Bom Names: What Are The Chances?

[bcuzbcuz]

The Carrier nation, (since I am acquainted with it) of mid-west British Columbia, did not count beyond the number three, prior to European influences. They saw no need in counting beyond that number. For them, saying you had caught 20 fish was immaterial. You could have caught 20 small fish that didn't amount to one, large fish, so merely stating a number was irrelevant. Beyond the number three they said you had sufficient, or not sufficient. 1-2-3, enough or not enough.

I think this makes a lot of sense. How much money do you make? Enough or not enough.

The task of counting the number of stars in the sky was, for example, truly of insignificant importance. What possible good could come from knowing how many stars there were. There were either enough or not enough.

When the europeans came, numbers above three had to be given names. So it was that the Carrier people gave the number 9 the name of zero-one. Think about it. How do we write the number nine?

Even today, the elders of the Carrier nation have difficulty grasping concepts of hundreds and thousands. These numbers just simply did not exist when they were growing up.

When the Europeans came, the Carrier people realized that numbers were significant....for the Europeans. The same was true for a written language. Written documents were unimportant prior to the Europeans; a mans word was the measure of worth. All this changed with the arrival of the white man's laws and ordinances.

The Europeans brought new words and new concepts. The Carrier nation was a matriarchal society. But the Europeans wanted to know who was chief and simply could not accept that a woman was in charge. So the Carrier picked a male chief to represent their nation and that has persisted until this day...but their community is still matriarchal.

An example of how European influences shape present situations is that, in the Carrier language, there is no letter "C" and no letter "R". This people's anglicized name contains 4 letters that don't even exist in their own language.

CDOWIS asked the question whether; that one looks at the consonants, and ignore the vowels?

That may be true of Hebrew but is certainly not true of the Carrier language, which belongs to the Athabaska language group. (Which for further reference I will no longer call Carrier, but Tsek'ehne)

In the Tsek'ehne language vowels play a very significant difference. A vowel change could mean a completely different word, much like 'big' and 'bag' or 'bug' in English.

In the Sho'shoni language, for example, there are five vowel sounds, six, if you include the diphthong 'ai'

Furthermore, sounds exist in Native American languages that simply do not exist in English. There is a guttural click attached to the sounds of "K'"; and "Tl'"; that are difficult to master for the Germanic language speaker. Equally, speakers of Native American languages have difficulty with some sounds common to English.

The OP of this topic asks whether the name of Lehi, apparently of a Shoshoni chief, is significant. That all depends on who is interpreting what was actually said. Check out the Sho'shoni language page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshoni_language

Did the Shoshoni chief actually have the name of Lehi or where the settlers merely hearing the sound they wanted to hear?

Edited April 29, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[cdowis]

We must. You must be looking at some version of Joseph Allen's map (and pretty much accepted by the folk at BMAF). I am using Sorenson's. I find Sorenson's significantly superior, with quite a few problems in the Allen map (particularly along the east coast). It simply doesn't fit the text.

For the map that works with Mesoamerica, Belize is way to far away from the action to have been involved with the Book of Mormon peoples at all, no matter what they were called.

"The Mayan civilization spread into the area of Belize between 1500 BC and AD 300 and flourished until about AD 1200." http://www.state.gov...ei/bgn/1955.htm

It is possible that it was a minor colony. I did not claim that the city was an active participant in BOM culture.

Edited April 30, 2012 by cdowis

[LDSToronto]

Did the Shoshoni chief actually have the name of Lehi or where the settlers merely hearing the sound they wanted to hear?

If I could applaud I would.

H.

[volgadon]

If I could applaud I would.

H.

It appears that the answer is neither. He was given the unrelated name of Lehi by the Mormons.

[Robert F. Smith]

The more possibilities there are, the less likely it is for there to be no matches (or bulls-eyes, as they are frequently called on this board). Consequently, the existence of some bulls-eyes is expected.

For example, if you have to take a 20 question multiple choice test (5 choices per question) and you are guessing, what is the probability that you answer zero correctly? 0.01153 or 1.153%

. . , there are possible names that can be created using the alphabet and there are names in the Book of Mormon which are somewhat unique. Both values are certainly more than 20, so the probability of having zero matches (or bulls-eyes) would be much less than 1%. It would be surprising if there were no matches at all.

Your multiple-guess example doesn't comport with the types of onomastic evidence which can be brought to bear on the question of the authenticity of the unique (non-biblical) names found in the Book of Mormon.

For example, none of those unique names uses the common theophoric suffix -iah (as in Zedekiah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.), but we do find about seven Book of Mormon names terminating in -ihah, and one non-Mormon Hebraist suggested that the two are to be equated. A number of Mormon scholars have made the same suggestion. That BofM termination would be written YHH in Hebrew consonantal text, which is precisely what we find being used in the 5th century B.C. Jewish military colony at Elephantine, Egypt. Indeed, the Koehler & Baumgarter Hebrew Lexicon sees YHH as equivalent to YHWH.

Another very odd "coincidence" comes to notice when we consider the BofM name Mulek (variant Muloch), the name of a son of King Zedekiah. Mulek somehow escapes the Babylonian sword and comes to the Americas. A couple of non-Mormon scholars have each commented on how appropriate that name could be, the most prominent of them the late David Noel Freedman telling me in 1984: "If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!" Why? Because, not only was this an acceptable pronounciation of the short form of the name, but the long form of the name, Malchiah son of the King, not only shows up in the KJV Bible (Jer 38:6 Malchiah the son of Hammelech), but also in inscriptions at Arad -- leading the late Israeli archeologist Yohanan Aharoni to conclude that this was the actual name of a son of Zedekiah. Before that everyone had assumed that all the sons of Zedekiah were executed by the Babylonians.

I could go on with a long list, but you get the idea: Joseph could not guess at names entailing that degree of complexity.

LDS Toronto said:

And the original argument boils down to, "Two words sound the same, that must support the truthfulness the Book of Mormon".

No offense intended, but if you want to prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon based on linguistic anthropology, using the excuse, "I don't understand technical terms so you must be trying to trick me" doesn't bolster your case.

H.

Anything can be tagged as "coincidence," and you may be right to fault old Amerindian and pioneer tales about names used on the frontier.

The real question is, what would you consider satisfactory, non-coincidental evidence from the Book of Mormon onomasticon?

[cdowis]

Looking at a single "coincidence" is not very impressive, but when you have more than a dozen of them you now have a tapestry of evidence.

Lamanai, Paanchi, Pahoran, sheum, Bountiful (twelve points of reference, Valley of Lemuel, NHM, cement, Mulek, etc Taken as a whole, rather than individual instances, it is no longer "just a coincidence".

[Log]

For example, none of those unique names uses the common theophoric suffix -iah (as in Zedekiah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.), but we do find about seven Book of Mormon names terminating in -ihah, and one non-Mormon Hebraist suggested that the two are to be equated. A number of Mormon scholars have made the same suggestion. That BofM termination would be written YHH in Hebrew consonantal text, which is precisely what we find being used in the 5th century B.C. Jewish military colony at Elephantine, Egypt. Indeed, the Koehler & Baumgarter Hebrew Lexicon sees YHH as equivalent to YHWH.

One Mormon scholar concludes the opposite, and seems to have rather compelling reasons for it.

In any event, unless Thinking has an actual chance hypothesis that he can produce which attaches probabilities to the use of names in the Book of Mormon, he's engaged in pseudo-mathematics and covering his prejudices in the language of probability, as so many are wont to do.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Thinking is exactly right though.

If we compare any two languages we are going to find overlap. If we didn't, it would be incredibly unusual. So, we know from this, that coincidences of this sort really do happen. From here, Robert Smith asks the big question:

"The real question is, what would you consider satisfactory, non-coincidental evidence from the Book of Mormon onomasticon?"

How do we differentiate between similarities that are purely coincidental and those that aren't. In general, its not a matter of piling up all the similarities. A large pile of similarities is completely worthless without some sort of framework in which to understand them. It's not about any particular instance, even if there seems to be uncanny resemblances in how the onomasticon are used and in their respective contexts. We have to work with a predictive model that doesn't stop at every example that really is a coincidence. And we have to produce some basic criteria to evaluate what might really be evidence (because, as we see, the similarities in the OP may not be coincidental at all, but the direction of borrowing may start from the English published version of the Book of Mormon - counter to the OP's general expectation).

Ben M.

[mfbukowski]

Your multiple-guess example doesn't comport with the types of onomastic evidence which can be brought to bear on the question of the authenticity of the unique (non-biblical) names found in the Book of Mormon.

For example, none of those unique names uses the common theophoric suffix -iah (as in Zedekiah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.), but we do find about seven Book of Mormon names terminating in -ihah, and one non-Mormon Hebraist suggested that the two are to be equated. A number of Mormon scholars have made the same suggestion. That BofM termination would be written YHH in Hebrew consonantal text, which is precisely what we find being used in the 5th century B.C. Jewish military colony at Elephantine, Egypt. Indeed, the Koehler & Baumgarter Hebrew Lexicon sees YHH as equivalent to YHWH.

Another very odd "coincidence" comes to notice when we consider the BofM name Mulek (variant Muloch), the name of a son of King Zedekiah. Mulek somehow escapes the Babylonian sword and comes to the Americas. A couple of non-Mormon scholars have each commented on how appropriate that name could be, the most prominent of them the late David Noel Freedman telling me in 1984: "If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!" Why? Because, not only was this an acceptable pronounciation of the short form of the name, but the long form of the name, Malchiah son of the King, not only shows up in the KJV Bible (Jer 38:6 Malchiah the son of Hammelech), but also in inscriptions at Arad -- leading the late Israeli archeologist Yohanan Aharoni to conclude that this was the actual name of a son of Zedekiah. Before that everyone had assumed that all the sons of Zedekiah were executed by the Babylonians.

I could go on with a long list, but you get the idea: Joseph could not guess at names entailing that degree of complexity.

Anything can be tagged as "coincidence," and you may be right to fault old Amerindian and pioneer tales about names used on the frontier.

The real question is, what would you consider satisfactory, non-coincidental evidence from the Book of Mormon onomasticon?

Amazing post.

U be a genu-wine smart guy.

[cdowis]

You are merely stating the obvious -- we all agree that we cannot prove the BOM thru such things, but can only show things that are "interesting".

The tapestry of evidence is comforting to those who accept the BOM as authentic history. For others, it is merely piling up coincidences.

Edited May 4, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Thinking is exactly right though.

If we compare any two languages we are going to find overlap. If we didn't, it would be incredibly unusual. So, we know from this, that coincidences of this sort really do happen. From here, Robert Smith asks the big question:

"The real question is, what would you consider satisfactory, non-coincidental evidence from the Book of Mormon onomasticon?"

How do we differentiate between similarities that are purely coincidental and those that aren't. In general, its not a matter of piling up all the similarities. A large pile of similarities is completely worthless without some sort of framework in which to understand them. It's not about any particular instance, even if there seems to be uncanny resemblances in how the onomasticon are used and in their respective contexts. We have to work with a predictive model that doesn't stop at every example that really is a coincidence. And we have to produce some basic criteria to evaluate what might really be evidence (because, as we see, the similarities in the OP may not be coincidental at all, but the direction of borrowing may start from the English published version of the Book of Mormon - counter to the OP's general expectation).

Ben M.

I would imagine though it would get to the point where ambiguities and imprecision in the assumptions themselves would make it virtually impossible to come to any conclusions with any certainty behind them. Precise conclusions can only come from material which lends itself to precise definitions, and I suspect this may be an area in which such precision is impossible. A fun exercise to be sure, but as far as "proving" anything? It seems doubtful to me though of course I could be wrong.

I once heard an engineer who was used to working with close tolerances describe such a process as "machining butter", and perhaps such a characterization applies here.

[mfbukowski]

You are merely stating the obvious -- we all agree that we cannot prove the BOM thru such things, but can only show things that are "interesting".

The tapestry of evidence is comforting to those who accept the BOM as authentic history. For others, it is merely piling up coincidences.

In a word, Yup!

[Uncertain]

Thinking is exactly right though.

If we compare any two languages we are going to find overlap. If we didn't, it would be incredibly unusual. So, we know from this, that coincidences of this sort really do happen. From here, Robert Smith asks the big question:

"The real question is, what would you consider satisfactory, non-coincidental evidence from the Book of Mormon onomasticon?"

How do we differentiate between similarities that are purely coincidental and those that aren't. In general, its not a matter of piling up all the similarities. A large pile of similarities is completely worthless without some sort of framework in which to understand them. It's not about any particular instance, even if there seems to be uncanny resemblances in how the onomasticon are used and in their respective contexts. We have to work with a predictive model that doesn't stop at every example that really is a coincidence. And we have to produce some basic criteria to evaluate what might really be evidence (because, as we see, the similarities in the OP may not be coincidental at all, but the direction of borrowing may start from the English published version of the Book of Mormon - counter to the OP's general expectation).

Ben M.

Amen my brother preach on +100 rep points . I have been beating this drum for some time. With regards to how to put similarites in the proper framework. This is a problem across any branch of science you can name. The most common solution is the appropriate use of controls to estimate a baseline level of similarity. For example suppose someone claims ginger is a cure for cancer. It does not help at all to observe out of 10 people that took ginger 4 got better and six died without also knowing what the expected rate of remission for that cancer using a placebo would be. If the the expected rate of remission is 40% this exactly matches my observation and it is likely ginger has no effect on the given cancer. If on the other hand the expected rate of remission is say 90% then ginger actually makes the cancer worse. The same observation (i.e. 4 out of 10 people got better) is given a very different meaning based on appropriate comparisons with control groups. I think in the case of the BOM both positive and negative controls would be helpful. For example the Bible could perhaps be used as a positive control. In the case of the BOM it does not help at all to point out similarities X, Y and Z with the ANE or the 19th century. Without have a baseline to compare levels of similarities with.

I think a large part of the problem is an inappropriate idea of where the burden of proof is to be placed. A critic may claim unless a believer can show a particular set of parallels with the 19th century are due to random chance then the default position is the set of similarities is significant and due to JS borrowing them to populate his fictional work. This would be incorrect, the burden of proof always lies on the person claiming a set of observations are not due to random chance or confounding variables. And “piling” up similarities and asserting they are too complex to occur by random chance etc. based on nothing more than probabilistic intuition in no way is a reliable methodology to meet this burden of proof. This holds true for anyone attempting to make a scholarly argument either believer or critic. This problem is one of the major reasons I don't find much of BOM apologetics convincing.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited May 4, 2012 by Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

Amen my brother preach on +100 rep points . I have been beating this drum for some time. With regards to how to put similarites in the proper framework. This is a problem across any branch of science you can name. The most common solution is the appropriate use of controls to estimate a baseline level of similarity. For example suppose someone claims ginger is a cure for cancer. It does not help at all to observe out of 10 people that took ginger 4 got better and six died without also knowing what the expected rate of remission for that cancer using a placebo would be. If the the expected rate of remission is 40% this exactly matches my observation and it is likely ginger has no effect on the given cancer. If on the other hand the expected rate of remission is say 90% then ginger actually makes the cancer worse. The same observation (i.e. 4 out of 10 people got better) is given a very different meaning based on appropriate comparisons with control groups. I think in the case of the BOM both positive and negative controls would be helpful. For example the Bible could perhaps be used as a positive control. In the case of the BOM it does not help at all to point out similarities X, Y and Z with the ANE or the 19th century. Without have a baseline to compare levels of similarities with.

The problem though is that your example uses hard, observable evidence where in the case of the BOM we are talking about someone's vague interpretation of some name in some language - or it could even be a different language- even that is not known.

Honestly, I would like more than anyone for there to be some hard linguistic evidence for the BOM- but "hard evidence" and "linguistic" just don't even belong in the same sentence, in my most humble experience. By it's very nature, language kind of becomes what we want it to become.

For me, it still all comes down to what the spirit tells you- anything else at this time is wishful thinking.

[cdowis]

the burden of proof always lies on the person claiming a set of observations are not due to random chance or confounding variables.

"I demand that you give me incontrovertible proof of the BOM as authentic history and scripture. The burden of proof is on you."

"Really? And tell me what happens if I refuse that burden."

"Well, I just won't believe it."

"Hmmmm....OK, I can live with that. All the best to you."

Edited May 4, 2012 by cdowis

[Log]

This would be incorrect, the burden of proof always lies on the person claiming a set of observations are not due to random chance or confounding variables.

If you don't have a functioning chance hypothesis which demonstrably confers a 50% or greater probability upon the phenomenon in question, then you lose to the design inference.

Or, more plainly: if you don't have a rational basis to assert the greater probability of random occurrence, you don't have a rational basis to assert the greater probability of random occurrence.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

It ain't scientific nor is it supposed to be.

[Log]

That's kind of my point - probabilistic language is being deployed by the critics as a simple mask for personal incredulity. Either you have stats or you're bluffing.

[Uncertain]

The problem though is that your example uses hard, observable evidence where in the case of the BOM we are talking about someone's vague interpretation of some name in some language - or it could even be a different language- even that is not known.

Honestly, I would like more than anyone for there to be some hard linguistic evidence for the BOM- but "hard evidence" and "linguistic" just don't even belong in the same sentence, in my most humble experience. By it's very nature, language kind of becomes what we want it to become.

Hi mfbukowski,

In which case so much the worst for BOM apologetics. If the evidence is squishy and subjective this does not strength the case that similarities between the BOM and the ANE should be taken as good evidence for the historicity of the BOM.

The fundamental problem described by me and Ben is that there will be some level of similarity between two things even if those two things are not related. If we don’t know what level of similarity to expect between two unrelated things than simply pointing out similarities between two things tells us exactly nothing about the relationship between those two things. Hence “piling up” similarities between say the BOM and the 19^th century or between the BOM and the ANE is only half of the battle.

The classic approach used in all branches of science in dealing with the above issue is with the use of controls to estimate what level of similarity would be expected between two things you know are not related. Contrast this with the usual approach in BOM apologetics and critical writing, which is to “pile up” what the author(s) view as impressive similarities, then rely on the logical fallacy, argument from personal incredulity.

I understand the difference you raise between my examples and the more subjective evidence you get when dealing with texts. This is a fundamental weakness of dealing with texts and should certainly be kept in mind when evaluating textual evidence. The issue is the problem described by me above and Ben earlier in this thread does not go away when dealing with textual or linguistic evidence. If the type of evidence advanced in support of the BOM is so squishy and subjective controls can’t be used. Then we have the problem of very subjective evidence piled on top of the critically important issue I point out above.

For me, it still all comes down to what the spirit tells you- anything else at this time is wishful thinking.

You have precisely defined the crux of my dilemma. I believe there are very good reasons to suspect personal spiritual experiences are not good ways to determine universal truth. Hence I don't believe a personal spiritual experience is a good reason either to believe or disbelieve the BOM. I am left with secular type evidence which I find lacking based in part on the reason I give above.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

If you don't have a functioning chance hypothesis which demonstrably confers a 50% or greater probability upon the phenomenon in question, then you lose to the design inference.

Or, more plainly: if you don't have a rational basis to assert the greater probability of random occurrence, you don't have a rational basis to assert the greater probability of random occurrence.

Hi Log,

I think you may be unfamiliar with hypothesis testing in the sciences. The null hypothesis (randomn chance) is always assumed to be true unless you can demonstrate otherwise. This is the convention in scholarly work and if you want BOM apologetics to be taken seriously as scholarly work then this convention applies.

There is a very good reason why this is the convention. Suppose for example someone comes to you and claims crystals cure cancer. To support their point they collect together data showing 3 out of 10 people with cancer who used crystals got better. To show this person is wrong requires a great deal of effort you would have to collect together a control group of cancer patients and show people who don't use crystals get better about the same as people who do use crystals. But suppose you simply don't have the resources to go about all that work, should you then just assume the persons claim is correct and crystals really do cure cancer?

How about another example, critic Vern Holley has put a great deal of time and effort into finding 19th century place names near JS with place names in the BOM. With the goal of showing JS plagerized these names in producing the BOM.

http://www.uwec.edu/...place-names.htm

Some of these matches seem to be very impressive, like the valley of Alma or Angola place names in the BOM which exactly match place names near the Great Lakes.

Have you personally shown these matches are purely coincidence? If not then do you accept Verns conclusion that JS must have plagiarized these place names in creating a fictional BOM?

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

That's kind of my point - probabilistic language is being deployed by the critics as a simple mask for personal incredulity. Either you have stats or you're bluffing.

Yup.

[Uncertain]

"I demand that you give me incontrovertible proof of the BOM as authentic history and scripture. The burden of proof is on you."

"Really? And tell me what happens if I refuse that burden."

"Well, I just won't believe it."

"Hmmmm....OK, I can live with that. All the best to you."

I don't demand incontrovertible proof. I am pointing out where the burdern of proof does lie.

Look this really is the default position for any kind of scientific or scholarly work I promise I am not making this up. The burden of proof is on the person claiming a set of observations are statistically significant. I am not behaving any differently toward BOM apologetics than I do to any other field of study.

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

You have precisely defined the crux of my dilemma. I believe there are very good reasons to suspect personal spiritual experiences are not good ways to determine universal truth.

Yep, that's the problem. The problem is of course what you mean by "truth" isn't it? Scientific evidence is not the only path to it- in fact I am not even quite sure what the word means to be honest.

After 2000 years of western philosophy, there are many philosophers who also have the same problem. Meanwhile your life is going by. I hope you figure it out!

[mfbukowski]

I don't demand incontrovertible proof. I am pointing out where the burdern of proof does lie.

Nah, it doesn't lie there at all any more than picking a wife rests of a "burden of proof".

Can the sentence "Suzy is the girl for me" be true or false? How much proof is enough proof in that one?

I would take the position taken by Phillips in this 3 page review of a complex subject: http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000279/article.pdf

[Uncertain]

That's kind of my point - probabilistic language is being deployed by the critics as a simple mask for personal incredulity. Either you have stats or you're bluffing.

Believe what you will my friend. It's true I don't have stats showing Paharon matches an Egyptian word purely by random chance. But it is not my job to do so since I don't have the burden of proof. I really am not making this up. I work in academia doing research and have experience in this matter. Here is a link that describes who has the burden of proof when a claim is made regarding significance of results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

In describing the consensus position in all branches of science regarding who has the burden of proof frankly I am right. If you disagree with the consensus that is fine. But understand the consensus is the way it is for some very good reasons.

Best,

Uncertain