Probability and NHM

[thesometimesaint]

New Kid OTB:

I see nothing in JS education, background, or even the mythologically huge Smith, and Palmyra libraries to indicate a foreknowledge of NHM would translate into Nahom in the correct time, place, and reason to exist. So either he made it up, and is one heck of a guesser. Or he translated it from the plates.

The problem is that we don't have the plates. And even if we did I know of no way to test them for age. Gold and most other metals by themselves can not be tested for age. So we are left with the providence of the person that had them. JS claimed that he was told of them by angel. A very hard story to comfirm. So we must take it on FAITH that what JS told us is true. Something Archaeologists are VERY loth to do.

PS. Welcome to the Glass Menagerie

[New Kid OTB]

How can you claim statistical evidence (saying JS must have been "one heck of a guesser") and then say that the Book of Mormon must be taken on faith?

[thesometimesaint]

New Kid OTB:

All statistics can show is the LIKELYHOOD of something happening. Not the knowledge of person guessing. Flip a coin, 1:2 chance of it being the desired choice. Roll the dice 3:15? of 7.

[New Kid OTB]

Actually you have 1:6 chance of rolling a 7.

If statistics show that the Book of Mormon is likely to be true, then we can accept the BOM on the basis of statistics and/or faith. It doesn't make sense to say that we must take it on faith.

[thesometimesaint]

New Kid OTB:

Whatever the actual stats are for rolling dice. The coincidence of NHM being what JS said it was would limit it to two possiblity one he was an super above average gueser, or he really did translate those plates. He repeates the same "excellent "guessing" throughout the Book of Mormon. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml being but one source for the evidences.

[New Kid OTB]

thesometimesaint:

As I said in my first post, the apologetic stance on NHM and other "hits" is based on instinct and ex post facto statistics, which is why this debate never makes it out of the FAIR and FARMS circuit.

[thesometimesaint]

New Kid OTB:

What would you expect after 175 years, but ex post facto?

[New Kid OTB]

sts, I'm glad you agree.

[thesometimesaint]

New Kid OTB:

I believe we agree much more than we disagree.

[solomarineris]

[Dan Vogel]

A few comments for those playing Hamblin

[William the Conqueror]

A few comments for those playing Hamblin

[Daniel Peterson]

Would you concede, Dan, that Nahom is more likely to show up in the form of the Semitic root NHM than, say, in the real or hypothetical roots QTL, KTB, or JRK? Are you willing to grant any significance whatever, under any circumstances, to such evidence? Are you able to concede anything at all?

I continue to think, and cannot see why I should not, that the appearance of a toponym NHM in exactly the place and time that one might expect to find it on the basis of 1 Nephi (and situated just as it should be in relation to another place -- Wadi Sayq -- that seems perfectly to match the description of Lehi's Old World "Bountiful") is quite significant (though admittedly not, by itself, decisive). I'm powerless to understand why you find this nothing more than an "absurd game" and apparently refuse to grant NHM even the slightest evidentiary relevance. Dogmatism comes to mind as a possible explanation; I wonder whether you can ever grant anything any kind of evidentiary status for either Mormonism or theism. Frankly, in view of your treatment of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon -- which, as you know, I regard as grossly agenda-driven and ad hoc -- I'm inclined to think that you cannot. (I again recommend for everyone's perusal the article on the Witnesses, in part a response to Dan Vogel and Grant Palmer, that Richard Lloyd Anderson has published in the latest issue of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.)

[Mighty Curelom]

Someone named J. Randy made an interesting point on the RfM board which I completely agree with. Lehi's small band of travelers--maybe a couple dozen--pass through a relatively inconsequential middle eastern location 2500 years ago, and we find this inscription as evidence of their journey. But that's all we have? The Book of Ether gives a description of a wars between the people of Coriantumr and the people of Shiz. Of Coriantumr's people "there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and children." Shiz's armies would have taken similar casualties. If we conservatively estimate one woman and one child for each "mighty man," we end up with 8 million people killed. On top of all that carnage, Coriantumr prepares for another battle, taking four years just to gather his people and supplies, and after this battle everyone is wiped out.

Do you expect me to believe that Lehi passing through some inconsequential area in Arabia would leave some evidence, but civilizations of 8 million-plus people disappear without a trace? Lehi's tiny camp leaves an inscription for us to find, but multi-million man battles leave nothing?

[thesometimesaint]

Dan Vogel:

There is nothing in JS background, education that would lend itself to his ability to correctly indentify the word Nahom with the actual place, and function of the ancient carn marked NHM, and to put it into the correct time for Lehi to arrive.

Yours is just a slight variation on the ever expanding Smith and Palmyra library.

[asbestosman]

Yours is just a slight variation on the ever expanding Smith and Palmyra library.

Actually Mr. Vogel is arguing pure coincidence with Joseph Smith (or conspirators) knowing nothing about NHM.

Mr. Hamblin is arguing that the probability is too small to be a coincidence. Mr. Vogel says that the probability only looks small because apologists are re-interpreting the texts to make it look more specific than it is.

Personally I don't think we can get a good probability figure on it, not even an extremely rough one. We'd have to make far too many assumptions to begin, and those assumptions will be different for different people.

I think Dr. Peterson was correct when he said that people often form beliefs then seek to justify them afterwards. Personally I think NHM is the most likely candidate. However, I wouldn't be shocked to find that it was actually located elsewhere.

[Danite3459]

Curelom,

No one is arguing that Lehi or his family left any inscriptions. The NHM inscriptions that have been recently discovered show that the place name was attested in an appropriate region and early enough for Lehi and his family to have encountered it and for Nephi to have mentioned it in his record.

[Mighty Curelom]

No one is arguing that Lehi or his family left any inscriptions. The NHM inscriptions that have been recently discovered show that the place name was attested in an appropriate region and early enough for Lehi and his family to have encountered it and for Nephi to have mentioned it in his record.

Then Daniel Peterson's assertion that the NHM inscription is dated to the "exact time" is disingenuous. The fact that the inscription is dated to more-or-less when Lehi passed through is not additional evidence in favor of the apologists' position; it simply means that the inscription just barely squeeked by as old enough to fit the BoM story. In order for apologists to use NHM, it merely has to be at least c. 600 BCE. It could have been 700, or 800 BCE, and apologists could still pretend the inscription was evidence of Lehi's journey. As far as time goes, the only requirement the inscription must meet for the apologists to use it is that it fit in between two goal posts in time--the creation of the earth and 600 BCE. The fact that the inscription has been dated to the very extreme edge of one goal post doesn't make NHM any more noteworthy than if it hadn't been so close to the deadline.

And I still stand by my incredulity that someone could find supporting evidence of Lehi's tiny band passing through, but not evidence of the millions and millions of people and their fantastic cities and wars and smelting operations that lasted over 1000 years.

[Uncle Dale]

Do you expect me to believe that Lehi passing through some inconsequential area in Arabia would leave some evidence, but civilizations of 8 million-plus people disappear without a trace? Lehi's tiny camp leaves an inscription for us to find, but multi-million man battles leave nothing?

If Lehi and company passed through a pristine, uninhabited area, and there left some

artifact of their presence (like Ishmael's bones) and then moved on --- well, then

perhaps I could envision some spirit-guided LDS elders discovering that artifact,

through sheer dint of exertion, in that pristine environment. And, especially so if the

historic location had remained untouched by other human hands all through the ages.

But there seems to be a problem in this regard. The pretty map previously shown

here on this thread, appears to show Nahom on a reasonable line of travel, running

southward from Dedan and Medina -- even if this route ran outside of the most usual

caravan paths, I cannot fathom, that all the way from Medina to Sana, that the Lehites

encounter no Arabian locals.

Of course the knee-jerk answer to my posed problem, would be -- that just because

the BoM does not speak of Arabians, that does NOT mean there were none. But, if

there were, then why the need of the liahona? Could not God simply have told Lehi to

head south, traveling in the deserted fringes of "Felix Arabia," occasionally enquiring

of the locals, where the next water hole might be, and how far away Sana and Taqah

yet were, on the desert trail?

My studied opinion is that, if there were Lehites, they did not make such a long,

tedious and purposeless journey -- just so Nephi could build a ship single-handed

at Taqah or Khor Rori. The supposed liahona-directed journey through Nehem (or

NHM, or Nahom) is a fabulous, fictional creation. And had a NHM been located in

some other part of Arabia, the 1998 Potter-Wellington route of the Lehites would

have been adjusted to pass through THAT spot, no matter how unlikely its location.

I suggest that everybody calm down for a few weeks, and give me a chance to

wade through about 2,000 different Arabian toponyms, depicted on old maps, from

the Gulf of Aqaba to Persia -- and I'll see if there is any map evidence for some

OTHER place name with N-H-M in it.

Just an idea.

Uncle "If this is so important why aren't LDS scholars publishing the findings in reputable, non-sectarian journals?" Dale

[Pahoran]

No one is arguing that Lehi or his family left any inscriptions. The NHM inscriptions that have been recently discovered show that the place name was attested in an appropriate region and early enough for Lehi and his family to have encountered it and for Nephi to have mentioned it in his record.

Then Daniel Peterson's assertion that the NHM inscription is dated to the "exact time" is disingenuous.

Curelom,

I will agree to stipulate that either you or Dan is being disingenuous. Trouble is, it isn't Dan.

You are expending a great deal of energy denigrating an argument you either can't or won't understand. So I will explain it for you.

You snarled:

The fact that the inscription is dated to more-or-less when Lehi passed through is not additional evidence in favor of the apologists' position; it simply means that the inscription just barely squeeked by as old enough to fit the BoM story.  In order for apologists to use NHM, it merely has to be at least c. 600 BCE.  It could have been 700, or 800 BCE, and apologists could still pretend the inscription was evidence of Lehi's journey.

1) The existence of NHM in southern Arabia is not being taken as "evidence of Lehi's journey." And if you have any ambitions of participating in a mature discussions, you will cease to accuse people of "pretending" that it is. Rather, it is being taken as evidence that 1 Nephi accurately reports Lehi's journey. The two things are not the same. If you cannot grasp that fact, I probably can't help you.

As far as time goes, the only requirement the inscription must meet for the apologists to use it is that it fit in between two goal posts in time--the creation of the earth and 600 BCE.  The fact that the inscription has been dated to the very extreme edge of one goal post doesn't make NHM any more noteworthy than if it hadn't been so close to the deadline.

I'm sorry, but that is so blatantly wrong that I have to wonder if you thought about anything before typing it. For one thing, I haven't seen anyone gasping with amazement at the timing of the inscription, so you are beating up a straw man. For another, since you raised the subject, villages, towns, cities and even entire nations can quite literally disappear in the desert, although their traces certainly have a better chance of being preserved than they do in more moist climes. If the inscription had been dated to, say, 1000 BC, we could legitimately ask whether there was any reason to suppose that the settlement was still there 400 years later. The ideal time for the inscription, from an evidentiary standpoint, is just prior to Lehi's journey.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Confidential Informant]

Then Daniel Peterson's assertion that the NHM inscription is dated to the "exact time" is disingenuous.  The fact that the inscription is dated to more-or-less when Lehi passed through is not additional evidence in favor of the apologists' position; it simply means that the inscription just barely squeeked by as old enough to fit the BoM story.

Which clearly shows that you haven't grasped even ther rudimentary elements of the arguments made. The dating is important because if Smith had called the place "nahom" and we had found a "nahom" but it could be shown that that toponym was a more modern creation (i.e. 100 ad) then it becomes an anacronism. (Like calling St. Petersburg "Stalingrad" and claiming that was it's name in 1900, when in fact it wasn't named that until after the revolutions some decades later).

However, the NHM alters show conclusively that this place not only was called NHM, but that it was call such in 580 BCE (or thereabouts) when Lehi's people came through. There is absolutely no claim that Lehi's people left any trace of their passing.

In order for apologists to use NHM, it merely has to be at least c. 600 BCE.  It could have been 700, or 800 BCE, and apologists could still pretend the inscription was evidence of Lehi's journey. 

Are you truly this obtuse or have you really misconstrued the arguments so badly? The argument isn't "how new is the name" it's "how old is it" and it is old enough to date to B of M times such that calling it Nahom doesn't result in an anacronism.

As far as time goes, the only requirement the inscription must meet for the apologists to use it is that it fit in between two goal posts in time--the creation of the earth and 600 BCE.  The fact that the inscription has been dated to the very extreme edge of one goal post doesn't make NHM any more noteworthy than if it hadn't been so close to the deadline.

Maybe not, but it certainly add credence to the argument that this the Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Are you really that scared of Joseph Smith getting a hit on this? Is your faith in his fraudulency so tenuous that you must fight any notion that he got something right? Don't sweat it my good MC, even if he got it right you can still blame it on the invisible, motiveless illuminati.....

And I still stand by my incredulity that someone could find supporting evidence of Lehi's tiny band passing through, but not evidence of the millions and millions of people and their fantastic cities and wars

And you stand by it based on what? What expertise or experience to you have beyond a gut feeling that such events should leave a huge footprint which you ought to be able to see. It's my understanding that we only know about the many and vast Mayan wars due to inscriptions. There is no physical evidence of sucy, and yet there were literally tens of millions of them who died.

You argument is really nothing more than mere speculations based on ignorant assumptions of what you "think" the case should be.

and smelting operations that lasted over 1000 years.

What, you think that they were operating Geneva Steel? Where, exactly, do you get the notion that they should find large-scale blast furnaces etc? In fact, at the time such metal work (which as yet is unknown, FYI) would have been very small scale. And, in fact, the remants of it would bevery hard to find because it disappears naturally as th is article explains.

C.I.

[Bill Hamblin]

Then Daniel Peterson's assertion that the NHM inscription is dated to the "exact time" is disingenuous. The fact that the inscription is dated to more-or-less when Lehi passed through is not additional evidence in favor of the apologists' position; it simply means that the inscription just barely squeeked by as old enough to fit the BoM story. In order for apologists to use NHM, it merely has to be at least c. 600 BCE. It could have been 700, or 800 BCE, and apologists could still pretend the inscription was evidence of Lehi's journey. As far as time goes, the only requirement the inscription must meet for the apologists to use it is that it fit in between two goal posts in time--the creation of the earth and 600 BCE. The fact that the inscription has been dated to the very extreme edge of one goal post doesn't make NHM any more noteworthy than if it hadn't been so close to the deadline.

St. John Simpson (ed.) Queen of Sheba: Treasures from Ancient Yemen (British Museum, 2002) has a picture of one of the NHM inscriptions (p. 166). It is dated to the "7th-6th centuries BC". Given the nature of the evidence, that is as accurately as the inscription can be dated. That is exactly the time Lehi's group was passing through the region (early 6th century). Exactitude in such matters is measured by matching centuries, not specific years.

[Daniel Peterson]

Someone named J. Randy made an interesting point on the RfM board which I completely agree with.  Lehi's small band of travelers--maybe a couple dozen--pass through a relatively inconsequential middle eastern location 2500 years ago, and we find this inscription as evidence of their journey. . . .  Do you expect me to believe that Lehi passing through some inconsequential area in Arabia would leave some evidence, but civilizations of 8 million-plus people disappear without a trace?  Lehi's tiny camp leaves an inscription for us to find, but multi-million man battles leave nothing?

No. Wrong. The claim has never been that the Lehite party left an "inscription." The people on RfM who talk about cave inscriptions, and who suggest that the poor fools at FARMS were flummoxed to learn that ancient Semitic languages were based on triconsonantal roots (!!!), have no idea what they're talking about, and should, for the sake of their own dignity, avoid commenting until they have brought themselves up to speed. The argument has been that stone altars dating to roughly 600 BC and featuring an incised nisba-adjectival form of the toponym NHM have been found in the very place where the account in 1 Nephi says that the name existed when Lehi and his party passed through the area. We already knew that the name existed in the appropriate area in 900 AD. We presumed that it was still older, but could not demonstrate that. Now, however, the discovery and dating of the altars (by German archaeologists) allows us to leapfrog the fifteen hundred years of history that separated Lehi from the first Islamic literary attestations of the toponym, and to demonstrate that it existed there at the proper time.

As for huge battles leaving no traces, well, billions of people have lived and died and left no traces. It isn't a matter, from a Book of Mormon believer's point of view, of the Jaredites and Lehites having left no traces; it is a matter of being unable to identify artifacts as specifically Jaredite or Lehite -- reflecting a general problem that is not at all uncommon with mute archaeologlical finds. (Is this pot Canaanite or Israelite? Is this house Mormon or Methodist?)

[Confidential Informant]

Of course the knee-jerk answer to my posed problem, would be -- that just because the BoM does not speak of Arabians, that does NOT mean there were none.

LOL, talk about poisoning the well. The more studied question would be why didn't they mention them? Well, IMHO, they are alluded to. That's why the Lord kept fire making to a minimum...fire makes smoke and smoke gives away you location to folks you rather not know you were around. So why prohibit fire if you aren't worried about it giving you away. I know that other scholars have given their ideas as to some hints they see that Lehi and his company did encounter others.

Then again, you've already dismissed such notions a "knee jerk" so I guess there is no sense even considering the possibility. By the way, I just read some of my journal entries for a trip I took through Yellowstone park a few years back. It mentions, animals and rivers, etc., but doesn't mention a single other person that I encountered on that trip, despite the fact I ran into literally hundreds of them. Go figure. (Owwww, damn knee jerked again.)

But, if

there were, then why the need of the liahona? Could not God simply have told Lehi to

head south, traveling in the deserted fringes of "Felix Arabia," occasionally enquiring

of the locals, where the next water hole might be, and how far away Sana and Taqah

yet were, on the desert trail?

First, from where did you get the notion that the Liahona functioned only as a compass? It obvioiusly did not, and it's other functions made it just as valuable as not more aside from it's function as a directional device.

Second, you seem to think the Liahona stopped working when the reached the sea shore. It did not, and in fact, was vital to their crossing of the ocean, thus iit was invaluable to them at time.

Third, the Frankensense (sp?) trail was not as well defined as you seem to believe. IN fact, Potter indicates that at some points it becomes many miles wide and person, even a person who'd been there before, could get lost very easily.

My studied opinion is that, if there were Lehites, they did not make such a long, tedious and purposeless journey -- just so Nephi could build a ship single-handed

at Taqah or Khor Rori. The supposed liahona-directed journey through Nehem (or

NHM, or Nahom) is a fabulous, fictional creation.

Then you should study more. But everyone is entitled to his opinion, I suppose.

C.I.

[Bill Hamblin]

A few comments for those playing Hamblin