Probability and NHM

[Mighty Curelom]

MC-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.

CI-Maybe not, but it certainly add credence to the argument that this the Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

MC---How? How does the fact that NHM is dated to 600 BCE lend more credence to NHM being the BoM Nahom than if it was dated to 700 BCE, or 1000 BCE? Obviously if the inscription was dated to 100 CE it would be anachronistic, but all that you need to jump the anachronism hurdle is that it be older than 600 BCE. And it could be ANY point before 600 BCE, so how can anyone claim that the inscription is "exactly" the right age. It's not "exactly" the right age. It's sufficiently the right age. And just barely so.

Pahoran--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.

DCP--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 that's just what DCP's said on this thread. Unless I'm going senile in my old age, I'm pretty darn sure I've seen him use the phrase "exactly the right place, at exactly the right time." If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure he'll let me know. )

[Daniel Peterson]

Sigh.

The fact is that 1 Nephi says that a toponym based on the Semitic root NHM existed just after 600 BC in a location considerably down the Arabian Peninsula to the south southeast of the Levant and somewhat inland from the Red Sea, from which, traveling due east, one would arrive at a place with flowing fresh water, iron ore deposits, timber, bountiful vegetation, cliffs, etc. (none of which would have been expected by anybody who didn't live there or nearby and none of which are exactly common in Arabia). And we now know that a toponym based on the Semitic root NHM did in fact exist circa 600 BC -- not 900 AD, nor even 100 AD, nor even 200 or 2200 BC, but circa 600 BC -- in a location considerably down the Arabian Peninsula to the south southeast of the Levant and somewhat inland from the Red Sea, from which, traveling due east, one does indeed arrive at a rather unique place with flowing fresh water, iron ore deposits, timber, bountiful vegetation, cliffs, etc. (a place that is, to this day, very little known, bounded as it is by rugged mountains and the horrific Rub

[Uncle Dale]

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.

Well, perhaps we all could use some benefit of additional study. And, if somebody

will be so kind as to direct me to a Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies or

of Comparative Semetic Languages, or some other reputable graduate level studies

program, wherein I could learn more about the topic at hand, I'm prepared to listen.

I'm not sure just how much leeway there is for entitlement of opinion, however. In

my experience I do not recall any testifiers on F&T Sunday, going up to the podium

and telling the LDS audience, "I know that part of the Book of Mormon is true."

But then again, TBM status is not a requirement for participating in FMB discussions,

so I suppose you are right -- my opinion of things has no more value than your own.

If, on the other hand, you have a testimony of NHM, I would be interested in hearing.

I do not say that lightly. I have heard Mormons voice testimonies of parts of the BoM,

(such as Christ's descent to the Temple at Bountiful, etc.) and have taken them at their

word, that they have not merely "studied" things to arrive at their heartfelt professions.

As for myself, I'm more inclined to think that the writer(s) of the BoM copied the Nahom

nomenclature from the biblical Hebraic Kefar Nahum, -- knowing (as a glance

into a pre-1830 Clarke's Commentary would have indicated), that some ancient

Hebrew and ancient Arabic proper nouns are generally close enough in pronunciation

to be used interchangeably ( Isma'il = Ishmael; Musa = Moshe, etc.).

But, I have no intentions of changing anybody's belief in this regard -- that is,

unless I DO come across some OTHER rendition of NHM on an old Arabian map.

Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

asbestosman:

The way I understand Mr. Vogels argument is that JS(and or Conspiraters) made up this impossibly stupid story. Mr Smith wasn't all that bright so he perused his vast personal and the Palmyra public library for odd words and phrases to interject into hjis tale. Everybody knew that Frankensence comes from the middle east. So just look at your old map of the middle east and point. Whala the placename NHM appears.

The problem for Mr Vogels assersion is that Nahom can legitimately translated from NHM. And it appears in the Book of Mormon in the right time, location, and the purpose for which it existed for Lehis party.

[Calm]

Mr Smith wasn't all that bright

I don't think Dan has ever made that claim.

I doubt he would call the BoM an impossibly stupid story as well.

[Uncle Dale]

Mr Smith wasn't all that bright

I don't think Dan has ever made that claim.

I doubt he would call the BoM an impossibly stupid story as well.

If anything, Herr Vogel's JS is even brighter and more resourceful than Mrs. Brodie's

sly and devilishly attractive rogue. But then again, dauntless Dan has probably never

entertained personal fantasies of getting to know polygamous JS so intimately as I

believe Fawn's fertile mind may have occasionally envisioned.

Either way, their composite image of the "holder of the keys" is a titan among men

and a literary genius of the first water. The Brodie-Vogel version of JS is no threat

to Latter Day Saintism, but rather a massive embellishment of the "not a prophet

when he doesn't speak as a prophet" aspect of the latter day leader.

Notice that Dan preserves BOTH aspects of the man on the dust jacket illo of his JS bio.

Uncle Dale

[Calm]

But then again, dauntless Dan has probably never

entertained personal fantasies of getting to know polygamous JS so intimately as I

believe Fawn's fertile mind may have occasionally envisioned.

Wow! Way too much info there. I'm never going to get through her bio of JS now.

[why me]

Sigh.

That some are so mightily (even desperately) determined to refuse to grant such a fact even the tiniest evidentiary value for the claims of the Book of Mormon is highly instructive.

[Benjamin McGuire]

crede ut intelligam (Augustine)

This thread has really become quite interesting. I note, for instance, that despite no LDS person here trying to use "the angel" as an apologetic, the critics insist that we do it all the time - The Dude wrote:

But don't you see? It would be even easier to lay the blame on a conspiracy of angels (which somehow you don't have to prove existed?) and say they took away the gun so the jury would have to decide the case based on faith.

And cinepro wrote in response to the statement that apologists don't use the angel as an "excuse":

Really? It's not too hard. Try this:

(approaches nearest apologist)

"Excuse me. I'm learning about the Book of Mormon, and I think it would be helpful to see some of the physical artifacts Joseph Smith had. Where can I see the Gold Plates, the Sword of Laban, the Liahona, the breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim?

When in fact, the answer is simply that you can't see them, because we don't have them. (It's not an excuse). What is more interesting, however, was The Dude's comments - "But not in apologetics. It's so much fun when there are no rules for the defenders, but only for the critics." In suggesting that the apologist simply cries angel, and thus doesn't have to justify his own (the apologist's) argument, The Dude is attempting, himself, to pull the angel card. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much of a request to the apologists to stop talking about "the angel" (which in fact, would simply pretty silly, since very little - if any - of the apologetic dicsussion here invokes the angel as a reason), rather, it seems to be a way of lowering the bar, so to speak, on the evidentiary arguments of the critics. The Dude seems to be suggesting that if the LDS can cry angel without having to explain it, or demonstrate the existence of the angel, then why should he (as a critic) be forced to give a reasonable explanation for his own arguments.

Of course, this also misses a different point. The believing LDS accepts the existence of the supernatural - something which I think we all can agree will not be demonstrated to everyones satisfaction. But, in adopting a naturalistic model, they also adopt a Enlightenment approach to evidence (and I don't think they can be separated - although I would be happy to see one of you try).

There seems to be something wrong there - in asserting first skepticism and then a lack of need for skepticism. As W. K. Clifford noted in his essay "The Ethics of Belief":

To sum it up it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. (Lectures and Essays [London: Macmillan, 1886], 346.)

Or, as Kevin Vanhoozer notes, describing Van Harvey's thoughts from his book The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief:

He thinks that belief has a distorting effect on historical inquiry. It is immoral for a historian to believe except on the basis of sufficient evidence. Moral historians are, methodologically speaking, from Missouri: they withhold belief until sufficient evidence enables them to see.

So, when The Dude writes:

It would be even easier to lay the blame on a conspiracy of angels (which somehow you don't have to prove existed?) ...

We have this sense of Enlightment thinking - yet, belief, as far as naturalistic origins goes, doesn't require evidences. This is why I repeatedly claim in this forum that the critics do exactly what they accuse us LDS of doing. They demand proof but only for everyone else. Cinepro, at least, is willing to remain consistent in his skepticism. Is the Mormon position also inconsistent? It may well be that there is a problem for them to be believers on the one hand, and skeptics on the other - but I also think that there is some difference. After all, apart from the supernatural claims, LDS are more than willing to be skeptics of their own theories (and there are many of them) - as well as to dialogue amongst one another as to the relative merits of these theories. LDS are not strictly polemical in this sense, as they seek to explain, and not just to counter the critics.

What I do is exegesis - what you do is eisegesis.

So, when The Dude later says:

Don't sound so self-satisfied, CI. I'm not those critics. The apologist's methodology doesn't have to account for angels--that's my point!--but you demand that the critics' version account for every detail of an earthly conspiracy.

Exactly what does this mean? The problem here is quite simple (and this is why the LDS have the upper hand). It is quite easy for us to remove the angel from the equation. We could simply state that Joseph lost the artifacts, or that they were stolen. We could say that he found the gold plates under a stone, where they were buried. We could come up with any number of scenarios in which Joseph Smith translated the Gold Plates without the assistance of an angel. And that would still require the critic to examine the historical scenario on its own terms. But this isn't what The Dude wants. He wants to lower the evidentiary bar to match what he perceives is the lack of evidence for the supernatural. What is the purpose in this? Well, any argument for naturalistic origins - no matter how unlikely or illogical but for which plausibility can be argued, automatically trumps any argument involving the angel. It is that simple. That is all The Dude wants. He wants to create an epistemology that simply precludes any LDS apologetic from having any real validity. He doesn't have to deal with the research by FARMS, he can ignore everything written by the believer. He doesn't even have to make a plausible argument. The Dude wants to do exactly what he criticizes LDS for - he want to cry "angel" and thus disqualify his opponent.

This is why, of course, we can say so clearly that writers like Dan Vogel are polemical. In addressing only what they see coming from LDS believers, and ignoring other critics who are offering competing theories of the origin of the Book of Mormon, we see that his interest is not so much in establishing his view of modern authorship, so much as it is in demonstrating that the believer is incorrect. And despite his claims that he is disinterested in polemic, it seems that this is the only way in which to view his claims.

So, let's get back to the topic. Assume, The Dude, that we erase everything about the angel. Lets say that the only thing which is true is that Joseph Smith found ancient gold plates in a stone box in a hillside, and that, through whatever means, he translated them. If we find similarities in names, how do we distinguish between those that are coincidental, and those that are not.

That is the question that so far the critics have been completely incapable of answering. And until they can answer this question, their lists of parallels between this name and that name fall squarely under the definition of parallelomania.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

Coincidences are statistically improbable events.

They are? Somehow, you missed something Dan. My first name is Benjamin. I named my youngest son Benjamin (after me). This is not a coincidence. There were just under 14,000 other children born last year (along with my son) who are named Benjamin. That any one of these children shares the same name as my son is a coincidence. That there is even one other child born in 2004 in the US with the same first name as my son is a coincidence - but it is not a statistically improbable event. Actually, this ought to be worded the other way around. A coincidence is a statistically probable event.

But, even if we were to assume that a coincidence could be defined merely by being a stastical improbability, at what degree of statistical improbability does an event become a coincidence, and how do we assign probabilities to the question about orthographically related names in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere? Following this comment you write:

Hamblin has admitted that no one knows how NHM was pronounced or what vowels were used. Without apologetic assumptions, why would NHM be Nahom rather than something else?

You had better watch out, your postmodernism is showing again ... Why is it that the sign "Dan Vogel" refers to you, and isn't simply black marks appearing on a light background on your computer screen Dan? After all, this is what you seem to be suggesting. What makes writing (or signs of any kind I suppose) - without apologetic assumptions, meaningful at all?

I suppose that part of the answer to this question relies on the basis of having some knowledge of ancient writing systems of the near east (which Bill and I both have). If you had to write Nahom in such a script as the one found on the altar in question, what would it look like? "NHM" perhaps? One of the issues is that there is this really nifty attempt to reverse the question. What you are asking is whether or not an ancient toponym is found in the Book of Mormon - which isn't what Bill Hamblin is asserting at all. He is asserting that a Book of Mormon toponym has been found in an ancient text (an inscription). And the two issues are not the same.

And more than this, there is the assertion that the toponym in the Book of Mormon is found in a time and place where we would expect it to be given the Book of Mormon as a real history. What is the probability?

What I really love about this is that using Vogel's definition, we have just created a coincidence - a statistically improbable event - at least if we assume modern origins as he does.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Uncle Dale writes:

If anything, Herr Vogel's JS is even brighter and more resourceful than Mrs. Brodie's sly and devilishly attractive rogue. But then again, dauntless Dan has probably never entertained personal fantasies of getting to know polygamous JS so intimately as I believe Fawn's fertile mind may have occasionally envisioned.

What a thought. "Herr Vogel's JS", "Brodie's JS", "Dale's JS". Will the real JS please step forward?

I see much of Fish's reader response notions in Vogel's writings. The meaning of the text is unknowable. There is no interest in the text-as-it-is-in-itself. It is not a useful notion to him (and hence his occaisional declaration that intention is meaningless). The only text of importance, and the only meaning of this text, is the text and the meaning that readers produce through their interpretive practices. (Vogel's focus on commentary and not on the source). It is the interpretive community - but, Vogel manipulates this notion. It isn't the interpretive community of now that matters - but a specific community which he defines as part of his theory. The reader, must be situated in a particular interpretive community that dictates how texts will be read. The individual is not free to adopt another set of interpretive practices but is to a large extent conditioned, even socially and culturally determined, to act towards and respond to this text in a certain way. Interpretation then ultimately takes it cue not from the text, but from the reader

[Marcelo]

Why so condescending?

[Matt Andrews]

Bill wrote:

The inscriptions were dated by non-LDS German archaeologists to the 7th-6th centuries BC.

This might be a little digression, but how do they do that, anyway?

(I'm sure it makes sense, I'm just wondering how they do it.)

Do they chip off some material and hope to find some organic material they can carbon date? Soil matching?

------

More directly on topic, I'm not sure I understand why the dating is so important. If the place was called NHM before and after that 'time period', why is the inscription's date important?

That is, it seems the inscription in the place is the key thing, not the date (Well, obviously, the date should be before the 19th century). That the date of the inscription appears to be 'the exact time' that Lehi was there would be mere coincidence, since Lehi wasn't the one who named it NHM, nor, apparently, were Lehi or his band the ones attested to have made the inscription.

[Confidential Informant]

More directly on topic, I'm not sure I understand why the dating is so important. If the place was called NHM before and after that 'time period', why is the inscription's date important?

That is, it seems the inscription in the place is the key thing, not the date (Well, obviously, the date should be before the 19th century). That the date of the inscription appears to be 'the exact time' that Lehi was there would be mere coincidence, since Lehi wasn't the one who named it NHM, nor, apparently, were Lehi or his band the ones attested to have made the inscription.

BINGO! Thank you for stating so plainly what Might Curelom seems to be unable to grasp. The alters in question establish that the placed called Nahom was called Nahom in 600 BCE, and that's what's important. That the placed called Nahom might bave been called Nahom in 800 BCE, 1000 BCE or even longer is irrelevant. The only part of the argument that was important was to establish that Nahom existed and was called Nahom during the proper time period. That it was likely called that even before then is irrelevant (except to Mighty C, whose objection is so utterly silly that it's hard to take him seriously.).

C.I.

[Uncle Dale]

Dan isn't just describing the reader

[Danite3459]

Matt,

Unlike other place names mentioned in 1 Nephi which were so named by the family ("he called the name of the river Laman" 1 Nephi 2:8; "we did call the name of the place Shazer" 16:13; "the land which we called Bountiful" 17:5) and would likely have been known as such only by them, Ishmael was buried in "the place which was called Nahom" (1 Nephi 16:34), suggesting that this was not simply a family designation, but one so called by others. Lehi's family leaves Jerusalem shortly before the destruction of that city in 587 B.C. The NHM altar inscriptions show that the region was indeed called NHM at that time. This is why the date is significant.

[Uncle Dale]

Matt,

Unlike other place names mentioned in 1 Nephi which were so named by the family ("he called the name of the river Laman" 1 Nephi 2:8; "we did call the name of the place Shazer" 16:13; "the land which we called Bountiful" 17:5) and would likely have been known as such only by them, Ishmael was buried in "the place which was called Nahom" (1 Nephi 16:34), suggesting that this was not simply a family designation, but one so called by others. Lehi's family leaves Jerusalem shortly before the destruction of that city in 587 B.C. The NHM altar inscriptions show that the region was indeed called NHM at that time. This is why the date is significant.

This brings up the question of HOW the Lehites knew that the place was called by the

name "Nahom?" Did some local Arabs tell them? Old map information does not point

to a specific placed named "Nehem;" that is, there appears to be no dot on the ground

for a definite locality with this name. Is it an old Yemani ethnic term, carried over into

Arabic? What do the FARMers say the term means, anyway?

Or -- did the Lehites learn the term from the liahona or inspired dreams, and did they

themselves give that region the name "Nehem?" And, if so, why?

Or -- did the Lehites never know the name, and it was only "revealed" to later sacred

scribes and historians, when the Small Plates of Nephi were first composed?

Any clues on how to find the answers?

Uncle Dale

[Danite3459]

Dale,

Most Latter-day Saint scholars who have written on the subject, the Astons, Kent Brown, assume that they encountered others along the route. They would have learned the name from locals in the region.

[USU78]

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.

Got any maps of Arabia of the VIIth-VIth C BCE vintage in your hermetically sealed stash from Qumran there, Unk?

USU "NHM may or may not be our NHM" 78

[Uncle Dale]

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.

Got any maps of Arabia of the VIIth-VIth C BCE vintage in your hermetically sealed stash from Qumran there, Unk?

USU "NHM may or may not be our NHM" 78

But of course, my dear Watson. It

[New Kid OTB]

That some are so mightily (even desperately) determined to refuse to grant such a fact even the tiniest evidentiary value for the claims of the Book of Mormon is highly instructive.  Professor Hamblin is quite right to opt out of so pointless a discussion with people who will plainly never entertain the possibility of anything at all counting even a smidge in favor of the Book of Mormon.

Dr. Peterson, far from indicating desperation, skepticism is fully warranted at this point. Apologists have provided nothing beyond a hand-waving argument based on cherry-picked data and post facto interpretations. This is the same kind of superficial analysis that convinces some people that the Bible contains secret codes.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.

Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.

Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Both assassins were assassinated before their trials.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'

Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland

A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.

If you understand why the above facts do not constitute significant evidence for a mystical link between Lincoln and Kennedy, then you also understand why the NHM hits aren't as impressive as they seem at first blush.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson, far from indicating desperation, skepticism is fully warranted at this point.  Apologists have provided nothing beyond a hand-waving argument based on cherry-picked data and post facto interpretations.  This is the same kind of superficial analysis that convinces some people that the Bible contains secret codes.

That's flat nonsense, and unworthy of a response. Professor Hamblin has told me that he regards continued participation in this discussion as a waste of time, and I agree with him.

[Calm]

Didn't someone just refer to parallelomania?

[New Kid OTB]

That's flat nonsense, and unworthy of a response. Professor Hamblin has told me that he regards continued participation in this discussion as a waste of time, and I agree with him.

Dr. Peterson, if you were to write up a paper on this issue and submit it to a refereed, non-LDS journal, I'm confident that they would agree with my assessment. I invite you to prove me wrong.

[Calm]

This has been done before on the board. I suggest you do a search on "parallels" and see what the problem is with your methodology compared to the methodology being used by many LDS scholars (I believe that Ben and Brant have both gone into great detail about this)