Egyptian Names In The Book Of Mormon

[The Dude]

...the BYU Studies article on the Zelph story that purposely points out the strong ties between Onangagus and the Iroquois tribe the "Onondaga" from which the county name comes?

It is purported by you to point out strong ties. Please elaborate.

[Jerubaal]

...the BYU Studies article on the Zelph story that purposely points out the strong ties between Onangagus and the Iroquois tribe the "Onondaga" from which the county name comes?

It is purported by you to point out strong ties. Please elaborate.

Maybe you'll see it more or less strong than I do, but here it is. This is footnote 7 in "The Zelph Story" by Kenneth Godfrey (Not sure which issue of BYUS it is in though).

EDIT: Copying and pasting from the PDF totally screwed up the quote. I'll fix it up, but you can kind of make out what it says.

EDIT2: Cleaned up most of it, but I'll need to restore a lot of the punctuation. Give me a couple minutes.

EDIT3: All cleaned up, I think. If you see any errors, let me know.

John L Sorenson, in a letter to the author, observes that the only period when an indian might be known even approximately from the rocky mountains to the eastern part of the continent is likely limited to the Middle Woodland Period or Hopewell culture dating within the limits A.D. 1-500. It is possible, though less likely, that something of the same situation of widespread, interregional commmunication could date to the Mississippian Period, A.D. 1300-1600. It is of course also possible that the Zelph burial, which was near the surface at the mound's top, dated considerably later than the period of mound construction. For information regarding connections between Mesoamerica and the Hopewell Indians see James B. Griffin, "Mesoamerica and the Eastern United States in Prehistoric Times," Handbook of Middle American Indians, 15 vols. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1966) 4:111-31; David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, Hopewell Archaeology (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1979); "Cache in the Corn Field," Time 102 (29 October 1973): 123. Onandagus is the name of a tribe of indians that belonged to the five nation confederacy of the Iroquois who occupied upper New York state. At the time when 'the Peacemaker' (whom some authorities label as a prophet) came among these tribes, who much later would become known as the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Onandaga, and the Cayuga, he found a powerful disciple in Hiawatha, a member of the Onondago society who was grieving at the deaths of his "beloved daughters." The objective of the Peacemaker, Hiawatha, and the other disciples was to make the world safe from irrational behavior. The center of their new world was to be Onandago, which was also to be the capital at which decisions affecting the continent would be made. The league the Peacemaker founded was characterized by many of the principles of democracy now embraced by the West. These people called the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), furthermore perfected the skill of negotiating a truly peaceful settlement and provided their people with the vision of a totally peaceful future (see John Mohawk, "Origins of Iroquois Political Thought," Northeast Indian Quarterly 3 [summer 1986]: 16 20).

[Jerubaal]

Bump for fixed quote.

[The Dude]

EDIT3: All cleaned up, I think. If you see any errors, let me know.

Thanks for fixing the punctuation. I didn't even try to read it before.

There's a bit of interesting history about the Onandagus tribe, but where is the supposed link between the Onandaga tribe and the prophet Onandaga from Joseph Smith's story? It appears that the strongest link, by far, is the near identity of the names... which is kind of the point the critics are trying to make when they suggest Joseph Smith just ripped off that name from the tribe/county in New York.

[Jerubaal]

EDIT3: All cleaned up, I think. If you see any errors, let me know.

Thanks for fixing the punctuation. I didn't even try to read it before.

There's a bit of interesting history about the Onandagus tribe, but where is the supposed link between the Onandaga tribe and the prophet Onandaga from Joseph Smith's story? It appears that the strongest link, by far, is the near identity of the names... which is kind of the point the critics are trying to make when they suggest Joseph Smith just ripped off that name from the tribe/county in New York.

The mention of the "Peacemaker", the prophet who came among the Onandaga, and his disciple. Onandagus and Zelph perhaps?

[Chris Smith]

Jerubaal,

Is this an oral history? Or does it come to us from some sort of physical evidence? Any idea?

[consiglieri]

There are a number of parallels between ancient Egypt and the Book of Mormon. Some posters on this board find this parallels compelling; others find them to be only "coincidence."

I would like to introduce into this discussion a legal principle called the "Doctrine of Chances."

"The doctrine of chances is based entirely on probabilities. Its foundation is the instinctive recognition that the odds against an innocent person being repeatedly involved in similar suspicious circumstances increase with each incident. At some point of recurrence, the similar repeated acts can no longer be viewed as coincidental. When the evidence reaches such a point, the recurrence of a similar unlawful act tends to negate accident, inadvertence, good faith, or other innocent mental states, and tends to establish by negative inference the presence of criminal intent." [Admission of Evidence of other Misconduct in Washington to Prove Intent or Absence of Mistake or Accident: the Logial Inconsistences of Evidence Rule 404, 61 Wash. L. Rev. 1213, 1225-26 (1986).]

If I were a prosecuting attorney (and I was for 8-years), and if I were accusing the Book of Mormon of the crime of having ties with ancient Egypt, I would bring evidence before the court of ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon. The presence of only one such Egyptian name in the Book of Mormon would probably not be admissible, as it could well be viewed as only a coincidence. The presence of two Egyptian names would tend to make it more admissible, though not conclusive. The presence of three names more likely, and so on.

According to the Doctrine of Chances, "The odds against the Book of Mormon being innocent (i.e., not having ties with ancient Egypt), yet being repeatedly involved in similar suspicious circumstances (i.e., containing ancient Egyptian names), increase with each incident."

The number of Egyptian names present in the Book of Mormon, as documented in this thread, "tends to establish by negative inference the presence of criminal intent," thus tending to prove the Book of Mormon guilty of being ancient.

This is a somewhat subjective standard, admittedly. At what point can so many repeated Egyptian names no longer be viewed as coincidental? Both sides have presented their views in this thread. Both sides have a dog in this fight.

A good control, however, is to look at well-informed persons who do not have a dog in this fight, and to see if they feel that the Doctrine of Chances has been met with the Book of Mormon. Numerous non-Mormon scholars have been cited, beginning with William Albright in the opening post, to the effect that they feel that something more than mere coincidence is going on here. There are too many coincidences, and several of the coincidences are too striking (Pahoran/Paanchi/Kherihor/Aha/Helaman, etc.) for a reasonable person to maintain that it is all merely coincidence.

The legal principle of the Doctrine of Chances tends to prove the Book of Mormon guilty of the charge of being ancient.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cacheman]

A good control, however, is to look at well-informed persons who do not have a dog in this fight, and to see if they feel that the Doctrine of Chances has been met with the Book of Mormon. Numerous non-Mormon scholars have been cited, beginning with William Albright in the opening post, to the effect that they feel that something more than mere coincidence is going on here. There are too many coincidences, and several of the coincidences are too striking (Pahoran/Paanchi/Kherihor/Aha/Helaman, etc.) for a reasonable person to maintain that it is all merely coincidence.

This has been an interesting thread, and I agree with you that the evidence you've presented appears to support your position in favor of the alternative. I haven't spent a lot of time perusing the thread, so I would appreciate if someone could post the citations mentioned in the previous post. I'd be interested in reading them in context. Also, the control would need to be representative of non-mormon scholars opinions on this evidence. I've noticed that the only ones cited were ones that agreed with the original posters opinion. Is this because all who have seen the evidence agree? Have there been non-mormon scholars (not those with a vested interest, ie. anti-mormons, or ex-lds) who have seen the evidence, and not agreed with those cited?

If the citations have already been posted, and I just missed them, then I apologize.

Thanks,

cacheman

[Jerubaal]

Jerubaal,

Is this an oral history? Or does it come to us from some sort of physical evidence? Any idea?

I'll try and look up this source mentioned in the article:

(see John Mohawk, "Origins of Iroquois Political Thought," Northeast Indian Quarterly 3 [summer 1986]: 16 20)

Since that is where he seems to draw the story of the "Peacemaker" from. I'll see if the HBLL has this periodical.

EDIT: It isn't it the HBLL, as far as I can tell. I'll see if it's online sometime today.

[Matt Andrews]

Lets settle this ins the ring:

Aha, Aha

Nephi, Nefri

Paanchi, Pianki

Pahoran, Pahuru

Deseret, Teshret

. . . . etc . . . .

To cherry pick the list of names that you (or Hugh, or whoever) think bear resemblence to Egyptian names and say "Aha!" (pun intended) seems a rather misleading way to go about this.

It seems to me that the following questions would need to be answered in order to claim that X number of "matches" constitutes cooincidence beyond chance:

(some might need to be modified, this is just my first pass)

How many names are in the Book of Mormon? How many of these sound like an egyptian name?

How many Egyptian names are there? (Or words, if you want to include any words as possible "matches")

How many different ways are there to combine syllables into 3-4 syllable names?

What is the explicit criteria for calling two names a match? How similar do the names have to sound? Is it that the English transliteration of the words are similar within a certain number of letters?

How many scholars of the Egyptian language agree that each of these alleged "matches" really are matches?

(And yes, non-mormon scholars would be particularly persuasive, as the first post in this thread implicitly admits. For those having trouble understanding this point, consider a political example: support of a candidate's policies are less impressive coming from his staunch supporters than from those not personally invested in the candidate's success. They would be even more impressive coming from someone invested in the candidate's failure: "Yeah, I hate that guy, but I have to admit, his economic plan is really top-notch." Or a sports example: two basketball experts both argue that John Stockton was the best pure point guard ever. One is a die-hard Jazz fan, and has been since before Stockton ever played, the other is Magic Johson. Which opinion carries more weight?)

Finally, how many Egyptian "matches" would we find, using the same methodology, in a list of a similar number of fictional names. Say, the names from Robert Jordan's "Eye of the World" series, or Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings".

This is a tall order, certainly, but that is the kind of analysis it would take to make this case convincing.

(I'd second cacheman's very helpful request above, too.)

[maklelan]

To cherry pick the list of names that you (or Hugh, or whoever) think bear resemblence to Egyptian names and say "Aha!" (pun intended) seems a rather misleading way to go about this.

It seems to me that the following questions would need to be answered in order to claim that X number of "matches" constitutes cooincidence beyond chance:

(some might need to be modified, this is just my first pass)

How many names are in the Book of Mormon? How many of these sound like an egyptian name?

How many Egyptian names are there? (Or words, if you want to include any words as possible "matches")

How many different ways are there to combine syllables into 3-4 syllable names?

What is the explicit criteria for calling two names a match? How similar do the names have to sound? Is it that the English transliteration of the words are similar within a certain number of letters?

How many scholars of the Egyptian language agree that each of these alleged "matches" really are matches?

(And yes, non-mormon scholars would be particularly persuasive, as the first post in this thread implicitly admits. For those having trouble understanding this point, consider a political example: support of a candidate's policies are less impressive coming from his staunch supporters than from those not personally invested in the candidate's success. They would be even more impressive coming from someone invested in the candidate's failure: "Yeah, I hate that guy, but I have to admit, his economic plan is really top-notch." Or a sports example: two basketball experts both argue that John Stockton was the best pure point guard ever. One is a die-hard Jazz fan, and has been since before Stockton ever played, the other is Magic Johson. Which opinion carries more weight?)

Finally, how many Egyptian "matches" would we find, using the same methodology, in a list of a similar number of fictional names. Say, the names from Robert Jordan's "Eye of the World" series, or Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings".

This is a tall order, certainly, but that is the kind of analysis it would take to make this case convincing.

(I'd second cacheman's very helpful request above, too.)

Some considerations that may have slipped by you:

- Transliteration is a sticky business, especially with Semitic words. Because of the lack of vowels and the ambiguous nature of a couple of very common letters, it's very subjective. Unas and Weni are the exact same Egyptian name transliterated by different people, and they are both valid. This is why NHM is such an interesting topic. NHM could be Nahom, Nehum, Nihm, Nahum, Nohom, Nehem or almost any other combination you can think of, but there's not a person alive today that can tell me it's not Nahom and be correct. Vowelization is a very subjective business.

- It's important to recognize that several linguistic cultures are potentially active in the Book of Mormon. We have Egyptian, Hebrew and Akkadian words and names throughout, and they all operate in perfect agreement with the cross-cultural dynamics of the text (Jaredite-ish names closely resemble some recently identified Olmec names, but those and related names are never found in any culture in the Book of Mormon not directly identified with the Jaredite). See here for a list of Mayan names. Many are shared between Olmec and Mayan cultures. See how many Book of Mormon names you can spot:

http://www.jaguar-sun.com/glossary.html

Ultimately, it can never be about counting all the names in the Book of Mormon and dividing it by the names that are probably Egyptian.

- The legendary Professor William F. Albright (while not being specifically an Egyptologist) was asked by an anti-Mormon to tear apart the Book of Mormon, but responded that it was "surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch (Paanchi) and Pahor(an) which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being 'reformed Egyptian.'" According to John Tvedtnes, he then makes allusion ot the fact that Joseph Smith may have been some kind of "religious genius." This is found in a correspondence between Albright and one Grant S. Heward, July 25, 1966, and is cited in the bottom left column of page 2 here:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/HebrewNames.pd...f%20mormon'

- A very convincing argument is made by Brian Stubbs concerning the Semitic origins of Mesoamerican language. So convincing is his argument, in fact, that the non-Mormon former president of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University and Rhodes scholar, Roger Williams Westcott, backs it up. This professor finds the arguments compelling, and then adds this little cherry at the end: "Lest sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages."

I think a few names can be accurately called a coincidence, but names and words from at least three different identifiable languages attested to in prefect synchronization with the meaning and cultural significance of those names, without once betraying the points of contact between those three cultures within the text far exceeds the boundaries of coincidence, and it doesn't matter what the island in Madagascar is called.

The burden of proof is not on us to prove anything is true. That is impossible. It is not within the capacity of the scientific method. We have provided evidence of plausibility, and you must now show that it is implausible if you wish to succeed. Anything less is just evasive maneuvers. Asking for more evidence is fallacious. You have plenty of evidence. If you want to show that these names and words mean nothing then you must provide examples of this occuring randomly.

If you are unfamiliar with a lot of this research, then read all the papers on this page and you will be caught up with what we have done:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookofmormonview.php

[Not quite me]

The burden of proof is not on us to prove anything is true. That is impossible. It is not within the capacity of the scientific method. We have provided evidence of plausibility, and you must now show that it is implausible if you wish to succeed. Anything less is just evasive maneuvers. Asking for more evidence is fallacious. You have plenty of evidence. If you want to show that these names and words mean nothing then you must provide examples of this occuring randomly.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookofmormonview.php

Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly have you shown to be plausible? What does the presence of a couple of possible hits establish as far as plausibility? Why must we show evidence of randomness in the appearance of words?

As has been pointed out, the presence of names may or may not be meaningful. You have names in the Book of Mormon that some people take as proof that Joseph Smith got a couple names off a map of the Indian Ocean. Others disagree. For your argument to work, you'd also have to show that Moroni and Cumorah occur randomly elsewhere. Otherwise, we can accept the Dude's assessment that Paanchi, Pahoran, Moroni, and Cumorah are all just coincidentally parallel to names external to the Book of Mormon.

[Matt Andrews]

Maklelan,

My post was in solely in response to the list of Egyptian names.

- Transliteration is a sticky business, especially with Semitic words. Because of the lack of vowels and the ambiguous nature of a couple of very common letters, it's very subjective. Unas and Weni are the exact same Egyptian name transliterated by different people, and they are both valid. This is why NHM is such an interesting topic. NHM could be Nahom, Nehum, Nihm, Nahum, Nohom, Nehem or almost any other combination you can think of, but there's not a person alive today that can tell me it's not Nahom and be correct. Vowelization is a very subjective business.

I agree entirely.

- It's important to recognize that several linguistic cultures are potentially active in the Book of Mormon. We have Egyptian, Hebrew and Akkadian words and names throughout, and they all operate in perfect agreement with the cross-cultural dynamics of the text (Jaredite-ish names closely resemble some recently identified Olmec names, but those and related names are never found in any culture in the Book of Mormon not directly identified with the Jaredite). See here for a list of Mayan names. Many are shared between Olmec and Mayan cultures. See how many Book of Mormon names you can spot:

http://www.jaguar-sun.com/glossary.html

I readily admit I am not qualified, or interested in becoming qualified, to judge if these words and Names actually are or resemble Egyptian, Hebrew, and Akkadian. How closely do they resemble these words? It all seems very subjective. But supposing the subjectivity could be overcome, and the words really were similar to Egyptian, Hebrew, and Akkadian: If they truly "all operate in perfect agreement" with the "cross-cultural dynamics" of the Book of Mormon, that would help plausibility. I'm not confident that is the case, but am not going to argue the point.

Ultimately, it can never be about counting all the names in the Book of Mormon and dividing it by the names that are probably Egyptian.

Certainly, if the Book is actually historical, there are a number of cultures at play here, which complicates things considerably.

- The legendary Professor William F. Albright (while not being specifically an Egyptologist) was asked by an anti-Mormon to tear apart the Book of Mormon, but responded that it was "surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch (Paanchi) and Pahor(an) which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being 'reformed Egyptian.'" According to John Tvedtnes, he then makes allusion ot the fact that Joseph Smith may have been some kind of "religious genius." This is found in a correspondence between Albright and one Grant S. Heward, July 25, 1966, and is cited in the bottom left column of page 2 here:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/HebrewNames.pd...f%20mormon'

Apparently you have two names that resemble Eqyptian names, as verified by the letter of a non-mormon scholar in 1966. (It is not clear from the article just how "vaguely" Albright, not "specifically" an egyptologist, but a biblical scholar (would you say he was "vaguely" an egyptologist? ), suggests that Smith may have been some kind of "religious genius".) The full text of the letter would be helpful.

- A very convincing argument is made by Brian Stubbs concerning the Semitic origins of Mesoamerican language. So convincing is his argument, in fact, that the non-Mormon former president of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University and Rhodes scholar, Roger Williams Westcott, backs it up. This professor finds the arguments compelling, and then adds this little cherry at the end: "Lest sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages."

We appear to be moving farther still from the specific topic of Egyptian names. (Egyptian is not considered a Semetic language, though both are Afro-Asiatic languages.)

In any case, I am not sure why Semitic origins of Mesoamerican language would help the Book of Mormon. The idea that Native Americans were of Semitic origin was a common one at the time the Book of mormon was written. If that idea turns out to be correct, it does little to bolster the case for the Book of Mormon being of divine origin. (It would remove a possible critique, though.) And, (back on topic), it wouldn't have anything to do with the difficulties with the list of Egyptian matches above.

I think a few names can be accurately called a coincidence, but names and words from at least three different identifiable languages attested to in prefect synchronization with the meaning and cultural significance of those names, without once betraying the points of contact between those three cultures within the text far exceeds the boundaries of coincidence, and it doesn't matter what the island in Madagascar is called.

I'd agree, but it is not at all clear that you have more than two names substantiated by even one non-mormon scholar. Additionally, the Book of Mormon is vague enough that I find a lack of 'betrayal' of the restrictions it provides to be far from compelling. (Whoops! I said I wasn't going to argue that point.)

We have provided evidence of plausibility, and you must now show that it is implausible if you wish to succeed.

Succeed at what? I'm not sure what it is you think I'm trying to prove. I don't find the list of allegedly "Egyptian" name matches to be compelling evidence.

(I'm also not sure what proposition you think you have provided evidence of plausibility for. That the Book of Mormon could be true? )

[maklelan]

As has been pointed out, the presence of names may or may not be meaningful. You have names in the Book of Mormon that some people take as proof that Joseph Smith got a couple names off a map of the Indian Ocean. Others disagree. For your argument to work, you'd also have to show that Moroni and Cumorah occur randomly elsewhere. Otherwise, we can accept the Dude's assessment that Paanchi, Pahoran, Moroni, and Cumorah are all just coincidentally parallel to names external to the Book of Mormon.

It's not just the names. The names occur in contexts that are meaningful.

A land is named Jershon, and it is called this for the first time when it is given as an inheritance to a group of people. Jershon comes from a Hebrew root that means "to inheret."

Mosi'a is a Hebrew word that means "victor," or "deliverer," but it is never transliterated in the Hebrew scriptures, it is only translated, meaning, unless you speak Hebrew you'll never see it. It comes from the root yasha, which is also the root of the word yeshua (or Joshua or Jesus). From the 1965 Vetus Testamentum article by John Sawyer that discusses the word: "It is a word invariably implying a champion of justice in a situation of controversy, battle or oppression." Mosiah, in the Book of Mormon, was a righteous king who prevented persecution between believers and unbelievers, passed laws prohibiting priests from taking advantage of their people, established "peace in the land," and established a system of judges so that the people would never be oppressed by a wicked king.

In the article cited in my last post by Tvedtnes, Hebrew origins for the names Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, and Sam are all established, despite not appearing in the English Bible.

According to Pre-Islamic South Semitic (the language of the people around Nahom) the word Irreantum (a name given by Nephi after passing through Nahom, and completely made up, apparently) comes from "irre-an" (watering) and the suffix -tm or -tum, giving a sense of wholeness or completeness. It is thus "watering of abundance" in South Semitic. Are you really trying to insist that Joseph Smith made up a perfectly legitimate ancient Semitic word and gave it a perfectly accurate ancient Semitic meaning? (Nephi says Irreantum means "many waters.")

On another site I posted, two Jaredite names show up on an ancient Mayan stone that shares many words with Olmec culture. These names, Xul (pronounced shool, or shule), and Kish, are Jaredite names. The Jaredites are supposed to be identified with the Olmecs. Their names are never used outside of Jaredite or Jaredite-influenced culture. The Jaredites also never incorporate any Egyptian names, which makes sense, since they split after the languages were all confounded.

Korihor was a Nephite chief judge, and Kerihor was an ancient Egyptian high priest. Kerihor is also attested in way ancient Asian cultures (which happen to correspond with Jaredite migrations), and Corihor was a Jaredite name!

Mimation is ending names with "m", while nunation is ending names with "n." Mimation is predominantly Jaredite in the Book of Mormon, and nunation is predominantly Nephite. Guess what? That fits perfectly with Old World language developments!

There are no Baal names, which many thought to be evidence of fraud, but the Elephantine letters attest that the Israelite culture during 600 BC was fiercely opposed to Baal names, which is completely contradictory to what scholars concluded before this century. Not one is found in the Elephantine letters.

A Nephite general called his son Aha, which is an Egyptian name that means "warrior." It was evidently very popular in Palestine to give Egyptian names to people. This is attested in lists of names that Nebuchadnezzer brought back from Palestine and Syria.

I have many, many more of these "coincidences," but I'll tell you again, you're dead wrong if you think you can chalk all of this up to coincidence, and if you base it all on one island in Madagascar you need to get a new (and real) argument.

EDIT: I was being a jerk, so I took some stuff out.

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

My post was in solely in response to the list of Egyptian names.

I had a little memory lapse when I posted and forgot this thread was exclusively dealing with Egyptian names. The syntax of your post makes it sound like you want to add up the alleged Egyptina names and divide them by the total names and find a ratio, but I just didn't read it very well. My apologies.

I readily admit I am not qualified, or interested in becoming qualified, to judge if these words and Names actually are or resemble Egyptian, Hebrew, and Akkadian. How closely do they resemble these words? It all seems very subjective. But supposing the subjectivity could be overcome, and the words really were similar to Egyptian, Hebrew, and Akkadian: If they truly "all operate in perfect agreement" with the "cross-cultural dynamics" of the Book of Mormon, that would help plausibility. I'm not confident that is the case, but am not going to argue the point.

Hopefully my prior post helps a little.

Certainly, if the Book is actually historical, there are a number of cultures at play here, which complicates things considerably.

Quite. Which is why a repeated appeal to the island off of Madagascar is an egregious oversimplification of the issue that is quite annoying.

Apparently you have two names that resemble Eqyptian names, as verified by the letter of a non-mormon scholar in 1966. (It is not clear from the article just how "vaguely" Albright, not "specifically" an egyptologist, but a biblical scholar (would you say he was "vaguely" an egyptologist? ), suggests that Smith may have been some kind of "religious genius".) The full text of the letter would be helpful.

I'd like to track it down, too, but it's difficult. Albright was vaguely an Egyptologist. He was a Biblical scholar. He pioneered the "let's be good scholars and still be believers" movement.

In any case, I am not sure why Semitic origins of Mesoamerican language would help the Book of Mormon. The idea that Native Americans were of Semitic origin was a common one at the time the Book of mormon was written. If that idea turns out to be correct, it does little to bolster the case for the Book of Mormon being of divine origin. (It would remove a possible critique, though.) And, (back on topic), it wouldn't have anything to do with the difficulties with the list of Egyptian matches above.

Egyptian is also attested in that article.

I'd agree, but it is not at all clear that you have more than two names substantiated by even one non-mormon scholar. Additionally, the Book of Mormon is vague enough that I find a lack of 'betrayal' of the restrictions it provides to be far from compelling. (Whoops! I said I wasn't going to argue that point.)

Again, hopefully the above post helps.

Succeed at what? I'm not sure what it is you think I'm trying to prove. I don't find the list of allegedly "Egyptian" name matches to be compelling evidence.

The gist of most of the non-Mormon arguments I hear is "I'm not convinced." While I'm not trying to convince anyone, I think it's totally presumptuous to say "It's definitely not true," but we get a lot of that around here. I'm happy if everyone just admits it's more complicated than it seems and no one can say for sure what the best answer is. I find linguistic evidence to be mighty compelling, so I emphasize it in trying to convince non- and anti-Mormons that there's merit to what we are finding.

(I'm also not sure what proposition you think you have provided evidence of plausibility for. That the Book of Mormon could be true? )

That it could be an ancient text.

[Bernard Gui]

Another supposed source of inspiration for the BoM is Spalding's Manuscript Found. Joseph did not crib place nor personal names from this source.

Bernard

[cdowis]

>Apparently you have two names that resemble Eqyptian names, as verified by the letter of a non-mormon scholar in 1966. (It is not clear from the article just how "vaguely" Albright, not "specifically" an egyptologist, but a biblical scholar (would you say he was "vaguely" an egyptologist? ), suggests that Smith may have been some kind of "religious genius".) The full text of the letter would be helpful.

1. The full text of the letter is on this thread, if you will look for it.

2. Doug Weller, a BOM critic, and one-time member of the moderation panel for the internet group sci.archaeology.moderated, admitted that these names are authentic, after confirming it thru an associate who is an egyptologist. I don't have the exact link but his comment is found on alt.religion.mormon a few years ago.

[cdowis]

Dude is able to explain it all:

>Anyways, I said it then and I'm saying it now, I think it was just a coincidence.

>Single syllable similarities are the kind most likely to appear by chance.

The multiple evidences for the Big Bang can be viewed also as "just a coincidence", I guess, if it does not fit your view of the universe. As data and observations pile upon observations, the objective scientiest at some point begins to see it as actual evidence, rather than random events of coincidence.

You look over these posts giving dozens of observations on this thread alone, independent of the Bible or any other contemporary record, and, Dude ====== ***you still don't get it***.

At this point, this whole "coincidence" thing is getting pretty pathetic.

[The Dude]

You look over these posts giving dozens of observations on this thread alone, independent of the Bible or any other contemporary record, and, Dude ====== ***you still don't get it***.

What I get plain as day is the double standard relied upon by a certain class of apologist.

At this point, this whole "coincidence" thing is getting pretty pathetic.

Is it pathetic when I politely agree with you that Moroni/Cumorah is coincidental? Or in regards to Vernal Holley's list of correspondences?

[Bill Hamblin]

Is it pathetic when I politely agree with you that Moroni/Cumorah is coincidental? Or in regards to Vernal Holley's list of correspondences?

What is pathetic is your insistence that because one set of parallels may be coincidental, therefore ALL potential parallels must be coincidental, therefore you have no obligation to engage the evidence rather than repeat your coincidence mantra. You have shown consistent unwillingness to engage the fact that there are dozens of interlocking contextualized parallels.

[The Dude]

Is it pathetic when I politely agree with you that Moroni/Cumorah is coincidental? Or in regards to Vernal Holley's list of correspondences?

What is pathetic is your insistence that because one set of parallels may be coincidental, therefore ALL potential parallels must be coincidental, therefore you have no obligation to engage the evidence rather than repeat your coincidence mantra. You have shown consistent unwillingness to engage the fact that there are dozens of interlocking contextualized parallels.

No, Bill. I insist that I must be allowed, if I am not convinced they are noteworthy, to see them as coincidental. I never said they "must be coincidence." I said they probably are. You guys who say that's a pathetic view are using a double standard, since where you are not convinced by the critics' parallels you dismiss them as probably coincidental. You don't engage them if you don't think they are noteworthy; in your view, there's nothing material to engage. Why can't you see that's exactly where I'm coming from?

[why 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.

However, someone in your position as a person who no longer believes would certainly need to find some sort of explanation for the correlations. As has been demonstrated by The Dude, explanations are in short supply. And you know this also. Looking at it from your perspective, this can be a real testimony shaker. A testimony that the church is false also needs food to impart such belief in the system and these correlations are certainly not good food for such a state of being.

If I were a critic, I would certainly be a hemmin and a hawing about the religious knowledge that JS had. I would also be trying to play the coincidence card. But in the end, I would still have just a little doubt that perhaps I am also on the wrong side of the fence on this issue.

No, Bill. I insist that I must be allowed, if I am not convinced they are noteworthy, to see them as coincidental. I never said they "must be coincidence." I said they probably are. You guys who say that's a pathetic view are using a double standard, since where you are not convinced by the critics' parallels you dismiss them as probably coincidental. You don't engage them if you don't think they are noteworthy; in your view, there's nothing material to engage. Why can't you see that's exactly where I'm coming from?

And yet a good critic such as yourself can not offer any other explanation except 'coincidence'. I have to admit that seems pretty lame, indeed. But then again, if it makes you sleep at nights, why not? What works, works.

[Bill Hamblin]

No, Bill. I insist that I must be allowed, if I am not convinced they are noteworthy, to see them as coincidental. I never said they "must be coincidence." I said they probably are. You guys who say that's a pathetic view are using a double standard, since where you are not convinced by the critics' parallels you dismiss them as probably coincidental. You don't engage them if you don't think they are noteworthy; in your view, there's nothing material to engage. Why can't you see that's exactly where I'm coming from?

Dude, your position is that the BOM is ahistorical. Therefore, the existence of parallels between the BOM and the ancient Near East or Mesoamerica can be explained only by either: 1- JS intentionally copied sources known in the early 19C to create historical verisimilitude, or 2- coincidence. Do you have any other explanation? If not, then unless you provide evidence for alleged ealry 19C sources for JS, your only response must be coincidence. How have I misunderstood or misrepresented your position?

My position, on the other hand, allows both authentic ancient parallels, and coincidence. That is to say, not all alleged parallels to antiquity may be authentic. Some alleged ancient parallels may be coincidental, as are 19C parallels.

The key to engaging this data is discovering large numbers of interrelated contextualized parallels, an issue you refuse to engage.

[why me]

And yet the key is to see this all as a child would see in its simplicity. We can intellectualize it all we want. But the similiarities are truly amazing. I take my hat off to Joseph Smith once more for getting it right on the money. This guy was truly a genius. It makes no difference if his neighbors thought him ignorant and empty headed. Now from our stand point many decades later, we can truly say, that the man was a genius, a true religious scholar.

I just have to wonder how he fooled his neighbors all those years...Here was Joe, money digging and finding time to sit in the library doing research on the sly. Amazing. Truly amazing.

<<<<< I am just mumbling to myself, trying to understand it all.

[The Dude]

Dude, your position is that the BOM is ahistorical. Therefore, the existence of parallels between the BOM and the ancient Near East or Mesoamerica can be explained only by....

How have I misunderstood or misrepresented your position?

I said: "if I am not convinced they are noteworthy." I don't accept the "existence of parallels between the BoM and Mesoamerica"; to me they are contrived and cherry-picked. One syllable similarities? Where's the Mesoamerican word that sounds like "moo"? There's nothing to be explained here, by the two options you offer me.

Likewise, I said, "You don't engage [critics' parallels] if you don't think they are noteworthy; in your view, there's nothing material to engage."

The parallel game is a two-way street.

My position, on the other hand, allows both authentic ancient parallels, and coincidence. That is to say, not all alleged parallels to antiquity may be authentic. Some alleged ancient parallels may be coincidental, as are 19C parallels.

You think this is a superior position, somehow? Well to turn it around, my position, on the other hand, allows both 19th century parallels, and coincidence.

It's a two-way street.