Sethbag Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 As an aside, one of my math professors at BYU, Dr. Lynn Garner, whom I had the utmost respect for, told me that he'd had a lot of apparent religious crackpots write him letters over the years asking for his opinion, as a math professor, of some theory or other they'd concocted involving numbers. He had guys who claimed that an examination of numbers proved that they were to be the next prophet, and a lot of other such crap. He thought it was funny, in a humorous but also mildly disturbing sort of way, if I read his reaction right. We all have heard of such things, actually, with plenty of examples out there of people who "know" exactly when the Second Coming is going to happen, based on some examination of various numbers.
Smith Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 So, all Joseph Smith has to have done is adopt the Old Testament "Nahum" as his BoM "Nahom", and it may already bear some direct relation to the actual NHM tribal name. What a stroke of luck then that he chose that particular name which has that particular meaning and put it into a particular place in his story that happens to be found over a hundred years later exactly where he placed it in the story! Man what a stroke of luck!
Log Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 So the real question is, how plausible is it that Joseph appropriated Nahum and turned it into Nahom? Does anyone want to argue that the odds against Joseph's having appropriated Nahum and turned it into Nahom are 10.5 trillion to 1, or 9000 to 1, or even just 10 to 1? Now that would be interesting discussion.I will claim it is zero. If Joseph was intending to fool bible-believing folks, then, knowing Nahum was a personal name, he would, if he reused it, also have made it a personal name. That's just how frauds work - they don't get creative, usually, do they, in a realm where the mark has at least as much expertise in the subject matter as the fraud. But did he do that?
charity Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Disclaimer: I am not a mathematician. I did however get an A in a graduate level statistics class if that carries any weight.But answer me this, those of the vogelite persuation: 1. Nahom by itself has a certain probability. Why didn't Joseph pick any other 3 letter combinations from names in the Bible with 3 consonants. 2. The place where the Lehi party stopped for a time for a burial has the same 3 consonant name. That has a certain probability. 3. The place which was used for burials was in the right time frame adds another probability factor. Those things multiply.9,000 (for the consonant set) x a factor of 40 for the right time x a factor of at least 10 for the right type of event and you get a number that won't lend itself to guessing.
Sethbag Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 What a stroke of luck then that he chose that particular name which has that particular meaning and put it into a particular place in his story that happens to be found over a hundred years later exactly where he placed it in the story! Man what a stroke of luck!Hardly. How many other Old Testament names might Joseph have appropriated and this fact might have lead to the discovery of other "evidence" tying some name or other in the BoM with real-world Old Testament-era archeology? Probably quite a few. The whole point is that the Old Testament reflects some conglomeration of history and mythology of groups of people who actually existed in that neck of the woods over a long period of time. Therefor it's no mystery at all when we discover that some Old Testament names actually have archeological discoveries related to them, referring to people, places, etc.If you truly wanted to consider the possibility, using some kind of numerical odds, that Joseph Smith "randomly" picked an Old Testament name, and it's got archeological findings tied to it, then you should count all the names in the Old Testament, do some kind of research into how many of these names can be documented to be tied to real people or places that can be verified independently of the Old Testament, and take a simple ratio of those two numbers, and there you go. Aside from all that, however, I don't see how it's justified to claim that Joseph's choice needs to have been truly random at all.
Sethbag Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Charity, you can contrive as constrained of requirements for your hypothesis as you want. You can contrive a set of questions that could lead you to a conclusion of astronomically-large odds, if you are so inclined. However, you need to be able to support the idea that your constraints are justified. I don't think yours are.I'll give you a good example.What do you think the odds are that:1) A man whose name begins with S and ends with H lives in Queen Creek, Arizona.2) This man has four letters in his name.3) This man's three siblings also all have three letters in their names.4) This man was born in 1969.5) This man lives on the west side of the street his house is on.6) This man learned how to make violins on the internet, and has made two so far.7) This man's favorite color is red.I think if you looked at all the probabilities involved, the mathematical chance of my existing is pretty darn close to a zillion to one. Statistically speaking, I probably don't really exist.
Smith Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Hardly. He wasn't lucky then? OK, what was he then? How many other Old Testament names might Joseph have appropriated and this fact might have lead to the discovery of other "evidence" tying some name or other in the BoM with real-world Old Testament-era archeology? Probably quite a few. Smells like a wild goose chase you're trying to set me off on. How many hundreds if not thousands of names are there in the OT? Then, how many spots are there named along the trail that Lehi's family took? So how is it then that he gets the right name, with the right meaning in the right spot? Aside from all that, however, I don't see how it's justified to claim that Joseph's choice needs to have been truly random at all.I believe the point is that, were he just making up the story he would have had to be extremely lucky to have gotten all these factors mentioned spot on in the story he was creating. The chances of him doing that would be mighty slim, lending weight to the claim that it wasnt a made up work of fiction but indeed a translation of an ancient record made by people who actually lived.
charity Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 sethbag So, in your example, Joseph would have known that the place NHM existed in 600 B.C., that it was a place of burial, that is was at a specific spot on the Spice Route, and then constructed the story of Lehi's journey to fit that place. To make it real, suppose a stats teacher givea his class an assignment: Chose a name of an individual with four letters in his name that starts with S and ends with H, make up names of three siblings with 3 letters each, think of a town, pick a year of birth for the man, pick a side of the street for the man's house, pick a hobby for the man, and pick a favorite color. What are the odds a student would come up with something that fit you?
Smith Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 What do you think the odds are that:1) A man whose name begins with S and ends with H lives in Queen Creek, Arizona.2) This man has four letters in his name.3) This man's three siblings also all have three letters in their names.4) This man was born in 1969.5) This man lives on the west side of the street his house is on.6) This man learned how to make violins on the internet, and has made two so far.7) This man's favorite color is red.Those odds are not the point. What is the chance that someone concocts a story about you and gets all those items correct that you list but he lives more than 2000 years after you and has no reference material to give him all this data? That is the question.
Jaybear Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Those odds are not the point. What is the chance that someone concocts a story about you and gets all those items correct that you list but he lives more than 2000 years after you and has no reference material to give him all this data? That is the question.So if a lottery winner claims to have prayed to God as the winning number was being announced, that would prove God exist? Afterall, the odds of him guessing correctly are 1 in XXXXXXX, depending on the number of balls in the hopper. Anyone who would pass this of as mere coincidence is being intellectully dishonest.
TrespassersW Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 I think if you looked at all the probabilities involved, the mathematical chance of my existing is pretty darn close to a zillion to one. Statistically speaking, I probably don't really exist.Aw. Man! I guess I've been reading all those posts for nothing then. Seriously, though. I don't think your uniqueness implies your non-existence. But I do think that it would be very unlikely for someone unfamiliar with you to "guess" all of those details without some sort of inside information.
phaedrus ut Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Those odds are not the point. What is the chance that someone concocts a story about you and gets all those items correct that you list but he lives more than 2000 years after you and has no reference material to give him all this data? That is the question.By the same logic we would expect that it would be exponentially more unlikely that there would be a Camora/Camoros Island with a capital city of Moroni. Yet this is just a coincidence. Or consider the opposite. With all the thousands of points of of potential congruence why is NHM in the lead as the best piece of evidence supporting the historicy of the BOM? Phaedrus
Log Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Joseph called the shot.The probability of the target at which he aimed existing, given Joseph was a fraud, was zero.The shot hit the target.Therefore, Joseph had knowledge of the target.
The Dude Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Joseph called the shot.The probability of the target at which he aimed existing, given Joseph was a fraud, was zero.The shot hit the target.Therefore, Joseph had knowledge of the target.And if I disagree... I'm intellectually dishonest?
kawikadave Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 So here are the names in the Bible. There are 2623 (place and people) names according to the Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary. Guessing the right one would be a very, very, very long shot indeed.Care to try? Here are a few (I got tired of pasting after H): * Aaron * Abaddon * Abagtha * Abana * Abarim * Abba * Abda * Abdeel * Abdi * Abdiel * Abdon * Abednego * Abel * Abel * Abel-beth-maachah * Abel-maim * Abel-meholah * Abel-mizraim * Abel-shittim * Abez * Abi * Abiah * Abi-albon * Abiasaph * Abiathar * Abib * Abidah * Abidan * Abiel * Abiezer * Abigail * Abihail * Abihu * Abihud * Abijah * Abijam * Abilene * Abimael * Abimelech * Abinadab * Abinoam * Abiram * Abishag * Abishai * Abishalom * Abishua * Abishur * Abital * Abitub * Abiud * Abner * Abram * Abraham * Absalom * Accad * Accho * Aceldama * Achab * Achaia * Achaicus * Achan * Achaz * Achbor * Achim * Achish * Achmetha * Achor * Achsah * Achshaph * Achzib * Adadah * Adah * Adaiah * Adaliah * Adam * Adamah * Adami * Adar * Adbeel * Addi * Addin * Addon * Adiel * Adin * Adithaim * Adlai * Admah * Admatha * Adna * Adnah * Adoni-bezek * Adonijah * Adonikam * Adoniram * Adoni-zedek * Adoraim * Adoram * Adrammelech * Adramyttium * Adriel * Adullam * Adummim * Aeneas * Aenon * Agabus * Agag * Agar * Agee * Agrippa * Agur * Ahab * Aharah * Aharhel * Ahasbai * Ahasuerus * Ahava * Ahaz * Ahaziah * Ahi * Ahiah * Ahiam * Ahian * Ahiezer * Ahihud * Ahijah * Ahikam * Ahilud * Ahimaaz * Ahiman * Ahimelech * Ahimoth * Ahinadab * Ahinoam * Ahio * Ahira * Ahiram * Ahisamach * Ahishahur * Ahishar * Ahithophel * Ahitub * Ahlab * Ahlai * Ahoah * Aholah * Aholiab * Aholibah * Aholibamah * Ahumai * Ahuzam * Ahuzzah * Ai * Aiah * Aiath * Aijeleth-Shahar * Ain * Ajalon * Akkub * Akrabbim * Alammelech * Alemeth * Alexander * Alian * Alleluia * Allon * Allon-bachuth * Almodad * Almon * Almon-diblathaim * Alpheus * Alush * Alvah * Amad * Amal * Amalek * Aman * Amana * Amariah * Amasa * Amasai * Amashai * Amashi-ali * Ami * Amaziah * Aminadab * Amittai * Ammah * Ammi * Ammiel * Ammihud * Ammi-nadab * Ammishaddai * Ammizabad * Ammon * Amnon * Amok * Amon * Amorite * Amos * Amoz * Amplias * Amram * Amraphel * Amzi * Anab * Anah * Anaharath * Anak * Anamim * Anammelech * Anani * Ananias * Anathema * Anathoth * Andrew * Andronicus * Anem * Aner * Aniam * Anim * Anna * Annas * Antichrist * Antioch * Antipas * Antipatris * Antothijah * Anub * Apelles * Apharsathchites * Aphek * Aphiah * Apocalypse * Apocrypha * Apollonia * Apollonius * Apollos * Apollyon * Appaim * Apphia * Aquila * Ar * Ara * Arab * Arabia * Arad * Arah * Aram * Aran * Ararat * Araunah * Arba * Archelaus * Archippus * Arcturus * Ard * Ardon * Areli * Areopagus * Aretas * Argob * Ariel * Arimathea * Arioch * Aristarchus * Aristobulus * Armageddon * Arnon * Aroer * Arpad * Arphaxad * Artaxerxes * Artemas * Arumah * Asa * Asahel * Asaiah * Asaph * Asareel * Asenath * Ashan * Ashbel * Ashdod * Asher * Ashima * Ashkenaz * Ashnah * Ashriel * Ashtaroth * Ashur * Asia * Asiel * Askelon * Asnapper * Asriel * Assir * Asshurim * Assos * Assur * Assyria * Asuppim * Asyncritus * Atad * Atarah * Ataroth * Ataroth-addar * Ater * Athach * Athaiah * Athaliah * Athlai * Attai * Attalia * Attalus * Augustus * Ava * Aven * Avim * Avith * Azaliah * Azaniah * Azareel * Azariah * Azaz * Azazel * Azaziah * Azekah * Azgad * Azmaveth * Azmon * Aznoth-tabor * Azor * Azotus * Azriel * Azrikam * Azubah * Azur * Azzan * Azzur * Baal * Baalah * Baalath * Baalath-beer * Baal-berith * Baale * Baal-gad * Baal-hamon * Baal-hermon * Baali * Baalim * Baalis * Baal-meon * Baal-peor * Baal-perazim * Baal-shalisha * Baal-tamar * Baal-zebub * Baal-zephon * Baanah * Baara * Baaseiah * Baasha * Babel * Babylon * Baca * Bahurim * Bajith * Balaam * Baladan * Balak * Bamah * Barabbas * Barachel * Barachias * Barak * Barjesus * Barjona * Barnabas * Barsabas * Bartholomew * Bartimeus * Baruch * Barzillai * Bashan * Bashemath * Bathsheba * Bathsuha * Bealiah * Bealoth * Bebai * Becher * Bechorath * Bedad * Bedaiah * Bedan * Beeliada * Beelzebub * Beer * Beera * Beerelim * Beeri * Beer-lahai-roi * Beeroth * Beersheba * Behemoth * Bekah * Belah * Belial * Belshazzar * Belteshazzar * Ben * Benaiah * Ben-ammi * Beneberak * Bene-jaakan * Benhadad * Benhail * Benhanan * Benjamin * Benimi * Beno * Benoni * Benzoheth * Beon * Beor * Bera * Berachah * Berachiah * Beraiah * Berea * Bered * Beri * Beriah * Berith * Bernice * Berodach-baladan * Berothai * Berothath * Besai * Besodeiah * Besor * Betah * Beten * Bethabara * Bethanath * Bethany * Betharabah * Beth-aram * Beth-aven * Beth-azmaveth * Beth-baalmeon * Beth-barah * Beth-birei * Beth-car * Beth-dagon * Beth-diblathaim * Beth-el * Bethemek * Bether * Bethesda * Beth-ezal * Beth-gader * Beth-gamul * Beth-haccerem * Beth-haran * Beth-horon * Beth-lebaoth * Beth-lehem * Beth-marcaboth * Beth-meon * Beth-nimrah * Beth-palet * Beth-pazzez * Beth-peor * Bethphage * Beth-phelet * Beth-rapha * Bethsaida * Bethshan * Beth-shemesh * Bethuel * Beth-zur * Betonim * Beulah * Bezai * Bezaleel * Bezek * Bezer * Bichri * Bidkar * Bigthan * Bigvai * Bildad * Bileam * Bilgah * Bilhah * Bilshan * Binea * Binnui * Birsha * Bishlam * Bithiah * Bithron * Bithynia * Bizjothjah * Blastus * Boanerges * Boaz * Bocheru * Bochim * Bohan * Boskath * Boson * Bozez * Bozrah * Bukki * Bukkiah * Bul * Bunah * Bunni * Buz * Buzi * Cabbon * Cabul * Caiphas * Cain * Cainan * Calah * Calcol * Caleb * Caleb-Ephratah * Calneh * Calno * Calvary * Camon * Cana * Canaan * Candace * Capernaum * Caphtor * Cappadocia * Carcas * Charchemish * Careah * Carmel * Carmi * Carpus * Carshena * Casiphia * Casluhim * Cedron * Cenchrea * Cephas * Cesar * Chalcol * Chaldea * Charran * Chebar * Chedorlaomer * Chelal * Chelub * Chelluh * Chelubai * Chemarims * Chemosh * Chenaanah * Chenani * Chenaniah * Chephirah * Cheran * Cherethims * Cherith * Chesed * Chesil * Chesulloth * Chidon * Chiliab * Chilion * Chilmad * Chimham * Chios * Chisleu * Chislon * Chisloth-tabor * Chittem * Chloe * Chorazin * Chozeba * Christ * Chun * Chushan-rishathaim * Chuza * Cilicia * Cis * Clauda * Claudia * Clement * Cleophas * Cnidus * Colhozeh * Colosse * Coniah * Coos * Corinth * Cornelius * Cosam * Coz * Cozbi * Crescens * Crete * Crispus * Cush * Cuth * Cyprus * Cyrene * Cyrenius * Cyrus * Dabareh * Dabbasheth * Daberath * Dagon * Dalaiah * Dalmanutha * Dalmatia * Dalphon * Damaris * Damascus * Dan * Daniel * Dannah * Darah * Darda * Darius * Darkon * Dathan * David * Debir * Deborah * Decapolis * Dedan * Dedanim * Dekar * Delaiah * Delilah * Demas * Demetrius * Derbe * Deuel * Deuteronomy * Diana * Diblaim * Diblath * Dibon * Dibon-gad * Dibri * Dibzahab * Didymus * Diklah * Dilean * Dimon * Dimonah * Dinah * Dinhabah * Dionysius * Diotrephes * Dishan * Dishon * Dodai * Dodavah * Dodo * Doeg * Dophkah * Dor * Dorcas * Dothan * Drusilla * Dumali * Dura * Ebal * Ebed * Ebed-melech * Eben-ezer * Eber * Ebiasaph * Ebronah * Ecclesiastes * Ed * Eden * Eder * Edom * Edrei * Eglah * Eglaim * Eglon * Egypt * Ehud * Eker * Ekron * Eladah * Elah * Elam * Elasah * Elath * El-beth-el * Eldaah * Eldad * Elead * Elealeh * Eleazar * El-elohe-Israel * Eleph * Elhanan * Eli * Eli * Eliab * Eliada * Eliah * Eliahba * Eliakim * Eliam * Elias * Eliasaph * Eliashib * Eliathah * Elidad * Eliel * Elienai * Eliezer * Elihoreph * Elihu * Elijah * Elika * Elim * Elimelech * Elioenai * Eliphal * Eliphalet * Eliphaz * Elisabeth * Elisha * Elishah * Elishama * Elishaphat * Elisheba * Elishua * Eliud * Elizur * Elkanah * Elkeshai * Ellasar * Elkoshite * Elmodam * Elnaam * Elnathan * Elohi * Elon * Elon-beth-hanan * Elpaal * Elpalet * Eltekeh * Elteketh * Eltolad * Elul * Eluzai * Elymas * Elzabad * Elzaphan * Emims * Emmanuel * Emmaus * Emmor * Enam * Enan * En-dor * Eneas * En-eglaim * En-gannim * En-gedi * En-haddah * En-hakkore * En-hazor * En-mishpat * Enoch * Enon * Enos * En-rimmon * En-rogel * En-shemesh * En-tappuah * Epaphras * Epaphroditus * Epenetus * Ephah * Epher * Ephes-dammim * Ephesus * Eph-lal * Ephphatha * Ephraim * Ephratah * Ephron * Epicurean * Er * Eran * Erastus * Erech * Eri * Esaias * Esar-haddon * Esau * Esek * Esh-baal * Esh-ban * Eshcol * Eshean * Eshek * Eshkalon * Eshtaol * Eshtemoa * Esli * Esmachiah * Esrom * Esther * Etam * Etham * Ethan * Ethanim * Ethbaal * Ether * Ethiopia * Ethnan * Ethni * Eubulus * Eunice * Euodias * Euphrates * Eutychus * Eve * Evi * Evil-merodach * Exodus * Ezbon * Ezekiel * Ezel * Ezem * Ezer * Ezion-geber * Ezra * Ezri * Felix * Festus * Fortunatus * Gaal * Gaash * Gabbai * Gabbatha * Gabriel * Gad * Gadarenes * Gaddi * Gaddiel * Gaius * Galal * Galatia * Galeed * Galilee * Gallim * Gallio * Gamaliel * Gammadims * Gamul * Gareb * Garmites * Gatam * Gath * Gath-rimmon * Gaza * Gazabar * Gazer * Gazez * Gazzam * Geba * Gebal * Geber * Gebim * Gedaliah * Geder * Gederothaim * Gehazi * Geliloth * Gemalli * Gemariah * Gennesaret * Genesis * Genubath * Gera * Gerar * Gergesenes * Gerizim * Gershom * Gershon * Geshur * Gether * Gethsemane * Geuel * Gezer * Giah * Gibbar * Gibbethon * Gibeah * Gibeon * Giddel * Gideon * Gideoni * Gihon * Gilalai * Gilboa * Gilead * Gilgal * Giloh * Gimzo * Ginath * Girgashite * Gispa * Gittah-hepher * Gittaim * Gittites * Goath * Gob * Gog * Golan * Golgotha * Goliath * Gomer * Gomorrah * Goshen * Gozan * Gudgodah * Guni * Gur * Gur-baal * Haahashtari * Habaiah * Habakkuk * Habazinaiah * Habor * Hachaliah * Hachilah * Hachmoni * Hadad * Hadadezer * Hadadrimmon * Hadar * Hadarezer * Hadashah * Hadassah * Hadid * Hadlai * Hadoram * Hadrach * Hagab * Hagar * Haggai * Haggeri * Haggiah * Haggith * Hakkatan * Hakkoz * Hakupha * Halah * Halak * Halhul * Hali * Hallelujah * Halloesh * Ham * Haman * Hamath * Hamath-zobah * Hammedatha * Hammelech * Hammon * Hamonah * Hamon-gog * Hamor * Hamoth * Hamul * Hamutal * Hanameel * Hanan * Hananeel * Hanani * Hananiah * Hanes * Haniel * Hannah * Hannathon * Hanniel * Hanoch * Hanun * Hapharaim * Hara * Haradah * Haran * Harran * Harbonah * Hareph * Harhas * Harhaiah * Harhur * Harim * Harnepher * Harod * Harosheth * Harsha * Harum * Harumaph * Haruphite * Haruz * Hasadiah * Hashabiah * Hashabnah * Hashem * Hashub * Hashubah * Hashum * Hashupha * Hasrah * Hatach * Hathath * Hatita * Hattil * Hattipha * Hattush * Hauran * Havilah * Havoth-jair * Hazael * Hazaiah * Hazar-addar * Hazarenan * Hazargaddah * Hazar-hatticon * Hazarmaveth * Hazar-shual * Hazar-susah * Hazelelponi * Hazeroth * Hazezon-tamar * Hazo * Hazor * Heber * Hebrews * Hebron * Hegai * Helam * Helbah * Heldai * Helek * Helem * Heleph * Helez * Heli * Helkai * Helkath-hazzurim * Helon * Heman * Hen * Hena * Henadad * Henoch * Hepher * Hephzibah * Heres * Heresh * Hermas * Hermogenes * Hermon * Herod * Herodion * Heshbon * Heshmon * Heth * Hethlon * Hezekiah * Hezer * Hezrai * Hezron * Hiddai * Hiddekel * Hiel * Hierapolis * Higgaion * Hilen * Hilkiah * Hillel * Hinnom * Hirah * Hiram * Hittite * Hivites * Hizkijah * Hobab * Hobah * Hod * Hodaiah * Hodaviah * Hodesh * Hoglah * Hoham * Holon * Homam * Hophin * Hor * Horam * Horeb * Horem * Hor-hagidgad * Hori * Horims * Hormah * Horonaim * Horonites * Hosah * Hosanna * Hosea * Hoshaiah * Hoshama * Hotham * Hothir * Hukkok * Hul * Huldah * Hupham * Huppim * Hur * Huram * Huri * Hushah * Hushai * Hushathite * Huz * Huzoth * Huzzab * Hymeneus
The Dude Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Aaaarg! You have to cut that down, K-dave. Just post a link or something.
cksalmon Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Joseph called the shot.The probability of the target at which he aimed existing, given Joseph was a fraud, was zero.The shot hit the target.Therefore, Joseph had knowledge of the target.Your argument is missing a step or two:(1) Joseph wrote BoM (2) Joseph mentioned Nahom(3) Nahom is equivalent to NHM(4) a location labeled NHM exists(5) Therefore, Joseph knew of NHM(3) must be true for the conclusion to be true. That's where the odds come in. Also, given, as you write, "Joseph was a fraud," there simply was no shot. It is either coincidence or he had prior knowledge. You've mixed your assumptions: Joseph was a fraud and Joseph was aiming, with Nahom, for NHM. It can't be bothâ??at least not with consistency as a factor. Just for clarification.Best.CKS
kawikadave Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 So if a lottery winner claims to have prayed to God as the winning number was being announced, that would prove God exist? Afterall, the odds of him guessing correctly are 1 in XXXXXXX, depending on the number of balls in the hopper. Anyone who would pass this of as mere coincidence is being intellectully dishonest.Ahhh... so you're suggesting that Joseph had the game rigged in his favor. How exactly would he have know about an archaeological site that wasn't uncovered until 150 years after his death?Are you suggesting Joseph went to Arabia and planted the NHM inscription in the desert before he died?Aaaarg! You have to cut that down, K-dave. Just post a link or something. Sounds like it had the intended effect... Shall I add the words all the way to Z? It's a lot of words to choose from, isn't it? Are you a lucky guesser as well?
The Dude Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Sounds like it had the intended effect... (I'll happily delete this insult once you edit your list)I did it for you. If you want to be suspended or banned just say so. ~ Mods
Paul Ray Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Hey, I have an idea.What if Joseph learned about Nahom by a revelation from God.I think that is a reasonable hypothesis.I know of nobody who can prove that he didn't.
Olavarria Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Your argument is missing a step or two:(1) Joseph wrote BoM (2) Joseph mentioned Nahom(3) Nahom is equivalent to NHM(4) a location labeled NHM exists(5) Therefore, Joseph knew of NHM(3) must be true for the conclusion to be true. That's where the odds come in. Also, given, as you write, "Joseph was a fraud," there simply was no shot. It is either coincidence or he had prior knowledge. You've mixed your assumptions: Joseph was a fraud and Joseph was aiming, with Nahom, for NHM. It can't be bothâ??at least not with consistency as a factor. Just for clarification.Best.CKSIf thats really his argument then , let me help him out:1) The libraries that Joseph Smith could have visited during his New England years are :Dartmouth College in Hanover , New Hampshire which was close to where the Smiths lived when Joseph was between the ages of 5-7 years old, and John H. Pratt's Manchester lending library, near Palmyra where Joseph spent his teenage years from 1816 on up.2) Contemporary maps that deal with the Nehem tribal area do not appear in those libraries during the times that Joseph lived near their vicinities.3) It took 10,000 Roman soldiers 6 months to venture down the west side of Arabia, from Luece Come(probably modern Aynunah) to the city of Marisaba(perhaps ancient Marib). It took roughly the same time for Lehi's people to travel from "the valley of Lemuel'(Wadi Tayyib al ism) to Nahom(the Nehem tribal area).We know this because shortly after Ishmael's buriel the birth of the first children are mentioned, marrieges occuring in the Valley of Lemuel. The roman army lost soldiers due to unhealthy water and food; the Lehites lost Ishmael and complaned of starving in the wilderness. 4) Nahom.......Nehem, comes from the south arabic Nahama, to cut stone. The Nehem tribal area existed during the time of Lehi, were it exists today as revealed by 3 Marib temple alter inscriptions. In other owrds, NHM was the right name, in the right place, at the right time(600bc). 5) After the Lehites stay at Nahom, "they did travel nearly eastward from that time forth". Such a path from Nehem will lead you to the Dofar Region of Oman. Satelite imagery from this region shows that it is a little sliver of green on the east coast of the Arabian peninsula. The region contains:lush, green vegetation, fruit, honey, timbers and ever so small ore deposits.6) The Dhofar region also has an ancient ship building tradition, dating to as far back as 500BCE.
Sethbag Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 You guys are putting the cart before the horse. You aren't taking some random bit from the Book of Mormon, asking whether this can be tied to evidence from reality, and then finding evidence linking it to actual Old World (or New World, for that matter) archeology. You're starting out with some bit from the Book of Mormon that you already have linked to Old World archeology, and then asking what're the odds? Well, with that kind of setup, the odds are 100%. What are the odds that Joseph Smith "called the shot" with respect to horse-pulled chariots of war being used by the Nephites and Lamanites, or the existence in the New World of elephants, cattle, horses, etc.? Oh wait, none of those things have been found yet, so those must not be the right questions to ask.It reminds me of the people who will pontificate on the astronomical odds of a given planet being able to harbor life, and then asking incredulously "and what are the odds that we would live on such a planet?!?". Well, they're 100% stupid. There's nobody asking that question on all the planets where life just didn't work out.Joseph Smith didn't "call the shot" on NHM. You guys identified "the shot" after the fact, when you were able to find NHM stuff that you could link with the BoM Nahom, and then started asking "what're the odds?"If you think that the critics are wrong to identify "shots" taken by Joseph Smith that haven't hit the mark, then how are you guys identifying a "shot" taken by Joseph Smith that you've been able to show might have hit the mark, and that's any different?
cksalmon Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 If thats really his argument then , let me help him out:My clarification was logical, not evidentiary. Just for clarification. And Sethbag's comments relate to selective perception, in reverse perhaps, I think. Best.CKS
Paul Ray Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 You guys are putting the cart before the horse. You aren't taking some random bit from the Book of Mormon, asking whether this can be tied to evidence from reality, and then finding evidence linking it to actual Old World (or New World, for that matter) archeology. You're starting out with some bit from the Book of Mormon that you already have linked to Old World archeology, and then asking what're the odds?How would we do what you are suggesting, exactly?What random bit of information could we take from the Book of Mormon, and then ask if it could be tied to evidence from reality... like the existence of Nahom, for example?I think that is what some of us are doing.Joseph Smith didn't "call the shot" on NHM. You guys identified "the shot" after the fact, when you were able to find NHM stuff that you could link with the BoM Nahom, and then started asking "what're the odds?"Joseph Smith told us about Nahom when nobody else knew about it, (other than God and ancient inhabitants of Earth, I mean) and then later we found some archaeological evidence to support the existence of Nahom, or NHM, which can properly be interpreted as Nahom.How is what some of us have done not what you are suggesting?
The Dude Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Joseph Smith told us about Nahom when nobody else knew about it, (other than God and ancient inhabitants of Earth, I mean) and then later we found some archaeological evidence to support the existence of Nahom, or NHM, which can properly be interpreted as Nahom.How is what some of us have done not what you are suggesting?This logic is fine, IMO. The problem is that it has not been shown that NHM is the same Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon. When someone asks "what are the odds?" they are assuming NHM is the same Nahom; otherwise it makes no sense to ask this question.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.