Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Probability and NHM


Bill Hamblin

Recommended Posts

What is most probable based on the contents of this thread?

1) That the name "Nahom," related to a real place in southern Arabia, ended up in the Book of Mormon by pure random chance. (Big thanks to Dr. Hamblin for his preliminary, and illuminating, number crunching)

2) That the name "Nahom" ended up in the Book of Mormon because someone with a hand in authorship had access to maps of southern Arabia. (Big thanks to Uncle Dale for providing the maps)

Now if this thread had been about evidence, then CI, Hamblin and Daniel might be within their rights to ask for proof that JS had access to the maps. However, since it is not about evidence but about odds, we see that the more improbable #1 becomes (what Bill Hamblin is shooting for), the more probable #2 becomes, even if for now Uncle Dale isn't coming forward with his hypothesis. Thanks for the help Dr. Hamblin! :P

It would seem that someone with a hand in authoring the BoM had access to maps (of Arabia as well as the Island of Cumorah), as improbable as that may appear to some here on FMB.

Link to comment
even if for now Uncle Dale isn't coming forward with his hypothesis.

Uncle Dale's patented, three-ring hypothesis says:

Search enough old maps of Arabia and you can come up with the necessary and

sufficient consonants in a row, to match a Book of Mormon name, given in a pseudo

historical Arabian setting.

Luckily our dauntless inscribers of plates only put three such consonants in a row,

so the task of successful map-dowsing is not an entirely hopless one.

Outcomes:

(1) Hyrum Smith did not read Arabian maps while at Dartmouth (though Solomon

and Ethan probably pondered their unfolded pages now and then).

(2) Joseph Smith did not copy "Nehem" from a Yemani map, into the BoM "dictated"

manuscript, changing the vowels, so as to read "Nahom."

(3) The Lehites never set foot in Yemani Nehem, much less buried Ishmael there.

(4) We can all go home now.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

You're leaving some variables out, Dude. The toponym not only has to be in the right place but it has to be attested at the right time (i.e., ca. 600 BC, well over two millennia prior to the creation of the maps in question). And, as a matter of fact, thanks to recent German archaeological finds, it is.

And one might also want to calculate the probability that at least one of the maps to which Uncle Dale draws our attention made its way to the United States in time, and specifically to Dartmouth College in time, for Joseph Smith or some unproven relevant conspirator to find it; that said unevidenced conspirator was in Hanover, New Hampshire, prior to the dictation of 1 Nephi; that said undemonstrated conspirator entered the Dartmouth library; that said unknown conspirator found the map; that said unevidenced conspirator determined the map to be worth examining; that said undemonstrated conspirator did indeed examine the map; and that said unidentified conspirator used the map in the composition of 1 Nephi. Then, obviously, we have to figure out what the motive of the hypothetical conspirator might have been, if s/he actually existed, and so forth.

And, of course, you failed to mention Option 3, which would be that 1 Nephi was written by someone who had first hand experience with the place NHM in the seventh-sixth century BCE. This is the option proposed by the Book of Mormon itself and advocated by believers in the Book of Mormon, so it seems a remarkable oversight on your part to omit it.

P.S. Before I close this note, I would like to greet Joey, who has been intimately involved -- this is no hyperbole -- in actual business ventures!!!!! He has held a Real Job. Indeed, he continues to do so! Joey is reading my notes here so that he can prepare a report for his recovering friends and ensure that they're current on my daily posting numbers. Hi, Joey!

Link to comment
You're leaving some variables out, Dude.  The toponym not only has to be in the right place but it has to be attested at the right time (i.e., ca. 600 BC, well over two millennia prior to the creation of the maps in question).  And, as a matter of fact, thanks to recent German archaeological finds, it is.

That is pretty darn lucky.

And one might also want to calculate the probability that at least one of the maps to which Uncle Dale draws our attention made its way to the United States in time, and specifically to Dartmouth College in time, for Joseph Smith or some unproven relevant conspirator to find it; that said unevidenced conspirator was in Hanover, New Hampshire, prior to the dictation of 1 Nephi; that said undemonstrated conspirator entered the Dartmouth library; that said unknown conspirator found the map; that said unevidenced conspirator determined the map to be worth examining; that said undemonstrated conspirator did indeed examine the map; and that said unidentified conspirator used the map in the composition of 1 Nephi.  Then, obviously, we have to figure out what the motive of the hypothetical conspirator might have been, if s/he actually existed, and so forth.

Yes, yes, the unidentified relevant conspirator with a motive.... I was hoping Uncle Dale would be more specific. I'll tell you honestly, Daniel. I don't know. The Illuminati-whatever-you-called-them, perhaps. That was one of the all-time funniest things I've seen from you. Really. :P

And, of course, you failed to mention Option 3, which would be that 1 Nephi was written by someone who had first hand experience with the place NHM in the seventh-sixth century BCE.  This is the option proposed by the Book of Mormon itself and advocated by believers in the Book of Mormon, so it seems a remarkable oversight on your part to omit it.

Well, I put in #3 but then I reconsidered. Option 3 has a probability of EXACTLY 1 or 0, depending on which side of the fence you are on. It is so fixed that there's no point even arguing about it in this thread.

Link to comment
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.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight:

The "NHM" inscription in 6th Century B.C. Arabia is not a mere coincidence, but "Moroni" being the capital of "Camora" in pre-Book of Mormon maps is a mere coincidence.

Is that right?

Link to comment
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.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight:

The "NHM" inscription in 6th Century B.C. Arabia is not a mere coincidence, but "Moroni" being the capital of "Camora" in pre-Book of Mormon maps is a mere coincidence.

Is that right?

No evidence of Moroni on pre-1830 maps of Grand Comora Island -- the village

was too small to merit even a dot on the charts until well after the BoM came out.

If there is any connection of the island and the village names, to the BoM, the more

likely source would be from popular literature, such as accounts of pirates hanging

out on Grand Comora during the 1600s and early 1700s.

Don't bother looking for pre-1830 maps. I've done 10 years' research on that wild

goose chase and can report results of 0.00.

Uncle "but Captain Kidd was on Grand Comora and may have buried some gold dinnerware plates" Dale

Link to comment
we see that the more improbable #1 becomes (what Bill Hamblin is shooting for), the more probable #2 becomes, even if for now Uncle Dale isn't coming forward with his hypothesis.

Theory-controlling-data alert!

Actually the more improbable #1 becomes, the more probable it is that the author of the BOM knew of a location NHM/Nahom/Nehem in SW Arabia in the sixth century BC. There are two possible explanations as to how the author of the BOM could have known this:

2A- The ancient model PREDICTED that such a location must have existed in SW Arabia in the sixth century. The existence of this location has now been confirmed by archaeological evidence.

2B- The 19C model predicts that JS (or some unknown Illuminatus) must have had access to a map of Arabia. For this thesis they have provided ABSOLUTELY no evidence other than it must be so because they categorically reject the mere possibility of 2A.

Notice there is EVIDENCE supporting 2A. There is nothing but ASSERTION supporting 2B.

Furthermore, to accept 2B, you must ASSUME:

--JS or his allied Illuminati randomly chose the place name Nehem. On the most recent map section shown by Dale, there are over 100 place names; on the entire map there are certainly several hundred. So the odds are several hundred to one that JS would pick Nehem (and only Nehem) as the site to mention in the BOM as opposed to any other site.

--JS or his allied Illuminati then randomly decided to change the spelling to confuse everyone

--That no critic of the BOM actually even remotely considered the possibility that JS (or Illuminati handlers) were examining Arabian maps to write the BOM until the site was discovered in the 1990s.

--That the site JS (or his Illuminati handlers) chose happened, again by sheer chance to be confirmed over 160 years later as an actual sixth century site.

All things being equal, the evidence and probability clearly supports the ancient model on this issue.

Link to comment
No evidence of Moroni on pre-1830 maps of Grand Comora Island -- the village

was too small to merit even a dot on the charts until well after the BoM came out.

If there is any connection of the island and the village names, to the BoM, the more

likely source would be from popular literature, such as accounts of pirates hanging

out on Grand Comora during the 1600s and early 1700s.

Don't bother looking for pre-1830 maps. I've done 10 years' research on that wild

goose chase and can report results of 0.00.

Uncle "but Captain Kidd was on Grand Comora and may have buried some gold dinnerware plates" Dale

From what I've seen I agree with you Uncle Dale. Moroni may have been a village before 1830 but thus far there isn't any established evidence that this information was available to Joseph.

Statistically speaking, unless we can establish a relationship between Comora/Moroni and the Book of Mormon, in either direction, the statistical probability between the two remains the same. And by pure statistical analysis the magnitude of the "coincidence" of Comora/Moroni far exceeds the "coincidence" of NHM/Nahom by large measure.

Phaedrus

Link to comment

Acceptance of the Book of Mormon "predicts" the existence of the toponym NHM at a certain location on the Arabian Peninsula at the beginning of the sixth century BCE. It is very doubtful that Joseph Smith or any hypothetical co-conspirator would have known about the toponym in 1828-1829, and virtually 100% certain that neither Joseph Smith nor any hypothetical co-conspirator knew that the toponym existed at the beginning of the sixth century BCE.

It turns out, however, that the toponym NHM can now be demonstrated to have existed in that very location at that very time. That this fact should be dismissed as wholly insignificant and without any real evidentiary importance for the claimed historicity of the Book of Mormon is, to me, quite astonishing.

Link to comment
The "NHM" inscription in 6th Century B.C. Arabia is not a mere coincidence, but "Moroni" being the capital of "Camora" in pre-Book of Mormon maps is a mere coincidence.

First, you have to decide which of two possible theories you are espousing:

1- That JS (or his Illuminati handlers) somehow learned of the existence of a city Moroni on an Island Camora, and decided to copy these names into the BOM.

or

2- That it is coincidence that the names are similar.

It seems to me that 1 is impossible, since, if I understand things correctly, the city of Moroni was a small village in 1830, and was virtually unknown. (There is also the problem that Camora, though homophonous, is not spelled the same as Cumorah.)

Therefore, your argument is that because Moroni/Camora is a coincidence, therefore, Nahom/NHM must be a coincidence. On the face of it, there is no reason to believe that because one thing is a coincidence, that all similar things must be coincidental. If this is your argument, then the entire discipline of comparative philology would collapse: homophony between Italian and Portuguese would be just as philologically meaningless as homophony between German and Chinese.

Comparative philology has long recognized that there are a finite number of sounds humans can make, and that, therefore, there can be random homophony between completely distinct languages. All one needs to do to demonstrate this is to note in the lower right quadrant of the most recent map of Yemen is a site named

Link to comment
Statistically speaking, unless we can establish a relationship between Comora/Moroni and the Book of Mormon, in either direction, the statistical probability between the two remains the same. And by pure statistical analysis the magnitude of the "coincidence" of Comora/Moroni far exceeds the "coincidence" of NHM/Nahom by large measure.

Phaedrus

Well, as the good doctor at Provo points out -- there is more to the equation.

We must add to NHM the fact that it appears in Arabia -- so just as Moroni stands

within the context of Grand Comora, so also NHM has its context.

A rather larger geographical context than a tiny island though --

Had the BoM given us NBM or NTM, I wonder if in all of Felix Arabia we might

not find those same letters in a place-name as well?

Uncle "of all the burial-joints in all the world, Ishmael had to walk into mine" Dale

Link to comment

As an exercise in the utility of the Moses-Middlebury school of philology, espoused by some on this board, which permits the transmutation of 4-5 letters to create BOM names, I will now demonstrate that JS took many BOM names from the map of Arabia.

Arabia = BOM

Camaran = Cumorah

Zerzer = Zeezrom

Bokah = Pekah

Shibam = Sheblom

Abun-Aden (two cities right beside each other) = Abinadi

Gebabe = Geba

To come up with this list took all of ten minutes. As I said before, once you allow yourself to start dropping and adding several letters, any data set can serve as a source for BOM names. It is an extraordinarily unsound methodology, despite the recommendation by professor Moses Middlebury.

Link to comment

Holy cow it is truly amazing just what Joseph Smith did in his preparation for writing the Book of Mormon as he tilled the land on his parent's farm. I have to take off my hat to man. He was an absolute genius.

Not only was he heavily involved in research through serious book learning but now he was also heavily involved in searching through maps after tilling and planting the crops. I can only wish to have his brain but unfortunately I am just some mere mortal with an average IQ.

But let me get this straight...there is young Joe, a dirt poor money digging farmer suddenly involved in scholarly research and why?...to write a book that would usher in a new religion and make him prophet. Quite amazing....and I am very impressed with his 'sound' vision of his future success.

Oh and if I understand this correctly Joseph Smith was somewhat religious and yet, he would plan the greatest blasphamy on the face of the earth by mocking and lying to his God as he planned his visions and fraud.

He must be in hell by now... <_< Now folks...lets be honest...the doubting Thomas' certainly have their work cut out for them but they are trying to come up with some explanations...now if Joseph Smith was a Ralph Waldo Emerson or a Thomas Jefferson I might play along but really....I don't think that Joseph Smith had it in him to do such study and to do such work for such a study at that time in his life. :P

Link to comment

The significance of the Cumora/Moroni island thing is not that JS could have found some old map of the Caribbean (or where ever it is) and picked a couple names that he thought sounded exotic. What's significant is that he didn't do that; that it is purely coincidental that there is an island called Cumorah with a capital of Moroni. The chances that there would be an island that combines the proper names of Cumorah and Moroni are pretty scarce, but then, that's what a coincidence is.

The same goes for NHM. In fact, NHM is less noteworthy as a coincidence because the match isn't Nahom with Nahom. It's Nahom with Nihm. Also, since JS was intentionally trying to make up names that sounded semitic, it's even less coincidental, still. AND add to that the fact that Hebrew, with its lack of written vowels, leaves the door wide open for all sorts of name-game shenanigans that apologists can take advantage of, AND the fortunate situation that apologists can look for names and locations in Hebrew, Egptian, Assyrian, and Greek--all of which allegedly used by BoM peoples-- and in the end it would be more coincidental if there weren't some name or location in the entire world in any of half a dozen languages that didn't match.

Not only was he heavily involved in research through serious book learning but now he was also heavily involved in searching through maps after tilling and planting the crops.

It doesn't take a genius to turn Lake Erie into Irreantum, or Ripple Creek into Ripleancum. No fancy book learnin' necessary. Just the names of a few local landmarks and a little imagination. Are you going to protest that JS had neither?

Link to comment
Now folks...lets be honest...the doubting Thomas' certainly have their work cut out for them but they are trying to come up with some explanations...now if Joseph Smith was a Ralph Waldo Emerson or a Thomas Jefferson I might play along but really....I don't think that Joseph Smith had it in him to do such study and to do such work for such a study at that time in his life.

Then perhaps Solomon Spalding and/or Sidney Rigdon was the real culprit.

Link to comment
that it is purely coincidental that there is an island called Cumorah with a capital of Moroni. The chances that there would be an island that combines the proper names of Cumorah and Moroni are pretty scarce, but then, that's what a coincidence is.

Co incedently, there isn't an island named cumorah......

Link to comment

Mighty Curelom writes:

The significance of the Cumora/Moroni island thing is not that JS could have found some old map of the Caribbean (or where ever it is) and picked a couple names that he thought sounded exotic. What's significant is that he didn't do that; that it is purely coincidental that there is an island called Cumorah with a capital of Moroni. The chances that there would be an island that combines the proper names of Cumorah and Moroni are pretty scarce, but then, that's what a coincidence is.

The same goes for NHM. In fact, NHM is less noteworthy as a coincidence because the match isn't Nahom with Nahom. It's Nahom with Nihm. Also, since JS was intentionally trying to make up names that sounded semitic, it's even less coincidental, still. AND add to that the fact that Hebrew, with its lack of written vowels, leaves the door wide open for all sorts of name-game shenanigans that apologists can take advantage of, AND the fortunate situation that apologists can look for names and locations in Hebrew, Egptian, Assyrian, and Greek--all of which allegedly used by BoM peoples-- and in the end it would be more coincidental if there weren't some name or location in the entire world in any of half a dozen languages that didn't match.

So now we get to the real heart of the argument.

What do you think would be an adequate set of criteria from distinguishing (in these kinds of arguments over names) between that which is coincidental, and that which is not? What kind of evidence is necessary, in your opinion, to move a claim beyond the conclusion of coincidence?

Ben

Link to comment

Statistically speaking, unless we can establish a relationship between Comora/Moroni and the Book of Mormon, in either direction, the statistical probability between the two remains the same. And by pure statistical analysis the magnitude of the "coincidence" of Comora/Moroni far exceeds the "coincidence" of NHM/Nahom by large measure.

Phaedrus

Wrong Phaedrus!

You're not considering the boundaries of contour.

NHM must appear on Arabic Peninsula, while Comoras, Moroni, Angola, Mormon, etc. could appear anywhere.

I Have only around 500 names in Arabic Peninsula to match Nahom, Shazer, Irreatum or Bountifull.

But we have millions of proper names in every language, kindred and people that could match any BOM name (Nephi, Moroni, Aha, Nephihah, Cumorah, and more 300 names...).

Link to comment

The key problem in this probability topic is that you don't really know from what pool of possibilities these names might have been randomly generated.

The rules of sound in language are a very complicated thing! Many types of sounds only appear after other types of sounds, or when other sounds are present, etc. etc... the number of possibilities drastically reduces as you start applying these kind of rules.

Further, you don't know what other "outside rules" he might've been applying. If he wanted to make names that "sounded Arabic" or "sounded Egyptian" or somesuch thing, he would have naturally been applying all kinds of rules from other languages he has heard before... who is to say what he was thinking?

He may have even started inventing his own set of phonlogical rules as he was writing the names!

In short: it is probably possible to do this kind of analysis, but it would be quite a bit of work... and you really shouldn't bother.

Link to comment
Now folks...lets be honest...the doubting Thomas' certainly have their work cut out for them but they are trying to come up with some explanations...now if Joseph Smith was a Ralph Waldo Emerson or a Thomas Jefferson I might play along but really....I don't think that Joseph Smith had it in him to do such study and to do such work for such a study at that time in his life.

Then perhaps Solomon Spalding and/or Sidney Rigdon was the real culprit.

Who knows! But I do know that we do have a book to kick around and how that book should be kicked or preserved depends on our own belief systems.

But you have to admit it is quite an amazing book. However, regardless what is said about the book of mormon by its defenders, the critics will still kick it around like a soccer ball...it is in the blood and most of the time the blood doesn't change.

If sidney or solomon wrote the book, I will have to take my hat to them also...afterall it has been many moons since that book was written and yet, we are still here discussing it or kicking it around...who would have believed it at the time of its writing if it was written by a man or men?

Now if the book was written by prophets, then I see no problem with the prophets seeing the future and just how the book would be accepted or rejected in these latter days.

Moderator: Please stay on topic.

Link to comment

In the spirit of staying on topic, I have a thought about probabilities.

So far, what I've seen are probabilities that Joseph would come up with NHM, specifically (about 1 in 8000-ish). But that isn't really what we care about. What we care about is that Joseph used a name that matches a place name in the correct location and time. So, we don't really care what specific name it is, we only care that Joseph specified a name that matched. First we'd need to know how many place names existed in the correct time that roughly match. Chances are there are hundreds, perhaps even a thousand or more. This would reduce our odds from 1 in 8000 down to about 1 in 8 (or, if you prefer, 1000 in 8000 -- OK, not really, I'm assuming that all place names contain exactly three consonants, which is false, but I think this still makes my point).

Similarly with Hebrew names, we don't need to match a specific name (Sariah), we only need to match any valid Hebrew name, of which there must be thousands of candidates. I don't think it's practical to take a realistic stab at calculating specific numbers here. I suspect that, if Joseph were choosing names at random, the odds would be against him getting a lot of hits, but not anywhere near the numbers that have been posted here. That's my suspicion.

But, were I a BoM critic, I wouldn't be suggesting that Joseph chose names at random. I would suggest that he deliberately tried to invent names that sounded Hebrew, or sounded like other Hebrew names. Again, I can't imagine actual numbers, but I suspect that that would significantly improve his odds.

All in all, I'm suspicious of how compelling this line of thought really is. I imagine that the matches that have been identified so far are unlikely, but I don't think it approaches the kinds of numbers I've seen posted so far.

Link to comment
The toponym not only has to be in the right place but it has to be attested at the right time (i.e., ca. 600 BC, well over two millennia prior to the creation of the maps in question). And, as a matter of fact, thanks to recent German archaeological finds, it is.

What's the time frame for NHM at the place? How long before 600 BCE was NHM associated with that location? And how long after? Do we know? And is this even relevant? (I suspect that it may not be relevant.)

Also, I'm curious if the location associated with NHM is the same as that in the maps provided by Uncle Dale. (I'm pretty certain this is not relevant, but am still curious.)

Finally, say hello to Joey for me.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...