Probability and NHM

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel maintains that we can derive no evidentiary value supporting BOM plausibility from the NHM inscriptions from 6th century BC SW Arabia. For Vogel this is all mere coincidence.

I

[Magyar]

Someone else should calculate the probability of Joseph Smith also scoring a bulls-eye on Alma, Gidgiddonah, Hermounts, Shazer, Pahoran, Paanchi, Kish and Korihor.

[Uncle Dale]

Vogel maintains that we can derive no evidentiary value supporting BOM plausibility from the NHM inscriptions from 6th century BC SW Arabia. For Vogel this is all mere coincidence.

What has the discussion of this ancient Semetic toponym been thus far, in the reputable,

peer-reviewed scholarly and academic literature?

Have any non-LDS experts in ancient Arabian geography and comparative linguistics

taken up the Mormon argument and provided it with any credible defense in the

non-LDS press?

Uncle Dale

[Magyar]

The Mormon "argument" would be that a man named Ishmael died and was buried at Nahom, Hebrew for place of mourning.

How could any non-LDS experts authenticate this, unless they found a skeleton with a 600 BC newspaper wrapped around it, beneath an undisturbed tombstone inscribed, Ishmael, 600 BC, RIP.

What we can work with, is what NHM means in Hebrew and whether the place of that name can reasonably be positioned where the Book of Mormon says it would be.

[Uncle Dale]

The Mormon "argument" would be that a man named Ishmael died and was buried at Nahom, Hebrew for place of mourning.

How could any non-LDS experts authenticate this, unless they found a skeleton with a 600 BC newspaper wrapped around it, beneath an undisturbed tombstone inscribed, Ishmael, 600 BC, RIP.

What we can work with, is what NHM means in Hebrew and whether the place of that name can reasonably be positioned where the Book of Mormon says it would be.

OK -- good point.

Given that comprehension of the issue, have any non-LDS experts in ancient Arabian

geography and comparative linguistics taken up the Mormon argument and provided it

with any credible defense in the non-LDS press?

Uncle Dale

[Magyar]

That a refugee from Jerusalem named Ishmael died circa 600 BC and was buried at a place called Nahom?

Or that Nahom means consolation and NHM corresponds to where the Book of Mormon places it? I'd like to see such a report, too.

[The Dude]

One question: Can we assume that Joseph Smith used monkeys pounding on typewriters to generate his random names? When probabilities like this are used to argue against random generation of functional genes, there are usually monkeys involved.

But seriously, NHM is just one possible letter combination that could get evidence-seekers excited. Letter combinations approximating all other words that could trigger a "hit" ought to be considered. So if you want to put a number on the probability of coincidentally finding a combination of three letters, you have to consider all potential combinations that would substitute for NHM as "evidence". Alright, I don't speak Hebrew, but if SML was found, could you say that stood for Ishamel and call it "evidence"? I think so. So that cuts the probability in half. Any other three letters that could substitute as evidence for the same creative minds that found NHM...each set cuts the probability in half.

[Uncle Dale]

One question:  Can we assume that Joseph Smith used monkeys pounding on typewriters to generate his random names?  When probabilities like this are used to argue against random generation of functional genes, there are usually monkeys involved. 

But seriously, NHM is just one possible letter combination that could get evidence-seekers excited.  Letter combinations approximating all other words that could trigger a "hit" ought to be considered.  So if you want to put a number on the probability of coincidentally finding a combination of three letters, you have to consider all potential combinations that would substitute for NHM as "evidence".  Alright, I don't speak Hebrew, but if SML was found, could you say that stood for Ishamel and call it "evidence"?  I think so.  So that cuts the probability in half.  Any other three letters that could substitute as evidence for the same creative minds that found NHM...each set cuts the probability in half.

I guess the point I eventually wished to arrive at, would be, some non-LDS expert in

ancient Arabian geography, effectively pointing out that there was no reasonable

way that JS could have come across such a name, hidden away in the forests of

frontier New York --- but that he DID strike squarely upon an Arabian place-name,

unknown to the western New Yorkers of his day.

I do not see why such an article in a reputable non-LDS journal would be so odd as

to be beyond the pale of TBM consideration. Or am I missing something here?

Uncle "what old maps of Arabia did Solomon Spalding & Hyrum Smith have access to on Dartmouth campus?" Dale

[juliann]

Given that comprehension of the issue, have any non-LDS experts in ancient Arabian

geography and comparative linguistics taken up the Mormon argument and provided it

with any credible defense in the non-LDS press?

Why would "non-LDS press" take up this kind of esoteric stuff? They don't take up 99% of anything relating to religious texts. The idea that academic information has to appear somewhere or be of interest to anyone but those working on it is kind of irrelevant. If it is specific to a particular religion it will be in that religion's literature. Major religions have in house journals roughly comparable to what we have. These journals all sit in the theology library I use...right alongside Mormon references. If a scholar was writing about Mormonism he will refer to Mormon related journals. If he is going to include something about Baptists...he will go to the Baptist journals. I'm really having a difficult time with the assumption that everything has to be reprinted somewhere else to make it valid and I continue to see that idea almost every day here. If I was going to use NHM and referenced the JBMS, it would be up to the next guy to disprove it or provide another explanation that was equally or more plausible. Bias is not popular in the secular departments of religion.

One of the reasons given by the Dean of Claremont Graduate University for initiating a Mormon Studies program was that Mormonism had produced enough journals that it could be studied.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Uncle Dale -

Would the fact that no non-LDS was interested in discussing it somehow negate the conclusions drawn by competent LDS scholars?

And if not, then what is the point?

Ben

[Uncle Dale]

Given that comprehension of the issue, have any non-LDS experts in ancient Arabian

geography and comparative linguistics taken up the Mormon argument and provided it

with any credible defense in the non-LDS press?

Why would "non-LDS press" take up this kind of esoteric stuff? They don't take up 99% of anything relating to religious texts. The idea that academic information has to appear somewhere or be of interest to anyone but those working on it is kind of irrelevant. If it is specific to a particular religion it will be in that religion's literature. Major religions have in house journals roughly comparable to what we have. These journals all sit in the theology library I use...right alongside Mormon references. If a scholar was writing about Mormonism he will refer to Mormon related journals. If he is going to include something about Baptists...he will go to the Baptist journals. I'm really having a difficult time with the assumption that everything has to be reprinted somewhere else to make it valid and I continue to see that idea almost every day here. If I was going to use NHM and referenced the JBMS, it would be up to the next guy to disprove it or provide another explanation that was equally or more plausible. Bias is not popular in the secular departments of religion.

One of the reasons given by the Dean of Claremont Graduate University for initiating a Mormon Studies program was that Mormonism had produced enough journals that it could be studied.

I suppose I'm still living back in the "good old days," when my heroes like Marvin S.

Hill and Leonard Arrington brought interesting information and research findings into

peer-reviewed journals like Church History, or New York History.

If LDS scholars have indeed proven a certain portion of the Book of Mormon to be

"true," in the NHM identification, is there some reason why they would NOT eventually

wish to share such discoveries with the "Gentiles," and perhaps even enjoy reading

future citations of the same in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

I once asked a question along these lines to my priesthood leader here in Hawaii,

and his answer was that the Millennium would be here soon enough, and that it really

did not matter what "the learned" of the world thought of our "marvelous work & wonder."

Some how, I doubt that sort of anti-intellectualism can be entirely desirable - ??

Uncle Dale

[asbestosman]

JS has 21 consonants from which to chose.  JS is limited to selecting three of the 21 consonants, and can place them in any order he wished.  JS can also use doubles (e.g. RBB).  As I understand it, the number of possible permutations of 21 consonants combined in three letter clusters is 

3^21 = 10,460,353,203

This amounts to roughly a 10.5 trillion to one chance of JS randomly selecting the three letters NHM in that precise order from all possible triple combinations of the 21 consonants.  Now, I

[urroner]

Is the probability 3*21 or is it 21*3?

3*21 = 10,460,353,203 or 10.5 billion, not trillion.

21*3 = 9,261

[Log]

It is indeed 21^3. The question should be reformulated.

[juliann]

I suppose I'm still living back in the "good old days," when my heroes like Marvin S.

Hill and Leonard Arrington brought interesting information and research findings into

peer-reviewed journals like Church History, or New York History.

Uncle, the LDS journals are peer reviewed. Non-LDS scholars have articles published. I really don't understand where you are coming from....except the good old days assumption that LDS are untrustworthy and incompetent to write about their own religion. This is breaking down...not completely, but probably to the point that it would be real embarrassing to admit a thought like that. You are talking about a little piece of evidence (hardly proof of "truth") that only a few would be likely to want to write about. We don't have armies of scholars out there doing this kind of thing...they are no different than "Catholic", "Methodist" or "Jewish" scholars in the need to satisfy academic demands. Furthermore, if you are operating from the good old days when scholars could be "generalists"...that is no longer the case. The explosion in new journal titles will tell you that.

[Donald]

Is the probability 3*21 or is it 21*3?

3*21 = 10,460,353,203 or 10.5 billion, not trillion.

21*3 = 9,261

It's 21^3 or 21*21*21 = 9261

[Log]

What is now needed is to calculate the probability of JS's having inserted many attested, yet unbiblical, semetic names into the text independently of one another.

So, run down the list, multiply all the probabilities together, and voila! You'll know whether you're looking at an instance of complex specified information or not. CSI is a reliable hallmark of intelligent causation - so if you have it, then the phenomenon is nonrandom.

So, let's begin a list: NHM (1/21^3), Sariah (SRH) (1/21^3), and so forth.

How many would it take to issue a design inference, negating with all rational certainty the randomness assertion? 38 unbiblical yet attested names, by my calculation (which may be off). Now, that's simply to measure up to Dembski's standard for CSI (he assumes a universal probability bound of 1 in 10^150). I'd settle for a lot less, myself.

[Bill Hamblin]

It's 21^3 or 21*21*21 = 9261

AND

What is now needed is to calculate the probability of JS's having inserted many attested, yet unbiblical, semetic names into the text independently of one another.

So, run down the list, multiply all the probabilities together, and voila! You'll know whether you're looking at an instance of complex specified information or not. CSI is a reliable hallmark of intelligent causation - so if you have it, then the phenomenon is nonrandom.

So, let's begin a list: NHM (1/21^3), Sariah (SRH) (1/21^3), and so forth.

How many would it take to issue a design inference, negating with all rational certainty the randomness assertion? 38 unbiblical yet attested names, by my calculation (which may be off). Now, that's simply to measure up to Dembski's standard for CSI (he assumes a universal probability bound of 1 in 10^150). I'd settle for a lot less, myself.

Thanks for correcting my pathetic math skills.

Let me ask you this question. It seems your theorem presupposes a complete data set, right? That is to say, if only 1 in 10 ancient names that once existed survive in archaeological data, then the number of hits required to reach CSI should be lower than 38, since many names that could theoretically be a hit will register as non-hits because the data for that name has not survived. Is that correct?

Also, it seems to me that CSI is talking about certainty, and that relative probability would be have a lower threshold. Is that correct?

[The Dude]

Lognormal, you of all people should see the need for monkeys! Monkeys! I want monkeys!

Okay, seriously now, whether the book is genuine history or fake history, it does contain complex specified information. That's not in question, you big nerd.

[asbestosman]

What is now needed is to calculate the probability of JS's having inserted many attested, yet unbiblical, semetic names into the text independently of one another.

So, run down the list, multiply all the probabilities together, and voila! You'll know whether you're looking at an instance of complex specified information or not. CSI is a reliable hallmark of intelligent causation - so if you have it, then the phenomenon is nonrandom.

So, let's begin a list: NHM (1/21^3), Sariah (SRH) (1/21^3), and so forth.

How many would it take to issue a design inference, negating with all rational certainty the randomness assertion? 38 unbiblical yet attested names, by my calculation (which may be off). Now, that's simply to measure up to Dembski's standard for CSI (he assumes a universal probability bound of 1 in 10^150). I'd settle for a lot less, myself.

No doubt those names are not just random. Although our probability models in this thread seem to be too simplistic, I think we can safely say that the names aren't by accident.

However, the problem with this is that some people will point out that Sariah and Sarah may have the same hebrew spelling (I don't know myself). They can also point out that Lehi and Nephi appear in the apocrypha. Indeed, there are many possibilities, but not all of them are very likely. Someone might hold to the idea that it was subconscious knowledge of semitic words gleaned from the Bible (with the apocrypha) and maybe hearing other scholars or preachers. I find that to be unlikely, but I can't quantify it.

[Danite3459]

Folks,

For those who are interested, here is a link to an article from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies on the NHM altar inscriptions which date the name tp Lehi's day.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=255

The most recent and comprehensive discussion of the issue of the place name NHM, with a discussion of pre-1830 maps of Arabia and their apparent unavailability to Joseph Smith is in S. Kent Brown, "New Light from Arabia on Lehi's Trail," in Donald Parry, Daniel Peterson and John Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 55-125. Pages 72-76 and several lengthy footnotes with bibliography discuss the Nahom/NHM question in some detail.

[Log]

Actually, Dr. H, we don't need a complete data set, but the more complete the better.

What the data set does for us is provide specifications - appropriate patterns. As each name gets attested and is therefore shown to be independently specified, it gets harder and harder to maintain the "he just randomly put this stuff in the book" thesis rationally, because of the sheer improbability involved.

CSI gives us rational certainty because the universe, by conservative calculation, cannot be expected to give us two identical phenomena (randomly) whose probabilites are less than 1 in 10^150 (this number is the universal probability bound). It is far more believable that an end-directed agent used the first event as a specification for the second. Clearly, the bigger the improbability in conjunction with independent specification, the more irrational the randomness doctrine will (deservedly) appear. Hence, ideally, we'd like 38 3-consonant names which were unattested by JS's time to become attested. Since JS only had one shot at the Book of Mormon (the names were set in stone, pretty much, on the first writing) we can probably justify a much less strict probability bound to test the randomnes doctrine.

Unfortunately, appealing to unknown specifications for the unattested names is still an argument from ignorance.

As you suggest, we can weigh probabilistically the hypothesis that these names were simply randomly generated (Vogel et al) versus these names were generated by informational pathways that connect the events our data set specifies (Near Eastern CA 600 BC) with the set of corresponding events in the Book of Mormon. The problem with this comparative approach is that the numbers connected with it are irreducibly subjective.

[A Random Catholic]

It's 21^3 or 21*21*21 = 9261

Thanks for correcting my pathetic math skills.

[/lurker]

Hey, what's eight levels of magnitude between friends?

Also, you get only 20 consonants: add "y"'s unique consonant sound, but throw out "c" which is redundant with "k" or "s" and "q" which is redundant with "k" or "kw." 20 cubed is 8000 even.

[lurker]

[Donald]

It's 21^3 or 21*21*21 = 9261

Thanks for correcting my pathetic math skills.

[/lurker]

Hey, what's eight levels of magnitude between friends?

Also, you get only 20 consonants: add "y"'s unique consonant sound, but throw out "c" which is redundant with "k" or "s" and "q" which is redundant with "k" or "kw." 20 cubed is 8000 even.

[lurker]

Regardless of the calculations, Joseph sure did get "lucky" with a lot of things wouldn't you say?

[Jaybear]

Danite:

The most recent and comprehensive discussion of the issue of the place name NHM, with a discussion of pre-1830 maps of Arabia and their apparent unavailability to Joseph Smith is in S. Kent Brown

Wait, are we to understand that there are pre-1830 maps of that region that, if accessible to JS or his contemporaries, would provide a natural explanation for the BOM's referernce to Nehom? That was a fairly cryptic statement of what would otherwise be a highly signficant point.