Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The NHM Stone... Does It Prove the Book of Mormon?

Mormons are so desperate to prove their religion true that they will take anything even remotely related and trump it up to be the final piece of evidence. In this case, I am referring to a stone found on the Arabian Peninsula which has engraved in it the letters NHM.

This stone was found in an area of Arabia that the Book of Mormon names Nahom. Mormons believe that this is evidence that Joseph Smith did not make up the book but that it is an actual record of an ancient group that migrated to the Americas.

The February 2001 issue of the Ensign mentions this briefly (1/4 of a page) where it openly admits, "This is the first archaeological find that supports a Book of Mormon place-name other than Jerusalem or the Red Sea..." The article is entitled, "Book of Mormon Linked to Site in Yemen". It is interesting to note that this article has been removed from the LDS churches official website. I attempted to find this article in their archives and my search turned up nothing. Hmmm... I wonder why? (Bold added for emphasis)

The first? Haven't Mormons been claiming all along that there is overwhelming evidence of the Book of Mormon in South America?

If so, where are the piles of skeletons, weapons, and armor at the Hill Cumorah where hundreds of thousands of people died? If the people of the Book of Mormon flourished and spread, as the book claims they did, then where is the evidence?

One single stone bearing three letters is the strongest evidence they have. (Insert mocking laugh here). It's amazing how one teeny thing that appears to support the Book of Mormon is trumped up, when the mountains of evidence against it is ignored and passed off as lies.

NHM... Nahom. True, they are similar. But they are different too. NHM has no vowels. If the name of the ancient site really was Nahom, and the stone was from that site, then the stone would say... "NaHoM". Further more, Roman letters found on a 2,600 year old stone? The Latin alphabet originated in Italy during that time era (about 600 or 700 B.C.) but was not in the form it is today. And even though the time frame matches, the area does not. Even today, people in Arabia do not use the Latin alphabet.

Mormons claim that the stone has been dated to the approximate time of 600 B.C. This can't possibly be the case, given the facts I have shared above.

In short, a rock is their best bet. Sorry, LDS, Inc. You'll have to do a whole lot better than that if you're going to impress me.

*Update*

12-10-10 Interestingly, a discussion of the Nahom debate is currently taking place on the ex-mormon forums. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,51805. The person who started the thread provides evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed have access to maps and books of ancient Arabia.

14 comments:

Kenny said...

Well, I'm not anonymous-my name is Kenny and I'm an old geezer from Nova Scotia in Canada and I'm not a Mormon. I wrote an essay a couple of years back which dealt with religion, poetry and pantheism. I made some comments on various religions, including the Mormon. I do think the whole concept is full of conflicting ideas and philosophies, but my main point is that America was unknown to all but the natives that came there some 12 to 20 thousand years ago. No-one would know how to get to America from the Middle East. The whole idea is preposterous. The fact that the Mormon Church prospers has more to do with people who are insecure and unable to think clearly for themselves, than it has to do with faith and true religion, if indeed there is such a thing. I have faith in the fact that there is a beginning and end to life, and nothing lies beyond it. Do follow me on my blog site, as I will publish things that may be of interest to you.

Weston Krogstadt said...

According to Wikipedia: "Each of the altars is constructed of solid limestone. All three contain a dedication inscription, which is carved around all four sides of the altars in the South Arabian script of that period"

Weston Krogstadt said...

Come on now, don't be a sissy. You clearly got your ass handed to you in the first round, but don't quit. Ding ding, round two, let's get it on!

Mormon411 said...

I would love to engage you, Weston, but you still insist on referring to anyone who is not your faith as "Mormon-Haters". That will always be your final argument and since that is the case, I am not going to waste my time with you. That is an offensive term and as long as you continue to use it, I will not debate with you. Doing so will be giving you far more credit than you deserve.

Mormon411 said...

NHM...

What if the stone was upside down and was actually meant to read "WHN"?

You have to admit that it is a possibility.

Urban Koda said...

I still remember my Dad forwarding the FARMS email, proudly pronouncing the discovery of Book of Mormon evidence.

I was a TBM at the time, absolutely convinced the Book of Mormon was true, and yet it still shocked me how excited everyone was about this 'evidence'.

"If it's true, why this hoopla about a stone with some words on it?"

Little did I know!!

Mormon411 said...

I just had another thought: dating.

Scientists have dated the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. Mormons and Christians refute this by saying that their dating techniques don't really work.

But the NHM stone is dated to Nephi's time period and suddenly they all think it's amazing how accurate it is.

When it works in their favor, they don't try to discount scientific dating techniques, but if it proves them wrong, then it's inaccurate.

I still can't believe how they all think one stone is overwhelming evidence. It boggles the mind, given all the contrary evidence that exists and is right there in plain sight.

Kenny said...

The question remains: If the stone is from the Middle East, how on earth did it end up in Salt Lake City. Who transported it there and when.? Dating the stone (limestone)is as easy as pie, but one would have to penetrate a wall of ignorance and stubborness to convince a Mormon that the date is true. In my humble opinion, their religion is based on pure chimera, but I don't expect them to begin to revise their beliefs or even consider the possibility that might have bought a can of snake oil when they adapted this "religion"

Mormon411 said...

I'm not so sure if it is in SLC. If I'm not mistaken, the stone was found by non-LDS people. The church could have bought it... I really don't know. It's not an area of Mormonism that I care to invest a lot of time and research. Even if it does remotely give credit to the Book of Mormon, there is no way it can overrule the multitude of evidence the other way.

Neal Rappleye said...

Please note that the following is not my attempt to "defend" the NHM/Nahom argument. All this is intended as is a critique of your counter-arguments.

After quoting the Ensign article, you ask, "The first? Haven't Mormons been claiming all along that there is overwhelming evidence of the Book of Mormon in South America?"

First off, I don't know very many who claim there is "overwhelming evidence" in SOUTH America. Most place the BoM in Mesoamerica, but I'm just being knit picky with that criticism. My real issue with this sarcastic question (which comes off with a bit of mocking tone) is that it ignores the actual context of the statement in the Ensign. It says it is the first "find that supports [note: it does not say "proves," only "supports"] a Book of Mormon PLACE-NAME" It does claim that this is the first evidence to support the BoM AT ALL, only that is the first evidence to a BoM place name. Place-name evidence is admittedly lacking for the BoM, but since the known name of nearly all American archeological sites post-dates BoM times, that it is to be expected.

You then argue, "NHM... Nahom. True, they are similar. But they are different too. NHM has no vowels. If the name of the ancient site really was Nahom, and the stone was from that site, then the stone would say... "NaHoM". Further more, Roman letters found on a 2,600 year old stone? The Latin alphabet originated in Italy during that time era (about 600 or 700 B.C.) but was not in the form it is today. And even though the time frame matches, the area does not. Even today, people in Arabia do not use the Latin alphabet."

This argument reveals a great deal ignorance on your part. The alters are not engraved with the Latin letters "NHM," but were engraved in a Semitic language. "NHM" is a transliteration of the characters into our modern alphabet (based on their phonetic pronunciation), the same way Hebrew, Egyptian, and other Near-Eastern languages are transliterated by scholars all the time (especially when they are writing for an audience that in not familiar with the original language). The actual characters themselves look nothing like our Roman "NHM," but rather, the first looks like a backwards "B" the second looks like a "Y" and the last looks somewhat like an "S" (not a perfect match to an "S" though). However, phonetically, they correspond to our "NHM." Furthermore, since the inscription is in a Semitic language, it would not say "NaHoM" because Semitic languages do not write vowels. So, even if it is pronounced as "Nahom" it would only be written as "NHM." So, NHM etched in stone is as good of evidence for the place-name "Nahom" as is physically possible.

If you wish to criticize the LDS Church, that is your own business. All I ask is that you actually do some research on what you intend to critique. All you do with this article is spread an awful lot of misinformation, which sure makes the "NHM/Nahom" argument look weak, but when the facts are understood, this becomes little more than a strawman argument.

Everything I have read from Mormon critics on NHM/Nahom has left me fairly unimpressed. They all come across as very naive and ill-informed on the issue. I have yet to see a critic really try and tackle the evidence and provide a good explanation.

Neal Rappleye said...

Please note that the following is not my attempt to "defend" the NHM/Nahom argument. All this is intended as is a critique of your counter-arguments.

After quoting the Ensign article, you ask, "The first? Haven't Mormons been claiming all along that there is overwhelming evidence of the Book of Mormon in South America?"

First off, I don't know very many who claim there is "overwhelming evidence" in SOUTH America. Most place the BoM in Mesoamerica, but I'm just being knit picky with that criticism. My real issue with this sarcastic question (which comes off with a bit of mocking tone) is that it ignores the actual context of the statement in the Ensign. It says it is the first "find that supports [note: it does not say "proves," only "supports"] a Book of Mormon PLACE-NAME" It does claim that this is the first evidence to support the BoM AT ALL, only that is the first evidence to a BoM place name. Place-name evidence is admittedly lacking for the BoM, but since the known name of nearly all American archeological sites post-dates BoM times, that it is to be expected.

You then argue, "NHM has no vowels. If the name of the ancient site really was Nahom, and the stone was from that site, then the stone would say... "NaHoM". Further more, Roman letters found on a 2,600 year old stone?"

This argument reveals a great deal ignorance on your part. The alters are not engraved with the Latin letters "NHM," but were engraved in a Semitic language. "NHM" is a transliteration of the characters into our modern alphabet (based on their phonetic pronunciation), the same way Hebrew, Egyptian, and other Near-Eastern languages are transliterated by scholars all the time (especially when they are writing for an audience that in not familiar with the original language). The actual characters themselves look nothing like our Roman "NHM," but rather, the first looks like a backwards "B" the second looks like a "Y" and the last looks somewhat like an "S" (not a perfect match to an "S" though). However, phonetically, they correspond to our "NHM." Furthermore, since the inscription is in a Semitic language, it would not say "NaHoM" because Semitic languages do not write vowels. So, even if it is pronounced as "Nahom" it would only be written as "NHM." So, NHM etched in stone is as good of evidence for the place-name "Nahom" as is physically possible.

If you wish to criticize the LDS Church, that is your own business. All I ask is that you actually do some research on what you intend to critique. All you do with this article is spread an awful lot of misinformation, which sure makes the "NHM/Nahom" argument look weak, but when the facts are understood, this becomes little more than a strawman argument.

Everything I have read from Mormon critics on NHM/Nahom has left me fairly unimpressed. They all come across as very naive and ill-informed on the issue. I have yet to see a critic really try and tackle the evidence and provide a good explanation.

Neal Rappleye said...

Please note that the following is not my attempt to "defend" the NHM/Nahom argument. All this is intended as is a critique of your counter-arguments.

After quoting the Ensign article, you ask, "The first? Haven't Mormons been claiming all along that there is overwhelming evidence of the Book of Mormon in South America?"

First off, I don't know very many who claim there is "overwhelming evidence" in SOUTH America. Most place the BoM in Mesoamerica, but I'm just being knit picky with that criticism. My real issue with this sarcastic question (which comes off with a bit of mocking tone) is that it ignores the actual context of the statement in the Ensign. It says it is the first "find that supports [note: it does not say "proves," only "supports"] a Book of Mormon PLACE-NAME" It does claim that this is the first evidence to support the BoM AT ALL, only that is the first evidence to a BoM place name. Place-name evidence is admittedly lacking for the BoM, but since the known name of nearly all American archeological sites post-dates BoM times, that it is to be expected.

You then argue, "NHM... Nahom. True, they are similar. But they are different too. NHM has no vowels. If the name of the ancient site really was Nahom, and the stone was from that site, then the stone would say... "NaHoM". Further more, Roman letters found on a 2,600 year old stone? The Latin alphabet originated in Italy during that time era (about 600 or 700 B.C.) but was not in the form it is today. And even though the time frame matches, the area does not. Even today, people in Arabia do not use the Latin alphabet."

This argument reveals a great deal ignorance on your part. The alters are not engraved with the Latin letters "NHM," but were engraved in a Semitic language. "NHM" is a transliteration of the characters into our modern alphabet (based on their phonetic pronunciation), the same way Hebrew, Egyptian, and other Near-Eastern languages are transliterated by scholars all the time (especially when they are writing for an audience that in not familiar with the original language). The actual characters themselves look nothing like our Roman "NHM," but rather, the first looks like a backwards "B" the second looks like a "Y" and the last looks somewhat like an "S" (not a perfect match to an "S" though). However, phonetically, they correspond to our "NHM." Furthermore, since the inscription is in a Semitic language, it would not say "NaHoM" because Semitic languages do not write vowels. So, even if it is pronounced as "Nahom" it would only be written as "NHM." So, NHM etched in stone is as good of evidence for the place-name "Nahom" as is physically possible.

If you wish to criticize the LDS Church, that is your own business. All I ask is that you actually do some research on what you intend to critique. All you do with this article is spread an awful lot of misinformation, which sure makes the "NHM/Nahom" argument look weak, but when the facts are understood, this becomes little more than a strawman argument.

Everything I have read from Mormon critics on NHM/Nahom has left me fairly unimpressed. They all come across as very naive and ill-informed on the issue. I have yet to see a critic really try and tackle the evidence and provide a good explanation.

Mormon411 said...

Neal,

As you can see from the other comments here, I am not very informed about this issue. I appreciate your criticism and I do strive to be as accurate as possible. But I make mistakes just like anyone else. I think the main point that I was trying to make is that IF archeological evidence exists for the Book of Mormon, then there would be a lot of it. One positive piece of evidence for the BoM does not, in my opinion, outweigh all the evidence against it. It is very possible that Joseph Smith saw of map of ancient Arabia. Or maybe he just got lucky. Or maybe Nephi really did write about the place. I'm simply trying to show that this stone does not end the Book of Mormon debate. How Smith got it right could be explained in other ways as well. That's all I'm saying.

Neal Rappleye said...

Sorry my comment posted three times. I kept trying because I kept getting an error message.