Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Nelson,

You wrote:

You added three more criteria: (1) Wordplay is never used with the writer's own name, (2) Wordplay occurs when the person's birth is described, and (3) it is never used with theIt tells us something about the person.

You must have been typing too fast (happens to me, too). I don't know what word you meant that came out thelt.

You wrote:

(1) Is curious. The BOM is written with a much more personal voice than the Hebrew Bible. Whoever wrote Genesis doesn't identify himself. We don't even know who wrote 75% (or something like that) of the books in the Hebrew Bible! Of course the author can't use wordplay with his own name if he doesn't tell us what his name is!

Answering one disanalogy between the BOM and the Hebrew Bible by bringing up another one doesn't help the case for the authenticity of the BOM. The use of explicit self-references by the supposed authors of the books of the Book of Mormon is indeed uncharacteristic of the OT writings, but the phenomenon is characteristic of apocryphal, pseudepigraphal writings. As to your point, there are all sorts of opportunities for various individuals to talk about themselves in the Bible; these are not limited to authors referring to themselves by name. Most of the wordplays in the Bible are presented by figures within the narratives, not simply by the authors as narrators.

You wrote:

(2) Is faulty based on the same principle: BOM's more personal voice. Nephi and Enos identify themselves. This pattern is probably more common among Mesopotamian and Egyptian scribes than Biblical scribes. You don't expect writers to start from their births when introducing themselves. So the BOM follows the Biblical pattern to the greatest extent possible: When people are first introduced.

I was very careful not to limit the phenomenon of wordplay in the Bible too narrowly to only occasions of an individual's birth. I noted that such wordplay also appears where an individual is given a new name. Comparing the BOM writers to Mesopotamian and Egyptian scribes undermines the bulk of BOM apologetics, which tries to establish the BOM as thoroughly Hebraic. After all, Lehi and his sons are supposed to be Israelites from the Jerusalem area around 600 BC.

Keep in mind that the burden of proof is not on me to disprove in some decisive way these alleged wordplays. They have been presented as positive evidence for the authenticity of the BOM. To function as such they must be reasonably clear as such, supported by significant evidence, and not subject to plausible alternative explanations. I'm not arguing that the lack of such wordplays is evidence for my position; I'm simply arguing that the alleged wordplays are too weakly supported to be positive evidence for yours.

You wrote:

(3) Is not incorrect. Nephi does say something about Nephi; he was born into a goodly (i.e., educated) family. Enos does say something about Enos; he is the son of a good man. Alma's youth is rather bland, but I think the Alma wordplay in this case is more of a leitwort than an autobiographical wordplay.

This rebuttal doesn't really engage the point, which is that wordplays about an individual's name typically relate the given description directly to that individual, not to people associated with him such as his parents.

I will have to respond to your other comments later.

[Rob Bowman]

Nelson,

You wrote:

1. No consensus on the language of the Book of Mormon. This is valid so I offer further evidence from Brian Stubbs. From examining Uto-Aztecan, there appear to be twice as many Hebrew cognates as Egyptian. So both Hebrew and Egyptian are both incorporated in the oral language, with the script being Egyptian. Cyrus Gordon was the first to recognize that the word for alligator is the same in Aztecan and Egyptian.

There are a couple of jumps in the argument here and some statements deserving of a reference or two. I have seen some of Stubbs's work but have not yet ploughed through it all. From what I can tell most of his work in this area has focused on establishing some connections between the Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan languages. Where does he make the statements you are getting from him?

I am still working through all of the names (personal and place) in the BOM, but at this point it appears that nearly all of them are biblical names or permutations of biblical names, and few if any are Egyptian. And even if a few of them are Egyptian, the point is that recognizing wordplay requires significant exposure to the language that is the basis of the wordplay.

You wrote:

As far as two languages being confusing, this article on bilingual wordplay in the Bible may be useful: http://www.google.co...9mc7_5yrRkQ9ewA

This article doesn't really pertain to my point, which had nothing to do with bilingual wordplay. Obviously when one is looking at a Hebrew text in wisdom literature using the word sofia that can be taken as a pun on the Greek word sophia, such an explanation is plausible. But the alleged wordplay involving Nephi, for example, is not bilingual wordplay. Bilingual wordplay would mean that Nephi could be taken as both a Hebrew word and an Egyptian word in the same context in a meaningful way. My point was that an argument to establish wordplay is significantly weakened if one must postulate wordplay involving a language other than that of the speaker/writer where one does not have the original language text.

Sorry I'm having to respond in pieces. I'll try to finish later.

[Hamilton Porter]

Just a couple of glaring points as you proceed.

1. You are collapsing the Biblical pattern so narrowly it becomes meaningless criteria. "Directly" about the person instead of just about the person? C'mon now.

2. To provide positive evidence, we only need to show that the wordplay is deliberate, that the author possesses knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian. It does not even have to follow the Biblical pattern. And it does to a great degree. Instead of demonstrating how the wordplay is due to chance, which you only did with Enos, you are imposing excessively detailed criteria.

For example, the BOM plays on Egyptian definition of Nephi in more than one place. The word Alma was used repeatedly in a story, demonstrating that the author knew its Hebrew definition.

But I appreciate your critique very much.

[Hamilton Porter]

For example, the BOM plays on Egyptian definition of Nephi in more than one place. The word Alma was used repeatedly in a story, demonstrating that the author knew its Hebrew definition.

There is wordplay in the Bible that appears much less deliberate that Bible scholars identify as wordplay and leitwort. You erect impossible standards.

[Log]

Rob,

You wrote:

The above seven arguments should be considered cumulatively; that is, while no one argument by itself may be decisive or an absolute disproof, the combination of the seven arguments creates an extremely strong case against the claim that the texts exhibit wordplay using the individuals' names.

So long as arguments against a claim may be multiplied, at whatever level of credibility or coherency, such a piling up of arguments creates an extremely strong case against a claim.

Got it.

A comment unworthy of being taken seriously.

You don't have to. I wonder if there's an official name for the kind of fallacy you're committing - maybe we should coin one, say, the Fallacious Law of Lots of Arguments (whoever piles on the greatest number of arguments wins!). You certainly don't accept that the multiplicity of arguments against the Trinity, considered cumulatively, constitute an extremely strong case against its truth; you don't even accept sound logical arguments demonstrating its incoherency (that is, absolute disproof) as disproof of the dogma.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log

[Hamilton Porter]

This rebuttal doesn't really engage the point, which is that wordplays about an individual's name typically relate the given description directly to that individual, not to people associated with him such as his parents.

This borders on ridiculous. The family to which one is born is an integral part of one's identity, but this isn't social psychology class, so I won't go further. Even so, here is an example of wordplay not "directly," perhaps not even about that individual.

Isaiah 7

3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, ⁴and say to him, Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smouldering stumps of firebrands, because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.

Shearjashub= "Remnant shall return," the theme of this section of Isaiah. It's about the lost tribes, not about Shearjashub himself.

[Rob Bowman]

Nelson,

You wrote:

This borders on ridiculous. The family to which one is born is an integral part of one's identity, but this isn't social psychology class, so I won't go further. Even so, here is an example of wordplay not "directly," perhaps not even about that individual.

Isaiah 7

3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, ⁴and say to him, Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smouldering stumps of firebrands, because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.

Shearjashub= "Remnant shall return," the theme of this section of Isaiah. It's about the lost tribes, not about Shearjashub himself.

I'm sorry, but there are some subtleties that you aren't quite getting.

First of all, I said that wordplay involved in the giving of names in the Bible typically (usually, most often, etc.) pertains directly to the individual named. It can refer to something else but in either case it is almost always the case that when such wordplay is present in the giving of a name the speaker (typically though not always a parent) actually expresses the wordplay by saying something like, "You will be called Rock, because on this 'rock' I will build my church" or "He shall be called 'Yah-is-salvation,' because he will save his people from their sins." Where no such statement directly articulating the wordplay is present AND the wordplay is not the usual fare of giving a name that says something about the person named AND we don't even have an original-language text to see if the claimed wordplay is evident in the text, there just isn't enough to justify the conclusion that wordplay is present. And what THAT means is that while there is a bare possibility that the original-language text (that we don't have!) used wordplay in such instances, we don't have enough evidence to claim not only that the text used such wordplay but also that the alleged wordplay is then in turn evidence for the antiquity and authenticity of the text.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

I wonder if there's an official name for the kind of fallacy you're committing - maybe we should coin one, say, the Fallacious Law of Lots of Arguments (whoever piles on the greatest number of arguments wins!). You certainly don't accept that the multiplicity of arguments against the Trinity, considered cumulatively, constitute an extremely strong case against its truth; you don't even accept sound logical arguments demonstrating its incoherency (that is, absolute disproof) as disproof of the dogma.

Nice try at deflection, but your characterization of my position with regard to arguments against the Trinity is false. If someone presented what I could see was an absolute disproof of the Trinity, I would reject the Trinity, but this isn't what has been done. Instead arguments against the doctrine are presented that ignore what Trinitarian theology actually teaches about Christ (e.g., mounting an argument based on Christ not knowing something while ignoring the whole issue of his two natures) and that really amount to saying that it is a priori impossible for the God of classical Christian theism to become incarnate.

[Rob Bowman]

Nelson,

You wrote:

1. You are collapsing the Biblical pattern so narrowly it becomes meaningless criteria. "Directly" about the person instead of just about the person? C'mon now.

No, the real problem is that you are trying to broaden the pattern so that the supposed BOM instances will fit.

You wrote:

2. To provide positive evidence, we only need to show that the wordplay is deliberate, that the author possesses knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian. It does not even have to follow the Biblical pattern. And it does to a great degree. Instead of demonstrating how the wordplay is due to chance, which you only did with Enos, you are imposing excessively detailed criteria.

So, can we at least agree to exclude Enos?

You wrote:

For example, the BOM plays on Egyptian definition of Nephi in more than one place. The word Alma was used repeatedly in a story, demonstrating that the author knew its Hebrew definition.

I don't know what you mean about the word Alma being used repeatedly. The claim that the BOM plays on the Egyptian meaning of Nephi begs the question: how do you know that it does so? You really don't. The fact that the name "Nephi" occurs in the same context as words such as "goodly" is not evidence that the text is engaging in wordplay with the Egyptian word nefer. Finding three or four such places also is not evidence of wordplay. There are going to be several words that appear repeatedly in the context of names that appear many times in the text. This is a fundamental methodological flaw in the argument that Bowen makes in his articles.

[Rob Bowman]

Nelson,

You wrote:

3. NFR doesn't appear on the plates. This is moot, because, there is archaeological evidence that NFR morphed into NFY by Lehi's time. You just gotta chase the footnotes.

I did. The argument that Gee presents is open to challenge but I don't have easy access to the relevant reference works so it will be a while before I can do anything definitive on that particular issue, if I can even find the time to do so. Some of the evidence I have seen, including some mentioned by Gee himself, raises doubts in my mind about the alleged morphing of nefer to nefe (or the like). For example, in some cases what seems to have happened is that the final syllable was simply dropped, as seen in the Greek name Nephotes (= Nefer-hotep). But the linguistic issues here are complex, so I would prefer to be cautious. What I can say is that you haven't even touched my argument by bringing up this point. I already said I was not even getting into the question of the etymology or word origin of the name Nephi. I have my own opinions on the matter and they don't agree with Gee, but that is a separate issue. Assuming for the sake of argument that Nephi is a form of the Egyptian NFR, it does not follow that 1 Nephi 1:1 is wordplay between the name Nephi and the Egyptian word NFR. The claim is that the wordplay is created by the use of the word "goodly" in the same context as the name Nephi. For that to be so, the word "goodly" would need to be a translation of the Egyptian word NFR. But most Mormon scholars think that the language of the BOM is Hebrew though written using a kind of Egyptian script. Assuming that understanding of the language of the BOM, the use of a Hebrew word meaning "goodly" would not create the wordplay Bowen hypothesizes.

You wrote:

I don't think you can use debated etymologies as an excuse. The wordplay itself constitute strong explanatory power for what their etymologies are. In most Biblical wordplay, etymologies are irrelevant anyway.

Bowen explicitly used the word "etymology" with reference to the name Nephi deriving from NFR.

[Hamilton Porter]

Nelson,

You wrote:

Bowen explicitly used the word "etymology" with reference to the name Nephi deriving from NFR.

You are confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary condition.

[Rob Bowman]

Nelson,

You wrote:

You are confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary condition.

Interesting. I am aware of the difference but I don't see the relevance here. Would you like to explain?

[Hamilton Porter]

Nelson,

You wrote:

No, the real problem is that you are trying to broaden the pattern so that the supposed BOM instances will fit.

No, the question we are asking is, is this wordplay and is it evidence for antiquity?

You changed the criteria:

Is it wordplay --> Is it typical of wordplay in the Bible? --> Is it typical of wordplay in the Bible with names?

So, can we at least agree to exclude Enos?

Yes, I don't think evidence is strong enough if Enos stood alone.

You wrote:

I don't know what you mean about the word Alma being used repeatedly. The claim that the BOM plays on the Egyptian meaning of Nephi begs the question: how do you know that it does so? You really don't. The fact that the name "Nephi" occurs in the same context as words such as "goodly" is not evidence that the text is engaging in wordplay with the Egyptian word nefer. Finding three or four such places also is not evidence of wordplay. There are going to be several words that appear repeatedly in the context of names that appear many times in the text. This is a fundamental methodological flaw in the argument that Bowen makes in his articles.

With the Alma wordplay the author uses three different forms for the root lm: elem (young man), allam (hide), and ne lam (conceal), and uses them repeatedly in the same story as to create a Leitmotif. Like this one in Ezra-Nehemiah.

http://books.google.com/books?id=f-VqAdnCD20C&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=leitmotif+hebrew+bible&source=bl&ots=GVDF8OzjPb&sig=LqWIMnpfNorNDEs2bRJX1I_EyDo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YW6HT6f4G4uq8ATlpv21CA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=leitmotif%20hebrew%20bible&f=false

If you say it isn't wordplay, that means it was due to chance. It doesn't appear to me like it is, but it should be possible to devise some statistical methods to determine whether it is or not, like has been done with Chiasmus. You raise a good research question.

[Hamilton Porter]

Nelson,

You wrote:

Interesting. I am aware of the difference but I don't see the relevance here. Would you like to explain?

Etymologies don't have to be relevant in wordplays, but they can be.

[Hamilton Porter]

Nelson,

You wrote:

I did. The argument that Gee presents is open to challenge but I don't have easy access to the relevant reference works so it will be a while before I can do anything definitive on that particular issue, if I can even find the time to do so. Some of the evidence I have seen, including some mentioned by Gee himself, raises doubts in my mind about the alleged morphing of nefer to nefe (or the like). For example, in some cases what seems to have happened is that the final syllable was simply dropped, as seen in the Greek name Nephotes (= Nefer-hotep). But the linguistic issues here are complex, so I would prefer to be cautious. What I can say is that you haven't even touched my argument by bringing up this point. I already said I was not even getting into the question of the etymology or word origin of the name Nephi. I have my own opinions on the matter and they don't agree with Gee, but that is a separate issue. Assuming for the sake of argument that Nephi is a form of the Egyptian NFR, it does not follow that 1 Nephi 1:1 is wordplay between the name Nephi and the Egyptian word NFR. The claim is that the wordplay is created by the use of the word "goodly" in the same context as the name Nephi. For that to be so, the word "goodly" would need to be a translation of the Egyptian word NFR. But most Mormon scholars think that the language of the BOM is Hebrew though written using a kind of Egyptian script. Assuming that understanding of the language of the BOM, the use of a Hebrew word meaning "goodly" would not create the wordplay Bowen hypothesizes.

Here is Stubbs's work on the proportion of Egyptian and Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=5&num=1&id=112

His work hasn't gone through a peer-reviewed venue yet so I wouldn't make too much out of it at this point. Suffice to say, the great Cyrus Gordon has noted Egyptian in Aztecan. And, Frank Moore Cross at Harvard has noted that scribes tend to mix and match languages to create their own language.

[Log]

Hi Rob,

You wrote:

Nice try at deflection, but your characterization of my position with regard to arguments against the Trinity is false. If someone presented what I could see was an absolute disproof of the Trinity, I would reject the Trinity, but this isn't what has been done. Instead arguments against the doctrine are presented that ignore what Trinitarian theology actually teaches about Christ (e.g., mounting an argument based on Christ not knowing something while ignoring the whole issue of his two natures) and that really amount to saying that it is a priori impossible for the God of classical Christian theism to become incarnate.

Sorry, Rob, but it appears you have missed both the point of the extremely lucid, precise logical demonstration of the falsity of the dogma of the Trinity (how that is possible, I literally cannot imagine, since the premises are accurate, and presumably you're familiar with the rules of propositional logic, including modus ponens and modus tollens; no amount of hypothesizing second, third, or even fifth natures for Christ gets around "only the Father"), and the point of the post you're writing in response to.

With respect to the first, you are demonstrating what is called "invincible ignorance." With respect to the second, you're engaged in special pleading.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

The pertinent point here is that your post was a deflection from the issue at hand.

[Log]

Rob,

The issue at hand was broadened considerably (and, I might add, entertainingly) by your assertion that the cumulative effect of your arguments - be they howsoever implausible individually - sufficed to create an extremely strong case against the existence of wordplay in the Book of Mormon based on names.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

Nelson,

You wrote:

No, the question we are asking is, is this wordplay and is it evidence for antiquity?

You changed the criteria:

Is it wordplay --> Is it typical of wordplay in the Bible? --> Is it typical of wordplay in the Bible with names?

Let me remind you of where we began, namely, with your comment as follows:

You noted a Biblical pattern that I think can serve as a good methodological control, i.e., wordplay in the Bible is usually inserted when a character is first introduced.

You agreed at the outset to allowing the biblical pattern of wordplay serve as a methodological control in regard to substantiating claims of wordplay regarding the name of "a character" in the Book of Mormon. Now that this methodological premise isn't working for you, it is you who would like to change the criteria from wordplay typical of what is found in the Bible with names to the more open-ended and methodologically uncontrolled claim of possible wordplay of any sort.

The fact is that you don't have direct access to any wordplay in the supposed Reformed Egyptian or whatever you want to call it, because you are reading an English text purporting to be a translation of that supposed ancient text, and the wordplay is not evident in the English text. Nor are we told by the narrator or any speaker within the narrative anything to signal that wordplay is to be found (of the usual type, "He will be called ______ because ______," or of anything functionally equivalent). Since the text we have does not signal the presence of wordplay, the best you can hope for is to show some plausibility or probability of an ancient-language wordplay. To do that, you had agreed, before I responded to the articles by Bowen that you cited, that what needed to be done is to show that what was perceived as wordplay with names in the BOM fit the biblical pattern.

You wrote:

Yes, I don't think evidence is strong enough if Enos stood alone.

Well then, now you are down to two examples of the alleged pattern. Two is simply not enough to establish a pattern.

You wrote:

With the Alma wordplay the author uses three different forms for the root lm: elem (young man), allam (hide), and ne lam (conceal), and uses them repeatedly in the same story as to create a Leitmotif.

So Bowen claims. But the argument is flawed for two reasons: (1) you don't really know that the author of Alma used any of those Hebrew words, and (2) the argument picks out words in the general vicinity of the name that happen to fit the theory but does not show that those words are meant to function in such a "Leitmotif." The second problem is really the fatal flaw. Given enough text, enough names, enough language choices (Hebrew, Egyptian, or if those don't work some will try Ugaritic or Akkadian or something else), and enough ingenuity, one is bound to be able to "discover" some apparent "wordplays" of this type. This observation leads me to your next comment:

If you say it isn't wordplay, that means it was due to chance.

That's exactly it. You have hundreds of names surrounded by tens of thousands of words. You have at least two and if need be more than two ancient languages covering thousands of years of linguistic development. Work hard enough at it, and you can find seemingly amazing examples of ancient wordplay, especially if the wordplay can be of any sort.

You wrote:

It doesn't appear to me like it is, but it should be possible to devise some statistical methods to determine whether it is or not, like has been done with Chiasmus. You raise a good research question.

Thanks. I'm not a statistician, but I understand enough about the subject to recognize when coincidences that seem too amazing to be the result of mere chance are actually not that surprising at all.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Vance]

You don't have to. I wonder if there's an official name for the kind of fallacy you're committing - maybe we should coin one, say, the Fallacious Law of Lots of Arguments (whoever piles on the greatest number of arguments wins!). You certainly don't accept that the multiplicity of arguments against the Trinity, considered cumulatively, constitute an extremely strong case against its truth; you don't even accept sound logical arguments demonstrating its incoherency (that is, absolute disproof) as disproof of the dogma.

Bowman does have this fetish with the idea of death by a million small insignificant cuts or the tiniest straw that supposedly will break the camel's back so to speak. It is all he has, because he can't find a magic bullet.

It is a good thing for him that he doesn't (or won't) apply the same critical technique to his own religion in a consistent manner.

[Hamilton Porter]

Nelson,

You wrote:

Let me remind you of where we began, namely, with your comment as follows:

No, actually we started earlier than that. This is how it went:

Pedro: This might be wordplay with Pahoran.

Robert: Wordplay with names is usually when the person is first introduced.

Ham: Here are some examples in the BOM where wordplay is used when the character is first introduced.

Robert: (among other retorts): No, in the Bible wordplay with names typically involves something about how the situation of the person is being born, not about their parents.

Ham: Being born of goodly parents, and being fathered by a just man, are descriptions of the situation of the person being born.

Robert: But it's not directly about that person.

Ham: Yes it is.

The fact is that you don't have direct access to any wordplay in the supposed Reformed Egyptian or whatever you want to call it, because you are reading an English text purporting to be a translation of that supposed ancient text, and the wordplay is not evident in the English text.

I believe at the outset I expressed my desire you would not say something circular, but it looks like you couldn't resist. "It can't be Egyptian wordplay because we don't have the original Egyptian." That's a red herring because if we know the definitions of Egyptian words

Nor are we told by the narrator or any speaker within the narrative anything to signal that wordplay is to be found (of the usual type, "He will be called ______ because ______," or of anything functionally equivalent).

Here you go:

Alma 27:22

22 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful; and this land Jershon [Heb: place of inheritance] the land which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance.

1 Nephi 17:5

5 And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum [Heb. place overflowing with water], which, being interpreted, is many waters.

1 Nephi 16:34-35

34 And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the

place which was called Nahom [Heb: comfort, mourning].

35 And it came to pass that the daughters of Ishmael did mourn

exceedingly, because of the loss of their father, and because of

their afflictions in the wilderness.

Since the text we have does not signal the presence of wordplay, the best you can hope for is to show some plausibility or probability of an ancient-language wordplay. To do that, you had agreed, before I responded to the articles by Bowen that you cited, that what needed to be done is to show that what was perceived as wordplay with names in the BOM fit the biblical pattern.

I believe I've shown that they fit the Biblical pattern to the maximal extent given the Book of Mormon's different style

.

Well then, now you are down to two examples of the alleged pattern. Two is simply not enough to establish a pattern.

We are talking about following a Biblical pattern, not about establishing a pattern.

So Bowen claims. But the argument is flawed for two reasons: (1) you don't really know that the author of Alma used any of those Hebrew words,

Of course you can't know

and (2) the argument picks out words in the general vicinity of the name that happen to fit the theory but does not show that those words are meant to function in such a "Leitmotif." The second problem is really the fatal flaw. Given enough text, enough names, enough language choices (Hebrew, Egyptian, or if those don't work some will try Ugaritic or Akkadian or something else), and enough ingenuity, one is bound to be able to "discover" some apparent "wordplays" of this type. This observation leads me to your next comment:

That's exactly it. You have hundreds of names surrounded by tens of thousands of words.

Well of course we need some controls, but it's not going to work if you keep moving the goalposts closer together.

You have at least two and if need be more than two ancient languages covering thousands of years of linguistic development. Work hard enough at it, and you can find seemingly amazing examples of ancient wordplay, especially if the wordplay can be of any sort.

That should be easy to test. We can test similar works and see if we get the same result. We should limit it to just Hebrew and Egyptian.

Thanks. I'm not a statistician, but I understand enough about the subject to recognize when coincidences that seem too amazing to be the result of mere chance are actually not that surprising at all.

Sometimes it is that way, but I am an applied mathematician, and I recognize that the evidence is strong enough to warrant testing.

[Rob Bowman]

Nelson,

The law of diminishing returns is beginning to show itself. Just a comment on one point for now. You wrote:

I believe at the outset I expressed my desire you would not say something circular, but it looks like you couldn't resist. "It can't be Egyptian wordplay because we don't have the original Egyptian." That's a red herring because if we know the definitions of Egyptian words

Your sentence ends there.

Nelson, I didn't argue that "It can't be Egyptian wordplay because we don't have the original Egyptian." The fact that you are still misconstruing my argument in this fashion leaves me pessimistic of getting anywhere with you on this topic. It "could" be Egyptian wordplay. It "could" be Mandarin wordplay. It "could" be all sorts of things. My argument is designed to show that Bowen did not succeed in providing sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that it is so clearly Egyptian wordplay as to constitute evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, as I have explained, if the BOM was written in Hebrew using Egyptian script, any supposed wordplay within the text with an Egyptian word would be nonexistent. The argument would be like claiming that if someone says "Linda is a pretty girl" the speaker must be Spanish-speaking because he is clearly engaged in deliberate wordplay because the name "Linda" in Spanish can mean, among other things, pretty. The argument fails because the speaker may simply mean that the girl whose name happens to be Linda is a pretty girl. The hypothesized wordplay is at most a possibility, not a fact on which an argument can be constructed about the speaker's cultural background. Now if the speaker said something like, "Linda is aptly named, for she is a pretty girl," then the case for the speaker's knowledge of Spanish would be secure. None of your examples are like this.

[Uncertain]

I wanted to briefly discuss the point Rob raised about connections arising due to random chance. I think he has touched on what I view as one of the major weakness of both BOM apologetics and critical writing. Here is a post I wrote on this some time ago. This post is directed at finding authentic ancient Egyptian/Hebrew names in the BOM but the argument applies just as well to word plays. I am not a statistician, I do have a Phd in a hard science work in academia have some training in statistics and use statistics frequently in my work.

"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.../hyp_multi.html

http://en.wikipedia....ple_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 Holley’s work demonstrating similarities between Solomon Spaldings writings and the BOM.

http://solomonspaldi...vernP3.htm#pg54

To 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.htm

Now 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."

Additionally Vern's list of modern place names near the Great Lakes region roughly matches the geography described in the BOM. What are the chances this would occur by random chance? All the apologists can say is this amazing connection occurs by random chance.

If you can't tell I am trying to get across the point that simply pointing at a parallel and exclaiming how complex it is and how it can't occur by random chance is not at all convincing. Whether practiced by critics like Vern Holly or supporters . To build a stronger case more rigor needs to be exercised than simply "piling up" similarities pointing at them and exclaiming how complex they are and how only the dumb or hell-bound could possibly not be convinced . "

(end of quoted post)

I would also add we may have an example of this with word plays already. Hamiliton Porter seems to agree the "Enos" word play can be due just to random chance. This random occurance could easily be because of the multiple hypthoses issue I outline above. If the "Enos" word play is due to random chance why not the other two? Which leads me to argue until more rigor is applied to such correlations using them as good evidence for BOM authenticity is unwarranted. It is not that I don't believe Bowen when he points out NFR could be Nephi. It is just that even if we accept 100% everything Bowen argues I am not convinced this is good evidence for the BOM because we don't know with what frequency such connections could be due to random chance or by JS heavily depending on Biblical text . Nephi happens to be a name found in the apocrypha. Therefore the fact a viable ancient connection can be found with it is not at all surprising.

Hamiliton Porter said this:

Sometimes it is that way, but I am an applied mathematician, and I recognize that the evidence is strong enough to warrant testing.

I happen to agree with him. The issue is until such testing has been done the purported word play in and of itself is weak evidence at best. For the reasons I outline above, frankly we have no idea what the baseline level of random chance would be when applied to word plays. Until we know what such a baseline is we cannot say with any confidence whether the number and quality of purported word plays in the BOM are due to random chance or not. Such work has been done with regards to chiasm in the BOM creating a much stronger argument. Simply asserting it is too complex to be random based on our probabilistic intuition is not solid science and at least in my field depending on probabilistic intuition would prevent a manuscript from being published. I apply this standard equally to work that is critical of LDS truth claims, which is why I don’t find Vern Holley’s work at all convincing.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Edited April 13, 2012 by Uncertain

[Hamilton Porter]

Nelson,

The law of diminishing returns is beginning to show itself. Just a comment on one point for now. You wrote:

Your sentence ends there.

Nelson, I didn't argue that "It can't be Egyptian wordplay because we don't have the original Egyptian." The fact that you are still misconstruing my argument in this fashion leaves me pessimistic of getting anywhere with you on this topic. It "could" be Egyptian wordplay. It "could" be Mandarin wordplay. It "could" be all sorts of things. My argument is designed to show that Bowen did not succeed in providing sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that it is so clearly Egyptian wordplay as to constitute evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, as I have explained, if the BOM was written in Hebrew using Egyptian script, any supposed wordplay within the text with an Egyptian word would be nonexistent.

I think we've already established that there would be some Egyptian in the spoken language, as I've mentioned Cyrus Gordon. And it would be inevitable if you use a foreign script for your language. For example, after Chinese script was imported to write Japanese (a completely different language), some Chinese pronunciations were absorbed into the language.

The argument would be like claiming that if someone says "Linda is a pretty girl" the speaker must be Spanish-speaking because he is clearly engaged in deliberate wordplay because the name "Linda" in Spanish can mean, among other things, pretty. The argument fails because the speaker may simply mean that the girl whose name happens to be Linda is a pretty girl. The hypothesized wordplay is at most a possibility, not a fact on which an argument can be constructed about the speaker's cultural background. Now if the speaker said something like, "Linda is aptly named, for she is a pretty girl," then the case for the speaker's knowledge of Spanish would be secure. None of your examples are like this.

Did you miss my examples?

Alma 27:22

22 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful; and this land Jershon [Heb: place of inheritance] the land which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance.

1 Nephi 17:5

5 And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum [Heb. place overflowing with water], which, being interpreted, is many waters.

[Hamilton Porter]

I wanted to briefly discuss the point Rob raised about connections arising due to random chance. I think he has touched on what I view as one of the major weakness of both BOM apologetics and critical writing. Here is a post I wrote on this some time ago. This post is directed at finding authentic ancient Egyptian/Hebrew names in the BOM but the argument applies just as well to word plays. I am not a statistician, I do have a Phd in a hard science work in academia have some training in statistics and use statistics frequently in my work.

"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.../hyp_multi.html

http://en.wikipedia....ple_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 Holley’s work demonstrating similarities between Solomon Spaldings writings and the BOM.

http://solomonspaldi...vernP3.htm#pg54

To 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.htm

Now 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."

Additionally Vern's list of modern place names near the Great Lakes region roughly matches the geography described in the BOM. What are the chances this would occur by random chance? All the apologists can say is this amazing connection occurs by random chance.

If you can't tell I am trying to get across the point that simply pointing at a parallel and exclaiming how complex it is and how it can't occur by random chance is not at all convincing. Whether practiced by critics like Vern Holly or supporters . To build a stronger case more rigor needs to be exercised than simply "piling up" similarities pointing at them and exclaiming how complex they are and how only the dumb or hell-bound could possibly not be convinced . "

(end of quoted post)

I would also add we may have an example of this with word plays already. Hamiliton Porter seems to agree the "Enos" word play can be due just to random chance. This random occurance could easily be because of the multiple hypthoses issue I outline above. If the "Enos" word play is due to random chance why not the other two? Which leads me to argue until more rigor is applied to such correlations using them as good evidence for BOM authenticity is unwarranted. It is not that I don't believe Bowen when he points out NFR could be Nephi. It is just that even if we accept 100% everything Bowen argues I am not convinced this is good evidence for the BOM because we don't know with what frequency such connections could be due to random chance or by JS heavily depending on Biblical text . Nephi happens to be a name found in the apocrypha. Therefore the fact a viable ancient connection can be found with it is not at all surprising.

Hamiliton Porter said this:

I happen to agree with him. The issue is until such testing has been done the purported word play in and of itself is weak evidence at best. For the reasons I outline above, frankly we have no idea what the baseline level of random chance would be when applied to word plays. Until we know what such a baseline is we cannot say with any confidence whether the number and quality of purported word plays in the BOM are due to random chance or not. Such work has been done with regards to chiasm in the BOM creating a much stronger argument. Simply asserting it is too complex to be random based on our probabilistic intuition is not solid science and at least in my field depending on probabilistic intuition would prevent a manuscript from being published. I apply this standard equally to work that is critical of LDS truth claims, which is why I don’t find Vern Holley’s work at all convincing.

All the Best,

Uncertain

The work with chiasmus applied the test to other random texts. I think for the wordplay, we can use other texts as a baseline.

This would require a program that holds lexicons of Hebrew and Egyptian that would scan all the text surrounding proper names, translate words into Hebrew and Egyptian, and find matches. Apply the test to a series of random works, and see if the BOM turns up significantly more matches.