Olavarria Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Of course, not all maps of Arabia between the years 1751 and 1814 recorded the location of Nahom. In fact, it is generally found only on the finest and most expensive maps created by the best cartographers and published by the finest printers. In my searches I found countless maps of Arabia with no reference to Nahom or anything like it.Thus, it is somewhat amazing that the first modern map of the Arabian Peninsula, created by D'Anville in 1751, did record the location of this often ignored or unrecognized district. Furthermore, that same map inspired the Danes to send an expedition to the region to fill in the missing information, and the only survivor was the cartographer, Carsten Niebuhr. Not only did he engrave a place called Nahom on his map but he also gave us more details of the area in his journal.emphasis addedhttp://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vo...um=1&id=464
J Green Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 . . . and on the way back to Copenhagen, Carsten lost a copy in a printing shop in PA. Looking all over for it, he eventually wound up at the Dartmouth library, where he lost another copy. All the pieces are falling into place!
Lamanite Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Can someone make the connection between Joseph and this specific map?Big UP!Lamanite
Olavarria Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 So, if you were writing the BoM in 1830, you wouldn't just need a map of Arabia but you would need a map which mentions Nehm. Hmmm.
The Dude Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 What about a map showing the island of Comoro with its capital city Moroni? Oh wait. That's just a coincidence.
Olavarria Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 What about a map showing the island of Comoro with its capital city Moroni? Oh wait. That's just a coincidence.Are you implying that Moroni in the Comoros islands is evidence of something?
LeSellers Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 What about a map showing the island of Comoro with its capital city Moroni? Oh wait. That's just a coincidence.You have seen such a map? Because there is no way Joseph Smith could have. Moroni was barely a village in 1829, and no map has been found that shows it at that period. It did not become the capital until 1876. It still has barely 60,000 inhabitants, and not all maps of the region show it in our day even though it is a capital city. Lehi
The Dude Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Two of the first proper names Joseph had to come up with for his golden plates legend were the hill (Cumorah) and the angel (Moroni). I think their linkage in another setting predating 1830 is an interesting coincidence. Maybe Joseph Smith culled the names from some story he heard or some map he had seen.Maybe?
cinepro Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 You have seen such a map? Because there is no way Joseph Smith could have. Moroni was barely a village in 1829, and no map has been found that shows it at that period. It did not become the capital until 1876. It still has barely 60,000 inhabitants, and not all maps of the region show it in our day even though it is a capital city. LehiSo you're saying it's just a coincidence? I wonder what the odds of that are.
Joseph Antley Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I thought your point was that LDS are so insistent that Nahom is too dead-on to be a coincidence, while the actual name Moroni in Comoros has be to be a coincidence, meaning that maybe Nahom could be too. Maybe I'm losing my critic-interpreting flair.
DispensatorMysteriorum Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I thought your point was that LDS are so insistent that Nahom is too dead-on to be a coincidence, while the actual name Moroni in Comoros has be to be a coincidence, meaning that maybe Nahom could be too. Maybe I'm losing my critic-interpreting flair.Either way, apples and oranges...Nahom is in the right place for what the text describes, with the right use, right time, etc, etc. Comoros and Moroni are no where close to America, not the right time, not the right place.
Joseph Antley Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Either way, apples and oranges...Nahom is in the right place for what the text describes, with the right use, right time, etc, etc. Comoros and Moroni are no where close to America, not the right time, not the right place.I think the argument is, what are the odds that a place named Moroni would be somewhere with a name so resembling Cumorah? If that can be a coincidence, why can't Nihm-Nahom?
Doctor Steuss Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Two of the first proper names Joseph had to come up with for his golden plates legend were the hill (Cumorah) and the angel (Moroni). I think their linkage in another setting predating 1830 is an interesting coincidence. Maybe Joseph Smith culled the names from some story he heard or some map he had seen.Maybe?I think it's certainly possible that Joseph got the names for C&M from the island and its city (although, I don't know where on the plausible scale I'd put it). William Kidd did spend some time in the Comoros (and then there are the potential stories of his buried treasure and the guardian ghost). But, I've never been able to find anything that the city/village/settlement of Moroni was ever part of the stories (and that's what causes me to lean more towards the low end of the plausible scale given the unavailability of the name on maps and in gazetteers).I guess to answer your one-word question (although not asked of me): maybe.
Uncertain Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 What about a map showing the island of Comoro with its capital city Moroni? Oh wait. That's just a coincidence.Hi The Dude,I actually started a thread on this topic awhile back. "Hi All,Similarities between BOM personal and place names and ancient Near Eastern (NE) personal and place names are commonly used as evidence supporting BOM historicity. I find such attempts problematic or at least how the parallels are being used problematic. A major problem with apologetic (and critical) approaches is not controlling for multiple testing.http://slack.ser.man.ac.uk/theory/hyp_multi.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons(This is called the multiple testing or multiple comparison problem in statistics)When multiple testing is not properly accounted for in an analysis this can lead to misleading results. For example suppose the probability of drawing a black marble from a sack of marbles is very low say .01. So for any given trial when I draw a marble from the sack there is only one chance in one hundred the marble will be black. Now suppose I draw 500 marbles from the sack with replacement ( i.e. I return the marble to the sack after I record its color). I would expect to see purely by random chance at least 5 black marbles. So although the individual probability of seeing a black marble is low if I look long enough the probability of observing a black marble at some point is very high. If I were to assign some significance to seeing a black marble I would be mistaken.Consider Vern Holleyâ??s work demonstrating similarities between Solomon Spaldings writings and the BOM.http://solomonspalding.com/docs2/vernP3.htm#pg54To help support his thesis Vern compared place names in and around the Great Lakes with BOM place names and produced a list of hits.http://www.uwec.edu/geOGrApHY/Ivogeler/w18...place-names.htmNow some of these similarities can be explained because they both occur in the bible. Like Jerusalem or Boaz. But other names are not so easy to explain like the valley of Alma or Angola place names in the BOM which exactly match place names near the Great Lakes. It would be tempting to use such seemingly impressive similarities between place names as evidence of dependence. Examples of Joseph Smith (JS) using place names from his immediate environment to populate his fictional work.However such a conclusion is unwarranted due to the problem of multiple testing outlined above. If the BOM is authentic ancient history the probability of a place name randomly exactly matching place names near the prophet who is going to translate the text would probably be very low. But there are hundreds of place names in the BOM and hundreds of place names near JS therefore the probability of a handful of place names from the BOM randomly exactly matching names near JS may be very high. Based on the argument from marbles outlined above if I have 500 authentically ancient names the probability that any one name randomly matches names near JS may be very low say .01. But this still means I would expect to observe 5 matches purely by random chance. Hence a match between BOM place names and place names near JS is very weak evidence for dependence. In order to be convincing Vern would have to control for multiple testing in his methodology.The problem of course is that similarities between BOM place and personal names and Ancient Near East (ANE) place and personal names suffer from exactly the same methodology flaw. Suppose the probability of a made up word showing some connection to a word from an (ANE) language purely by random chance is very low say .01. So for any given made up word there is only one chance in 100 that the word would show a connection with the ANE. Now suppose I collect together 500 made up words I would expect at least five to show some connection to the ANE purely by random chance. Hence finding a word that shows a connection with the ANE is in and of itself very weak evidence for dependence (similar to Verns list of similarities). There are hundreds of candidate words in the BOM even if it is very unlikely for a given made up word to show a connection by random chance. Given there are many words being compared the probability of finding one or several words randomly matching ANE words may be very high. In order to be convincing apologists would have to control for multiple testing in their methodology."http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=37178&st=0Whether or not Nahom is a coincidence I have no idea. But I do believe in order to build a convincing probabilistic based argument (which is fundamentally what many apologetic and critical arguments are) greater rigor is required than what currently seems to be the standard.All the Best,Uncertain
The Dude Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I thought your point was that LDS are so insistent that Nahom is too dead-on to be a coincidence, while the actual name Moroni in Comoros has be to be a coincidence, meaning that maybe Nahom could be too. Maybe I'm losing my critic-interpreting flair.I'm willing to leave it as a coincidence rather than appear as a critic desperately grasping at straws. To be fair, I also believe the letters NHM carved in a stone in Arabia are most likely a coincidence. Stuff happens. That's all.
phaedrus ut Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Ok since this was posted I've viewed a few view of the maps referenced and read through the sections of Carsten Niebuhr, Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East referenced. The interesting thing to me is that even though Gee writing slightly hints as if each author or cartographer mentions Nahom they don't. The 10 maps they are very consistent in naming it Nehem or Nehhm not Nahom. And in looking at D'Anville's 1751 map & Niebuhr's Niebuhr's 1771 map they both seem to put Nehhm in a position that isn't a natural traveling point to the proposed sites of Boutiful at Wadi Sayq or Dhofar. The article is interesting but kind of confirms what we knew before: NHM isn't spelled, pronounced, or vocalized as "Nahom" and no matter where Nehhm ends up on the Arabian Peninsula that's where we'll draw the line of Lehi's journey.Phaedrus//if people want links to the images or books or want me to upload some I can.
Ipso Facto Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 I'm willing to leave it as a coincidence rather than appear as a critic desperately grasping at straws. To be fair, I also believe the letters NHM carved in a stone in Arabia are most likely a coincidence. Stuff happens. That's all.The only difference being that Comoros and Moroni have no other logical relationship to the Book of Mormon, except for the place names themselves. Coincidence is a good answer for those two items.On the other hand, NHM not only conforms to the name referenced in the Book of Mormon, but also to the place, and the time of the events that are alleged to have occurred there. Coincidence must be stretched considerably more to explain those relationships. That is why many people consider NHM/Nahom one of the strongest evidentiary elements to date to support the historicity of the BoM.
Olavarria Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 I'm willing to leave it as a coincidence rather than appear as a critic desperately grasping at straws. To be fair, I also believe the letters NHM carved in a stone in Arabia are most likely a coincidence. Stuff happens. That's all.Really Dude? South from Jerusalem, nearly east from the lush Dhofar region of Oman, 600bc......... .Though I disagree, I do respect your position. The main reason being that it doesn't neglect the evidence. I also respect it because it is a classic position to take in these types of situations. Hel. 16: 16 16) Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken.
Olavarria Posted January 9, 2009 Author Posted January 9, 2009 Ok since this was posted I've viewed a few view of the maps referenced and read through the sections of Carsten Niebuhr, Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East referenced. The interesting thing to me is that even though Gee writes slightly hinting as if each author or cartographer mentions Nahom they don't. The 10 maps they are very consistent in naming it Nehem or Nehhm not Nahom. And in looking at D'Anville's 1751 map & Niebuhr's Niebuhr's 1771 map they both seem to put Nehhm in a position that isn't a natural traveling point to the proposed sites of Boutiful at Wadi Sayq or Dhofar. It's interesting but kind of confirms what we knew before. NHM isn't spelled, pronounced, or vocalized as "Nahom" and no matter where Nehhm ends up on the Arabian Peninsula that's where we'll draw the line of Lehi's journey.PhaedrusAnd we know that vowels never change when transliterating one semetic language to another don't we. Just don't tell my Muslim friends that the prophets mentioned in the Koran are the one mentioned in the Bible.Arabic=Hebrew=EnglishMusa=Moshe=MosesIsa=Yeshua*=JesusIbrahim=Avraham=AbrahamYusuf=Yosef=JosephWhy should "Nehem=Nahom" be any different?*Aramaic
Calm Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Ok since this was posted I've viewed a few view of the maps referenced and read through the sections of Carsten Niebuhr, Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East referenced. The interesting thing to me is that even though Gee writing slightly hints as if each author or cartographer mentions Nahom they don't. The 10 maps they are very consistent in naming it Nehem or Nehhm not Nahom. And in looking at D'Anville's 1751 map & Niebuhr's Niebuhr's 1771 map they both seem to put Nehhm in a position that isn't a natural traveling point to the proposed sites of Boutiful at Wadi Sayq or Dhofar. The article is interesting but kind of confirms what we knew before: NHM isn't spelled, pronounced, or vocalized as "Nahom" and no matter where Nehhm ends up on the Arabian Peninsula that's where we'll draw the line of Lehi's journey.Phaedrus//if people want links to the images or books or want me to upload some I can.The fact that it isn't spelled "Nahom" in any references around JS's time would seem to indicate the unlikelihood of JS or someone else collecting the information from maps, etc since it matters in English but does not matter (at least in the same way) in semetic languages.So if it can be demonstrated that "Nahom" is an acceptable variation, it would seem that JS or whatever author one favours arrived at it independently somehow.And I agree that critics don't need to just address the name, but the location and function as well.As far as "draw the line of Lehi's journey", it seems to me the most logical way to go about it is to outline all information given in the text and compare it to all options known to exist in the region at that time and see which one matches best...and then decide if it's a decent enough match to allow for the possibility.From what I've seen of the various projects undertaking this, they more or less went along those lines. Are there any reasons I am not aware of that this process is inappropriate? And if not, is there any reason besides the methodology that any conclusions should be dismissed outright as 'ad hoc' reasoning as Phaedrus appears to be doing.
phaedrus ut Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 And we know that vowels never change when transliterating one semetic language to another don't we. Just don't tell my Muslim friends that the prophets mentioned in the Koran are the one mentioned in the Bible.Arabic=Hebrew=EnglishMusa=Moshe=MosesIsa=Yeshua*=JesusIbrahim=Avraham=AbrahamYusuf=Yosef=JosephWhy should "Nehem=Nahom" be any different?*AramaicSometimes to a hammer everything looks like a nail. When do you suppose this change happened. Remember the altar that started all this speculation that apologists date to as early as 600 b.c.? Well what does the inscription say? "Bi'athar, son of Sawad, son of Naw'an, the Nihmite, has consecrated to Almaqah Fari'at" and from that Nihmite the speculation was that there is a place called NHM. If I were you I would speculate that the story of Nehhm was carried though a oral tradition passed down from Lehi's family but unfortunately Laman had a slight speech impediment so as the popular story was carried down and then later redacted but Laman's Lisp caused the incorrect name and suggested pronunciation to be put into reformed Egyptian on the plates. Phaedrus
robuchan Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 The Nahom issue in my opinion is one of the toughest issues for critics.Random question: why would Gee be doing research to show the # of maps Nahom was on in Joseph's time. Wouldn't that be something a critic would be doing not an apologist?
Uncertain Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Really Dude? South from Jerusalem, nearly east from the lush Dhofar region of Oman, 600bc......... .Though I disagree, I do respect your position. The main reason being that it doesn't neglect the evidence. I also respect it because it is a classic position to take in these types of situations.Hi Her Amun,I view NHM as one of the more impressive evidences for BOM historicity because of the surrounding pieces. On the other hand I don't think the presence of the surrounding pieces is reason not to attempt to estimate significance or state that NHM could not be coincidence. It is true the surrounding complex of matches reduces the probability of NHM being a random occurrence. But what does this mean exactly? Does the chance of a random hit go from say 90% to 50%? Or maybe it goes from 50% to 10% clearly there is a big difference. The truism that the chances of random similarity are reduced by the surrounding complex of pieces is not necessarily all that helpful. Unless we have a baseline estimate of what we would expect by random chance for a parallel of the given complexity.A proponent of Vern Holly's work might point out he restricted his search to place names near where JS lived. And that his place names match to some extent the geography in the BOM (I know the match is loose). It is certainly true that these supporting observations "reduce" the probability of random matches. I mean if Vern compared BOM place names to say all place names in the U.S. or the Western Hemisphere he would certainly have found more matches. But simply saying the probability is reduced is not all that convincing without a more rigorous means to estimate significance (i.e. how much reduced ). Listing a set of reasons why a given parallel rises above the level expected by random chance. With no attempt to estimate what would be expected by chance is poor science. It boils down to an argument of incredibility based on your (or mine) personal intuition of the relevant probabilities. And to be frank such a methodology is deeply flawed. People are just not very good at estimating probabilities. See:http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/BBNs/Bia...his_section.htmWhat is needed to build a truly convincing argument are appropriate controls such that a baseline estimate of what would be expected by random chance could be estimated. Hel. 16: 16 16) Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken.Contrary to the author of Hel 16:16 I think the critics made a perfectly acceptable argument. I mean if I made 100 guesses and only got 1 or two right I think it perfectly appropriate if someone believes I just got lucky. All the Best,Uncertain
Chris Smith Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Two of the first proper names Joseph had to come up with for his golden plates legend were the hill (Cumorah) and the angel (Moroni). I think their linkage in another setting predating 1830 is an interesting coincidence. Maybe Joseph Smith culled the names from some story he heard or some map he had seen.Maybe?JS liked to read cheap novels about Captain Kidd. I don't know that any of those novels are still extant, so we don't really know what was in them. But certainly the Comoros Islands (called Comora or Camora prior to 1840) are associated with Kidd and pirate treasure. It has also been suggested that JS Sr.'s Ginseng shipment might have wrecked on the Comoros. I am inclined to agree with the Dude, however, that Camorah/Moroni and Nahom are probably coincidences.Best,-Chris
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.