Probability and NHM

[A Random Catholic]

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?

I'm not Bill, more's the pity, and until you hit the magic number of ten to the one-hundred-fiftieth power to one in favor of or against a truth-claim, nothing is proved or disproved, but rather elements are added to a cumulative case for or against the truth-claim. But in answer to your question: sort of. (Wildly picking numbers out of the air): there's a one-in-ten chance that the word "horse" refers, for several legitimate linguistic reasons, to some other fauna, and there's a one-in-ten chance that horses were domesticated in the New World during BoM times but we mistakenly think they weren't. So, there's about an 80% probability that it's ahistorical. Lather, rinse, repeat with the rest of the anachronisms, adjust for the probability that God just doesn't care about anachronisms, and do the math. Of course, the probabilities assigned are insanely subjective- one could posit a reasonable argument that the probability that God doesn't care about anachronisms approaches 100%, so there's not much value in this approach from a hard statistics standpoint. 'Course, from a hard statistics standpoint, several times a year I get an edge in the lottery such that every dollar buys a buck-and-a-half in value and I ought to empty my bank account to purchase a one-in-ten-thousand shot at a hundred million bucks, but oddly enough I never do...

[Daniel Peterson]

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. 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.

The latter is, however, a vitally important proposition, the possibility of which someone will need to establish in order for us to be able to take seriously the related possibility that Joseph Smith, or Hyrum Smith, or Ethan Smith, or Will Smith, or Arrowsmith, or the village blacksmith, or Solomon Spalding, or The Anonymous Motive-Free Illuminati Writers Collective That Really Wrote the Book of Mormon used such a map in creating 1 Nephi.

[Bill Hamblin]

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?

Of course such probability issues could theoretically cut both ways.

At any rate, I don't think these types of probability issues can actually "test" the BOM. I think there are too many unknowns and variables that preclude any substantive hard answer. I do think, however, that examining the range of probability issues in a very broad sense is helpful in assessing the relative plausibility of ancient vs. modern theories of BOM origins. It gives us a sense of the relative degree of improbability.

I also think Vogel is being rather obstinate in his refusal to grant any degree of evidentiary value to NHM (and related philological issues), and to refuse to admit that this lends any degree of plausibility to the arguments for historicity.

[Danite3459]

Dale,

Thanks for posting the map. I am very interested in this. Do you have the full bibliographical information for the Map? Was it published in London or the United States. Do you know when Dartmouth acquired the map. I know, for example that some of their acquisitions were not acquired until much later. One always has to check this. Any additional infomation of this would be of interest to me.

Thanks

[cinepro]

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,

Are you referring to theories put forth by LDS, or non-LDS? It seems I've heard quite a bit of each of those flavors at one time or another in Sunday School, depending on the point that the teacher or classmember was trying to make.

"Joseph Smith couldn't have written the Book of Mormon, he only had a second-grade education!"

"Joseph Smith could speak 3 languages, and in addition to giving us more scripture than any other man, he designed cities, commanded armies, mayored a town, expounded philosophicaly etc..."

[asbestosman]

I wonder if Vogel thinks that Mormon's discourse on charity found in Moroni 7 has many similarities with 1 Cor. 13 by pure coincidence.

For what it's worth, I suspect either an earlier common source, the common source of the Spirit, or even the possibility that Paul's words were revealed much like Malachi's were.

[Daniel Peterson]

Are you referring to theories put forth by LDS, or non-LDS?

I was, of course, and as you know, referring to theories put forth by anti-LDS.

It seems I've heard quite a bit of each of those flavors at one time or another in Sunday School, depending on the point that the teacher or classmember was trying to make.

You probably get around more than I do. I've never heard Joseph described as a moron in Church, or as an incompetent fool. I have, obviously, heard him described as having been (particularly during the period of the dictation of the Book of Mormon) a young man with only 2-3 months of formal backwoods education, barely literate by today's standards. This seems precisely accurate. His native mental abilities (coupled with inspiration) go far toward explaining his subsequent career as the leader of various organizations, but they do not, in my judgment, account for the production of a literary work like the Book of Mormon. Practical judgment and charisma are quite distinct from writing ability.

[Dunamis]

I've just done a second round of clear cutting. Keep the noise out of here or I will.

[Bookworm]

Folks,

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

. . .

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.

Okay lets take Danite's names and those in the article he mentioned into account at 23 consonants:

Nahom = 12167

Sariah = 279841

Alma = 12167

Jershon = 12167 (counting only the root)

Shilum = 12167

Sheum = 12167

Abish = 12167

Aha = 12167

Ammonihah = 148,035,889

Chemish = 12167

Hagoth = 12167

Himni = 12167

(I am dropping Isabel and Zerahemla from consideration.)

Jarom = 12167

Josh = 12167

Luram = 12167

Mathoni = 12167

Mathonihah = 148,035,889

Muloki = 6,436,343

Sam = 529

This gives us a grand total of 1 chance in 3.2531893445129332611554645425981 * 10^88. While not quite at the 1 in 10^150, it is getting closer.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

Thanks for posting the map. I am very interested in this. Do you have the full bibliographical information for the Map? Was it published in London or the United States. Do you know when Dartmouth acquired the map. I know, for example that some of their acquisitions were not acquired until much later. One always has to check this. Any additional infomation of this would be of interest to me.

Thanks

I do not have card catalog information for Dartmouth College's library during

the pre-1830 period. It may be possible that a dedicated researcher, who had a

day or two they could spend in New Hampshire might be able to dig that sort of

inormation out.

I only posted the Pinkerton map as an example of the sort of detail available on

certain large scale maps during the pre-1830 period. Maps were easily obtainable

and research libraries were able to procure original prints (or cheaper American

copies, knock-offs, etc.) directly from distributors in Philadelphia, NYC, Boston, etc.

There was a Philadelphia edition of the parent atlas containing this Arabia map, in 1818.

The on-line info for the Pinkertson map (which came out AFTER Hyrum Smith had

left the Dartmouth campus, by the way), is this:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps4806.html

Arabia.

Pinkerton, John, 1758-1826

1813

Collection: David Rumsey Collection v4.0

Author: Pinkerton, John, 1758-1826

Date: 1813

Short Title: Arabia.

Publisher: London: Cadell and Davies; London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown

Type: Atlas Map

Obj Height cm: 53

Obj Width cm: 70

Scale 1: 4,500,000

Note: Engraved map. Full hand col. Relief shown by hachures. "Pinkerton's modern atlas."

Reference: P724; NMC 409.

Country: Saudi Arabia

Full Title: Arabia. Drawn under the direction of Mr. Pinkerton by L. Hebert. Neele sculpt. 352 Strand.

London: published July 20th. 1813, by Cadell & Davies, Strand & Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, & Brown, Paternoster Row.

List No: 0732.038

Page No: 36

Series No: 41

Engraver or Printer: Neele, Samuel John, 1758-1824 ; Hebert, L.

Publication Author: Pinkerton, John, 1758-1826

Pub Date: 1815

Pub Title: A modern atlas, from the latest and best authorities, exhibiting the various divisions of the world, with its chief empires, kingdoms and states, in sixty maps, carefully reduced from the largest and most authentic sources. Directed and superintended by John Pinkerton, author of Modern geography, &c. London: Printed by T. Bensley, Bolt Court, Fleet Street; for T. Cadell and W. Davies, Strand; and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, And Brown, Paternoster Row. 1815.

Pub Reference: P724; NMC 409.

Pub Note: A superb copy. One of the best English Atlases of the period, similar to Thomson's General Atlas of 1817. See the Philadelphia edition of 1818. Maps are hand painted in full color and bound in new half leather beige cloth covered boards with "Pinkerton Atlas" stamped in gilt on a black spine label.

Pub List No: 0732.000

Pub Type: World Atlas

Pub Maps: 61

Pub Height cm: 59

Pub Width cm: 48

Image No: 0732038

Institution: Rumsey Collection

I'll dig out some more scans after the holidays -- and will inform the FMBites

when and where they can view the images.

Uncle Dale

[Marcelo]

This whole exercise is nonsense. You are unimpressed with the Cumora/Moroni coincidence and the name similarities in the Great Lakes area but you think these three letters can add up to statistical support for the BoM? Please tell me why the NMH thingy is less likely to be a coincidence than the names brought up by Phaedrus.

I was just trying to figure out probabilities in order create a methodology that could give us real numbers.

Indeed, we have to consider with more caution the names, the sounds and the spellings.

I look in the map of Uncle Dale, and I notice at least 40 geographical names, any one of them could be hit by chance. But off course, we could not only limit our names to three letters, could be 4 or 2 consonants, why not?

2 Consonants = around 400 possibilities

3 Consonants ~ 8000 possibilities

4 Consonants ~160000 possibilities

Total of names that could be found in a map of Arabia ~ 500 names (expandig the area 12,5 times)

Probability to hit one = 500/(400+8000+160000) ~ 1/340

When we try to expand our territory to any name anywhere, we have to take into account all the names around the globe.

Comoros and Moroni, are phonetical names that came from Arabic. Indeed Moroni happens to be an Italian surname, we have dozen of Moronis in Brazil, none of them have anything to do with LDS.

If I remember from Ed Decker, "Mormon", or something like that in Chinese means "Gates of Hell". The number of phonetical alliteration would increase to a million and I could find almost every Book of Mormon name if I looked for it in every language, tribe and people.

In Sao Paulo, there is a known politician called Nephi Thales, but he is not LDS and his parents never read the BOM, they only got his name from the Naphthali tribe, from the Bible, they break the name in two, one of them is exactly a BOM name.

The oddity with NHM name is because it is a name that we found in the place where we'd hope find it, so, the 1/340 probability is still an outstanding probability.

Now if we want to find Moroni in Comoros, in Italy or in Brazil, we have to take in account all the proper names, in all these languages, where we can get a phonetical similitude, not only my 500 names on the Arabic Peninsula, but probably some hundred thounsands, or millions of them. From the total of BOM names (around 350?), it will be easy to find Moroni, Mormon, Angola, etc anywhere. But will all (or most) of them come from from where the BOM claims they should come out?

Regards!

[helix]

Ooh, statistics and probability. Now I can finally post and feel confident about my post at the same time.

I have given these particular problems years of thought. I'm not at all persuaded by attempts to calculate a mathematical figure by which to prove or disprove something. There are just far too many subjective variables which come into play that make it hopelessly difficult and impractical to obtain probability values.

Ultimately, if we want to start assigning probabilities to Book of Mormon hits in the Old World, there is a massive list of things that must be kept in mind. For example:

* All the names of cities used in the Book of Mormon.

* All of the geographical and other characteristics of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

* The number of known Old World cities in which a match can be found.

* The number of possible pronounciations for Hebrew words (since they don't have vowels).

* How common these city names were in Joseph Smith's general area.

* The ability for Joseph Smith to have a vague idea on what kinds of names sound Hebrew and what do not, so as to be able to choose more Hebrew-like names to give him a greater chance to get them right.

* The probability in which archeologists should have been able to discover Old World cities in the Book of Mormon.

* A manner in which to calculate the chances of Joseph Smith describing the terrain correctly (such as mountains, streams, deserts, and shorelines), etc.

* The probability that changes in climate and terrain would prevent any Book of Mormon locations from ever being discovered today.

* A favorite anti-Mormon tactic...to consider if we should calculate Old World things that should have been mentioned in the Book of Mormon but weren't. (Boy would this one be controversial)

And so on and so on....

Ultimately, I do agree that such questions are extremely important, because many of the arguments here eventually reduce to arguments of "probability", "likelihood", and "plausibility". Since numerical probability values can never work, other criteria must be used instead.

[helix]

Of course such probability issues could theoretically cut both ways.

At any rate, I don't think these types of probability issues can actually "test" the BOM.  I think there are too many unknowns and variables that preclude any substantive hard answer.  I do think, however, that examining the range of probability issues in a very broad sense is helpful in assessing the relative plausibility of ancient vs. modern theories of BOM origins.  It gives us a sense of the relative degree of improbability.

Heh, I haven't tried the calculations, but I would assume the probability range would be end up being something like 0.1 through 0.9. Or in other words, the probability range would tell us what we already know, that we can't use statistics to convincingly prove it's divinity.

[Mighty Curelom]

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.

Joseph would have been pretty stupid to call his lake "Ripple Creek." Ripple Creek doesn't sound very exotic, now does it? The solution: take Ripple Creek and Mormonize it, throwing in JS's favorite modular syllables. Ripple Creek becomes Ripliancum. Lake Erie becomes Irreantum. And keep in mind that placing the entire BoM events around the great lakes region fits better than any other geographic proposal: a Land of Many Waters, great mounds (where the Nephites buried their dead), the narrow neck of land, no 2 Cumorah nonsense (which means no need for teleporting plates), and my personal favorite: Zelph. And unlike the LGT theory, you don't have to skew the directions--North can be north instead of North becoming East.

Now, you probability hounds: what is the probability that all those hits being completely random? I don't have any monkeys, otherwise I'd do the calculations myself.

[Jaybear]

This thread provides interesting insight to the mind and method of apologists.

The question as initially presented asks to assign probability based on the underlying assumption that JS' use of the name Nehom, placed in Saudi Arabia was made at random.

Only later is it disclosed that maps predating 1830 could have provided the source for the choice of the name. Surprise, surprise.

Apparantly to the apologist the possiblity that the person who wrote the BOM, may actually have undertaken some topical research and looked at a map of Saudia Arabia was so improbable that it was not worthy of mention.

Indeed, as Dr. Peterson and CI suggest, apologists are free to ignore the existence of such maps, until such time as the critics put the map in the hands of the JS or his coconsiprators.

Hmm. Personally, the existence of such a map goes a long way towards explaining what might otherwise be a curious matter of coincidence. Putting the map in the hands of JS, seems like alot of work to prove something that makes much more sense than JS was a prophet of God.

Bear in mind, that if had learned the the recent mego lottery winner had prayed before choicing their lottery number, I would still ascribe their success to chance, even if a 200 million to 1 longshot, rather than divine intervention. If he were to pick the correct number a second time, then I would take notice.

Matching an old world name that also appears on pre 1830 maps is one thing, but find an inscription of an ancient city in the Americas that matches a name in the BoM, then you got something.

[asbestosman]

Now, you probability hounds: what is the probability that all those hits being completely random? I don't have any monkeys, otherwise I'd do the calculations myself.

Hits? What on earth are you talking about? Just because some creative people found a creative correlation does not mean there was anything actual. Heck, what's the probability of finding the weird stuff people claim to see in the Bible Code? Has anyone tried that with the Book of Mormon?

[Mighty Curelom]

I'd call them hits just as much taking a city called Nihm and christening it Nahom.

Just because some creative people found a creative correlation does not mean there was anything actual. Heck, what's the probability of finding the weird stuff people claim to see in the Bible Code?

And you don't think this is being done with NHM?

[Who Knows]

asbestosman wrote:

Just because some creative people found a creative correlation does not mean there was anything actual.

Isn't that what this thread's all about?

[asbestosman]

asbestosman wrote:

Just because some creative people found a creative correlation does not mean there was anything actual.

Isn't that what this thread's all about?

I suppose, but I'll have to let others speak for themselves. I have not studied NHM enough to be convinced in any particular direction myself. It just hasn't seemed worth my while. Probability theory, on the other hand, does although I am not an expert.

For what it's worth, some explanations are more plausible than others. The Great Lakes explanation makes quite a few stretches in my opinion.

[phaedrus ut]

Indeed, as Dr. Peterson and CI suggest, apologists are free to ignore the existence of such maps, until such time as the critics put the map in the hands of the JS or his coconsiprators.

Hmm.  Personally, the existence of such a map goes a long way towards explaining what might otherwise be a curious matter of coincidence. Putting the map in the hands of JS, seems like alot of work to prove something that makes much more sense than JS was a prophet of God. 

If we were dealing with something that couldn't be explained easily it might be necessary to start looking at maps, books, etc. I'm just failing to see how NHM is statistically less likely than the Cumorah Island city of Moroni.

Is it necessary for me to put a map of the Cumorah Island showing the city of Moroni in Joseph's hands? Well if I thought the names were more than coincidence I would. I just don't see it as compelling enough to be considered evidence.

Phaedrus

[Daniel Peterson]

I'd call them hits just as much taking a city called Nihm and christening it Nahom.

There is no city involved, and the name is, really, at its base, NHM. That's a standard-issue triconsonantal Semitic root -- far and away the most common kind.

If you think it's ludicrous to read NHM as either NiHM or NaHoM, I hope you'll explain why.

And then I hope that you'll explain why it's ludicrous to read KTB as both KaTaBa and KuTuB, and BNK as both BaNK and BuNuuK, and RZQ as RiZQ, and QTL as QaTL, and FRN as FuRN, and MLK as either MaLiK or MuLK or MaLaK.

I have a doctorate in a Semitic language and -- pity me for a moron -- all of those things make absolutely perfect sense to me.

P.S. -- I'd like to say hello to Pal Joey, who is in business. He has a Real Job and is competent beyond my wildest imaginings at all kinds of things in the Real World and he holds teachers and academics in well-deserved contempt and he counts my posts so that he can report the astounding numbers to his Recovering friends who, like him, don't have time to waste on message boards. Hi Joey!

[Matt Andrews]

Helix wrote:

I have given these particular problems years of thought. I'm not at all persuaded by attempts to calculate a mathematical figure by which to prove or disprove something. There are just far too many subjective variables which come into play that make it hopelessly difficult and impractical to obtain probability values.

I'll second that. You can calulate probabilities that, out of X randomly generated names one might come up with a name of three consonants that match a list of three consonant Hebraic words, but even at that simple level it is problematic (since no one is seriously suggesting the names were generated randomly). To extend the calculation further becomes even more fanciful.

BYU has a lot of good statisticians, economists, and mathematicians who I'm sure would be happy to consider your question in person.

-----------------------

Uncle Dale,

I would really, really like to see more of those maps. (So much that I'd look for them myself if I had the slightest idea how are you searching for them!)

-Matt

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

This discussion reminds me of some of the absurd calculations produced by Creationists.

Calculating probabilities is fraught with insurmountable difficulties. If the two sides of the equation are not static, it

[Uncle Dale]

Helix wrote:

Uncle Dale,

I would really, really like to see more of those maps.  (So much that I'd look for them myself if I had the slightest idea how are you searching for them!)

-Matt

OK -- I said I'd start another thread --

but, I lied. I'm too busy with holiday visitors and such.

Here's one more -- for all you NHM fans (URL at top of the 1751 map).

I'll get back to this little hobby after New Years.

Uncle Dale

[Michael Sanders]

S. Kent Brown contributed a few items relative to this discussion here.

Mike Sanders

Book of Mormon Believer

Independence, MO

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"---Kenneth Kitchen