Probability and NHM

[phaedrus ut]

By the same logic we would expect that it would be exponentially more unlikely that there would be a Camora/Camoros Island with a capital city of Moroni.

Either Joseph borrowed the names from a map or the connection is coincidence. And as coincidence of greater complexity makes the Nehhm/Nahom seem much less relevant.

Taking the name game further we could look at Vern Holley's connection of Book of Mormon place names with the Great Lakes Region. Here we have dozens of cities as part of the connection. Using the same math of exponential probability we must be approaching a googleplex with this coincidence.

Phaedrus

[Beowulf]

Actually, no.

Comoros Islands coincidence or even Vern Holley's Great Lakes Names coincidences are just random names matched to random names within the Book of Mormon.

These can indeed be considered coincidences.

On the other hand, a name match (NHM) alongside a geographic match (Arabia) alongside a time match (circa 600 b.c.e.) is several magnitudes greater difficulty.

I'm not a mathematician either. But surely this can be quantified somehow?

Beowulf

[Bill Hamblin]

The problem with this comparative approach is that the numbers connected with it are irreducibly subjective.

That's certainly true. But so far in this discussion, it seems that everyone agrees that:

1- There is a certain level of improbability that JS by coincidence selected the three consonants NHM which are found in inscriptions from the time and place he also selected. Whatever the specific improbability, it is certain one in several thousand.

2- That it becomes increasingly improbable that JS invented these names by coincidence with each new hit. That is one hit has a certain degree of improbability; two hits a higher degree; three hits, higher still.

Does everyone agree with these two conclusions?

My next question is. For the sake of argument, let's give JS a 1 in 1000 chance of randomly selecting a triliteral root name that is later discovered in the right time/place, etc. Assuming the same probability for each hit, what is the probability of correctly selecting two such names? Or three?

One name = 1 in 1000

Two names = 1 in ??

Three names = 1 in ??

Four names = 1 in ??

Can our mathematicians come up with some agreed upon figures here?

[Bookworm]

I actually like your original estimate of about 9000.

One name 1 in 9,000.

Two names 1 in 81,000,000

Three names 1 in 729,000,000,000

Four names 1 in 6,561,000,000,000,000

Five names 1 in 59,049,000,000,000,000,000

Six names 1 in 531,441,000,000,000,000,000,000

Actually, though, for Sariah, which has four consonants, the odds would be 1 in 194,481 of getting it right. So the odds of getting Sariah and Nahom right are 1 in 1,801,088,541. One in a billion chance seems pretty good to me.

[Bill Hamblin]

Taking the name game further we could look at Vern Holley's connection of Book of Mormon place names with the Great Lakes Region. Here we have dozens of cities as part of the connection. Using the same math of exponential probability we must be approaching a googleplex with this coincidence.

Holly's efforts have two problems:

1- He does not exclude biblical names

2- He allows himself to transmute letter patterns.

Thus, for example, Ripliancum is supposedly the equivlent of Ripple Creek. This only requires that we change six or seven letters. Once should a methodology is allowed, any name can be equated with a BOM name. Ripliancun is really Rumplestiltskin. Using Holly's method, the BOM can be located anywhere in the world.

[Bookworm]

Addendum:

Even with the lowered estimate of 20 consonants, the odds of getting Nahom and Sariah right are one in 1,280,000,000, still better than one in a billion.

[A Random Catholic]

For the sake of argument, let's give JS a 1 in 1000 chance of randomly selecting a triliteral root name that is later discovered in the right time/place, etc. Assuming the same probability for each hit, what is the probability of correctly selecting two such names? Or three?

One name = 1 in 1000

Two names = 1 in ??

Three names = 1 in ??

Four names = 1 in ??

Can our mathematicians come up with some agreed upon figures here?

You just keep multiplying exponentially- two is one in a million (a thousand squared), three is one in a billion (a thousand cubed)...

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually, though, for Sariah, which has four consonants, the odds would be 1 in 194,481 of getting it right. So the odds of getting Sariah and Nahom right are 1 in 1,801,088,541. One in a billion chance seems pretty good to me.

Which is why I remain unimpressed by Vogel's persistent claim that it is all coincidence, lending no plausibility whatsoever to historicity of the BOM.

[asbestosman]

The problem with this comparative approach is that the numbers connected with it are irreducibly subjective.

That's certainly true. But so far in this discussion, it seems that everyone agrees that:

1- There is a certain level of improbability that JS by coincidence selected the three consonants NHM which are found in inscriptions from the time and place he also selected. Whatever the specific improbability, it is certain one in several thousand.

Maybe for a specified 3 consonants by pure coincidence (assume JS has no knowledge of semitic names/geography). Even then we need to take into account other places that could be used except they have different names. This makes the calculations more difficult. If we had a list of all possible names in the area of possibilities, then we'd have a more reasonable estimate. But even then we've been abusing probability by assuming that JS is as likely to randomly choose one consonant as another. I don't think that's a safe assumption.

2- That it becomes increasingly improbable that JS invented these names by coincidence with each new hit.  That is one hit has a certain degree of improbability; two hits a higher degree; three hits, higher still. 

I agree because with pure coincidence, I expect each hit to be independent.

My next question is.  For the sake of argument, let's give JS a 1 in 1000 chance of randomly selecting a triliteral root name that is later discovered in the right time/place, etc.  Assuming the same probability for each hit, what is the probability of correctly selecting two such names?  Or three? 

One name = 1 in 1000

Two names = 1 in ??

Three names = 1 in ??

Four names = 1 in ??

Can our mathematicians come up with some agreed upon figures here?

Only if we can agree on a model. This is the subjective part. If we want to go for pure coincidence with no knowledge or influence about semitic names (even indirectly from a common base language as with Spanish and Italian, or through culture or the Bible, or semitic friends, or whatever), then we would probably be able to assume that if it were pure coincidence, the hits are independent. From there we would multiply probabilities.

1 name = 1 / 1000.

2 = 1 in a million

3 = 1 in a billion.

4 = 1 in a trillion.

[A Random Catholic]

Addendum:

Even with the lowered estimate of 20 consonants, the odds of getting Nahom and Sariah right are one in 1,280,000,000, still better than one in a billion.

Addendum to the addendum: consonant clusters with unique sounds like "sh," "th," and "ch" should be included, bringing the odds against a single lucky hit to 1 in 12167...

[Bookworm]

Addendum to the addendum: consonant clusters with unique sounds like "sh," "th," and "ch" should be included, bringing the odds against a single lucky hit to 1 in 12167...

This makes the odds of getting Nahom and Sariah right to be one in 3,404,825,447 rounding to 1 in 3 billion.

[Bill Hamblin]

Please, please put this probablity reasoning into a manuscript and send it into a major refreeed journal. Then if you recieve any criticism with the rejection, please, please post it here.

Please, please tell us what's wrong with the argument.

I'm not arguing for any specific numbers; there are too many variables. I'm simply arguing, as a general principle, that there is a certain improbability that JS would, by coincidence, invent a name later found in inscriptions from the place and time he predicted. I also argue that the more such "hits" the greater the improbability--whatever the specific number--that it is done by coincidence. Is there something wrong with these two arguments?

[Uncle Dale]

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.

Back to NHM for a moment, and putting mathematics aside --

Here is an interesting map for all to consult --

It is John Pinkerton's 1813 map of Arabia. Maps of the same area showing similar

detail would have been available for consultation when Solomon Spalding and the

Rev. Ethan Smith attended Dartmouth in the 1780s. Later, when Hyrum Smith

attended the More's Charity School on Dartmouth campus, he would have been

able to view even newer maps of Arabia than Solomon Spalding and Ethan Smith

had been able to consult in the college library.

Of course maps like Pinkerton's 1813 publication would have also been available

to scholars like Solomon Spalding and Ethan Smith, even after they left Dartmouth.

It is less likely that Hyrum and his brother Joseph would have had access to such

detailed maps in Manchester, NY however.

Notice that the NHM toponym is rendered Nehem on Pinkerton's map. Other old

maps of the same area gave alternative spellings, including "Nahem," and "Nahom,"

I am told --- I'll try chase down some scans of those sorts of maps and post them

in this thread, if anybody has an interest in seeing them.

Uncle Dale

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Howdy y'all, I'm back for a time.;-)

In response to The Dude (great avatar by the way, very cool), the issue is this: If we were to suppose Joseph used local names from around the great lakes region (which makes me wonder why he didn't use the geography to if he intended it to be based out of there), then the even more counfounding part is that he somehow transposed all of them into authentic semetic "hits" as they seem to be called here. The probability of taking five of the simplest choices from the Great Lakes region, excluding biblical names, and accurately turning these five into Semetic names is atronomical. I beleive it would certainly be higher than our current NHM statistic on a stand-alone basis when we consider all possible variations. A mathematician here who would like to make a statistic of this would be greatly helpful in the discussion and eliminating one path of possabilty.

Matt Tandy

[Confidential Informant]

It is John Pinkerton's 1813 map of Arabia. Maps of the same area showing similar

detail would have been available for consultation when Solomon Spalding and the

Rev. Ethan Smith attended Dartmouth in the 1780s. Later, when Hyrum Smith

attended the More's Charity School on Dartmouth campus, he would have been

able to view even newer maps of Arabia than Solomon Spalding and Ethan Smith

had been able to consult in the college library.

Can you establish that Dartmouth had the maps in the relevant time periods? I knew these maps existed, but was under the impression that they were in Europe and not available in the U.S. for the relevant time period.

Moreover, what does it matter that Ethan Smith or Spalding might have seen this map, when the name doesn't appear in any of their writings?

In short, I find this argument to follow the "if it existed it must be the source" argument. It is an argument I wish I could employ in my own work as a prosecutor. If I had a man on trial for murder, I wouldn't have to prove that he owned a gun. I would not have to prove that he had access to a gun. I simply need to prove that guns exist and I win.

Don't give me conjecture. Put the map in Joseph's hands, otherwise your argument crumbles.

C.I.

[cinepro]

Bill, can the probability line of "testing" also be used to falsify the Book of Mormon? Or is this a test that can only produce confirming evidence?

If it can provide disconfirming evidence, what would such a test look like?

Also, how many names are there in the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is true, what characteristics should we expect these names to have? Are there any theories for the integration of indigenous names into Book of Mormon peoples? Especially in the case of named "outsiders" showing up in the narrative?

Also, for those who are interested, there's an old thread over at ZLMB that discusses the whole NHM/ BoM names issue, with the input of the usual suspects (Brent, Brant, Wade Englund, Kerry Shirts, David Wright, Juliann etc.)

http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfr...picID=310.topic

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes, they make EA mad.

I believe that is something right with the assumptions.

Hear hear! If the very thought of NHM irritates (or, as he would put it, "amuses") a certain triumphalistic atheist, that's hardly a negative. (After all, as yet another of the breed seems to feel, the only benefit we benighted superstitious types offer is our [limited] amusement value.)

Bill, I'm surprised to see that you apparently haven't yet initiated your readers into the methodology of the illustrious Moses Middlebury school of Near Eastern philology.

[Danite3459]

Folks,

There appear to be other attested Hebrew names dating before 587 B.C. See

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=210

The PDF version of this article has pictures of the inscriptions

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbmsvolu...lume=9&number=1

In addition to the question of attested inscriptions such as NHM, there is also the questions of non-biblical Book of Mormon names with appropriate Hebrew etymologies such as Zarahemla ("Seed of compassion"), a name of a descendant of the only surviving son of Zedekiah, Jershon, (from a Hebrew verb meaning "to inherit"), appears in Alma 27 as the name for a land of inheritance for converted Lamanite refugees, Shilum (1981 LDS edition has Shiblum for Alma 11:16, but the Printers Manuscript reads Shilum which is hebrew for "payment" or "reward." In Alma 11:16, the context is appropriate for a name for money).

Then there are other words like the crop sheum is Mosiah 9:9. Sheum is an Akkadian grain name, from Mesopotamia dating to the third Millennium B.C. in the region from where the Jaredites are supposed to have come. Akkadian could not be deciphered until a decade or two after Joseph Smith's death.

Somehow, these kinds of things have to also figure in to the equation as well.

[Uncle Dale]

Don't give me conjecture. Put the map in Joseph's hands, otherwise your argument crumbles.

C.I.

Exactly which "argument" would that be?

I merely asked if anybody was interested in seeing the sorts of maps

available in college libraries, like the one located at Dartmouth, during

the time that Ethan Smith, Solomon Spalding and Hyrum Smith were on

the Dartmouth campus -- (and thereafter, down until, say, about 1829).

If there is no interest expressed here, I will not go to the trouble of

posting such map images.

Uncle Dale

[Confidential Informant]

I merely asked if anybody was interested in seeing the sorts of maps available in college libraries, like the one located at Dartmouth, during the time that Ethan Smith, Solomon Spalding and Hyrum Smith were on the Dartmouth campus -- (and thereafter, down until, say, about 1829).

If there is no interest expressed here, I will not go to the trouble of

posting such map images.

Uncle Dale

Oh, I loved the map. Thought it was very cool. Can you establish that it was actually in the Dartmouth library for the time asserted?

C.I.

[Bill Hamblin]

I hope this thread will not get distracted like so many others. Can we keep it on topic to probability issues? Can we take the Nahom-map issue to a new thread?

Notice that the NHM toponym is rendered Nehem on Pinkerton's map. Other old maps of the same area gave alternative spellings, including "Nahem," and "Nahom," I am told --- I'll try chase down some scans of those sorts of maps and post them in this thread, if anybody has an interest in seeing them.

I'd like to see them.

First, you need to deal with the article mentioned by Dannite

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.

Second, you need a clarified and coherent theory on BOM authorship. JS, or Spaulding or who? Claiming somebody, somewhere might have seen some map is rather unhelpful.

Third, you need some evidence that JS had access to the map. (Darmouth was a long way in the early 19C from where JS translated the BOM

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I'm surprised to see that you apparently haven't yet initiated your readers into the methodology of the illustrious Moses Middlebury school of Near Eastern philology.

Are you referring to Moses Theophrastus Middlebury? Or Moses Burgendorf Middlebury?

I believe the Moses Middlebury school of philology uses the following famous method:

Moses and Middlebury are precisely the same name. You just drop the "oses" and add the "iddlebury."

While some have posited potential problems with this method, it is still warmly embraced by Holly and his disciples.

[Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth, I offered a preliminary take on the idiot-savant theory of Joseph Smith, according to which he was an incredibly brilliant moron, a stupid genius, who was both stunningly clever and absurdly incompetent, in my essay

[Uncle Dale]

Second, you need a clarified and coherent theory on BOM authorship.  JS, or Spaulding or who?  Claiming somebody, somewhere might have seen some map is rather unhelpful.

As you suggest, this whole "NHM on the maps" idea might best be addressed in some

other thread.

I have no "theory" to present in this case. If people want me to go to the trouble

of locating scans of old maps of Arabia, I'll do that. I won't go to the trouble of

writing to various libraries to ascertain whether or not they had such maps available

for their patrons to consult prior to 1830, however.

Uncle Dale

[Bill Hamblin]

I have no "theory" to present in this case. If people want me to go to the trouble of locating sacns of old maps of Arabia, I'll do that.

Great. I'd like to see them. If available, could you also include sources (original dates, URL of where you got the map)?