Malkiyahu is not Mulek. And it is nothing but pure speculation that Mulek could be short for Malkiyahu. I can think of a number of ways to shorten the Biblical name--Malki, Mayu, Malihu, Makhu, Makiyu--so, again, this proves nothing. I see "MAY have been mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6"....MAY. So again, pure speculation. The bloggers see only what they want to see.
4. The seal of Mulek
First, realize that evidences of a sacred text are extraordinary things. Artifacts that support the Old Testament, for example, are rare and highly treasured by people of faith in Israel and throughout the world.
Now consider a small clay emblem for stamping documents excavated in Jerusalem in the 1980s with the name Malkiyahu ben hamelek, or Malkiyahu son of the king. This seal dates conveniently to the late 7th or early 6th centuries B.C.
Book of Mormon readers are well aware of a tribal group who claimed to descend from a son of King Zedekiah named Mulek. (Helaman 6:10; 8:21) Trouble is, history wasn’t aware of any “Prince Mulek”, let alone any children of King Zedekiah who would have survived the Babylonian massacre. And one who found allies and migrated to the New World? That’s what makes this seal so interesting. Mulek is easily an hypocoristic, or shortened, form of Malkiyahu, exactly as today we’d shorten Alexander to Alex or Nathaniel to Nate. Mulek may have also been mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6.10 This artifact is so small it could fit on your fingernail, yet its implications could be enormous.
ONE item is not irrefutable proof. One swallow does not a summer make. And what "evidence" I have seen on here is mostly speculation, seen through Mormon glasses. Speculation isn't proof or even real evidence, IF those looking at the "evidence" put their Mormon bias on it.It is evidence and according to some people on this board, evidence is proof. So, it is proof of the Book of Mormon.
What old men? And they heard from their ancestors? This is evidence???“Some old men of Yucatan say that they have heard from their ancestors that this country was peopled by a certain race who came from the East, whom God delivered by opening for them twelve roads through the sea. If this is true, all the inhabitants of the Indies must be of Jewish descent…” a
^All quotes from Yucatan Before and After the Conquest by Diego de Landa Courier Corporation, 2012
Isn't Peterson the guy who thinks "horses" in the BoM are actually tapirs? And chariots are litters? Here is something about this:Mormanity
Both Nahom in the Book of Mormon and Nihm in Southern Arabia match in the following interlocking details:
Both are places with a Semitic name based on the tri-consonantal root nhm.
Both pre-date 600 bce (implied in 1 Nephi 16:34).
Both are places for the burial of the dead (1 Nephi 16:34).
Both are at the southern end of a travel route moving south-southeast (1 Nephi 16:13–14, 33),which subsequently turns toward the east from that point (1 Nephi 17:1).
Both have “bountiful” lands,consistent in 12 particular details,approximately east of its location (1 Nephi 17:4).
While the presence of similar names in the Bible might be able to explain the first of these correlations,it simply cannot account for the all the ways the two places correspond. Daniel C. Peterson once commented, “nhm isn’t just a name. It is a name and a date and a place and a turn in the ancient trail and a specific relationship to another location.”
Suggesting that Joseph Smith simply got the name Nahom from the Bible is an insufficient explanation of the correlation.
Peterson says: "They sound sort of the same, but some of them are really a stretch"
Peterson says: "It's just...you know, if you take a long enough list of place names, you'll find parallels, especially if you're "loosy-goosy" about it. You'll find parallels with just about anything. This is easily done. I could show you words that definitely come from Arabic that occur in English, that have no relationship. They're vaguely similar."
They grow into a population as vast "as the sands of the sea" and build great cities which "cover the land with buildings from sea to sea." Early in the 5th century A.D., the wicked Lamanite faction battle and eliminate the entire opposing Nephite nation which numbers more than 300,000.
Now, here's the problem: if the "NHM" carving truly was "Book of Mormon evidence"---and if the Book of Mormon storyline as I've outlined here were true---then scholars should be able to find a million times more items of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon culture somewhere in the Americas than the single stone carving in Yemen.
The evidences are insufficient to place Nahom with any certainty to any of the proposed locations. There just isn't much to work with here. We have:
One verse in the Book of Mormon that mentions a place called Nahom.
A Yemeni tribe called Nihm
A 7th-6th century B.C. altar inscription that reads: NHM
To make this fit we have to make several assumptions:
A linguistic assumption that Joseph's English Nahom, which he allegedly translated from an unknown Reformed Egyptian language, is connected to the Nihm tribe in Yemen.
An assumption that there was a place in 600 B.C. named after the Nihm tribe.
An assumption that a group of Jews that had lived in Jerusalem all of their lives could survive seven years crossing the Empty Quarter.
When you have the Church and top Mormon apologists pointing to a "NHM" carving on an altar in Yemen from tiny group Lehites passing through to the Promised Land as their "favorite" and "actual archaeological evidence"? While being unable to point to any actual or "favorite" archaeological evidence to a massive steel-making horse-chariot riding Nephite/Lamanite civilization in the Americas that rivaled the Roman Empire? You know that it's bad.
What do you call it when someone only posts copied material from other people, and none of his own words?ev·i·dence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
- evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
Their well-researched records and decades- old history are far superior to any "testimony" od many Mormons, who are unafraid to post obfuscating balderdash in vain hopes of converting Christians and observers into "Mo-bots" who are incapable of posting truth,You just don't like it because it shows the truth.
And it is nothing but pure speculation that Mulek could be short for Malkiyahu....
The blog where all of this supposed "evidence" comes from is pro-Mormon and dedicated to trying to prove that the BoM is true. Therefore, any "evidence" is looked at through biased, Mormon-colored glasses, instead of looked at objectively and seen for what they really are.They get upset at me because I name "stuff" like that as "crap", "balderdash" etc and then they convince themselves that I am the one who is "against truth". You do not use those sorts of adjectives; in fact, you stay away from words that, and I seriously wonder why. I am merely being curious, not contentious.
You see, from my perspective there is more combined "evidence" for the Loch Ness monster, Sasquatch and Big Foot, etc than there is for what one LSD poster presented to make a "case" for a fictitious people speaking a fictitious language. What is put forth as "evidence" might fool a third grade educated person, or a conspiracy nut . Anyone having normal critical thinking skills will reject such nonsense as preposterous.
Why is it that the Mormons perpetually post such nonsense? do they not realize how they are insulting the intelligence of the people who read that?
Don't they know that those posters make their religion look like a collective commune of fools, or worse?
John did you check out my link in post no. 269? It has a massive amount of [MIS} information in it. [added comment]
Yes, I'm sure that a mere partial response, with no context provided, is "all" that you desire and prefer. No one doubts that.
Misinformation on the part of Mormonism spotlighted in it, but not on the part of what the author found.I admit "getting lost in the "poison ivy patch". But, what astonished me was the impossible-to-miss conclusion that the LDS church was established on lies, and is perpetuated by more and different lies.
Their spiritual blindness is so total that they can blithely admit that their foundation is built on jello but they are not be concerned about it.
One good word describing their gap between truth and lies is "DELUSIONAL". Unfortunately, they do not believe that they are psychologically dysfunctional when they say that they believe such contradicting crap..
In reality, what is the difference between a partial explanation of a fictional event, and an expanded explanation of a fictional event? Fictional events never happened, by definition.
Unlike us Christians who can point to both archeology and independent historical accounts, the LSD religion is founded upon LIES, and perpetuated my more newly-created lies. Their "testimonies" supposedly trump every fiction in the BoM, and the total absence of any correlated evidence to the BoM.
They have no record of a utilitarian wheel south of the Rio Grande river, but they perpetuate the fiction that chariots once were used in New York state, (anachronistically speaking)
I agree that when someone is in that mindset, they will usually see things the way they want to see them. And jump at anything that even remotely looks like it could be proof.The very sad fact, truth and reality is that although what you have said is absolutely 100% accurate, correct and true, it will not stop or even give pause to someone who has totally 'drunk the kool aid' of cult programming. Such is the case on this thread and other threads on this board. It is very easily seen that Mormons have no real honest or truthful respect or regard for the lacking of archaeological and historical evidence that supports the idea (actually fantasy) that the BoM is true. Living proof of the old adage, "There is none so blind as the one who WILL NOT see."