FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Question: What are the responses to critical arguments concerning the name "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon?"
(→: m) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{FME-Source}} |
| − | + | <onlyinclude> | |
| − | + | ==Question: What are the responses to critical arguments concerning the name "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon?== | |
| − | == = | + | ===Several popular criticisms of the Book of Mormon name and location "Nahom" are the following=== |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Several popular criticisms of the Book of Mormon name and location "Nahom" are the following | ||
*It is claimed that there is no evidence dating NHM before A.D. 600. | *It is claimed that there is no evidence dating NHM before A.D. 600. | ||
*It is claimed that the pronunciation of NHM is unknown and may not relate to Nahom at all. | *It is claimed that the pronunciation of NHM is unknown and may not relate to Nahom at all. | ||
*It has been Claimed that Joseph Smith produced the name Nahom from one of the Biblical names Naham, Nehum, or Nahum. | *It has been Claimed that Joseph Smith produced the name Nahom from one of the Biblical names Naham, Nehum, or Nahum. | ||
*It is claimed that the name NHM isn't actually a match for "Nahom," and that the only existing pronunciation for NHM is NOT necessarily "Nahom." | *It is claimed that the name NHM isn't actually a match for "Nahom," and that the only existing pronunciation for NHM is NOT necessarily "Nahom." | ||
| − | |||
| − | == == | + | ===Is the name NHM actually a match for "Nahom"?=== |
| − | + | ||
| + | Yes. It is a match, but it is not a ''unique'' match, since other words with vowels removed can match NHM. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Is the only existing pronunciation for NHM "Nahom"?=== | ||
| − | + | No. LDS scholars do not claim that the ''only'' existing pronunciation of NHM is "Nahom." | |
| − | === | + | ===Is the ''only'' translation of the name "Nahom" to Hebrew written as "NHM"?=== |
| − | + | Yes. Remove the vowels, and the only way "Nahom" can be written is NHM.=== | |
The issue of vowels is a non-sequitur, and the claim about the “only existing pronunciation” is just nonsense. The Book of Mormon name "Nahom" becomes NHM when the vowels are removed. Nobody is claiming that the ''only'' existing pronunciation of NHM is "Nahom." | The issue of vowels is a non-sequitur, and the claim about the “only existing pronunciation” is just nonsense. The Book of Mormon name "Nahom" becomes NHM when the vowels are removed. Nobody is claiming that the ''only'' existing pronunciation of NHM is "Nahom." | ||
| Line 27: | Line 26: | ||
The tribe and territory of NHM still exist in the area today, and local pronunciations range from “Neh-hem” to “Nä-hum,” and the name has been translated in a variety of ways, including Naham and Nahm. There is no reason “Nahom” should be considered beyond the pale. When written, Semitic languages do not need to include vowels, so the altars simply have NHM (in South Arabian), and Nephi’s record would have been no different. As such, no closer correlation in name could be asked for. (Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture'', vol. 8. (2014) 173.) | The tribe and territory of NHM still exist in the area today, and local pronunciations range from “Neh-hem” to “Nä-hum,” and the name has been translated in a variety of ways, including Naham and Nahm. There is no reason “Nahom” should be considered beyond the pale. When written, Semitic languages do not need to include vowels, so the altars simply have NHM (in South Arabian), and Nephi’s record would have been no different. As such, no closer correlation in name could be asked for. (Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture'', vol. 8. (2014) 173.) | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | + | ===== ===== | |
| − | == == | ||
{{InterpreterBar | {{InterpreterBar | ||
|link=http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/book-of-mormon-minimalists-and-the-nhm-inscriptions-a-response-to-dan-vogel/ | |link=http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/book-of-mormon-minimalists-and-the-nhm-inscriptions-a-response-to-dan-vogel/ | ||
| Line 40: | Line 38: | ||
|summary=Biblical “minimalists” have sought to undermine or de-emphasize the significance of the Tel Dan inscription attesting to the existence of the “house of David.” Similarly, those who might be called Book of Mormon “minimalists” such as Dan Vogel have marshaled evidence to try to make the nhm inscriptions from south Arabia, corresponding to the Book of Mormon Nahom, seem as irrelevant as possible. We show why the nhm inscriptions still stand as impressive evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. | |summary=Biblical “minimalists” have sought to undermine or de-emphasize the significance of the Tel Dan inscription attesting to the existence of the “house of David.” Similarly, those who might be called Book of Mormon “minimalists” such as Dan Vogel have marshaled evidence to try to make the nhm inscriptions from south Arabia, corresponding to the Book of Mormon Nahom, seem as irrelevant as possible. We show why the nhm inscriptions still stand as impressive evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | <onlyinclude> | ||
| + | {{endnotes sources}} | ||
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}} | {{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
| + | [[en:Question: What are the responses to critical arguments concerning the name "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon?]] | ||
Revision as of 09:07, 10 April 2017
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Contents
Question: What are the responses to critical arguments concerning the name "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon?
Several popular criticisms of the Book of Mormon name and location "Nahom" are the following
- It is claimed that there is no evidence dating NHM before A.D. 600.
- It is claimed that the pronunciation of NHM is unknown and may not relate to Nahom at all.
- It has been Claimed that Joseph Smith produced the name Nahom from one of the Biblical names Naham, Nehum, or Nahum.
- It is claimed that the name NHM isn't actually a match for "Nahom," and that the only existing pronunciation for NHM is NOT necessarily "Nahom."
Is the name NHM actually a match for "Nahom"?
Yes. It is a match, but it is not a unique match, since other words with vowels removed can match NHM.
Is the only existing pronunciation for NHM "Nahom"?
No. LDS scholars do not claim that the only existing pronunciation of NHM is "Nahom."
Is the only translation of the name "Nahom" to Hebrew written as "NHM"?
Yes. Remove the vowels, and the only way "Nahom" can be written is NHM.===
The issue of vowels is a non-sequitur, and the claim about the “only existing pronunciation” is just nonsense. The Book of Mormon name "Nahom" becomes NHM when the vowels are removed. Nobody is claiming that the only existing pronunciation of NHM is "Nahom."
Nephi’s original text would also not have had vowels and would thus just be NHM, the South Arabian tribe/territory name has been translated in a variety of ways.
The tribe and territory of NHM still exist in the area today, and local pronunciations range from “Neh-hem” to “Nä-hum,” and the name has been translated in a variety of ways, including Naham and Nahm. There is no reason “Nahom” should be considered beyond the pale. When written, Semitic languages do not need to include vowels, so the altars simply have NHM (in South Arabian), and Nephi’s record would have been no different. As such, no closer correlation in name could be asked for. (Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, vol. 8. (2014) 173.)
Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel"
Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (2014)Biblical “minimalists” have sought to undermine or de-emphasize the significance of the Tel Dan inscription attesting to the existence of the “house of David.” Similarly, those who might be called Book of Mormon “minimalists” such as Dan Vogel have marshaled evidence to try to make the nhm inscriptions from south Arabia, corresponding to the Book of Mormon Nahom, seem as irrelevant as possible. We show why the nhm inscriptions still stand as impressive evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
Click here to view the complete article
Notes