A Fuller Explanation Of Coincidence:

[Olavarria]

The BoM claims to be written in egyptian, and egyptian names, with readly diciferable etymologies are in place.

Well, no, they aren't. What has been shown is a list of homophones, which may or may not have any relation to Egyptian names with readily decipherable etymologies. And the Danish post, although tongue in cheek, also showed homophones. I believe The Dude's point (and mine, as well) is that neither list shows anything other than a desire to find parallels, whether Danish or Egyptian.

Ok, here is an analogy I used in another thread: Suppose you made a trip down to Saudi Arabia. You are greeted at the airport by a Saudi man named Ahmed ibn Fahalan,ibn Rashid,ibn Alabast al Nehemi(pun intended). You and Ahmed really hit it off on the way to the hotel. He invites you over for dinner. Upon going to his house you meet his children: Hiawatha,Pocahontas,Sitting Bull and Squanto. How much research do you have to do have to do before you acknowledge that his children have American names? But those arnt american names. They are Saudi names that happen to be homophones of american names.

[cdowis]

>that have real meanings or close meanings in Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, or some other Middle Eastern language.

It is true that a *random* jumble of made-up names can produce authentic sounding names in various languages. But your analogy fails on the point that these names must be consistent with the story of your notebook.

I Ne 1 [2] Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

These egyptian names are within the context of the first and second verses of the BOM text itself. **This is no random event. ** The egyptian influence is loudly declared in the first chapter of the book, and in several other locations.

Your notebook has no such context. Did your notebook mention Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish cultures? It goes beyond coincidence when the BOM mentions the influence of Egyptian culture and THEN gives us authentic names.

Nice try.

[asbestosman]

Has anyone else wondered how coincidental it is that we can pinpoint NHM and possibly Bountiful and other places in the Old World, but cannot do so for the Americas?

Sounds like a fun thread; start it up.

A short answer to your questian is: archeology in the new world is not nearly as advanced as that of the old world. Why? We lack a continous history. Istanbul was Constantinople, Al Quds was Jerusalem.

Can anyone one tell me the pre-columbian names of Monte Alban, El Mirador, El Bahio, Casa grandes,cerro de las mesas,cerro de las navajas, san lorenzo,gruta de chac,la mojarra or San Blas?[/

Can anyone give me: 1 Olmec name or 2 pre-classic mayan names ?

I have no idea on the possibility of coincidence so I will leave it to anyone else to start up a new thread.

As regarding pre-colobian names I have one to add to the list. What is the pre-Colombian name for Quetzalcoatl? I admit absolute ignarance on Mesoamerican history. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised for some Mayan names even if the city names have likely changed.

[Tarski]

Has anyone else wondered how coincidental it is that we can pinpoint NHM and possibly Bountiful and other places in the Old World, but cannot do so for the Americas?

Tarski, your dismissal of NHM is interesting, but I do wonder whether you would apply the same dismissal to the discovery of Troy. After all, I doubt you believe Homer's epic tale is literally true. What is the objective reason one could accept Troy but reject NHM? Is it because the implication of NHM being right is too strong (how could Joseph have known)?

I don't follow. Isn't "archaeological Troy" a huge site where now know much and can make solid historical connections?

How is NHM the same as Troy? Are you saying NHM has been discovered in the same sense as Troy?

Hey if they make a big find that massively corroborates the BoM then I will accept it with appropriate surprise. That hasn't happened so what is the comparison? Ifs and mights?

[asbestosman]

I don't follow. Isn't "archaeological Troy" a huge site where now know much and can make solid historical connections?

How is NHM the same as Troy? Are you saying NHM has been discovered in the same sense as Troy?

Hey if they make a big find that massively corroborates the BoM then I will accept it with appropriate surprise. That hasn't happened so what is the comparison? Ifs and mights?

I should probably have looked more into Troy and NHM before making the comment, but at a surface glance they seemed similar. I also seem to recall that others who likely are more familiar with both issues (Dr. Peterson I think) have mentioned them together although possibly in a different way. I could also be mistaken about remembering the comparison.

(edit) Yep, I misremembered. Dr. Peterson has mentioned Troy many times, but I never saw it in the context of NHM. Go ahead and increase your score by the golden mean.

[latterdayteancum]

What I wonder is why we would expect Nahom to have stuck as a place name? Why would a small traveling party's designation of a stopping point on their journey be remembered centuries afterward? It's a very strange argument to me.

Now this is a weak question/argument. You would do better to keep riding The Dude's coat tails.

It sounds like you are insuating that Lehi and his family named the place Nahom. I believe most LDS apologists and scholars believe that was the existing name for this location.

[urroner]

It's possible that Nahom is actually in a different location on the Arabian peninsula. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, Her Amun.

Is there a difference between putting all your eggs in one basket, putting all your eggs in more than one basket, and throwing all the eggs at the people around you?

[Noggin]

Hello

Several months ago I got taken to task here when I put Vernon Holley's maps under scrutiny. Holley suggested how several names that are found in the book of Mormon correspond nicely with names found at modern day Smith proximity (upstate New York) geographical locations.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I include the Holley maps. The first map shows the book of Mormon names as they pretty much would play out in Book of Mormon geography set in upstate New York and the second shows the real non Book of Mormon names of these places. (Note: Zarahemlah is included in the real map of the NY area as a reference point, there is no Zarahemla in NY.)

It shouldn't derail the thread too terribly. Charity and another poster on this very thread today has found wonderful support for NHM as low level proof, in their mind, pro Book of Mormon authenticy. In my mind I would look at Holley's map, employ the logic that Charity does to find favor with NHM and place that type of logic with both names on both maps. There are a few, like Angola that don't work, but most of the other names are dead ringers. Coincidental? And if Charity says no, I would like an explanation as to how she and others like her can fvaor NHM but not employ the same parallel logic towards these maps.

I would invite these people to look closely at the Holley map. Charity, I know you chimed in months ago about how dubious these names are. And other posters guffawed on about how tired these maps were, and how they were debunked long ago. But I was able to find 4 or 5 that really do hold substantial weight. (I list them below). But I would ask you why you choose to see support in NHM but cannot see the devestating implication of names like

Morianton = Moraviontown

Teancum = Tecumseh

Onidah = Oneida

Hill Ephrain = St. Ephraim

Shurr = Sherbrooke

Moron = Morin

Jacobagoth = Jacobsberg

Jeruselem = Jeruselem

Teancum was a Book of Mormon warrior who died a heroe's death. Tecumseh was a well known war hero in the battle of 1812 that took place not far from Joseph Smith's home... (Tecumseh happened to die famously in an ambush as did Teancum) and so forth.

I mean, it goes on and on. I know this has been debated here, to my satisfaction at least, that Smith took or borrowed his Book of Mormon names from names of his surrounding geography. But my question stands:

How does an LDS supporter justify seeing NHM as proof towards the book of Mormon yet dismiss any one of the Holley map hits as bogus?

Seems incongruous to me.

Noggin

[The Dude]

But your analogy fails on the point that these names must be consistent with the story of your notebook.

I Ne 1 [2] Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

These egyptian names are within the context of the first and second verses of the BOM text itself. **This is no random event. ** The egyptian influence is loudly declared in the first chapter of the book, and in several other locations.

Your notebook has no such context. Did your notebook mention Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish cultures? It goes beyond coincidence when the BOM mentions the influence of Egyptian culture and THEN gives us authentic names.

Nice try.

In other words, the difference for my notebook is that I'm admitting it's fiction, and not trying to claim a real world context. Well that's easy to fix. Obviously, the author of the Book of Mormon was in control of his claims, and could claim whatever he wanted about his story.

Nice try.

[asbestosman]

Morianton = Moraviontown

Teancum = Tecumseh

Onidah = Oneida

Hill Ephrain = St. Ephraim

Shurr = Sherbrooke

Moron = Morin

Jacobagoth = Jacobsberg

Jeruselem = Jeruselem

Teancum was a Book of Mormon warrior who died a heroe's death. Tecumseh was a well known war hero in the battle of 1812 that took place not far from Joseph Smith's home... (Tecumseh happened to die famously in an ambush as did Teancum) and so forth.

I mean, it goes on and on. I know this has been debated here, to my satisfaction at least, that Smith took or borrowed his Book of Mormon names from names of his surrounding geography. But my question stands:

How does an LDS supporter justify seeing NHM as proof towards the book of Mormon yet dismiss any one of the Holley map hits as bogus?

NHM has no extra letters like your parallel list does. The only one that meets the criteria of NHM as far as having the right name is Jerusalem (or possibly Morin).

Jerusalem was named after an existing city unlike the Book of Mormon's NHM.

Do you have evidence that these place names existed before the publication of the Book of Mormon?

[Sethbag]

Tarski, your dismissal of NHM is interesting, but I do wonder whether you would apply the same dismissal to the discovery of Troy. After all, I doubt you believe Homer's epic tale is literally true. What is the objective reason one could accept Troy but reject NHM? Is it because the implication of NHM being right is too strong (how could Joseph have known)?

If mormons accepted the BoM as a work of mythology, only loosely based somewhat on historical places/cities, etc. then maybe this would be a valid comparison.

[asbestosman]

Tarski, your dismissal of NHM is interesting, but I do wonder whether you would apply the same dismissal to the discovery of Troy. After all, I doubt you believe Homer's epic tale is literally true. What is the objective reason one could accept Troy but reject NHM? Is it because the implication of NHM being right is too strong (how could Joseph have known)?

If mormons accepted the BoM as a work of mythology, only loosely based somewhat on historical places/cities, etc. then maybe this would be a valid comparison.

While I have retracted my claim becuase I am ingorant of the circumstances behind Troy and NHM, I will attempt to carify. What I meant to imply was the if NHM was correct we then have to explain how Joseph Smith knew about it. Having Homer know about Troy probably isn't that big a deal. Homer may have heard about it from others or something like that. Troy wasn't half way around the globe to Homer. Even so I have no clue so I should not speculate. On the other hand, is there any reasonable way Joseph could have known about NHM back in 1830 without revelation?

[Tarski]

Tarski, your dismissal of NHM is interesting, but I do wonder whether you would apply the same dismissal to the discovery of Troy. After all, I doubt you believe Homer's epic tale is literally true. What is the objective reason one could accept Troy but reject NHM? Is it because the implication of NHM being right is too strong (how could Joseph have known)?

If mormons accepted the BoM as a work of mythology, only loosely based somewhat on historical places/cities, etc. then maybe this would be a valid comparison.

While I have retracted my claim becuase I am ingorant of the circumstances behind Troy and NHM, I will attempt to carify. What I meant to imply was the if NHM was correct we then have to explain how Joseph Smith knew about it. Having Homer know about Troy probably isn't that big a deal. Homer may have heard about it from others or something like that. Troy wasn't half way around the globe to Homer. Even so I have no clue so I should not speculate. On the other hand, is there any reasonable way Joseph could have known about NHM back in 1830 without revelation?

Is there any reasonable way I could have known about siksok?

[asbestosman]

Just to prove I'm insane, I'll keep trying to defend an argument I no longer believe is good.

Is there any reasonable way I could have known about siksok?

Please tell us what was associated with siksok (like a well-known place to bury the dead) and where it was to be situated (a couple days journey by foot from _____).

I don't know why I'm defending NHM. Even I don't think it's all that convincing. But I haven't looked into it they way some who do find it convincing have. I'm not willing to dismiss it as pure coincidence until I do.

[Chris Smith]

Facts are stuburn things.

I know some quantum physicists who would disagree.

[Tarski]

Tarski, your dismissal of NHM is interesting, but I do wonder whether you would apply the same dismissal to the discovery of Troy. After all, I doubt you believe Homer's epic tale is literally true. What is the objective reason one could accept Troy but reject NHM? Is it because the implication of NHM being right is too strong (how could Joseph have known)?

If mormons accepted the BoM as a work of mythology, only loosely based somewhat on historical places/cities, etc. then maybe this would be a valid comparison.

While I have retracted my claim becuase I am ingorant of the circumstances behind Troy and NHM, I will attempt to carify. What I meant to imply was the if NHM was correct we then have to explain how Joseph Smith knew about it. Having Homer know about Troy probably isn't that big a deal. Homer may have heard about it from others or something like that. Troy wasn't half way around the globe to Homer. Even so I have no clue so I should not speculate. On the other hand, is there any reasonable way Joseph could have known about NHM back in 1830 without revelation?

Better one: How could Nostradamus have know about "Hister"?

[asbestosman]

Better one: How could Nostradamus have know about "Hister"?

Touche.

Still, Hister is not the same as big H who's name must not be mentioned on this board. I notice the prominent absence of the letter "l" and the addition of an "s" although the "s" does not stand in the place the "l" would. NHM has a good reason for the absence of vowels. What is your story to explain the Nostradamus' misses on this particular point. If we throw away the obvious mistakes and only count the hits then anyone can be a prophet.

[Mighty Curelom]

NHM doesn't even rise to the level of coincidence. It's closer to the category of manufactured evidence.

All these language comparison threads are just word games. They're absolutely worthless from an evidentiary perspective. How many words does a language have? 100,000? 500,000? Really, how hard is it to find matches (or almost matches) with a pool of half a million words to choose from? Secondly, there is no one-to-one verbal matchup between languages. With respect to NHM, I've seen Brother Peterson claim that the H could be pronounced more like the H in Ahmed--which sounds more like "Ahkmed." Given that there are numerous variations of vowel configurations that could be applied to NHM, and remembering that the "h" could be vocalized as a "k" or "ch" sound, the following words could all be claimed "hits" by apologists:

Nehm

Nihm

Nahm

Anahm

Anacham

Anacham

Anechem

Enehma

Enuhma

Nichem

Nikem

Naakim

Nichom

Nikom

Nicham

Inachem

Unihm

Nikaam

Nichaam

Aanichem

Aanichema

....just to name a few. Considering that this single 3 letter "toponym" could be pronounced 20 or so different ways (at least), it's not surprising at all that there's a word in the BoM that can be matched up with it. Anyone with enough time on their hands could play the same word games with The Dude's made up names and come up with "matches" too.

[asbestosman]

NHM doesn't even rise to the level of coincidence. It's closer to the category of manufactured evidence.

It's not just the letters (which I agree is a very weak argument). It's also the location and association of NHM with what the Book of Mormon describes.

[Not quite me]

What I wonder is why we would expect Nahom to have stuck as a place name? Why would a small traveling party's designation of a stopping point on their journey be remembered centuries afterward? It's a very strange argument to me.

Now this is a weak question/argument. You would do better to keep riding The Dude's coat tails.

It sounds like you are insuating that Lehi and his family named the place Nahom. I believe most LDS apologists and scholars believe that was the existing name for this location.

Yes, mea culpa, I'm feeling rather sheepish, your gratuitous insult notwithstanding. It helps to think things through before posting. My apologies.

[Olavarria]

Morianton = Moraviontown

Teancum = Tecumseh

Onidah = Oneida

Hill Ephrain = St. Ephraim

Shurr = Sherbrooke

Moron = Morin

Jacobagoth = Jacobsberg

Jeruselem = Jeruselem

Noggin

Morianton = Moraviontown

To many differences in constanants. Compare with Meri-Aten(Aten is content). The BoM name and the egyptian booth lack V,or W

Teancum = Tecumseh

Can you say STRECH . Or did Teancum come from Tillman, as in Pat Tillman, who our government initially claimed was killed by a Taliban ambush while in enemy territory?

Onidah = Oneida

Match.

Hill Ephrain = St. Ephraim

Both are likely derived from the biblical Ephraim.

Shurr = Sherbrooke

OK, why not Sherman Oaks California or Sherwood Forest?

Moron = Morin

Match.

Jacobagoth = Jacobsberg

Jacobsberg(City of Jacob?). I have no idea what the Nephit -agoth means. Since both American and Nephite society had a biblical tradition why is this a propblem?

Jeruselem = Jeruselem

See Jacobagoth and Hill Ephrain

I cant find John Sorenson's internal BoM map. I think comparing his method with Holly's should be interesting. Holly's map seems a bit forced to me.

Lets compare Holly' hits with Nibley's and see which is more convincing:

[Noggin]

Morianton = Moraviontown

Teancum = Tecumseh

Onidah = Oneida

Hill Ephrain = St. Ephraim

Shurr = Sherbrooke

Moron = Morin

Jacobagoth = Jacobsberg

Jeruselem = Jeruselem

Teancum was a Book of Mormon warrior who died a heroe's death. Tecumseh was a well known war hero in the battle of 1812 that took place not far from Joseph Smith's home... (Tecumseh happened to die famously in an ambush as did Teancum) and so forth.

I mean, it goes on and on. I know this has been debated here, to my satisfaction at least, that Smith took or borrowed his Book of Mormon names from names of his surrounding geography. But my question stands:

How does an LDS supporter justify seeing NHM as proof towards the book of Mormon yet dismiss any one of the Holley map hits as bogus?

NHM has no extra letters like your parallel list does. The only one that meets the criteria of NHM as far as having the right name is Jerusalem (or possibly Morin).

Jerusalem was named after an existing city unlike the Book of Mormon's NHM.

Do you have evidence that these place names existed before the publication of the Book of Mormon?

I do. There is a thread I did months ago here that goes into the histories of the names.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...hl=moraviantown

You can see me get mocked to high heaven the first few pages. On page 10 my case solidifies nicely. My case is made fairly strong with things like:

There is a Kiskiminetas River in the New York/ Pensylvania area as you can see at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiskiminetas_River

the river was named such, from what I can gather in the late 18th century

The town Kiskiminetas was then named after this river in 1831 (link): http://www.pa-roots.com/~armstrong/smithpr...ry/chap10a.html

So, then, is Kishkumen a made up Book of Mormon name taken from the nearby town and river Kiskiminetas? Take off the last four letters... and you decide, Kiskimin. Say outloud and it sounds almost exactly like the Book of Mormon name.

and (assuming someone is still reading this post of mine) from post #186 of the FAIR thread page 10:

Moravianton/Morianton, Tecumseh/ Teancum

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moraviantown

The Battle of the Thames, also known as the Battle of Moraviantown, was a decisive American victory in the War of 1812 which took place on October 5, 1813, near Chatham, Ontario in present-day Canada.

If I look at the map, Chatham Ontario is close to Palmyra. I wonder if it was exciting to be in Palmyra and be so close to major war event like that. A leading indian warrior and ally to the British named Tecumseh, was killed in that battle. It made all the major headlines. A city was later named after Tecumseh. Joseph Smith grew up near this quite famous battle sight. He lived the story telling at campfires. He was an impressionable 9 years old when this battle was fought.

Alma 50: 35

35 And it came to pass that the army which was sent by Moroni, which was led by a man whose name was Teancum, did meet the people of Morianton; and so stubborn were the people of Morianton, (being inspired by his wickedness and his flattering words) that a battle commenced between them, in the which Teancum did slay Morianton and defeat his army, and took them prisoners, and returned to the camp of Moroni. And thus ended the twenty and fourth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi

Angola turned out to be dubious enough to be a non hit concession on my part to the thread. But many of the other towns and hills and whatnot are definite hits. I was told in that thread that Morianton being generated from the town Moravianton was bogus, complete folley. How they laughed. But Moraviantown completely existed at the time Smith wrote the book of Mormon. And then Oneidah, Onidah, etc etc.

Even if we figure just one of these is solid, it is interesting to see the confirmation bias play out when a Mormon will accept NHM as proof, and reject the above.

Well, looks like my challenge to Charity and other NHM supporters got buried in the pages of this quick moving thread. If they read this, the challenge is on the last page.

And apologies to The Dude if this content veers from what he intended for discussion.

Noggin

[asbestosman]

Onidah = Oneida

Match.

I don't think so. I doubt the h was silent in hebrew or egyptian.

[Not quite me]

Which is more convincing? Neither, if you ask me. Some of the names on Nibley's list are Biblical names (Aminadab, for example), some are huge stretches, and the rest are no more impressive than Dude's list of Danish homophones. Someone described Nibley's work here as parallelomania. I don't know that I'd go that far, but it takes a lot of stretching to get exact matches to Egyptian names out of that list.

[Olavarria]

Onidah = Oneida

Match.

I don't think so. I doubt the h was silent in hebrew or egyptian.

benefit of the doubt