you think otherwise. Do you ever hear Trump talking about "building a border?" Build a border! Build a border! No, Trump supporters aren't chanting that. Because the border is already there. They instead chant, "Build a barrier, build a barrier," specifying a particular type of barrier, "build a wall, build a wall."

Also, some other fun tidbits to add in here. Hejaz, as a name, refers to many things in Arabia. There is a Hejaz mountain range, which we've been talking about, but there is also a district in Saudi Arabia called "Hejaz." And this is an area that has a lot of history going pretty far back in time. I'll let you figure out the implications of that. Hint: the english word "border" that doesn't mean "hejaz," which of the multiple Hejazs is it referring to?

James' response to this is a lunatic screed that includes this bit.

One thing that will get in our way, I suspect, is linguistics. You keep insisting, for example, that Hijaz doesn't mean what those other people say it means, but that it means what you say it means. I acknowledge that it means barrier. But how do you know it's so strict and monosemous in its meaning that it can't possibly also mean something like border? How do I know to trust you over those other people, Andrew? Fluff and banter and psychological fantasies about turning us Mormons into little children aside, what can you say to actually address the countervailing observations that have been made by people who have also been in the same places you've been, and who know more about the Semitic languages you claim to know?

[–] negativenull@negativenull.com 3 points 1 year ago

CONTINUED 6

And then Andrew comes back with the kill shot that ends the entire NHM debate. Not just the debate with James, or Neal, or Stephen, but the entire NHM debate burned to the ground. All that's left is to scatter the ashes and salt the earth where it stood.

Somewhere in all this chaos you've generated there has got to be one thing we can focus on. Since you brought up hejaz, how about we just stick to that?

You said, "You keep insisting, for example, that Hijaz doesn't mean what those other people say it means, but that it means what you say it means. I acknowledge that it means barrier. But how do you know it's so strict and monosemous in its meaning that it can't possibly also mean something like border? How do I know to trust you over those other people, Andrew?"

In keeping with the pattern thus far your comprehension leaves much to be desired. I never said hejaz was monosemous. I offered lots of other meanings for the word, but "border" simply isn't one of them. How do I know? Because I speak Arabic. The same way I know 2+2=4, because I know mathematics.

I've got an idea, which should settle the matter. I challenge you to produce anything written in arabic that uses the word hejaz in the manner you describe. Wait, I've got an even better idea. I have an Arabic Book of Mormon in a box somewhere, how about we just lookup 1 Nephi 16:14 and see what word it uses for border?

One sec, brb.

Found it!

Here is the last sentence of 1 Nephi 16:14 from the Arabic BOM. (switching to Arabic mode)

ثم واصلنا المضي في الصحر اء متخذين الاتجاه ذاته وملازمين اخصب مناطق البا ديه وهي المنا طق المحاذيه للبحر الاحمر

Since we're aiming for a less snarky tone, I'll just break this down for you. The relevant part of the sentence is this.

المنا طق المحاذيه للبحر الاحمر

In english characters, "al manatiqu al muhadeeha lil bahr al ahmar," which translates, "the area bordering the Red Sea."

minataqa = area

al-bahr al-ahmar = red sea

And the verb for "bordering" is.. mahdood, the same word I cited in my last post. You may notice some differences though. The word "mahdood" is a bit different than "muhadeeha" for instance, that's because it's conjugated. The word lil is a grammar construct, combining the prefix "al" in a pointing kind of way. Not sure how to describe it. Anyway, I think you get the idea. Well, probably not, but I'm done.

Now, just in case you think I'm trying to pull a Die Hard on you, that I get my rocks off by making up gibberish sentences in Arabic for strangers on the internet, I've taken the liberty of taking a picture of the book with my phone and uploading it. Here is the link.

http://imgur.com/a/sffWi

Before dropping the mic I have one more thing to add. I'm really glad you took the discussion in this direction. Because, I believe this puts the final nail in the NHM coffin. Earlier I translated the text to read "the area bordering the Red Sea," which is accurate, but it's not the best translation. I translated it that way because we were comparing with the same verse in the English BOM, so I wanted to use that same word for consistency, "bordering." A more accurate translation however for those who speak Arabic would be "adjacent" or "next to." It's not just bordering, but a more specific proximity is implied by the word.

So in english it reads, "in the borders near the Red Sea."

And in arabic it reads, "the area adjacent to the Red Sea."

Huh. They both mean the same thing, but the Arabic is more explicit, isn't it? Borders near the red sea has a little big of a wiggly feel to it, near can be argued as somewhat subjective. 20 ft, 20 miles, 200 miles. I mean if you're standing in Utah, 200 miles is "near" by comparison. That word adjacent though is sharp and unambiguous. There is no wiggle room here, this is clearly describing them as being right next to the coast.

So, based on the text, which has now been witnessed by the divine pattern of two, no, Nehem in the Yemen cannot possibly be the Nahom spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

In the end, the one and only piece of physical evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon is unraveled by the church's own Arabic translation of the Book of Mormon.

[–] Oldmandan@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure how you'd go about it, but I kind of wish I could take these people and show them Milo Rossi's videos about various archeological conspiracies (he hasn't covered BoM stuff as far as I know, but maybe he should). Then ask them whether or not they believe the conspiracies discussed and rebutted. See if they can spot the hypocrisy.

Also, thanks for preserving this here; been out of the church for a while but only started checking out the exmo reddit recently, so I hadn't seen the original. And now using reddit puts something of a bad taste in my mouth. /shurg

[–] negativenull@negativenull.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow! Another Milo Rossi fan!! If you like him, look up Stefan Milo as well. Stephan Milo goes into more human evolution and human migrations. Amazing stuff.

[–] Oldmandan@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the recommend; quickly browsing through what he's got on YouTube there's definitely stuff I'd be interested in watching.