A Fuller Explanation Of Coincidence:

[latterdayteancum]

Since this topic was brought up, here is what FARMS published about Vernal Holley's maps:

Perhaps the most innovative portion of the study is the section on geography. Several anti-Mormons shouted with glee when they first laid eyes on the map of proposed Book of Mormon lands shown side by side with the map of New England (see figs. 1 and 2), while some LDS scholars looked forward to studying the maps since it seemed that a fresh point of attack worthy of scrutiny had finally reared its head. An exhaustive study of the maps is beyond our purview here.14 Nonetheless, my general findings are summarized below:

Of the 17 Book of Mormon place names treated by Mr. Holley, nine of them (more than 50%) are mentioned only once or twice in the entire Nephite/Jaredite record. This reveals an effort to try to pinpoint cities which have little or no clue given as to their respective locations from the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Even so, it surprised me to learn that many of the cities on Holley's maps are placed in incorrect relationship to one another.

For instance, Angola and Jacobugath should be north of Zarahemla (Mormon 2:3b-4 and 3 Nephi 7:12a; 9:9a); Alma should be north of Lehi-Nephi (Mosiah 18:30-34; 23:1-4, 19; 24:20, 24-25); Jerusalem should be in the land of Lehi-Nephi (Alma 21:1; 24:1); and Morianton should be on the eastern borders of the land southward (Alma 50:28-34; 51:26). Mr. Holley has altered these locational relationships in every instance. Furthermore, he displays a glaring inconsistency in his treatment of the river Sidon. On his maps, he sees a parallel between this river and the Genesee River, yet on pages 14-15 he draws a parallel between the river Sidon and the Ohio River.

Other pertinent questions surface when considering just how original the place names are. For instance, several of the Book of Mormon place names appear in the Bible. These include Ephraim (2 Samuel 13:23), Ramah (Joshua 19:36), and, of course, Jerusalem. If the author of the Book of Mormon were given to pilfering, why would he need the Manuscript Story when the Bible would serve just as well?

It is also important to note that some of the New England cities were not even incorporated entities prior to 1830. Angola was incorporated in 1873,15 and in Monroe County, Ohio, Jerusalem's post office wasn't established until January 8, 1850. Thus, Mr. Holley's claim that such places were known in the neighborhood of Joseph Smith is chronologically misinformed. Finally, to draw etymological parallels between "Jacobugath" and "Jacobsburg," or "Shurr" and "Sherbrooke" is to strain one's credulity.16

After reading this article it weakens Mr. Holley's credibility by pointing out his placement errors on some of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. It implies he is trying to stretch his theory to fit.

But I do believe the names themselves warrant attention. I read the complete thread that Noggin started a while back, and while there were some good explanations I really didn't feel that anybody gave a adequate answer to similar names existing and being in close proximity to eachother. And I don't believe this FARMS review has either.

I understand that you can find cities all over the US that are similar to names found in the Book of Mormon. However, is it that easy to find so many that are similar in the same geographical area as Mr. Holley has?

Can someone please shed some light on this for me, as tonight is the first I have ever heard or seen Mr. Holley's maps?

[Not quite me]

Since this topic was brought up, here is what FARMS published about Vernal Holley's maps:

Perhaps the most innovative portion of the study is the section on geography. Several anti-Mormons shouted with glee when they first laid eyes on the map of proposed Book of Mormon lands shown side by side with the map of New England (see figs. 1 and 2), while some LDS scholars looked forward to studying the maps since it seemed that a fresh point of attack worthy of scrutiny had finally reared its head. An exhaustive study of the maps is beyond our purview here.14 Nonetheless, my general findings are summarized below:

Of the 17 Book of Mormon place names treated by Mr. Holley, nine of them (more than 50%) are mentioned only once or twice in the entire Nephite/Jaredite record. This reveals an effort to try to pinpoint cities which have little or no clue given as to their respective locations from the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Even so, it surprised me to learn that many of the cities on Holley's maps are placed in incorrect relationship to one another.

For instance, Angola and Jacobugath should be north of Zarahemla (Mormon 2:3b-4 and 3 Nephi 7:12a; 9:9a); Alma should be north of Lehi-Nephi (Mosiah 18:30-34; 23:1-4, 19; 24:20, 24-25); Jerusalem should be in the land of Lehi-Nephi (Alma 21:1; 24:1); and Morianton should be on the eastern borders of the land southward (Alma 50:28-34; 51:26). Mr. Holley has altered these locational relationships in every instance. Furthermore, he displays a glaring inconsistency in his treatment of the river Sidon. On his maps, he sees a parallel between this river and the Genesee River, yet on pages 14-15 he draws a parallel between the river Sidon and the Ohio River.

Other pertinent questions surface when considering just how original the place names are. For instance, several of the Book of Mormon place names appear in the Bible. These include Ephraim (2 Samuel 13:23), Ramah (Joshua 19:36), and, of course, Jerusalem. If the author of the Book of Mormon were given to pilfering, why would he need the Manuscript Story when the Bible would serve just as well?

It is also important to note that some of the New England cities were not even incorporated entities prior to 1830. Angola was incorporated in 1873,15 and in Monroe County, Ohio, Jerusalem's post office wasn't established until January 8, 1850. Thus, Mr. Holley's claim that such places were known in the neighborhood of Joseph Smith is chronologically misinformed. Finally, to draw etymological parallels between "Jacobugath" and "Jacobsburg," or "Shurr" and "Sherbrooke" is to strain one's credulity.16

After reading this article it weakens Mr. Holley's credibility by pointing out his placement errors on some of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. It implies he is trying to stretch his theory to fit.

But I do believe the names themselves warrant attention. I read the complete thread that Noggin started a while back, and while there were some good explanations I really didn't feel that anybody gave a adequate answer to similar names existing and being in close proximity to eachother. And I don't believe this FARMS review has either.

I understand that you can find cities all over the US that are similar to names found in the Book of Mormon. However, is it that easy to find so many that are similar in the same geographical area as Mr. Holley has?

Can someone please shed some light on this for me, as tonight is the first I have ever heard or seen Mr. Holley's maps?

This has been discussed here before. The interesting thing about the FARMS response is that it very much echoes the response of critics in this thread to Nibley's list of Egyptian names. My main quibble with the FARMS response is the notion that the incorporation of a town is the date at which said place came into existence. For example, I grew up in a town that was founded in the 1850s. My high school bore the name of the town, and many local businesses used the town name. However, there was no post office there until the 1970s, and the town was not incorporated until 1991. If FARMS is right, I am chronologically misinformed because I lived in a town that didn't exist.

[latterdayteancum]

This has been discussed here before. The interesting thing about the FARMS response is that it very much echoes the response of critics in this thread to Nibley's list of Egyptian names. My main quibble with the FARMS response is the notion that the incorporation of a town is the date at which said place came into existence. For example, I grew up in a town that was founded in the 1850s. My high school bore the name of the town, and many local businesses used the town name. However, there was no post office there until the 1970s, and the town was not incorporated until 1991. If FARMS is right, I am chronologically misinformed because I lived in a town that didn't exist.

I realize this has been discussed before. I have exhaustingly read through previous threads. So much, that I now have a headache.

Incorporated or not, I would love to hear explanations from members and apologists that are more educated on this subject than I am.

[asbestosman]

My main quibble with the FARMS response is the notion that the incorporation of a town is the date at which said place came into existence. For example, I grew up in a town that was founded in the 1850s. My high school bore the name of the town, and many local businesses used the town name. However, there was no post office there until the 1970s, and the town was not incorporated until 1991. If FARMS is right, I am chronologically misinformed because I lived in a town that didn't exist.

Well then all the critics have to do is provide evidence thta the names were known before 1830 even if the towns weren't incorportated. Even then it wouldn't compare with NHM. We need to have a correlation for what the towns actually did besides where they are located.

[maklelan]

Maklelan, what about these tongue-in-cheek coincidences to Danish? Do they thrust Denmark and Danish roots beyond the realm of coincidence?

Pahoran = Pak (masses) + horen (to hear), meaning a king selected by the voice of the people, just as outlined in the scriptures.

Kishkumen = Kirke (church) + kommen (comings and goings), and we know that Kishkumen was someone who left the church.

Gidgiddoni = Gid (I wish) + jonglere (to juggle), meaning "I wish I could juggle."

Corianton = korenden (currants)

Cumorah = Kummer (grief) + om (about), meaning place of grief, which fits the ultimate scene of Nephite destruction perfectly.

Moriancumr = Morian (dark-skinned) + kummer (grief), meaning a dark skinned person who suffered grief.

Coriantumr = Currants + grief, meaning evil fruits, which would describe this Jaredite king well.

Moroni = Moro (amusement) + ni (nine), meaning that Mormon had nine years of joy from his son

Zarahemla = Zar (ruler) + akeleje (flower), meaning the beautiful place where the ruler dwells.

Gadianton = Gad (preterite of "gide" to choose) + hone (roast chicken) + ton (ton), meaning, "I might choose an enormous roast chicken, which fits in with what we know about the greed of these robbers.

1) The similarities are no where near as clear as the Hebrew and Egyptian. There's no justification of transliterating from these words to English and coming up with the Book of Mormon names, while the transliterations from the Semitic to English perfectly match.

2) Do these word combinations actually occur in proper names, or are they just conglomerations of words?

[Chris Smith]

Onidah = Oneida

Match.

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

Mater lectionis.

-CK

[Chris Smith]

This oughta help with the Vernal Holley stuff.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC2291...30&as_brr=1

[helix]

If it wasn't for the Kishkiminetas/Kishcumen link, the Holley map would be extremely weak. (And yes, for a time, it was written as Kishkiminetas with the 'h'. Also, in the BoM manuscripts, it was written Kishcumen, with a 'c').

Overall, I find Holley's map to be very unconvincing. Holley didn't just settle for city names. He took every geographical or personal name in the Book of Mormon, and compared it to every county, city, town, lake, river, mountain, etc. in a thousand mile radius from Palmyra, New York. You are bound to find some strecthed matches (of which, he found plenty), and a few really good matches. I'm personally surprised he didn't find as many as I expected. Then again, I wonder how hard Holley's effort was. The first Holley map showed a modern day town of Zarahemla, NY (which of course doesn't exist). And it described a Book of Mormon town as Anti-Anti (when it is really Ani-Anti).

I'm sure if a more exhaustive search were performed, more parallels could be found. I, for example, in a few minutes, started with Antipus, and got an Antipus/Annapolis match. Another popular post from a few months back found over a dozen great parallels...to Washington state.

[JarMan]

I have a question about Nibley's list of BOM/Egyptian names. When were the BOM peoples given their names? I'm assuming that they were given their names at birth because that's what our society does today. If that was the case in BOM times, as well, then many of the similarities in the meanings of the names would seem to be coincidental. Some of the names, like "Aha" and "Ammon" are impressive. But the fact that Korihor was an agitator in the BOM arrested by the people of Ammon as compared to Kherihor who was the high priest of the god Ammon "who seized the throne of Egypt at Thebes" does not seem consequential beyond the obvious similarity in pronunciation. Of course, if the name "Korihor" was made up by the people after witnessing Korihor's actions it would explain things better. But if you assume that his parents named him, wouldn't the meaning of the name be purely coincidence?

[maklelan]

I have a question about Nibley's list of BOM/Egyptian names. When were the BOM peoples given their names? I'm assuming that they were given their names at birth because that's what our society does today. If that was the case in BOM times, as well, then many of the similarities in the meanings of the names would seem to be coincidental. Some of the names, like "Aha" and "Ammon" are impressive. But the fact that Korihor was an agitator in the BOM arrested by the people of Ammon as compared to Kherihor who was the high priest of the god Ammon "who seized the throne of Egypt at Thebes" does not seem consequential beyond the obvious similarity in pronunciation. Of course, if the name "Korihor" was made up by the people after witnessing Korihor's actions it would explain things better. But if you assume that his parents named him, wouldn't the meaning of the name be purely coincidence?

This seems correct to us today, but in Biblical times people were often given nicknames that described their character or defining attributes. Redactors would also change names to create little editorials about the person. Examples: Ruth 4:9 - Chilion and Mahlon= "annihilation" and "sickly." Saul's son is called Ish-bosheth. Would Saul really name his son "Man of shame"? Jeremiah says to Pashur, "The Lord hath not called thy name Pashur, but Magog-missabib." Jacob was told that his new name would be Israel, but he is still referred to as Jacob.

Egyptians were also fiercly secretive about their given names. If a person knew your name they had control over you. They would therefore adopt nicknames throughout their lives. Kings took upon them five different names. You brought up Aha, which denotes a fighter, but his cartouche also has the falcon in it, so he was known as "Horus the fighter." This was political propaganda, so it is clear that, at least in Egypt, Aha's name was given or taken as an adult.

[JRF]

This is an interesting discussion, but we should be careful this doesn't degenerate into a "battle of the coincidences." I don't know much about archeology, but I know a lot about statistics, and we need to be careful in throwing conclusions about "coincidence" around.

Coincidences do exists, and therefore any single comparison can be spurious, as any statistician can tell you. That is why NHM by itself is not strong evidence. It is when the "coincidences" mount up that statistics tells us something more may be going on.

To return to Tarski's mention of probability, consider the following example:

Suppose that the probability that the NHM- Nahom name connection is a coincidence is 90%

And suppose the probability that it's coincidence that the BOM correctly describes the existence of an oasis in Southern Arabia is 90%.

And suppose that it 90% probable that it is coincidence that it is located approximately where the BOM said Lehi travelled.

Ditto 90% coincidence that the NHM name existed in the 6th century BC

Ditto 90% coincidence that there is iron ore.

Ditto 90% coincidence that there are tree for ship building.

Ditto 90% coincidence that the NHM is associated with mourning, as is Nahom in the BOM.

Ditto 90% coincidence it is a burial place.

Now, what is the probability that ALL these characteristics TOGETHER are coincidence?

It is .9 to the 8th power= 43%

Oops! Now it doesn't look so coincidental. Of course the probabilities were arbitrarily chosen, but the point is: One coincidence is likely that-- a coincidence. Multiple coincidences in a row are less likely to be random.

It is not NHM by itself that is persuasive, it is the cumulative effect of all of these ancient parallels that, bit by bit, strengthens the apologists' arguments

Let me turn to the "coincidences" in names with New York, Washington State, Danish, etc. To compare this to NHM is comparing apples to oranges. If I select a geographical area with thousands of names and try to match them with hundreds of names in the BOM, the probability of a random spurious correlation is very high. In fact, multiple random correlations are to be expected. The persuasiveness of the New York comparisons (for example) only comes when there are multiple correlations in a row. If the names matched, and the geographical relationships matched, and the historical existence matched, etc. only THEN would the New York comparsion be anywhere near as compelling as the NHM one.

I knew all those courses on statistics in college would be useful some day!

Whew! If anybody made it this far in my post, I salute your patience!

JRF

[Sethbag]

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.

Beware what standard you set.

I see people saying "yes, but NHM is an exact match, while yours is off by a letter or two", meanwhile the TBMs are circulating the lists of claimed Egyptian names in the BoM which are off by sometimes several letters, and are certainly no better matches in spelling than a lot of the Holley "matches".

You can't have it both ways. If your claimed matches have to be exact down to the letter, then all your Egyptian matches go out the window.

[Noggin]

Noggin wrote:

Morianton = Moraviontown

Teancum = Tecumseh

Onidah = Oneida

Hill Ephrain = St. Ephraim

Shurr = Sherbrooke

Moron = Morin

Jacobagoth = Jacobsberg

Jeruselem = Jeruselem

Her_Amun responded:

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.

Helix wrote:

Overall, I find Holley's map to be very unconvincing. Holley didn't just settle for city names. He took every geographical or personal name in the Book of Mormon, and compared it to every county, city, town, lake, river, mountain, etc. in a thousand mile radius from Palmyra, New York

How is the Holley map unconvincing and NHM is completely convincing to you, Helix? And for brevity, others also rejected (surprise) the Holley maps while completely accepting NHM.

Here is the sentiment by Abestosman that I see most problematic about NHM:

Asbestosman wrote: It's not just the [NHM] 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.

Please consider, Her_Amun, Charity, Asbestosman, Helix:

Much of the argument for NHM is that

1. the letters "NHM" correspond somewhat with Nahom

2. NHM fits a geographical place described in the Book of Mormon

3. NHM is also supposed to be a burial place and Father Ishmael was supposedly buried there

Therefore: the book of Mormon, on account of items 1-3 is now much more plausible than without NHM.

I cannot see how Moraviontown slips your grasp:

1. Moraviantown letters correspond somewhat to Morianton

2. Moraviantown fits a geographical place described in the Book of Mormon (see Alma 50:25, 26 "Land of Morianton")

3. Moravianton was also known in Joseph Smith's day as the scene of a famous War of 1812 battle of Thames a.k.a the Battle of Moravianton where Tecumseh died. (possible inspiration for Teancum who also died heorically in the Book of Mormon).

4. Kishkiminetas River, Oneida, Moron and we have much for contention. In fact, as each "hit" adds to the pile for consideration as to what the book of Mormon is or isn't, Joseph Smith becomes increasingly placed under suspicion, well, in my opinion at least.

Her_Amun says this is all a S T R E T C H. And that puzzles me. It's just as much as a stretch as NHM= NAHOM is. Then, how is NHM not a stretch?

Like I said, it appears incongruent to laud NHM as a hit and dismiss words that, by the same NHM logic even, categorize the words of towns etc found in Joseph Smith's day, on his maps, in his own vernacular that appear to have been used by Smith when he likely wrote the Book of Mormon.

Noggin

[cdowis]

>Moravianton was also * known in Joseph Smith's day* as the scene of a famous War of 1812 battle of Thames a.k.a the Battle of Moravianton where Tecumseh died. (possible inspiration for Teancum who also died heorically in the Book of Mormon).

So, you do agree with my premise that NHM is not a coincidence at all, this is not random event, but a deliberate attempt to fool the NY farmers. JS knew abt NMH after his extensive travels and study in the Middle East.

It is clear that we agree that JS traveled extensively in the Middle East, picked up local geographic names and places, and did an indepth study of the ancient languages of egyptian, Hebrew and Akkadian words and names.

Nice logic here.

[maklelan]

I see people saying "yes, but NHM is an exact match, while yours is off by a letter or two", meanwhile the TBMs are circulating the lists of claimed Egyptian names in the BoM which are off by sometimes several letters, and are certainly no better matches in spelling than a lot of the Holley "matches".

You can't have it both ways. If your claimed matches have to be exact down to the letter, then all your Egyptian matches go out the window.

They are not exact, and they shouldn't always be with that much distance between them and their origin. The difference between the Holley stuff and the Egyptian and Hebrew stuff is that the variants in the Semitic and Egyptian stuff follows perfectly normal patterns of morphology, and transliteration from the original language to English accounts perfectly for the changes.

With the Holley stuff there is no claim of morphology or trasnliteration, so the differences are unaccounted for. It's as simple as that.

[helix]

Helix wrote:

Overall, I find Holley's map to be very unconvincing. Holley didn't just settle for city names. He took every geographical or personal name in the Book of Mormon, and compared it to every county, city, town, lake, river, mountain, etc. in a thousand mile radius from Palmyra, New York

How is the Holley map unconvincing and NHM is completely convincing to you, Helix?

I NEVER said NHM was convincing. NEVER. Do not put words in my mouth or attack me for positions I've never stated or held!

If you want my opinion, it's that one parallel doesn't prove anything either way. That includes NHM and Kishkiminetas. Also, several rough hits (place names that if you squint your eyes, allow you to see a resemblance to Book of Mormon place names) also don't prove anything either way. I'm always careful of parallels, used for or against the church. I've been involved in many posts on FAIR about parallelism, and one of the rare threads I've started was titled "Parellelomia", asking posters to point out some deceiving parallels they've seen.

Vernal Holley's map is a wonderful example how far one can go while stretching matches. His Book of Mormon map was foundationally wrong. Zarahemla north of Bountiful!? He clearly missed one of the most basic of basic BoM geographical placings. His placing of a Zarahemla in New York was absurdly wrong. His use of "Anti-Anti" is flat out wrong. Virtually all of his placings of Book of Mormon places relative to each other are filled with problems. For example, you cited Morianton as a good match. But its location is also grossly wrong. Morianton was located near the East Sea, not near the West as is on Holley's map. It should also be very close to the land of Lehi, but on Holley's map the two are hundreds of miles apart.

Further, he missed other obvious "matches", as I pointed out (such as Antipus/Annapolis). As I've stated time and time again, if you compare hundreds of place names and people from one source against thousands of place names from a thousand mile radius, you WILL get matches. I'm personally very surprised Holley find any more good matches. And as another poster found a few months back, he saw just as many good matches when comparing the Book of Mormon to Washington state.

The argument can easily go the other way around. Take the few place names mentioned of Lehi's journey across Arabia, and compare that to the hundreds or thousands of place names known to exist in Arabia in 600 BC, and you may also find a match.

But the NHM match is different, because the Book of Mormon only gives a few Old World place names to work with. Jerusalem, the Red Sea, the valley of Lemuel, Shazer, Nahom, and Bountiful. The valley of Lemuel, Shazer and Bountiful are preceded with "he called", "we did call" or "we called". But Jerusalem, the Red Sea, and Nahom are never described in a way that suggests these place names were invented by Lehi's party, but were pre-existing.

So the comparison is not like Holley's, taking hundreds of BoM people and place names against thousands of actual place names. Instead, it's using at most, 4 BoM places against hundreds or thousands Arabian ones. So we have a much smaller chance for a good hit. Further, the Nahom/NHM hit does three more things Holley's map didn't do. The geography is consistent, it placed a city unknown to Joseph in its correct location, and Nahom's usage in the Book of Mormon is consistent with the area's purpose in 600 BC. Holley mainly just settled for words that looked or sounded alike. The NHM fit is much tighter. Finally, it's one thing to have the Holley map with a smattering of stretched hits, and another to have the entire Arabian journey have so many quality hits back to back.

Finally, if someone were to tell me the NHM/Nahom match is convincing on its own, I would fully disagree. I don't find one match for a short name at all convincing. But if someone were to tell me entire Arabian journey in the Book of Mormon is convincing, I'd agree.

[Luigi]

This is an interesting discussion, but we should be careful this doesn't degenerate into a "battle of the coincidences." I don't know much about archeology, but I know a lot about statistics, and we need to be careful in throwing conclusions about "coincidence" around.

Coincidences do exists, and therefore any single comparison can be spurious, as any statistician can tell you. That is why NHM by itself is not strong evidence. It is when the "coincidences" mount up that statistics tells us something more may be going on.

To return to Tarski's mention of probability, consider the following example:

Suppose that the probability that the NHM- Nahom name connection is a coincidence is 90%

And suppose the probability that it's coincidence that the BOM correctly describes the existence of an oasis in Southern Arabia is 90%.

And suppose that it 90% probable that it is coincidence that it is located approximately where the BOM said Lehi travelled.

Ditto 90% coincidence that the NHM name existed in the 6th century BC

Ditto 90% coincidence that there is iron ore.

Ditto 90% coincidence that there are tree for ship building.

Ditto 90% coincidence that the NHM is associated with mourning, as is Nahom in the BOM.

Ditto 90% coincidence it is a burial place.

Now, what is the probability that ALL these characteristics TOGETHER are coincidence?

It is .9 to the 8th power= 43%

Oops! Now it doesn't look so coincidental. Of course the probabilities were arbitrarily chosen, but the point is: One coincidence is likely that-- a coincidence. Multiple coincidences in a row are less likely to be random.

It is not NHM by itself that is persuasive, it is the cumulative effect of all of these ancient parallels that, bit by bit, strengthens the apologists' arguments ...

First of all I think that you meant to assign lower probabilities of coincidence to each thing, since the last 43% coincedence is not very astounding, if you had assigned a probability of 10% to each the probability of overall coincidence would be astounding(.000001%).

But first and foremost would someone please give the evidence on the Bountiful stuff you referenced?(ie the iron ore, trees for ship building). Everyone keeps bringing it up but how thoroughly was the Arabian Peninsula studied to determine that this place east of NHM was the ONLY place with trees, iron ore, etc that could fit the bill?

[cdowis]

"If the Salalah Coast is â??the place Bountifulâ??, then it also must have an ore body nearby where Nephi could, â??find ore to moltenâ?¦â? (I Nephi 17:9). This is a very specific and bold claim! It requires two rather unique conditions: the existence of an iron ore body, and a type of ore that can melt at the low temperatures attainable in a bellow-assisted fire (I Nephi 17:11). Not only are iron-ore bodies rare, particularly in Arabia, but also most ores require temperatures much hotter than a wood fire can reach."

Read the entire article at http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/040728ore.html

Of course JS was able to discover this unique feature of his Bountiful while in the mideast. He was afraid that the NY farmers would not believe the BOM unless he was able to add such authentic details.

Or, are you insisting that this is just another coincidence?

[The Dude]

With the Holley stuff there is no claim of morphology or trasnliteration, so the differences are unaccounted for. It's as simple as that.

Alrighty, let me account for the differences: creative license on the part of the author. People who create fictional worlds use real names for inspiration, but aren't bound by any rules of linguistics.

[asbestosman]

This is an interesting discussion, but we should be careful this doesn't degenerate into a "battle of the coincidences." I don't know much about archeology, but I know a lot about statistics, and we need to be careful in throwing conclusions about "coincidence" around.

Coincidences do exists, and therefore any single comparison can be spurious, as any statistician can tell you. That is why NHM by itself is not strong evidence. It is when the "coincidences" mount up that statistics tells us something more may be going on.

To return to Tarski's mention of probability, consider the following example:

Suppose that the probability that the NHM- Nahom name connection is a coincidence is 90%

And suppose the probability that it's coincidence that the BOM correctly describes the existence of an oasis in Southern Arabia is 90%.

And suppose that it 90% probable that it is coincidence that it is located approximately where the BOM said Lehi travelled.

Ditto 90% coincidence that the NHM name existed in the 6th century BC

Ditto 90% coincidence that there is iron ore.

Ditto 90% coincidence that there are tree for ship building.

Ditto 90% coincidence that the NHM is associated with mourning, as is Nahom in the BOM.

Ditto 90% coincidence it is a burial place.

Now, what is the probability that ALL these characteristics TOGETHER are coincidence?

It is .9 to the 8th power= 43%

Oops! Now it doesn't look so coincidental. Of course the probabilities were arbitrarily chosen, but the point is: One coincidence is likely that-- a coincidence. Multiple coincidences in a row are less likely to be random.

It is not NHM by itself that is persuasive, it is the cumulative effect of all of these ancient parallels that, bit by bit, strengthens the apologists' arguments ...

First of all I think that you meant to assign lower probabilities of coincidence to each thing, since the last 43% coincedence is not very astounding, if you had assigned a probability of 10% to each the probability of overall coincidence would be astounding(.000001%).

But first and foremost would someone please give the evidence on the Bountiful stuff you referenced?(ie the iron ore, trees for ship building). Everyone keeps bringing it up but how thoroughly was the Arabian Peninsula studied to determine that this place east of NHM was the ONLY place with tress, iron ore, etc that could fit the bill?

Actually you can only multiply probabilities if the variables are independent. Sometimes that assumption is unwarranted. I think we have no idea what the probabilities would come out to be. I'm not comfortable dismissing it as pure coincidence, but I have no idea how likely it is to be coincidental either. I don't think critics should be expected to be awed by how improbable the match is when we don't have a very good way to even guess how improbable it is in the first place.

[asbestosman]

With the Holley stuff there is no claim of morphology or trasnliteration, so the differences are unaccounted for. It's as simple as that.

Alrighty, let me account for the differences: creative license on the part of the author. People who create fictional worlds use real names for inspiration, but aren't bound by any rules of linguistics.

Yes, that takes care of the names (and I'm not impressed by the Egyptian/Hebrew list either). Even so, how does that account for the other stuff at NHM and the Arabian peninsula that cdowis points out?

[The Dude]

"If the Salalah Coast is â??the place Bountifulâ??, then it also must have an ore body nearby where Nephi could, â??find ore to moltenâ?¦â? (I Nephi 17:9). This is a very specific and bold claim! It requires two rather unique conditions: the existence of an iron ore body, and a type of ore that can melt at the low temperatures attainable in a bellow-assisted fire (I Nephi 17:11). Not only are iron-ore bodies rare, particularly in Arabia, but also most ores require temperatures much hotter than a wood fire can reach."

Read the entire article at http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/040728ore.html

Of course JS was able to discover this unique feature of his Bountiful while in the mideast. He was afraid that the NY farmers would not believe the BOM unless he was able to add such authentic details.

Or, are you insisting that this is just another coincidence?

You have obviously studied this more than I have. In your opinion, what is the chance that the true site of Ishamel's burial is actually somewhere else on the Arabian peninsula, and not the NHM site?

[Noggin]

Helix wrote:

Overall, I find Holley's map to be very unconvincing. Holley didn't just settle for city names. He took every geographical or personal name in the Book of Mormon, and compared it to every county, city, town, lake, river, mountain, etc. in a thousand mile radius from Palmyra, New York

Noggin responded:

How is the Holley map unconvincing and NHM is completely convincing to you, Helix?

Helix responds:

I NEVER said NHM was convincing. NEVER. Do not put words in my mouth or attack me for positions I've never stated or held!

Dang it. I am sorry.

If you want my opinion, it's that one parallel doesn't prove anything either way.

I agree, Helix. It just adds weight to opinion. I think what this does is put people in check pro or con in that they had better really look hard at their confirmation biases before they use any fact as a propping up of their faith (or non faith for that matter).

I've been involved in many posts on FAIR about parallelism, and one of the rare threads I've started was titled "Parellelomia", asking posters to point out some deceiving parallels they've seen.

I think I recall that post.

Vernal Holley's map is a wonderful example how far one can go while stretching matches. His Book of Mormon map was foundationally wrong.

That is one of the softball easy swings about the map. But if I were to argue that Smith picked or allowed inspiration to flow to him for book of Mormon name sources from surrounding existing towns and rivers etc, what difference would it make where the names were located on his map? Would it matter if his map was wrong? Would it matter if one river was 100 or 200 miles in a different local? Would it matter if Moravianton (Morianton) was placed at the wrong lake etc? As long as Moravianton existed, and a name like Morianton pops up in the book of Mormon, a coincidence exist that can provide a question mark for name source doubting.

Zarahemla north of Bountiful!? He clearly missed one of the most basic of basic BoM geographical placings. His placing of a Zarahemla in New York was absurdly wrong.

And I agree. But it would not exactly detract from the hits.

His use of "Anti-Anti" is flat out wrong. Virtually all of his placings of Book of Mormon places relative to each other are filled with problems. For example, you cited Morianton as a good match. But its location is also grossly wrong. Morianton was located near the East Sea, not near the West as is on Holley's map. It should also be very close to the land of Lehi, but on Holley's map the two are hundreds of miles apart.

see above. For me, as I delved into Holley's maps, I was more struck by the epic tale of war heroes in the book of Mormon character Teancum, who happens to kill a villian character Morianton.

1. Teancum leads many war parties over like a 7 year period against the enemy under strict "right hand man" allegiance to Captain Moroni

2. Teancum kills Morianton

3. The ambush death Teancum eventually suffered after sneaking into enemy tents throwing javelins into their hearts.

My eyes got rather big when I read about Tecumseh,

1. also an indian warrior who, like Teancum, was a "right hand man" to a Commander Proctor in several wars.

2. Tecumseh led many battle parties against the US and is historically noted to be an extremely pivotal figure in several wars.

3. Tecumseh died in the Battle of Moravianton (1812).

4. Tecumseh, a revered Canadian hero, is on Canada's "Greatest Canadian" list at #37

Is it coincidence? Oh who knows. Is Kishkimenetas River a coincidence? Oneidah? Sherbrooke/ Shur? I don't know. It just adds weight. Same as NHM adds weight. You had some really good points to make about NHM = Nahom.

And as another poster found a few months back, he saw just as many good matches when comparing the Book of Mormon to Washington state.

Yep.

The argument can easily go the other way around.

Yep.

But the NHM match is different, because the Book of Mormon only gives a few Old World place names to work with. Jerusalem, the Red Sea, the valley of Lemuel, Shazer, Nahom, and Bountiful. The valley of Lemuel, Shazer and Bountiful are preceded with "he called", "we did call" or "we called". But Jerusalem, the Red Sea, and Nahom are never described in a way that suggests these place names were invented by Lehi's party, but were pre-existing.

Jeruselem and the Red Sea have no weight as everyone in 1820-30 knew of these names. Nahom is the only name on your list worth looking at. Right?

So the comparison is not like Holley's, taking hundreds of BoM people and place names against thousands of actual place names. Instead, it's using at most, 4 BoM places against hundreds or thousands Arabian ones. So we have a much smaller chance for a good hit.

How so? You still have the hundreds of B of M names and thousands of Arabian names to cull through for hits. I must have missed your point, Helix. How much credence do you give Joseph Smith for borrowing the names found in the book of Mormon matching landmarks and historical heroes of his day? It is the proximity of the names to Smith's home base that suggest Smith used them in his book. They were easy picks. Even the innocuous Sherrbrooke = Shur is obviously a candidate. Just shorten Sherbrooke and change how you spell it. Yet that one got dismissed too by a poster here.

Her_Amun wrote:

Shurr = Sherbrooke

OK, why not Sherman Oaks California or Sherwood Forest?

and the answer is clearly, because, and only because Sherbrooke has the proximity to Joseph Smith's home base. I don't see why proximity gets dismissed. There are about 8 names of rivers, towns and War of 1812 war heroes within earshot buzz of Joseph Smith's home base, completely proximity relevant, that should be examined and weighed and measured. A skeptic sees a good chance that Smith borrowed some names from his locality and morphed them into his book, and for some reason, a devout Mormon with a testimony to protect completely dismisses them.

And you are correct. It means what it means. And I will concede that NHM, a name that Smith appears to not have known about (isn't there an early 19th century map with something Nahom on it.. or is that bad info rumbling around in my head?), could be considered a tighter fit in some respect. You are also good enough to point out that people need to be careful when employing parallels for faith propping technique.

You had more good things to say, but I have to get going. To be fair, here is a blurb of yours I wanted to comment on but do not have the time to do so:

Further, the Nahom/NHM hit does three more things Holley's map didn't do. The geography is consistent, it placed a city unknown to Joseph in its correct location, and Nahom's usage in the Book of Mormon is consistent with the area's purpose in 600 BC. Holley mainly just settled for words that looked or sounded alike. The NHM fit is much tighter. Finally, it's one thing to have the Holley map with a smattering of stretched hits, and another to have the entire Arabian journey have so many quality hits back to back.

Finally, if someone were to tell me the NHM/Nahom match is convincing on its own, I would fully disagree.

Oh, I lied. I can add that Holley looked for reasons why Smith would have chosen names like Tecumseh and Moraviantown; pairing these names with a name like Teancum and Morianton. It's not that far fetched to see Tecumseh in Teancum?... especially when both are "right hand man" indian warriors playing pivotal roles in wars

For those not of the Mormon faith, who may be reading this from a link found at another discussion board: Teancum is supposed to be a ~70bc central/south american Nephite soldier who served in the Nephite armies during the days of Captain Moroni, it is told that he killed a traitor figure named Morianton by throwing a javelin into his heart.

Noggin

[cdowis]

To everyone dismissing my "JS went to the middle east" theory -- did you know that he was not on the 1820 census.

Where was he? Huh????

The evidence keeps piling up, folks.

This is certainly as good as anything Dale has given us on the Spaulding/Rigdon theory.

[Chris Smith]

People! Please consider:

1. In a city where 1 in 1000 has HIV you are picked at random for HIV testing. The test is 99.9% accurate!! (both for true positive and true negitives). Suppose you test positive. Given that you have tested positive what are the chances that you do really have HIV?

drum role.....

Only 17% or less ! (use Bayes Formula)

Most people guess way off--after all the test is really accurate! 99.9% accurate.

Tarski,

I looked up Bayes' formula, but my head started to hurt halfway down the page. I would think that if you test positive for HIV wth a 99.9% accurate test, the chance that you really have HIV would be 99.9%. Given that you have tested positive, I don't see why the frequency of HIV in the general population would the validity of the test. Am I totally missing something? Any possibility you could type out what these values would look like when inserted in the formula?

-CK