A Note on the name "Aha".

[volgadon]

Hi volgadon,

Again this is simply asserting a connection on the basis of complexity and personal intuition. Look it may be all this is to complex to occur by random chance. But this core point must be demonstrated using solid methodology not simply asserted on the basis of perceived complexity. Anybody can list a set of parallels and claim in perplexity how the "other side" is just ignoring how powerful it all is. But this is not science neither is it convincing. If indeed all these connections are to complex to occur by random chance. Then it should be easy to demonstrate this using rigorous methodology including reasonable controls. Simply asserting over and over again that all these connections with the ANE must be meaningful is not a convincing approach. It is no different than a LDS critic listing all the set of parallels with the nineteenth century and exclaiming only the poor deluded Mormons would find it unconvincing while all "right thinking" individuals would be convinced. Apparently you have no problems seeing why Vern's methodology is fundamentally flawed but you don't see you are using the exact same approach. It is great if you want to convince the already convinced but not if you want to build a solid case.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Except that it isn't hard to explain 19th century parallels and coincidences, but how do you explain the ANE ones?

[consiglieri]

I'm talking about names that were unknown to Joseph and contemporaries.

Names such as "Korihor," which bears a passing resemblance to the ancient Egyptian revolutionary, "Kherihor"?

Or "Hermounts," the Nephite wilderness infested with ravenous beasts, which is somewhat similar to "Hermonthis," the Egyptian Pan, the God of wild places and wild animals.

And don't even get me started on Paanki and Pahoran!

(Shades of William F. Albright.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncertain]

Except that it isn't hard to explain 19th century parallels and coincidences, but how do you explain the ANE ones?

Hi volgadon,

Well to you it might not be hard to explain 19th century parallels I dare say many would disagree with you. And it is in fact easy to explain the ANE ones they are entirely coincidental. Now prove me wrong don't just assert they are to complex to occur by random chance demonstrate they are to complex to occur by random chance using appropriate methodology.

Again I am not arguing the ANE parallels are coincidence I am arguing the methodology used is flawed. That is simply listing parallels and blindly insisting they are so complex they cannot occur by random chance. Does not in fact establish they do not occur by random chance. In what way is my argument flawed? Feel free to go through my first post #7 and find the flaws in my reasoning. As it stands the debate is you asserting they are simply to complex to occur by chance. And I am claiming the methodology employed does not enable you to make that statement with confidence.

Perhaps another example would prove helpful. Tom Donofrio is a LDS critic who has compiled a large number of examples of similar wording between the BOM and nineteenth century literature with the goal of demonstrating that JS produced the BOM by in part copying from extant works. Near the end of his essay he has this to say.

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/...e_full_text/211

"The previous list is not complete as the parallels are too numerous for the point of this article. Ramsay also shares many of the above terms and concepts. Suffice it to say, the tally of similarities begin to defy random chance."

(bold added by me)

Can you not see your methodology is identical to his? In other words simply pile up a list of similarities then assert this list of similarities is simply to great/complex/fantastic to occur by random chance. But simply asserting this over and over again is not an argument what rigorous methodology have you employed to estimate the degree of similarity expected by random chance between a fictional nineteenth century pseudo-scriptural work and the ANE? Unless you have done so how in the world can you effectively argue the BOM connections with the ANE exceeds what would be expected by a fraudulent nineteenth century work?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Names such as "Korihor," which bears a passing resemblance to the ancient Egyptian revolutionary, "Kherihor"?

Or "Hermounts," the Nephite wilderness infested with ravenous beasts, which is somewhat similar to "Hermonthis," the Egyptian Pan, the God of wild places and wild animals.

And don't even get me started on Paanki and Pahoran!

(Shades of William F. Albright.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi Consiglieri,

Don't get me started on Paaki and Pahoran . (See my thread "The Problem with Pahoran")

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=37178&hl=

All the Best,

Uncertain

[consiglieri]

Hi Consiglieri,

Don't get me started on Paaki and Pahoran . (See my thread "The Problem with Pahoran")

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=37178&hl=

All the Best,

Uncertain

Hi, Uncertain!

Good to chat with you again.

Surely, though, you are not saying that the Book of Mormon would look more ancient if it did not contain the name "Aha."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncertain]

Hi, Uncertain!

Good to chat with you again.

Surely, though, you are not saying that the Book of Mormon would look more ancient if it did not contain the name "Aha."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi Consiglieri,

It is good to chat with you again.

What I am saying is that as it stands "Aha", "Pahoran", "Paaki" etc. is not strong evidence one way or another regarding BOM historicity.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To summarize:

It is just pure chance he got it right. That is all.

[consiglieri]

What I am saying is that as it stands "Aha", "Pahoran", "Paaki" etc. is not strong evidence one way or another regarding BOM historicity.

If we delete the adjective "strong" from your sentence, would you agree that the presence of just the name "Aha" is evidence of some degree in favor of BOM historicity?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Olavarria]

If we delete the adjective "strong" from your sentence, would you agree that the presence of just the name "Aha" is evidence of some degree in favor of BOM historicity?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Exactly, no one is saying "this proves it is an ancient book". Rather we are saying:"here is a convergance that occors between the book's Egyptian pedigree and Egyptian language". One thing is certain: either it came from the plates or it came from dumb luck. In either case, something wierd happened.

[Uncertain]

If we delete the adjective "strong" from your sentence, would you agree that the presence of just the name "Aha" is evidence of some degree in favor of BOM historicity?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi Consiglieri,

Sure the presences of "Aha" etc. increases the probability the BOM is ancient. Hence it is evidence in favor of the ancient author hypothesis. Just like Verns list of BOM place names near JS is evidence of a modern author hypothesis. Now neither set of parallels is all that strong as it currently stands so I would call them weak evidence but they are evidence nonetheless.

I just think whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It is easy to see the methodology flaws in our opponents approach. But to be consistent we should acknowledge the same flaws in the methodology of those on our side (whatever side we happen to be on ).

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Olavarria]

Hi Consiglieri,

Sure the presences of "Aha" etc. increases the probability the BOM is ancient. Hence it is evidence in favor of the ancient author hypothesis. Just like Verns list of BOM place names near JS is evidence of a modern author hypothesis. Now neither set of parallels is all that strong as it currently stands so I would call them weak evidence but they are evidence nonetheless.

I just think whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It is easy to see the methodology flaws in our opponents approach. But to be consistent we should acknowledge the same flaws in the methodology of those on our side (whatever side we happen to be on ).

All the Best,

Uncertain

I agree with the general spirit of what your saying but I don't agree with equating the strenthgth of Vern's map with the strength of certain Egyptian words in the BoM. Something like Angola NY can be ruled out as a source 100% as it post-dates the publication of the BoM by 20 years.

[Uncertain]

I agree with the general spirit of what your saying but I don't agree with equating the strenthgth of Vern's map with the strength of certain Egyptian words in the BoM. Something like Angola NY can be ruled out as a source 100% as it post-dates the publication of the BoM by 20 years.

Hi Her Amun,

Fair enough, certainly some of Verns connections can definitely viewed as coincidence. While BOM words matching Egyptian words is still somewhat up in the air. They may or may not be coincidence.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jaybear]

I agree with the general spirit of what your saying but I don't agree with equating the strenthgth of Vern's map with the strength of certain Egyptian words in the BoM. Something like Angola NY can be ruled out as a source 100% as it post-dates the publication of the BoM by 20 years.

From the article you cited:

Over the years many have searched and probed into the past to determine the origin of the name Angola. There have been several versions but the following seems to be the most authentic. In 1820 a mail route was established between Buffalo and Olean, and a post office was opened at Springville. Two years later a post office designated" Angola" was opened at Taylor Hollow near Gowanda. The name may be related to the fact that a majority of the residents in Taylor Hollow were Quakers who being missionary-minded helped to support Angola, Africa, as one of their projects.

I have a friend who grew up in Holiday, Utah, though there was no such city until well after he moved. Sugarhouse is not a city, but people who live salt lake can tell you where it is.