The Place Which Was Called Nahom

[cksalmon]

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.

Ah, the good old anthropic principle. I go back and forth on this one, but I have to admit, it does, in the final analysis, seem a bit silly. Indeed, no one is calculating the odds of the anthropic principle's holding true where, in fact, it doesn't. Sort of de facto. But, then, surely there are methane-breathers with a high tolerance for UV?

It's a good analogy, I think.

Best.

CKS

[Paul Ray]

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.

I think what we are doing is comparing what we know about the Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon to the Nahom, or NHM, that was discovered in that part of the world.

... and then asking, based on the similarities, what are the odds that the two are the very same place.

[cksalmon]

I think what we are doing is comparing what we know about the Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon to the Nahom, or NHM, that was discovered in that part of the world.

... and then asking, based on the similarities, what are the odds that the two are the very same place.

But, you seem to be equating them prior to investigation: to wit, "comparing Nahom...to Nahom, or NHM." That's quite a leap to make, pre-interpretively.

Best.

CKS

[Olavarria]

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.

I wasnt aware of "chariots of war" being used by the Nephites and the lamanites. I am aware of one reference to a chariot and horses,with regards to one lamanite king but horse bound warfare and war chariots? Thats new to me.

As for the taxonomy of the BoM, because the ancients didnt use our taxonomical system(king,phylum,genus,species etc), that does not mean the words they used to describe the animals which they saw are incorrect.

Take these examples from moder mandarin chinese:

dolphin=海豚，hai3tun1, sea piglet.

seal=海豹，hai3 bao4, sea leopard.

giraffe=長頸鹿，changjinglu, "long neck deer"

crocodile=鱷魚，e-yu, "fish like fish"

panda=熊貓， xiong mao, bear cat

Lets not forget our own hippopatumus(greek for river horse) and the fact that prarie dogs aren't dogs.

[The Dude]

I think what we are doing is comparing what we know about the Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon to the Nahom, or NHM, that was discovered in that part of the world.

... and then asking, based on the similarities, what are the odds that the two are the very same place.

No, people are asking what are the odds that JS knew of NHM, assuming NHM is the same as Nahom. You are assuming the identity of the NHM site, based on the similarities.

[cksalmon]

Lets not forget our own hippopatumus(greek for river horse) and the fact that prarie dogs aren't dogs.

My personal prarie digs:

Okay, sorry HA.

Couldn't resist.

Best.

CKS

[Olavarria]

My personal prarie digs:

Okay, sorry HA.

Couldn't resist.

Best.

CKS

[kawikadave]

Let's keep our arguments straight.

There are two arguments against the value of the Nahom find in Arabia:

1. NHM does not equal Nahom/Nahum so the link is worthless.

2. Joseph Smith just used a Bible name and got a lucky guess so the link is worthless.

I'm sure for good measure some critics use one or the other as their #1 critique and the other is saved as a back-up just in case their primary one fails for some reason.

I've tried to just show - in my own jack-*** way - how unlikely it was for Joseph to have guessed, so that leaves just the NHM does not equal Nahom option.

[Donald]

LOL!!!!!! nice.

That's a good one, all right.

I recently wrote a book about Muhammad. But there's another seventh-century Arabian founder of Islam out there who's called Mohammed. Like an idiot, I completely omitted him from my book. And there's one called Mohamed, too. And, astonishingly, there's yet another seventh-century prophet who founded Islam, who is known as Mahomet! And please don't get me started on all of the holy Islamic books like the Qurâ??an, the Quran, the Koran, the Coran, and the Alcoran.

[Fly Fisherman]

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?

Let me see if I understand what you are saying...

If there is a probability of something happening, even if extremely remote, then eventually, it will happen? So, if there is a one in one hundred million chance of winning the lottery, then it is "no big deal" that somebody wins the lottery, since millions of people play. Therefore, the probability of somebody winning is 100%.

Expanding this, then given infinite universes existing (if that is true), then eventually some planet will be formed that has people and life on it, even though the possibility of this happening is horribly small. But, given infinite possibilities, and given infinite time, it will eventually happen on its own. It is like rolling two dice - you will eventually roll two sixes - given no limit to the attempts, the probability of two sixes appearing is 100%. Or if I played the lottery forever, I would eventually win the darn thing. The probability is 100% that I will eventually win it. Is this what atheists think? They use probability to explain these things? (I am not suggesting you are an atheist - I don't know. But still, is this how somebody who won't believe in God explains things?)

I heard a scientist on the radio say something that almost floored me with a laughing attack. But given the "infinite possibilities" theory, or whatever I could call this, I guess "mathematically" what that scientists said is possible. At least, mathematically. He said the following:

"Assuming infinite universes exist or will exist, then we can assume there are infinite possibilities. Therefore, Star Wars really does exist in some universe, and it exists in Portuguese!"

I guess that if the probability that Star Wars exists may be one in a googleplex in any given galaxy, but given infinite universes, and given over infinite time, the probability of anything existing will eventually happen, no matter now ridiculous its chances are.

However, if that is true, then for myself, I believe that there is a probability that a man somewhere learned how to exist after death, and learned how to create worlds, and populate them - he learned how to become a god - no matter how improbable this may seem. And he chose prophets and inspired them. Why, then, is this dismissed on grounds of pure probability? It cannot, given the logic I proposed. It must exist eventually. And we believe in God and that He does exist. And this seems like a more logical answer to us apologists.

If one is a believing Christian, who uses the probability theories that I described to dismiss Joseph Smith's bulls eyes, then that Christian would have to use the same logic to dismiss the Bible, God, and Jesus. But then they would have to open the possibility of God existing for reasons I added above, and a prophet and the Book of Mormon existing also.

I am not trying to make fun of or disrespect your theories. If I were a critic of the Church, I would probably use this logic to dismiss these things also. Having a minor in mathematics (which hardly qualifies me, I realize), I actually understand why a scientist would believe such things. I understand probabilities at least to a point. But I would also have to entertain the idea of the probability of God existing and inspiring a Latter-Day prophet. Actually, that seems simpler to me. To you it might not, and I will disagree, but respect your opinion. Actually, these arguments used against Joseph Smith are more logical than Christians who hypocritically use these logics against the Book of Mormon, but NOT against the Bible. But for me, and the rest of the apologists, it just seems a simpler answer to conclude that God exists, and He inspired Joseph Smith on this NHM thing.

I am not really looking to debate this, just wanted to make sure I understand the probability idea. But, alas, I probably don't, so I will go back to my prayers and the Holy Ghost giving me answers!

[Donald]

LOL!!! oh my gosh....thanks for the great belly laughs.....much needed!!

In other words, when considering religious claims, Jaybear's mind is open -- but not to the extent of allowing for the possibility that those claims are true.

Which means that his mind is closed.

This is the marvelous labor-saving device that permits Jaybear to dispense with actually knowing anything about a specific religious claim before rejecting it. Hence the appropriateness of the English verb to jaybear.

Incidentally, the verb to jaybear has already entered into both German and Arabic as a loanword. For instance: Trotz allen Hinweisen auf die Schuld des Angeklagten, hat seiner Anwalt stets gedschayb

[The Dude]

Let's keep our arguments straight.

There are two arguments against the value of the Nahom find in Arabia:

1. NHM does not equal Nahom/Nahum so the link is worthless.

2. Joseph Smith just used a Bible name and got a lucky guess so the link is worthless.

I'm sure for good measure some critics use one or the other as their #1 critique and the other is saved as a back-up just in case their primary one fails for some reason.

I've tried to just show - in my own jack-*** way - how unlikely it was for Joseph to have guessed, so that leaves just the NHM does not equal Nahom option.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't think you characterize the critics' POV correctly.

1. The NHM site has not been shown to equal the Nahom/Nahum mentioned in the BoM, so speculation about the odds of JS knowing is unfounded.

2. At the same time, JS could have found the name in the Bible, and for whatever reason (known only to time travelling mind readers) he inserted it in 1st Nephi. The odds of him having chosen this name are 100% -- see the anthropic principle.

These are both good arguments and have not been show to "fail" for any reason.

[Donald]

Amen!!! LOL

It's an article of faith in certain circles (and certainly is so on the Shades board) that, since I'm such a timid and insecure soul, this message board is micromanaged almost entirely for my comfort and protection. Please permit me to confirm that: It is true. Gloriously, wonderfully true. Not an electron moves on this board without my approval, and all of my thousands of daily demands are immediately granted. Hallelujah!

[cksalmon]

WARNING: non-mathematician at work here (I barely got an A [on a ten-point scale: 90.129, or something] in college algebra--the only math course I had to take in college):

Wouldn't the odds of JS hitting NHM with prior knowledge be something close to 1:1.

And, for the odds argument to work, mustn't one must assume that JS didn't know anything about NHM, in context? He would appear to have been either completely on-target, based on prior knowledge, or the recipient of some random bit of luck (as interpreted by later LDS apologists).

The pro-BoM proponent would seem to have to adopt the he-was really-lucky school of thought for the odds argument to even get off the ground. I realize that BoM proponents seek to use the odds as an argument in favor of NHM, but, per LDS apologetics, he wasn't guessing, so the odds game is out, right? In other words, isn't it necessary to the odds argument that JS had no prior knowledge, revelationally-inspired, about NHM?

This seems to be a fundamental disconnect in this sort of argument. JS was faking, but happened to get something right (per a later, layered, odds-are-this-is-it) apologetic.

What are the odds he had prior knowledge about NHM, per an LDS apologetic for JS's revelatory insights? 1:1. Or, something close.

Best.

CKS

[Alf O'Mega]

Much of the statistical noodling here is replowing ground turned in the Probability and NHM thread. I found this post particularly insightful:

The chances of a randomly chosen group of invented triconsonantal names matching any of a group of historical target names depends on the size of both groups and the number of consonants being selected from. If we take the 21 consonants that Hamblin proposes, there are 9,261 possible combinations available. If there are 500 potential historical target names available, how many guesses would our intrepid neonymist have to make to be likely to match one?

In this case the math is slightly different than in the birthday example. For each invented name (neonym), the space of available guesses goes down by one, since we expect the neonyms to be distinct. So for the first neonym, the chances against a hit are (9261-500)/9261 = 94.6%. For the second neonym, the chances are (9261-500)*(9260-500)/(9261*9260) = 89.5%. The chances of a hit become greater than 50% after 13 guesses. What if there are only 200 historical targets? Then about 32. If there are only 100? 64.

This is assuming that the consonants are chosen randomly. If the neonymist were familiar with other historical names taken from the same linguistic background, could she plausibly have acquired an intuition for what names might sound more linguistically correct than others? What if, for example, her own name had been chosen from the same heritage? Obviously subjective factors swamp the objective factors, so let's not be too easily impressed by intuitively improbable hits.

[Olavarria]

Let's keep our arguments straight.

There are two arguments against the value of the Nahom find in Arabia:

1. NHM does not equal Nahom/Nahum so the link is worthless.

2. Joseph Smith just used a Bible name and got a lucky guess so the link is worthless.

I'm sure for good measure some critics use one or the other as their #1 critique and the other is saved as a back-up just in case their primary one fails for some reason.

I've tried to just show - in my own jack-*** way - how unlikely it was for Joseph to have guessed, so that leaves just the NHM does not equal Nahom option.

and #1 can be argued by the fact that in semetic laguages, constanats are the only real thing that matter and those change from language to language.

English:Joseph

Hebrew: Yosef

Arabic: Yusuf

ENglish:Moses

Hebrew: Moshe

Arabic:Musa

Notice that the english transliteration vowels of these names are in line with the hebrew, BUT the arabic vowels are different. I guess arab speaking muslims,jews and christians believe in a whole sepearte set of Prophets for the same biblical history.

[The Dude]

and #1 can be argued by the fact that in semetic laguages, constanats are the only real thing that matter and those change from language to language.

English:Joseph

Hebrew: Yosef

Arabic: Yusuf

ENglish:Moses

Hebrew: Moshe

Arabic:Musa

Notice that the english transliteration vowels of these names are in line with the hebrew, BUT the arabic vowels are different. I guess arab speaking muslims,jews and christians believe in a whole sepearte set of Prophets for the same biblical history.

It doesn't matter if the word Nahom can be rendered as N-H-M. Sure it can. The significance of NHM comes from it being attached to a particular site in Arabia, where apologists would like to say Lehi and company buried Ishamel. That has not been shown. Until the site -- not the letters -- is proven to be the same as mentioned in the BoM, all these games about "how did JS know?" are without foundation.

Ishamel could have been buried somewhere else or may be only a fictional person. We'll never know.

[Log]

Suppose some doctor walked up to the Goonies after they found the pirate ship full of treasure, having followed the map to get there, and says "you can't prove the treasure you found is the treasure indicated on the map - the treasure indicated on the map may be somewhere else or be only imaginary. We'll never know."

The Goonies would rightly look blankly at him and walk away and save their neighborhood with the loot they'd aquired.

[The Dude]

Suppose some doctor walked up to the Goonies after they found the pirate ship full of treasure, having followed the map to get there, and says "you can't prove the treasure you found is the treasure indicated on the map - the treasure indicated on the map may be somewhere else or be only imaginary."

The Goonies would rightly look blankly at him and walk away and save their neighborhood with the loot they'd aquired.

That's a clever example. However, the goonies only care about the treasure, not proving the provenance of Chester Copperpot's map. They would stare blankly because the doctor is sort of... missing the point!

So are you saying, Lognormal, that you are 100% sure the NHM site in Arabia is the precise site mentioned in the BoM as the burial site of Ishmael?

[Log]

I have no rational doubt that it's the place.

[questioner]

I have no rational doubt that it's the place.

No rational doubt? What is rational about being completely certain that NHM is Nahom from the Book of Mormon without and sort of conclusive evidence?

[asbestosman]

I wonder if there's two NHMs kinda like there are two Cumorahs (three if you count the islands with the capital city of Moroni).

[asbestosman]

This is assuming that the consonants are chosen randomly. If the neonymist were familiar with other historical names taken from the same linguistic background, could she plausibly have acquired an intuition for what names might sound more linguistically correct than others? What if, for example, her own name had been chosen from the same heritage? Obviously subjective factors swamp the objective factors, so let's not be too easily impressed by intuitively improbable hits.

Nice post. I like arguments with some good math to back them up. However, I think that critics would be more convincing if they could demonstrate a similar hit on something that Mormons are likely to consider to be a fraud. Does Strang's book show similar hits? I think that sort of thing would be much more convincing to most people and perhaps more useful because this sort of probabality question easily becomes intractable.

In other words, I'm not so sure that your mathematical reasoning is applicable to the situatoin at hand. A solid example would be much more persuasive.

[Log]

No rational doubt? What is rational about being completely certain that NHM is Nahom from the Book of Mormon without and sort of conclusive evidence?

I am unaware of any contradictory evidence, and am aware of confirmatory evidence. Since all known evidence agrees with the hypothesis, I am warranted in believing the hypothesis.

[kawikadave]

I'm an expert in very few things, least of all mathematics, statistics, or Arabia. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I agree with your options for the NHM discussion.

1. The NHM site has not been shown to equal the Nahom/Nahum mentioned in the BoM, so speculation about the odds of JS knowing is unfounded.

There is evidence, but not absolute proof.

- The location is just about perfect. It is within 1 degree directly west of Bountiful.

- The dating of the altars is right at 600 B.C.

- The semitic roots of the name Nahom relate to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning. Fitting for a burial location.

- Close to the area where the altar was found is a huge burial complex (the largest in Arabia) that goes back to possibly 3000 B.C.

I'm not sure what proof you require to confirm that NHM fits the description in the Book of Mormon (some "Lehi was here" grafitti? A burial tomb with Ishmael's name it?), but these correlations are probably as good as it's going to get.

2. At the same time, JS could have found the name in the Bible, and for whatever reason (known only to time travelling mind readers) he inserted it in 1st Nephi. The odds of him having chosen this name are 100% -- see the anthropic principle.

This argument makes no sense to me. Of course he could have picked any name if he were just making things up. If he had said Ishmael was buried in a place called Pethahiah, than that would only be a supporting evidence if the location and description of Pethahiah fit the narrative in the Book of Mormon.