Probability and NHM

[Uncle Dale]

To Dale: I would seriously doubt a trip around Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland should be considered "coasting". They would still be out of sight of land for days at a time. But such a feat was performed by the Vikings hundreds of years earlier than the Portuguese/Galician fishermen.

The point I was trying to make is that a sailing vessel that can be fairly quickly

be brought into shallow water, or even a safe harbor if need be, is contructed and

outfitted differently than an ocean-crossing ship.

The Portuguese were able to keep their ship-building skills and explorations under

wraps for a couple of decades, but not for hundreds of years. Both their technology

and ocean charts eventually fell into foreign hands. Had there been ocean-crossing

technology 2000 years ago, that technology would have been so useful and so

valuable that it could not have been kept secret or isolated for generations.

At any rate, a ship whose captain knows it will never be more than a week away

from sheltering shores, fresh water, emergency provisions and even primitive repair

facilities is a different kind of ship than one intended to weather the high seas for

weeks or months on end. The ancients did not possess Nantucket whalers, I'm afraid.

I have heard speculation that the Phoenicians regularly made voyages to the Americas,

back and forth, 3000 years ago. Until the wreck of such an ancient craft turns up on

the American coastal seafloor, I shall place such speculative reports on the shelf next

to my equally dubious Barry Fell and Dewey Farnsworth books.

Uncle Dale

[Bertram]

Uncle "Dubious" dale,

Please forgive me if I appear to be facetious, but would you classify the Holy Scriptures as "dubious"?

I had in mind the building of Noah's Ark....now was it a "coast hugger" or did it travel into "deep" waters?

For me I would never doubt the Wisdom of a God who has plans to bring about his Great Design for all Men.

As someone whose ancestors worked on the construction of the Titanic, I am constantly reminded that one was built by amateurs and the other by professionals!

NOW UNCLE DALE WHICH ONE ACHIEVED IT'S PURPOSE?

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle "Dubious" dale,

Please forgive me if I appear to be facetious, but would you classify the Holy Scriptures as "dubious"?

I had in mind the building of Noah's Ark....now was it a "coast hugger" or did it travel into "deep" waters?

For me I would never doubt the Wisdom of a God who has plans to bring about his Great Design for all Men.

As someone whose ancestors worked on the construction of the Titanic, I am constantly reminded that one was built by amateurs and the other by professionals!

NOW UNCLE DALE WHICH ONE ACHIEVED IT'S PURPOSE?

As you perhaps already know, there are various theories regarding the ark story,

and some especially interesting ones related to a portion of the Gilgamesh epic. In

the latter story, the flood spoken of by Utnapishtim does not cover the entire spherical

globe -- probably the folks of that day did not even comprehend the world in those

terms. The flood in the Gilgamesh epic is obviously a local one -- so too some students

of Genesis have concluded for the flood in the Noah story. Utnapishtim's story did

not require ocean-crossing ship technology, and neither does Noah's story.

Of course for my hyper-literalist Assembly of God next door neighbor, the flood of

Noah's day MUST have covered over the top of Mt. Everest, (so that every creature

upon the earth could be destroyed) -- and it MUST have been larger than a modern

aircraft carrier, (so that two of every animal in the world could be fit inside).

"In or near Carolina Noah built his remarkable ship" ???

At any rate, the ark of Noah was evidently not designed to cross oceans, but merely

to bob about atop the waters until the Everest-covering flood abated a bit. At least

it did not sport a huge American flag, as some 19th century depictions would have it.

Or, perhaps it did; as Joseph Smith once said it was built in the American Carolinas,

to transport the descendents of the Adam-ondi-ahmen antedeluvians from America

to Mt. Ararat. I guess if I were LDS, and trusted the recollections of Elders

Walker and Huntington, I'd have to concede the ocean-crossing point.

Noah had years to build his great vessel, and an entire family to help him in the task.

I'm more impressed with Nephi, who builds a great sailing vessel all by himself in a

matter of days.

Uncle "Picture Nephi laying a 90-foot, three-ton wooden keel by himself!" Dale

[Bertram]

Uncle Dale,

Thank you for telling me what "other" people believe about the Holy Bible and how your neighbours are out on a limb!

However that is not what I was saying, nor do I appear to "see" your thoughts or Beliefs regarding Holy Scripture and God's dealings with Man in your post!

In fact, and I do not wish to pry, nor do I want to read your 911 posts to ascertain, but could you list your Church and personal Beliefs on this Thread Topic?

I am obviously aware of the theories about the Ark, but, what are/is your beliefs/theory?

PS..Could you also estimate how "big" a Family had Noah at his disposal for keel-laying/building/herding purposes?

As always my thoughts do not at any time ignore the Hand of God in all things Spiritual!

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale,

...

In fact, and I do not wish to pry, nor do I want to read your 911 posts to ascertain, but could you list your Church and personal Beliefs on this Thread Topic?

I am obviously aware of the theories about the Ark, but, what are/is your beliefs/theory?

Good grief -- my own beliefs!?

I have the feeling, that were I to comply with your request, I'd probably get kicked

off this MB for one thing or another, sooner or later; not the least of which would be

for posting million word replies to such open-ended queries.

I've no "church;" for most of my adult life I was a member of the Reorganized LDS,

but with all of that group's changes and difficulties, I left the flock a few years ago.

My theological background is restorationist -- I once went to the trouble to gain a

graduate degree in Christian education with an emphasis in 19th century American

church history and theology, but I am not closely tied to mainstream Protestantism.

When I do attend churchly activities these days it is with the United Methodists.

I have no special set of theories regarding the Book of Genesis or the Noah story in

particular, other than I'm inclined to believe that it is a composite of two old flood

traditions -- as may be discerned through a careful reading of the pericope in Hebrew

I generally do not take the older stories told in the Bible literarly -- until the history

reaches the period of the Judges and the Deuteronomic accounts (Samuel/Kings).

Therefore, just because a passage in Genesis relates a certain set of details, I do

not feel that the fate of my faith hangs in the balance over how I choose to accept

those details (as fact, as legend, as myth, as parable, as allegory, etc.)

Beyond all of that, I'm not quite sure how to answer your questions. Perhaps you

come from a different religious tradition than I do (6th generation Latter Day Saint)

and perhaps you read your scriptures differently as well.

Uncle Dale

[USU78]

DV:  I

[Bertram]

Uncle Dale,

Thank you for your response.

I really loved "open-ended" questions whenever I received one in Examinations. It really gave me "open-season" in response!

However man does not have that privelege with the Gospel......otherwise we could all be "lukewarm" Christians!

You are, by your own words, a person with no fixed loyalties....albeit you do attend "churchly activities" with one church.

Oh how I would love the life of non-conviction.....would't commitment be easy?

Sadly, and happily, we cannot worship God in that "wishy-washy" fashion.

Uncle dale, and I feel you are demeaning your own intellect, I know that you are a person of much more maturity than that.

However I appreciate your candour, but I feel that you will, Biblically speaking, now tell me that the Lord did not provide manna from Heaven in the Wilderness?

To do so we will eventually, if you continue to deny the Scriptures, be left with only the outer cover of the Holy Bible!!!???

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale,

Thank you for your response.

I really loved "open-ended" questions whenever I received one in Examinations. It really gave me "open-season" in response!

However man does not have that privelege with the Gospel......otherwise we could all be "lukewarm" Christians!

You are, by your own words, a person with no fixed loyalties....albeit you do attend "churchly activities" with one church.

Oh how I would love the life of non-conviction.....would't commitment be easy?

Sadly, and happily, we cannot worship God in that "wishy-washy" fashion.

Uncle dale, and I feel you are demeaning your own intellect, I know that you are a person of much more maturity than that.

However I appreciate your candour, but I feel that you will, Biblically speaking, now tell me that the Lord did not provide manna from Heaven in the Wilderness?

To do so we will eventually, if you continue to deny the Scriptures, be left with only the outer cover of the Holy Bible!!!???

Those who get to know me generally have a somewhat better impression of my faith

and faithfulness to Jesus than those who only stumble across my web postings.

Next time you're in Hawaii, stop by for a free pineapple juice, fresh from my garden;

and we can talk religion, or scriptures; or just enjoy the beach and palm trees.

Uncle Dale

(in Hilo, a couple of blocks above the police station)

[Bertram]

Uncle Dale,

I really appreciate your comments and your lovely invitation to visit you in Hawaii and partake of the your Hospitality.

Oh how I wish I could visit with you.....from "sunny" 5 Degrees C.

It is my Birthday to-day so you have enhanced my day!

Speaking of Birthdays may I wish you a Joyous Christmas and a Very Happy and Prosperous New Year.

I know we both will remember the real purpose of this time of Year and the importance of the Commemoration of the Birth of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

God Bless.

[Michael Sanders]

Daniel Peterson,

You wrote:

An article based somewhat upon that presentation, by Professor Clark, is slated to appear in the next issue of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies -- not the excellent one that just came from the press featuring, among other very good things, articles on transoceanic contacts prior to Columbus (John Sorenson), the underlying Hebrew text of the Book of Mormon (Thomas Wayment), and, contra Dan Vogel, the literality and reliability of the testimonies of the Eight Witnesses (Richard Lloyd Anderson).

When will this be available to subscribers on-line?

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

[Brant Gardner]

Michael:

The current JBMS will be online sometime next week. I think it is a little slower than normal because they are in the middle of the large project of changing the whole website.

The article Dan mentions is apparently not in this JBMS, but the next one which is yet to be published. I think I saw him hope for perhaps February. He did note that his opinion on that subject should not be mistaken for fact (unlike his opinions on other subjects <grin>).

[Alf O'Mega]

Sorry I'm late.

It's probably time to illustrate the probability issue with some more concrete numbers.

If you were to assemble a group of randomly selected people with randomly distributed birthdays, how large a group would it have to be before it is likely that two of them share a birthday? Intuitively, we might guess somewhere around 183 (about half of 365). But in fact the number is quite a bit smaller. In a group of just 23 people, chances are better than 50% that two of them share a birthday. Increasing the size of the group to 32, the chances are better than 75%.

The calculations (ignoring that troublesome February 29) go like this. When you have a group of two people, chances are 364/365 that they have distinct birthdays. The chances that a third person will not match either of the other two birthdays is 363/365. So the aggregate chance of no two birthdays matching in a three-person group is (364/365)*(363/365) = 99.1%. In general, for a group of n people, the calculation looks like this:

364*363*362* . . . *(366-n)/(365^n)

The chances of a randomly chosen group of invented triconsonantal names matching any of a group of historical target names depends on the size of both groups and the number of consonants being selected from. If we take the 21 consonants that Hamblin proposes, there are 9,261 possible combinations available. If there are 500 potential historical target names available, how many guesses would our intrepid neonymist have to make to be likely to match one?

In this case the math is slightly different than in the birthday example. For each invented name (neonym), the space of available guesses goes down by one, since we expect the neonyms to be distinct. So for the first neonym, the chances against a hit are (9261-500)/9261 = 94.6%. For the second neonym, the chances are (9261-500)*(9260-500)/(9261*9260) = 89.5%. The chances of a hit become greater than 50% after 13 guesses. What if there are only 200 historical targets? Then about 32. If there are only 100? 64.

This is assuming that the consonants are chosen randomly. If the neonymist were familiar with other historical names taken from the same linguistic background, could she plausibly have acquired an intuition for what names might sound more linguistically correct than others? What if, for example, her own name had been chosen from the same heritage? Obviously subjective factors swamp the objective factors, so let's not be too easily impressed by intuitively improbable hits.

[DonBradley]

Bill,

Dropping the vowels actually greatly distorts the issue, and *in favor* of BoM apologetics. The fact is that we *don't* know that vowels that were in "NHM" c. 600 BC were anything like those required to produce the name "Nahom," and, statistically, the odds are against the vowel placements having matched that particular configuration.

Many BoM names are simply variants on biblical names, and "Nahom" can be seen as such as well - as a variant on "Nahum." Given the BoM penchant for Bible name variants, and given our ignorance of the actual vowels in "NHM," Nahom is a much a closer match to Nahum than to NHM.

Also, the argument that the NHM find is "right where it should be" based on the BoM narrative is vastly overstated, since the BoM doesn't tell us "right where" Nahom was. The fact that other candidates for Nahom hundreds of miles from NHM have been seriously considered and also seen as "direct hits" shows that the BoM data is ambiguous enough to allow a spread of hundreds of miles for the location of Nahom, which, in turn, means that a possible Nahom site could be found anywhere within a certain several thousand square mile area and still "fit" the BoM data. This increases the chances that such a find will occur.

Another problem with your statistical look at NHM is that NHM is selected for this test precise because it is an anomalous "hit" for BoM historicity. Were we to ask the chances that an ancient document would contain King James translation errors; phrases, arguments, and prooftexts from 19th C doctrinal conflicts, etc., etc., the odds would be essentially zero. There can be no more damning evidence against a purportedly ancient document than anachronisms, since an anachronism in such a document just *is* an element that contradicts its purported antiquity.

I'll probably follow up this post with something I wrote up about NHM on ZLMB a while back.

Don Bradley

[DonBradley]

Here's a response I posted a couple years ago on ARM, in response to something Guy Briggs wrote about the NHM find:

The NHM/Nahom thing is very interesting. I would regard it as one of

the best evidences uncovered to date for the Book of Mormon, which,

IMO, isn't really saying much.

The subject deserves a great deal of thought and additional research.

My comments below don't cover all the ground I'd like, but they're the

best I have time for right now.

netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote: Here's what we have

learned:

>

> 1) Nahom is a transliteration of a Hebrew place name. Hebrew

> has no vowels, therefore the most likely spelling of the

> place is NHM (nun-chet-mem),

You are correct, of course, that vowels would not have been written in

the name "Nahom." So, if we found an inscription referring to Nahom,

we would expect to find something like "NHM." But while such a find

would be _consistent_ with the name "Nahom," it would not necessarily

be a match since _we don't know what vowels were supposed to be used_.

Without this information, "Nahom" is only one of a number of

possibilities for the name of the place referred to in the

inscriptions as NHM (e.g., Nahum, Niham, Nohm, Nuhm, Nuham . . . ).

So, we cannot even claim that we have found a place called "Nahom,"

only that we have found a place that _may_ have been called "Nahom"

(among other things).

In fact, the situation is worse than that. The only clue that we _do_

have regarding the correct vowel-substitution/pronunciation of NHM is

the extant pronunciation: "Nihm". Since the place is now known to its

people as "Nihm", we are safest in assuming that this was its name

anciently as well - and we are positively unsafe in assuming that it

was something else.

It is certainly quite possible that the group calling themselves and

their land "NHM" changed the pronunciation over the generations; but

it seems at least as probable that they kept the original

pronunciation. (Recall that "NHM" in the altar inscription is actually

the name of a group of people - a tribe [and hence _possibly_ of their

_place_ as well]. How likely were they to lose the pronunciation of

their own tribal name, even while they retained its spelling?) In any

case, their pronunciation of the name is our only available clue to

the correct ancient pronunciation: we cannot simply assume it is

wrong.

> a Hebrew word (Strong's 5162)

> which means "to be sorry, to console oneself, to repent,

> to regret, to comfort or to be comforted."

>

> This works well in the context of the story.

Either 1) "Nahom" was an existing place, and so-named, when Lehi et

al. arrived there, in which case the NHM altar could refer to this

place, OR 2) it was not already named "Nahom" and was called that

because of "the context of the story." But you can't have it both

ways. If you are trying to argue for the Nahom-NHM identification,

then the supposed relationship of the NHM word to Ishmael's death is

simply irrelevant.

It may be countered that the Hebrew word "to be sorry" _is_ a good fit

since there is an ancient cemetery near NHM. But we should keep in mind that NHM is attested on the altar as the name of a tribe. Why would a tribe take a name on itself based on the fact that it had a cemetery? Surely, very many, if not all, ancient Arabian tribes had burial places. How many named themselves "the sorry ones" because of this?

And BTW, if NHM is, as you say, spelled nun-chet-mem, as in the Hebrew

term for "to be sorry," then it should be pronounced something like

Nachom, not Nahom, since chet makes a "k" sound, as in "Bach.

> 2) There is an actual place, NHM, which lies southwest of the

> Red Sea and due west of our best candidate for Bountiful.

Actually, well before the NHM find, the Hiltons and others had

identified _several_ places with names like "Nahom" in the Arabian

peninsula. If there were only place with such a name, and it turned

out to be conceivably where Lehi's group stopped, this would be more

impressive. That one of several such places would turn out to be

somewhere in the range of where the Lehites _could_ have gone is not

quite stunning.

The Bountiful link is interesting, but highly speculative. If we

aren't sure that's Bountiful, then we can't be sure that NHM is in the

right place relative to Bountiful.

> IOW, it's a real place, it's right where the BofM says it should

> be, it has the right name

As I mentioned, it's several real places. And it _may_ have the right

name. As for it's being "right where the BofM says it should be," I

have to agree with Duwayne that the BOM doesn't _say_ "right where it

should be." If it did, LDS scholars would have been looking for it

_only_ in the vicinity of the NHM altar find, not in all the other

places considered by the Hiltons, et al. The fact that the BOM account

did not allow them to _predict_ where a NHM could be found shows that

NHM is only "right where" Nahom should be in retrospect. IOW, the BOM

text really wasn't specific enough to make a determination of where

Nahom should be found, except possibly that it should be within a

certain very broad range. Had the BOM data allowed someone to predict

before the fact where a NHM could be found, this would have been far

more impressive. A general after-the-fact correlation such as the NHM

find is less impressive because it is more likely to be due to chance.

Lehi's route simply is not clear from the Book of Mormon. Serious LDS

scholars have proposed varying routes for him, including some that

avoid the Arabian Peninsula altogether and cut through the Sinai. Just

how "exact" can a correlation of any place with the BOM be under such

circumstances?

Ask yourself this. If a place called NHM had been located fifty miles

to the north of where this NHM has been found, wouldn't you still be

saying that it was "exactly where the BOM says it should be"? How

about 50 miles to the south? To the east? A hundred miles? Two

hundred? If, in fact, a new candidate for the BOM Nahom were found

tomorrow that was definitely named "Nahom" (not just something

consistent with "Nahom") and existed in Lehi's time, but was, say, 100

to 300 miles distant from the current NHM find, would you reject it as

being _not_ "right where the BOM says" it ought to be? If so, what

sense does it make to speak of any location being "right where the BOM

says"?

>and it fits the context of the narrative.

In at least one major way it does not. The Lehi group had been

commanded by God not to light fires and hence not to cook their meat,

but to eat it raw - in violation of the Torah. Why? The only

suggestion anyone ever seems to have found plausible is that Lehi's

group was to avoid detection by others. If so, why travel down (or

next to) a major trade route and enter a trade crossroads settlement -

NHM? A trip to the populated NHM is actually a very poor fit with the

context of a surreptitious flight through the wilderness.

> > Oh, and by the way. Nahum is the name of a book in the Bible.

> >

> Yup, and it could have simply been borrowed, just like you suggest.

>

> However, Smith could barely write English

No published historian of Mormonism will agree with you.

You might want to examine some of Joseph's early writings before you

make this kind of judgment. Check out, for instance, _Personal

Writings of Joseph Smith_. Joseph's October 22, 1829 letter to Oliver

Cowdery, for instance, (written just a few months after the completion

of the BOM), contains spelling and punctuation errors, but is

certainly coherent:

"Respected Sir I would in form you that I arrived at home on sunday

morning the 4th after having a prosperous Journey, and found all well

<etc. etc.>"

> You would have us believe that he picked a name out of the

> Bible which, oh by the way, just happens to have been a real place,

??

Given that Arabia is a Semitic-language area bordering the lands of

the Bible, it would seem quite unsurprising to find that biblical

names were also used for people and places there. In fact, it would be

surprising if they _weren't_. _Many_ of the Hebrew names in the Bible

have probably also been used as place names in Arabia. I'd make a

handsome wager on it. Would you bet against it?

> has a meaning consistent with the narrative of the story, is unknown

> at the time of the BofM translation but is discovered 170+ years

> later, and dated to the proper BofM timeframe by an independent

> archeological discovery.

A better summary of the evidence provided by the NHM find would be

this:

The Book of Mormon refers to a place "which was called Nahom." And

there are several places in the Arabian peninsula with names like

"Nahom" which have been suspected by students of the BOM of being the

BOM Nahom. However, no information specific enough to narrow the field

of possible Nahoms, much less predict where the true Nahom would be

found, is contained in the BOM. _Prospectively_, the location of Nahom

was impossible to pin down from the information in the BOM; but now,

_retrospectively_, one of the possibilities is alleged to be an

uncannily perfect fit with the BOM data. This is because this

candidate, referred to in ancient inscriptions only as "NHM," has now

been shown to have been so-named before 600 BC.

"NHM" also happens to be a Hebrew word referring to being sorry, which

must have seemed very ironic to the Lehi group, if Ishmael _was_

buried there, but is simply irrelevant as an evidence for the BOM

since the people of NHM presumably did not name themselves and their

land that in anticipation of a foreign visitor dying in their vicinity

centuries later.

The place NHM appears to be in the broad range of places where Nahom

could have been. But it was populated and a crossroads of major trade

routes, and hence an unlikely stopping place for a band so determined

to avoid other people that they ate raw meat rather than risk

detection.

The inscribed name "NHM" is consistent with the name "Nahom" and could

be the Book of Mormon "Nahom," assuming (as no one does now know and

perhaps can know) that the "a" and "o" vowel sounds are the ones

anciently used in the name. But the most likely pronunciation based on

the extant evidence is "Nihm," suggesting that NHM is probably not the

"place which was called Nahom" in the Book of Mormon.

I'm not saying the NHM find is of no value in BOM studies. But before

this, or virtually any other, evidence that has been offered in favor

of the BOM can be taken seriously, LDS scholars need to raise their

methodological sights, carry out more systematic studies of the

evidence, and stop just preaching to the choir. A real evidence is one

that will sway a dispassionate observer, not just those who are

already believers.

Don Bradley

[DonBradley]

Alf's thoughts expressed above cohere well with what I'm trying to express.

I would not deny that the NHM is evidence. Anything that makes a given hypothesis more or less likely is evidence with respect to that hypothesis; and plainly the historicity of the Book of Mormon is more likely if a place is found that rough matches one it mentions than if no such place is found. However, it makes it only marginally more likely, since we do not know that the name does truly match; since an exact match is unlikely given the improbability that it was precisely the vowels "a" and "o" that occurred in NHM, in that order, and between the N and the H, and the H and the M, respectively; since the name Nahom is easily derived from a readily available source - the Bible; and since the BoM gives only very broad information about the location of Nahom.

What is really striking about the evidence adduced for the Book of Mormon is that the best that 175 years, millions of dollars, and millions of man-hours put in by zealous, and often well-trained, apologists have produced is so insipid. A financial venture with such a poor return on investment would give new meaning to the saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

Don Bradley

[cinepro]

Very interesting post Alf O' Mega. I wish I had your understanding of probability; I bet you kill at Vegas (or avoid it entirely).

[Uncle Dale]

Here's a response I posted a couple years ago on ARM, in response to something Guy Briggs wrote about the NHM find:

The NHM/Nahom thing is very interesting. I would regard it as one of

the best evidences uncovered to date for the Book of Mormon, which,

IMO, isn't really saying much.

I would have expected Dr. Peterson, who is said to be something of an expert on

ancient Semitic languages, to have by now published in the reputable journals

something to demonstrate vowel-shifting among the Yemani tribes who historically

occupied the Nehem site. If other proper nouns in the region have gone through

the sort of pronunciation changes, over the centuries, that would link Nihmites or

Nehemites to "Nahom," that would be an important consideration from him to bring

forward for discussion. Perhaps he or his associates (or the Gentile scholars they cite)

have already accomplished this lingusitic groundwork; I do not know.

If so, that aspect of their studies does not seem to be elucidated anywhere I've looked.

If non-LDS experts are in agreement that the NHM toponym was very likely "Nahom,"

based upon evolutionary linguistic evidence in other toponyms, I'd like to know that.

Uncle Dale

[asbestosman]

Welcome back, onandagus. Are you going to be sticking around?

I have not found any error in your or Alf's statistical arguments. In fact I more or less agree that NHM may or may not be the NHM where Lehi and co. and that we can't come up with a very good probability figure without additional information (what would the author(s) of the Book of Mormon know if it were of 19th century origin?).

All that said, I'm still not sure how significant the vowels are. Is it not possible that Lehi and co. did a play on words and translated Nihm to Nahom to agree with the sorrow they felt at the death of a loved one?

So even if it were a slight play on words, it seems to be that such is not unknown in the scriptures. Take the play on Peter and rock in Matthew 16:18.

And as for the problem of chet not quite being an "h" but more like a "k" from Bach, I don't see a problem as I believe that Noah would fit into the same category. It is similar to how we pronounce Jerusalem with a "J" instead of a "Y" like Yerusalem. It's just how we transliterate things into English.

But again, I don't think NHM is quite ready to convince skeptics. The nature of faith being what it is, I don't suppose any evidence should ever be more than "interesting".

By the way, a shortcut for the birthday problem is to take the square root of N to estimate how many tries it takes before there's a 50% chance two people share the same birthday. When N=365, the estimate is 19. Not too bad, but it is much better as N grows larger. I know this information doesn't contradict previous arguments, but I thought someone might be interested. Anyhow, I find that our probability intuitions are likely to be wrong in many instances.

[New Kid OTB]

Don Bradley, your summary of the problems surrounding the NHM argument is the best I've seen. Acknowledgement of those problems would lend the apologists some credibility.

Calculating the probability of the NHM hit is as meaningful as picking an apparently successful Nostradamus prediction and calculating the probability of its fulfillment. This plays well in the court of public opinion, but doesn't wash for those who can see the fallacies.

[Confidential Informant]

Hey Don, welcome back.

Nice post, but once again my skin itches when people start pontificating on subjects in which they are not trained. Do you speak modern Hebrew? Do you read it? Do you speak or read ancient Hebrew? Don't you think such knowledge would be important?

I don't, therefore I have no way of critiquing your post. However, it has the "feel" of being a rather shallow review. I will, however, allow Ben, David or someone else who actually speaks the languge to interact with it.

That being said, nice to have you back. Where have you been?

C.I.

[juliann]

Don Bradley, your summary of the problems surrounding the NHM argument is the best I've seen.  Acknowledgement of those problems would lend the apologists some credibility.

As acknowledging that the "NHM argument" could have merit would give the counter-Mormon apologists credibility. It really does work both ways in scholarship, you know. They do not have "First prize theory, close the book" award winners. Scholarship itself is an ongoing process of discovery and re-examination...but it does have to be done by those with the requisite training to even get through the front door. So this is all fun...but where are your published experts?

[DonBradley]

Hi CI,

That's weird about the recurring skin thing. I'm no dermatologist, so I probably shouldn't comment on it; but I'd suggest it you get it checked out anyway.

Which of my arguments depend on the intricacies of ancient Hebrew, and/or Arabic, rather than on the essential logic of the situation and on what is commonly shared knowledge about the lack of written vowels? And if my objections are so weak in the face of such superior knowledge, they should be shot down immediately by the esoterically initiated on this board. This hasn't happened yet. Shall I hold my breath?

BTW, if expertise is so vital, why do you ignore that of literally thousands of biblical scholars, archaeologists of both Palestine and the New World, physical anthropologists, and the like, whose interpretations overwhelmingly fly in the face of LDS beliefs on the historicity of the patriarchs and much of the rest of the Bible, the origin of the Pentateuch, the dating of "second Isaiah," the ancient history of Mesoamerica...?

As for where I've been. I'm still around. I post less, because I'm busy working on my own projects.

Take care,

Don

P. S. One irony of mine being a "shallow review" of the use of NHM as evidence for the BoM is that it looks at the issue from angles that are obviously relevant, but not covered in any of the apologetic pieces on the subject. If mine is shallow, what are those that fail to deal with these issues altogether?

[DonBradley]

Hi Asbestosman,

I'm not sure how much I'll be on the board. It depends...

As for the Lehi group playing on the vowels of NHM, certainly its possible. But one cannot claim on the basis of that possibility that N?H?M=Nahom. This *possibility* does not make it *more probable than not*, since it is just a possibility, rather than a demonstrably high probability.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but NHM could have had vowels, not only between the consonants, but also before and after them. This gives us four possible vowel positions, and several possible vowels for each position, as well as the possibility of empty positions, such as between the "H" and the "M" in "Nihm." We could figure a rough probability of the configuration "Nahom." Given that there are a number of possibilities, the probability that it was precisely "Nahom" would be low, like one in a few dozen.

To assume a high probability that the Lehites would have not given the actual name of the place, but rather played on that name, we would have do just that - assume it. And if they did play on the name, why not produce the exact verb "to console"? Isn't it "naham"? Why modify the name to match the verb, but not really match it?

Another consideration is the present-day name - Nihm. This is evidence against the ancient name having been "Nahom." Yes, names tend to change over millennia - plainly! But ask yourself this, if the present-day name were "Nahom," would this be taken as evidence for that having been the name anciently, as evidence against that having been the name anciently, or as non-evidence? I can't imagine BoM proponents taking it as anything other than favorable evidence; and I believe they would be right to do so. Certainly a place *now* called Nahom is more likely to have been called that in the past than a place now called something else. I think this is a fairly weak consideration, because of the vast timescales involved; but it is hardly irrelevant. For this reason, the probability of NHM having been known as Nahom anciently should be adjusted down slightly from the probability we would figure on the basis of vowel possibilities alone.

As a final point, I'd say that if something functions as strong evidence only for those who already believe, it doesn't truly function as strong evidence at all. I don't think that either skeptic or believer should be swayed strongly on BoM historicity by the NHM find. NHM may nonetheless be significant for the believer in historicity. Why? Because even if the NHM find cannot function strongly as evidence for the historicity of the book, it may function quite well as evidence for the location of Nahom, *assuming* the historicity of the book. In other words, IF the BoM is historical, the located NHM has a high probability of being the BoM Nahom, since it constitutes a general "fit" with the BoM data.

Thus, I find it entirely reasonable for believers to explore NHM as the probable burial place of Ishmael. I just think it's a mistake for them to expect nonbelievers to be strongly swayed toward belief by the find.

Merry Smithmas, as they're calling it on the ex-Mo boards,

Don Bradley

[juliann]

I just think it's a mistake for them to expect nonbelievers to be strongly swayed toward belief by the find.

Does that even need to be said? Studying the Torah and visiting sites in Jerusalem has not persuaded me to be a Jew, studying the Nag Hammadi (in Coptic) before touring Egypt has not turned me into a "gnostic" and reading the Upanishads has yet to turn me to Hinduism. But then I haven't gone to India so I suppose it is a possibility.

Merry Smithmas, as they're calling it on the ex-Mo boards,

And Merry Grinchmas to you as we call mockery on this board!

[juliann]

BTW, if expertise is so vital, why do you ignore that of literally thousands of biblical scholars, archaeologists of both Palestine and the New World, physical anthropologists, and the like, whose interpretations overwhelmingly fly in the face of LDS beliefs on the historicity of the patriarchs and much of the rest of the Bible, the origin of the Pentateuch, the dating of "second Isaiah," the ancient history of Mesoamerica...?

Why do you ignore the LDS scholars who work with some of those thousands of biblical scholar dealing with these very things?

P. S. One irony of mine being a "shallow review" of the use of NHM as evidence for the BoM is that it looks at the issue from angles that are obviously relevant, but not covered in any of the apologetic pieces on the subject. If mine is shallow, what are those that fail to deal with these issues altogether?

I'm still waiting to see the articles from hordes of scholars expressing shock over the translation of NHM. Where are they if this is such an outrageous assumption? There is more to this than an inscription...there are altars. It seems to me that it is either not out of order at all...or that the scholarly community has no particular interest in the altars or the inscription. Which is it?