New damning evidence against the Nahom argument

[_DoubtingThomas]

Did I miss the post with the link?

No need for the video, here is the information

[_DoubtingThomas]

Still no word from Peterson, but his friend just told me

kiwi57

My response is as follows:
1. Since Arabic and Hebrew are cognate languages - and anciently were even closer than they are today - it's not surprising that Arabic inscriptions from that time and place would match Biblical names. This fact is about as newsworthy as announcing that the letters in Dan's post match those in the dictionary.
2. Since you presumab ly prefer a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon, perhaps you'd like to come up with a coherent theory how someone writing in the year 168 BG (i.e. 1829 in our current calendar) is going to know that there are lo, those many 6th Century BC inscriptions to be found in that precise area of Arabia.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... asmus.html

[_Kishkumen]

Well, that was a dumb comment from kiwi57.

[_I have a question]

Well, that was a dumb comment from kiwi57.

Your post seems redundant...

[_Lemmie]

perhaps you'd like to come up with a coherent theory how someone writing in ... 1829 is going to know that there are ... inscriptions [that sound like biblical names] in that precise area of Arabia.

it's not surprising that Arabic inscriptions from that time and place would match Biblical names.

Umm......what was the question again?