Egyptian Names In The Book Of Mormon

[Not quite me]

If they were receiving the same inspiration, then one text would not be dependent on the other, would it?

If they were receiving the same revelation then neither is dependent on the other. I said one time to my friend (as I almost killed myself in a freak bike accident) "I'm a hazard to myself." My friend insisted I was quoting a Pink song that says, "I'm a hazard to myself," but I'd never heard that song in all my life. Granted the two examples vary greatly in length and complexity, but two people can write the same text without being dependent on each other, especially if the inspiration is coming from the same source and the person translating one of those texts has decided to translate into King James English, the language in which the other text comes to us.

I'm thinking of the law of parsimony, for some reason. Two texts come into being at different times and in different places, and text #2 seems to be dependent on text #1 (and it's not just a short phrase). The common link? The writer/translator of text #2 is well-versed in text #1. If this weren't Joseph Smith we were talking about, would you be insisting on some kind of common inspiration?

[maklelan]

I'm thinking of the law of parsimony, for some reason. Two texts come into being at different times and in different places, and text #2 seems to be dependent on text #1 (and it's not just a short phrase). The common link? The writer/translator of text #2 is well-versed in text #1. If this weren't Joseph Smith we were talking about, would you be insisting on some kind of common inspiration?

I recognize that your explanation is simpler. If I am forced to consider the matter acting only under the criteria of the law of parsimony then I must admit your explanation makes more sense. But there are other considerations to take into account. This text does not operate independent of the rest of the Book of Mormon, and other numerous evidences (I believe) provide us with a context in which the more complicated explanation makes more sense. The whole text is either genuine or it is not, and I believe the many correlations that back up its veracity make it necessary to figure out how the text fits in with the rest of the book, and that (in my opinion) overrules the law of parsimony. If we recognize that there are perfectly consistent and recognizable literary correlations between several different cultures, archeological sites that correspond with the names in the text, law procedures that are perfectly consistent with what we only now understand about Ancient Near Eastern law, witnesses to the plates and vindications of pretty much all of the anacronisms formerly recognized, we can't then decide that this one portion of the text defies the rest of the book because the law of parsimony says so. This is my take and I'm sure you'll disagree with me.

[Not quite me]

I'm thinking of the law of parsimony, for some reason. Two texts come into being at different times and in different places, and text #2 seems to be dependent on text #1 (and it's not just a short phrase). The common link? The writer/translator of text #2 is well-versed in text #1. If this weren't Joseph Smith we were talking about, would you be insisting on some kind of common inspiration?

I recognize that your explanation is simpler. If I am forced to consider the matter acting only under the criteria of the law of parsimony then I must admit your explanation makes more sense. But there are other considerations to take into account. This text does not operate independent of the rest of the Book of Mormon, and other numerous evidences (I believe) provide us with a context in which the more complicated explanation makes more sense. The whole text is either genuine or it is not, and I believe the many correlations that back up its veracity make it necessary to figure out how the text fits in with the rest of the book, and that (in my opinion) overrules the law of parsimony. If we recognize that there are perfectly consistent and recognizable literary correlations between several different cultures, archeological sites that correspond with the names in the text, law procedures that are perfectly consistent with what we only now understand about Ancient Near Eastern law, witnesses to the plates and vindications of pretty much all of the anacronisms formerly recognized, we can't then decide that this one portion of the text defies the rest of the book because the law of parsimony says so. This is my take and I'm sure you'll disagree with me.

Yeah, you're probably right. About my disagreeing with you. I guess I just don't see the correlations as particularly strong, especially when weighed against the obvious anachronisms. It's the need to confirm rationally what you've had confirmed spiritually that motivates the search for correlations, and not the other way round.

[Bill Hamblin]

MC

How could BoM people live for 1000 years among Mayans (et al) without picking up words that are characteristically mesoamerican? Words like Xochicalco, Yaxchilan, Omecihuatl, Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, or Chalchiuhtlicue?

Let's see; if I'm not mistaken, all the names your list with one exception (and I'm not telling which) are Nahuatl (Aztec). The Aztecs migrated into the valley of Mexico in the late 13th or early 14th centuries AD, about a thousand years after the end of the BOM. And MC expects Aztec names to appear in the BOM, because... ?

Actually, of course, Aztec names were the most widely known Precolumbian Mesoamerican names in early 19C USA, appearing, I believe, in A View of the Hebrews. Their absence in the BOM indicates JS was not intentionally trying to find Precolumbian names to include in his book. Indeed, if Nahuatl names appeared in the BOM, it would be evidence of 19th C origin, not ancient origin, since they were known in 19C America, but did not exist is pre 400 AD Mesoamerica. MC has it completely backward.

And the reason they focus on Egyptian is because the structures of Mayan, Aztec, or Olmec words aren't conducive to being matched up with invented words.

Well, let's test this theory. Based on ancient inscriptional evidence, how many Olmec proper names do we know? No guessing allowed.

Really MC, don't you think it would be wise to inform yourself on a topic before pontificating?

[maklelan]

Yeah, you're probably right. About my disagreeing with you. I guess I just don't see the correlations as particularly strong, especially when weighed against the obvious anachronisms. It's the need to confirm rationally what you've had confirmed spiritually that motivates the search for correlations, and not the other way round.

Then why do James Charlseworth, Haim Rabin, Jordan Vajda, Nissim Wernick, Harold Bloom, W. F. Albright and Klaus Baer all say that there are correlations that require serious attention? No one has addressed this fact, but repeated requests for non-Mormon corroboration are made. When the request is granted the argument turns into another argument from silence. So I ask you, if a testimony invariably comes before recognition of correlations, why do the above mentioned world-renowned non-Mormon authorities point to the same correlations we do and say, "This is important"? More importantly, why do you continue to ignore them?

[Bill Hamblin]

You should take Mighty Curelom's comment more seriously, guys, because LGT predicts Mesoamerican influence in the BoM. Having or not having so-called Egyptian correlations is interesting at best, but not having Mesoamerican names is an awful problem for you.

Linguistically speaking, continuity of archaic personal names is strongest in among traditional religious minorities even when the minority no longer speaks its sacred language on a day to day basis.

For example, how many Jews in Medieval Europe had Germanic or Latin-based names? Answer: none. Using MC's method, one would expect most Jews in medieval England to be named Athelstan, Eosterwine, Cuthbert or Osgyth. And, continuing his methods, we should reject the existence of European Jewery altogether since they didn't adopt the names common in the languages they spoke on a daily basis.

Once again, such claims demonstrate a fundamental unfamiliarity with both linguistics and traditional sociology of naming.

[JarMan]

Well, let's test this theory. Based on ancient inscriptional evidence, how many Olmec proper names do we know? No guessing allowed.

Wait, I think I know the answer to this one. Given that the first conclusive writing from before 600 BC has just been found and given that we have no idea what it says I am going to say that the answer is zero.

However, I know that many Mayan names are known. Are there any Mayan names that correspond to the time period of the Book of Mormon and to potential Book of Mormon locations? It seems like there would have to be.

[The Dude]

MC

How could BoM people live for 1000 years among Mayans (et al) without picking up words that are characteristically mesoamerican? Words like Xochicalco, Yaxchilan, Omecihuatl, Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, or Chalchiuhtlicue?

Let's see; if I'm not mistaken, all the names your list with one exception (and I'm not telling which) are Nahuatl (Aztec). The Aztecs migrated into the valley of Mexico in the late 13th or early 14th centuries AD, about a thousand years after the end of the BOM. And MC expects Aztec names to appear in the BOM, because... ?

Actually, of course, Aztec names were the most widely known Precolumbian Mesoamerican names in early 19C USA, appearing, I believe, in A View of the Hebrews. Their absence in the BOM indicates JS was not intentionally trying to find Precolumbian names to include in his book. Indeed, if Nahuatl names appeared in the BOM, it would be evidence of 19th C origin, not ancient origin, since they were known in 19C America, but did not exist is pre 400 AD Mesoamerica. MC has it completely backward.

I agree with you 100% Bill. JS wasn't trying to imitate Precolumbian Mesoamerica. No critic every said he was. The supposed correlations never represent good guesses -- they are coincidences.

[charity]

We keep hearing the word "coincidence." I am wracking my brain for what I learned in advanced statistics about 20 years ago. As I recall, the stats are that if you have a large number of events, even extremely unlikely coincidences can happen with no causal relationship.

However, the problem is what constitutes a large enough number of events. I used to try in a class of 30 to see if the birthday problem worked out, and it did often enough to be impressive. Although the stats are that in a group of 28, the chances are 50% of the time two people will have the exact birthday, month and day.

The stats are based on infinite quantities. We have a finite number of names in the Book of Mormon, and a very limited setting from which names may be derived. When you ask if a name found in the Book of Mormon is found in any population anywhere around the globe, and you find it somewhere, that might be a coincidence. If you find that specific name in a population with a relationship to the first group, then the math changes.

[Bill Hamblin]

I agree with you 100% Bill. JS wasn't trying to imitate Precolumbian Mesoamerica. No critic every said he was. The supposed correlations never represent good guesses -- they are coincidences.

You're kidding, right. Numerous critics claim that JS cribbed from View of the Hebrews, which contains numerous Aztec names.

Your coincidence mantra is getting boring.

I've decided that all parallels to the 19th century are mere coincidence. Gee, that's easy. No need for research; no need for complex analysis; no need for argument or evidence. Anything that contradicts by preconceived notions is mere coincidence!!!!! What a great scholarly method.

[Bill Hamblin]

It is my feeling that if you concede my example is probably "just a coincidence" then I am free to say your examples are the same. My two-pair example is more significant than your list of unpaired matches.

This is nonsense. When you get dozens of correlations between Madagascar and the BOM, let's talk.

Coincidence like this can occur. They can occur several times. But they don't occur dozens of times. Your problem is not to explain a single or double coincidence. It is to explain complex interlocking patterns.

[erichard]

Yep, probably a coincidence. Just like Moroni being a city on the island of Cumora in the Indian Ocean.

...right?

What about the "Rio Mormon" in Peru near Iquitos?

Seriously, does anyone know how this river got its name? I havn't figured it out yet.

Richard

[Not quite me]

It is my feeling that if you concede my example is probably "just a coincidence" then I am free to say your examples are the same. My two-pair example is more significant than your list of unpaired matches.

This is nonsense. When you get dozens of correlations between Madagascar and the BOM, let's talk.

Coincidence like this can occur. They can occur several times. But they don't occur dozens of times. Your problem is not to explain a single or double coincidence. It is to explain complex interlocking patterns.

I'm actually with the Dude on this one. Ever since Alexander Campbell, people have pointed out the striking correlations between Nephite teachings and 19th-century frontier American religious beliefs. Folks like Vernal Holley (widely ridiculed among apologists) have pointed out lists of place names that could be sources for Joseph Smith's BofM cities. These correlations are ignored, glossed over, or explained away.

But find an Akkadian word in the Book of Mormon, and suddenly you have something. A couple of alleged parallels between BofM kingship and Mesoamerican practice, and it's a done deal. It's proven.

You can't have it both ways. There are complex, interlocking patterns on both sides of the issue here. The only difference is that one set of correlations is expected from a 19th-century production, and the other is not.

[Neighbor]

Egyptian names in the BOM?

It only re-enforces my take on Isaiah 29 and the book of Mormon. Go back and read it and see what was said about those who seek the shadows of Egypt.

[urroner]

Egyptian names in the BOM?

It only re-enforces my take on Isaiah 29 and the book of Mormon. Go back and read it and see what was said about those who seek the shadows of Egypt.

Even worse, where did God send Joseph, Mary, and the Christ child soon after Jesus's birth? Was it to the shadows of Egypt????

[cdowis]

>But find an Akkadian word in the Book of Mormon, and suddenly you have something

It is not just the name, it is the context of the name sheum. The word refers to a grain, and the same word is used in that very same context.

>you can't have it both ways.

Oh, I am really really impressed with "Mosiah comes from Moses". Now that is truly profound.

> 19th century parallels

And I have pointed out multiple parallels to the 20th century as well, the Cold War, terrorists in caves, Mafia, etc. which are easily recognizable in the BOM. And this is not particularly remarkable since the prophets saw our time and wrote the BOM specifically to our day and generation.

[The Dude]

Your coincidence mantra is getting boring.

I've decided that all parallels to the 19th century are mere coincidence. Gee, that's easy. No need for research; no need for complex analysis; no need for argument or evidence. Anything that contradicts by preconceived notions is mere coincidence!!!!! What a great scholarly method.

My coincidence mantra??????

No, the parallels mantra is getting boring. I reject yours as coincidence, you reject mine (or the critics') as coincidence. I reject Egyptian parallels and "sheum" as coincidence -- you reject Vernal Holley's map of the Great Lakes region and the Moroni/Cumorah pair.

How about we talk about some solid external evidence for BoM people in America? Have you got any yet?

(On a different note, nobody in their right mind rejects the King Jamesisms in the BoM as coincidence. This clearly shows reliance on 19th century sources, but critics and apologists have their own ideas as to what this means.)

[Daniel Peterson]

Let's not have anybody criticizing The Dude for his "coincidences mantra." If he hadn't appeared here to claim that it was all purely coincidental, I was just about to do it for him. I was afraid that he was on vacation, or something.

The Dude has discovered a simple labor-saving tool of virtually infinite power, to be deployed at whim. In a way, it's really quite awesome.

[The Dude]

Let's not have anybody criticizing The Dude for his "coincidences mantra." If he hadn't appeared here to claim that it was all purely coincidental, I was just about to do it for him. I was afraid that he was on vacation, or something.

The Dude has discovered a simple labor-saving tool of virtually infinite power, to be deployed at whim. In a way, it's really quite awesome.

Thanks for the support Daniel. As empty as your contribution was, at least it was on my side for a change.

[Not quite me]

>But find an Akkadian word in the Book of Mormon, and suddenly you have something

It is not just the name, it is the context of the name sheum. The word refers to a grain, and the same word is used in that very same context.

>you can't have it both ways.

Oh, I am really really impressed with "Mosiah comes from Moses". Now that is truly profound.

> 19th century parallels

And I have pointed out multiple parallels to the 20th century as well, the Cold War, terrorists in caves, Mafia, etc. which are easily recognizable in the BOM. And this is not particularly remarkable since the prophets saw our time and wrote the BOM specifically to our day and generation.

Hmmm. Did I say anything about Mosiah and Moses?

Yes, it's easy to take a text like the Book of Mormon and find parallels to just about anything from 19th-century religion to the Cold War to Gilligan's Island. That was my point.

[cdowis]

>This clearly shows reliance on 19th century sources

The BOM was translated, not into Chaucerian, but into the 19th century English language, with a strong component of KJV English (which, despite your statement, is not 19th century). The translator presumbaly used a contemport dictionary as a source, and all this definitely proves that the BOM .... what?

What profound conclusion are you presenting to us?

Don't keep us guessing, what is your point?

>Moses and Mosiah

I was responding to your statement "Folks like Vernal Holley (widely ridiculed among apologists) have pointed out lists of place names that could be sources for Joseph Smith's BofM cities." Someone gave us an extensive list of where BOM names came from (neas and peas, etc).

[Neighbor]

But the Jesus thing was to fulfill prophecy!

Is it also true for BOM and Book of Abraham from Papyrus thing?

[Not quite me]

>This clearly shows reliance on 19th century sources

The BOM was translated, not into Chaucerian, but into the 19th century English language, with a strong component of KJV English (which, despite your statement, is not 19th century). The translator presumbaly used a contemport dictionary as a source, and all this definitely proves that the BOM .... what?

What profound conclusion are you presenting to us?

Don't keep us guessing, what is your point?

>Moses and Mosiah

I was responding to your statement "Folks like Vernal Holley (widely ridiculed among apologists) have pointed out lists of place names that could be sources for Joseph Smith's BofM cities." Someone gave us an extensive list of where BOM names came from (neas and peas, etc).

I'm not reaching any profound conclusions at all. I just find it interesting that what one does with correlations depends entirely on one's position towards the Book of Mormon.

[Jaybear]

Let's not have anybody criticizing The Dude for his "coincidences mantra." If he hadn't appeared here to claim that it was all purely coincidental, I was just about to do it for him. I was afraid that he was on vacation, or something.

The Dude has discovered a simple labor-saving tool of virtually infinite power, to be deployed at whim. In a way, it's really quite awesome.

Thanks for the support Daniel. As empty as your contribution was, at least it was on my side for a change.

I hate to burst your buble, but Dan was being sarcastic.

BTW, I don't think its "all" purely coincidental. I think most of the identified similarites are strained, at best, and those that are not, are purely coincidental.

Consider for example, "Aha." Are we supposed to believe that his parents knew he would be a great warrior recorded in scripture, and therefore named him Aha, after an Egyptian king, and which also means warrior? Or is this an example of looking too hard to find parrallels.

By comparison, I would note how the antis would point to the similarity of the name of the Great Prophet Onondagus, compared to the county in New York named Onandaga county. Only a non-mormon would find the names remotely similar.

BTW, why would hebrew parents living in mesoamerica name their child after an Egyptian King? Was Aha less brutal to the hebrew slaves than his predecessors?

[The Dude]

Let's not have anybody criticizing The Dude for his "coincidences mantra." If he hadn't appeared here to claim that it was all purely coincidental, I was just about to do it for him. I was afraid that he was on vacation, or something.

The Dude has discovered a simple labor-saving tool of virtually infinite power, to be deployed at whim. In a way, it's really quite awesome.

Thanks for the support Daniel. As empty as your contribution was, at least it was on my side for a change.

I hate to burst your buble, but Dan was being sarcastic.

No! Dan would never.... I thought we had a thing going!

BTW, I don't think its "all" purely coincidental. I think most of the identified similarites are strained, at best, and those that are not, are purely coincidental.

Well, yes. But then I have to nitpick each one. I prefer to take out all the gnats at once with an awesomely giant flyswatter, of virtually infinite power.