theMormonMind

Latter-day Saint apologists claim to have found a “direct hit” in the book of Nephi.  Here, Nephi describes his journey from Jerusalem through the wilderness with his family around 600 BCE.  During their journey, he makes mention of a couple of places named ”Nahom” and “Bountiful,” and LDS apologists believe they have found archaeological evidence to support their actual existence.  In their opinion, Joseph Smith could not have been familiar enough with the geography of ancient Arabia to have included such accurate information about Lehi’s trek through the wilderness.

In describing these finds, apologists have said the sites are “in just the right location,” “in just the right place,” and that they constitute “bulls eyes,” “precise confirmation” and “a direct hit.”

Well, where exactly did Joseph say that Nahom and Bountiful were located?

To answer this question, I decided to dust off my old Book of Mormon and read the story again.  It begins with Lehi taking his family into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2:4), and traveling “down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea.”  After three days journey with his family, Lehi stops and pitches his tent “in a valley by the side of a river of water” (1 Nephi 2:6) where they “tarried” for some time.  Eventually, they crossed the river and traveled for four days in a “south-southeast direction” before pitching their tents in a place they named “Shazer” (1 Nephi 16:13).  After hunting, they moved on, in “the same direction” staying “in the borders near the Red Sea,” traveling for “many days” (1 Nephi 16:15).  They then stopped again and pitched their tents “for the space of a time” (1 Nephi 16:17), before starting off again “traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning.”  And so they journeyed “for the space of many days” before pitching their tents again (1 Nephi 16:33). 

It is here, we are told, that one of their company, Ishmael, died, and that he was “buried in the place which was called Nahom” (1 Nephi 16:34).

After mourning his death, they took up their journey again, this time traveling “nearly eastward from that time forth” (1 Nephi 17:1).  It is at this point that Nephi mentions that “our women did bear children in the wilderness” and that “we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight years in the wilderness.”

At some unspecified point in time, the company reaches a land which they name “Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey”.  Nephi implies that Bountiful is near the ocean: “And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters” (1 Nephi 17:5).

So, there it is - a rough sketch of the route they took through the wilderness.  After I read it through, there were a few things that jumped out at me.

First, I wondered why the author of 1 Nephi used “Bountiful” as a place name?  In this short account, we see two other names - “Shazer” and “Nahom” - which appear to have Hebrew origins.  Nephi and his companions are Israelites from Jerusalem.  They haven’t been gone all that long, and it seems completely reasonable to assume that they still speak Hebrew.  “Bountiful” is not a Hebrew word - it is English.  Why didn’t the author either (1) give the Hebrew word for “bountiful,” or (2) give the English words for “Shazer” and “Nahom?”  Why are they mixed up together like this?

Second, the author includes the strange word “Irreantum” and translates it for our benefit.  From what language does this word come?  “Irreantum” is certainly not a Hebrew word.  Nephi uses the word “sea” several times (1 Nephi 2:5, 8, 9, 4:2, 12:1, 16:14, 17:5, 6, 26, 27, 48, 18:8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 19:10, 12, 16, 20:18, 21:8, 22:4, 2 Nephi 1:2, 7:2, 8:10, 10:8, 20, 21, 12:16, 15:30, 19:1, 20:22, 26, 21:9, 11, 15, 29:7, 11, and 30:15).  He also refers to “the waters of the great deep” in 2 Nephi 4:20 and 8:10 (of course, the latter is a quotation of Isaiah 51:10).  A bit strange, but then again, perhaps it was just a name they gave to it - like “Atlantic” or “Pacific”.  Do I really know what these words mean?

Third, this account simply does not trouble itself with keeping track of exact distances or time.  They travel for “many days.”  There are no exact landmarks mentioned.  Based on the details of this account, I can’t see how anyone could be “precise” about exactly where the travelers were supposed to be.  Yet, the apologists use the terms above to indicate that the recent archaeological finds are exactly where 1 Nephi says they should be.  The problem here, of course, is that 1 Nephi doesn’t even begin to be precise.  How can anyone say that these finds are “in just the right place,” when the text does not specify exactly where this “right place” is?  How can one score a “bulls eye” when, in fact, there is no well-defined target at which to shoot?

Fourth, I was struck by the phrase “south-southeast.”  The modern Hebrew for “southeast” is “drom mizrah.”  Did ancient Israelites really describe directions in terms like this?  I searched my King James Version.  The word “southeast” never occurs anywhere in the Bible - not once.  Neither does “southwest,” “northeast” or “northwest.”  The only direction names I could find were basically cardinal: ”north,” “northward,” “south,” “southward,” “east,” “eastward,” “west,” and “westward.” Given that, I could easily imagine someone in the 19th-century looking at a map of Arabia.  It would be obvious that anyone leaving Jerusalem and traveling “in the borders near the Red Sea” would have to travel in a “south-southeast” direction.  In the same way that ancient Israelites rounded off the value of pi to 3 (see 1 Kings 7:23), it appears that they also did not get too concerned with giving directions much more precise than “south” or “southward.”

Fifth, I was slightly suspicious of their “eight year” sojourn to a land of promise.  From what I have been able to gather regarding Hebrew culture and religious thought by reading the Old Testament, I have noticed that Israelites of this period tend to associate a special significance to certain numbers.  40 is one of them.  7 is another.  These numbers appear to have a special significance with relation to matters of religious importance (such as being guided by God to a land of promise).  Why, I asked myself, would Nephi choose to enumerate the length of their wanderings in the wilderness to 8 years?  7 would have been a much more expected choice, especially since they only differ by one year.  Though I am certainly no expert on Hebrew numerology, I know of no particular significance attached to the number 8.

I really don’t like to rain on someone’s parade, but I’m afraid that these “finds” just aren’t all that convincing, at least to me anyway.  The account of the journey in 1 Nephi is quite vague when it comes to the details of time, distance and location.  Sure, we know they basically traveled down the western edge of Arabia, along the shore of the Red Sea.  Once they got to the southwest tip, they turned eastward and traveled in that direction.  I believe that most average persons would presume that a journey through this country would include desert terrain, mountains, an occasional oasis, and an on-going search for food. 

And finding a candidate for “Bountiful” just doesn’t seem all that spectacular.  There were people who lived in this land, even in 600 BCE, and for them to survive, they had to have fresh water, plants, and animal life.  It couldn’t all be a desert.  There would have to be habitable places somewhere.

I do admit that the name “Nahom” or “NHM” did make me pause and think.  Hey, I don’t mind giving Joseph credit for getting close once in a while.  But, as for being convincing, it just doesn’t carry that much weight.  Again, the story is just too vague in the details, and the location and verification of the real “Nihim” is a bit vague, too.  Plus, I haven’t been able to locate any opinions of non-Mormon archaeologists to see how they weigh-in on the issue.  I’ve learned through past experience that I really can’t trust the “scholarly” work of the guys at F.A.R.M.S.  So, I guess I’ll have to hold out a bit on this one.

Besides, there are simply just too many other things wrong with the Book of Mormon for me to give it enough credence to even conceive of these “finds” being genuine.  It’s kind of like Santa Claus.  I don’t care how many little children come up to me and say they believe in him, or say that that they have seen him, or how many newscasters say they’ve spotted him on their radar on Christmas Eve, or how many pictures I see of him holding a Coke in his hand, etc.  I found out for myself a long time ago that he isn’t real.

It didn’t make me happy, and it didn’t give me a warm, peaceful feeling inside.  In fact, I think I cried.  And I know I was confused for a while.

But at least I learned the truth.

* * *

Just for the heck of it, here are common directional phrases in modern Hebrew that I found:

darom (south)
drom ma’arav (southwest)
drom mizrah (southeast)
ma’arav (west)  mizrah (east)
tzafon (north)
tzfon ma’arav (northwest)
tzfon mizrah (northeast)