Jenkins objected to me interspersing comments with his text. So here is his original, without my comments. My response can be found here:
A nice case study of rhetoric in action!
I love the way you frame a question, in the rich tradition of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
You asked this:
My question for Philip is: “If NHM can not be accepted an authentic ancient sixth century South Arabian place name, and therefor an authentic match with the BOM Nahom–and hence evidence for (though not proof of) the historicity of the BOM–what additional qualities of evidence of place, personal or ethnic names would make it acceptable?
See what happens here? You take a true statement, namely that NHM was an authentic ancient name, and then add the toxic and spurious “therefore” that accepting that fact constitutes evidence for the Book of Mormon (and a “hence” thrown in for good measure). You are trying to frame a dichotomous choice between either (a) accepting the documented reality of the ancient name (and therefore, you think, of the Book of Mormon) and (b) rejecting the name, with its well-documented and well researched evidence.
This is a bogus choice, for multiple reasons. So what about Nahom?
First, the evidence is of a place that cannot be located, and certainly not with any precision. It is a large area. It refers to a man who is the grandson of a Nihmite.
Second, and critically, it is also a modern (19th-20th century name) which could have been (and assuredly was) acquired from many maps at the time. If it was just an ancient name, you might be on to something. As it is, as usual, you have nothing.
“Therefore” the presence of the name in the ancient world proves absolutely nothing whatever concerning the Book of Mormon.
Do you find that these rhetorical games actually work with some people? Not adults, surely?
So, have you stopped inventing your Nephites?