South Arabian Inscriptions

[MormonVideoGame]

On 2/21/2017 at 7:26 AM, Darren10 said:

I think you got it backwards. It's not that "Nahom" means "to mourn" but that Nephi would have recognized NHM as connected to mourning and therefore include his sister-in-laws mourning into the narrative.

Book of Mormon never says Nephi recognized "Nahom" "as connected to mourning" 

But I want to ask you the same thing. So if Nahom meant (to Nephi) "to mourn" because Nephi was using Hebrew wordplay to describe Nahom, does that mean Amulon (Mosiah 23:31) means "to till the ground"?  Or Antiparah (Alma 56:31) means "to march"? Or Ogath.(Ether 15:10) means "tents"? 

I honestly don't see how 1 Nephi 16:34 is different. 

Edited February 23, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Book of Mormon never says Nephi recognized "Nahom" "as connected to mourning" 

But I want to ask you the same thing. So if Nahom meant (to Nephi) "to mourn" because Nephi was using Hebrew wordplay to describe Nahom, does that mean Amulon (Mosiah 23:31) means "to till the ground"?  Or Antiparah (Alma 56:31) means "to march"? Or Ogath.(Ether 15:10) means "tents"? 

I honestly don't see how 1 Nephi 16:34 is different. 

"Book of Mormon never says Nephi recognized "Nahom" "as connected to mourning" " - Of course it doesn't but NHM does refer to, among other things, mourning. I do not know what's the holdup in your accepting this. "Mourning" or the infinitive, "to mourn" is from the Hebrew root word NHM. Therefore a Hebrew speaker such as Nephi, when he saw his sister-n-laws mourning" at a place called "Nahom" which has the root word NHM, he thought it significant ot include that into the Book of Mormon narrative. Ancient Hebrew prophets did this very frequently with events that related to specific words, even names.

I've no idea what other names would mean but there is a possible connection to them.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Yes you did in your citation, sorry I missed that 

Yes, but there are a lot of dates in that paper. "aus dem 7. und 8. Jh. v. Chr.," doesn't tell me it's the same temple where the altars were given by "Bi‘athtar, son of Sawad, son of Naw‘an, the Nihmite" (Brown 1999). 

Google translate "Especially the immediate predecessor building from the 7th and 8th century BC, temple 3, whose essential Building complexes in a massive podium wall Huge limestone quarries and a central Cella with surrounding limestone pavement"

So the NHM altars are in temple 3? and period 2 and 3? How can we know NHM altars are not from Temple 4? and period 3? According to the other paper there are 4 Temples and 4 periods. 

It can be confusing when we are merely reading summaries of an excavation, instead of the detailed excavation report -- where each altar is given its own designation.  However, a Wikipedia article on Nahom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom , dates the first of the three altars (with three identical inscriptions) "to between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C by French researcher Christian Robin (Robin 1997, p. 144)," which is on page 144 of the French source I already cited for you as Burkhard Vogt, "Les temples de Ma'rib," in Yemen: au pays de la reine de Saba (Paris: Flammarion, 1997).   These are all non-Mormon scholars, which is what you asked for.

12 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

So if Nahom meant (to Nephi) "to mourn" because the Nephi was using Hebrew wordplay to describe Nahom, does that mean Amulon (Mosiah 23:31) means "to till the ground"?  Or Antiparah (Alma 56:31) means "to march"? Or Ogath.(Ether 15:10) means "tents"? 

I don't see how 1 Nephi 16:34 is different. 

As I pointed out in my long piece on the etymology of Nahom, one does not simply invent a meaning for a word (as you are doing here), but rather apply actual knowledge of the languages likely to have been used in a particular document.  Only on a few occasions will one find wordplay.  It doesn't simply appear everywhere, but it is very interesting when it does.

[MormonVideoGame]

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

 Therefore a Hebrew speaker such as Nephi, when he saw his sister-n-laws mourning" at a place called "Nahom" which has the root word NHM, he thought it significant ot include that into the Book of Mormon narrative.

"mourn" appears 41 times in the Book of Mormon. Are you sure you are not finding patterns in random data? Ever read about Apophenia and Patternicity? "Mourn" is not even mentioned in the same verse.   

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

 Of course it doesn't but NHM does refer to, among other things, mourning.

Could according to LDS scholar Stephen D. Ricks "Book of Mormon Nahom could have an etymological connection “to mourn, to groan,” but the place-name Nehem of the Arabian Peninsula might have had a different etymology."  I don't see how we can rule out coincidence beyond reasonable doubt. 

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

 Ancient Hebrew prophets did this very frequently with events that related to specific words, even names.

but according to Robert Smith: "Only on a few occasions will one find wordplay. It doesn't simply appear everywhere, but it is very interesting when it does."
Which strengthens the possibility of coincidence.   What are the odds that "Nahom" and "mourn" appear on the same chapter? I don't know, but the odds to win just $100 in the power-ball are 1 in 36,525, and people win $100 all the time.  What are the odds to find "NHM" in South Arabia west of "Bountiful"? The odds are not that bad because there are thousands of inscriptions. 

There are more than 6,000 verses in the Book of Mormon, it is reasonable to expect some hits. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It can be confusing when we are merely reading summaries of an excavation, instead of the detailed excavation report -- where each altar is given its own designation.  However, a Wikipedia article on Nahom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom , dates the first of the three altars (with three identical inscriptions) "to between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C by French researcher Christian Robin (Robin 1997, p. 144)," which is on page 144 of the French source I already cited for you as Burkhard Vogt, "Les temples de Ma'rib," in Yemen: au pays de la reine de Saba (Paris: Flammarion, 1997).   These are all non-Mormon scholars, which is what you asked for.

How can I know Robin and Flammarion are talking about the same temple? and 1997 is before "Radiocarbon Datings from the AlMaqah Temple of Bar’an" was published, in other words 1997 is before scientific evidence was available. 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

"mourn" appears 41 times in the Book of Mormon. Are you sure you are not finding patterns in random data? Ever read about Apophenia and Patternicity? "Mourn" is not even mentioned in the same verse.   

Could according to LDS scholar Stephen D. Ricks "Book of Mormon Nahom could have an etymological connection “to mourn, to groan,” but the place-name Nehem of the Arabian Peninsula might have had a different etymology."  I don't see how we can rule out coincidence beyond reasonable doubt. 

but according to Robert Smith: "Only on a few occasions will one find wordplay. It doesn't simply appear everywhere, but it is very interesting when it does."
Which strengthens the possibility of coincidence.   What are the odds that "Nahom" and "mourn" appear on the same chapter? I don't know, but the odds to win just $100 in the power-ball are 1 in 36,525, and people win $100 all the time.  What are the odds to find "NHM" in South Arabia west of "Bountiful"? The odds are not that bad because there are thousands of inscriptions. 

There are more than 6,000 verses in the Book of Mormon, it is reasonable to expect some hits. 

How can I know Robin and Flammarion are talking about the same temple? and 1997 is before "Radiocarbon Datings from the AlMaqah Temple of Bar’an" was published, in other words 1997 is before scientific evidence was available. 

You're fighting simplicity here: NHM can mean "to mourn". Nahom in ancient Hebrew would be spelled NHM. There Nephi's sister-in-laws mourn. Nephi could very well have seen the connection between the actions of his sister-in-laws and the named Nahom which would be spelled with the exact same root word, NHM, as it would be when he wrote that they "mourned".

Nahom could have meant, "grandma wears ugly lipstick," but the mere fact that its root word would have been NHM in Hebrew connects it to the action of "to mourn". I do not find it coincidental. You seem to not find any connection between the event and the city name and that's fine but this connection is highly plausible and historically intriguing to say the least.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 What are the odds to find "NHM" in South Arabia west of "Bountiful"? The odds are not that bad because there are thousands of inscriptions. 

And just how many NHM inscriptions have been found?

[MormonVideoGame]

31 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

And just how many NHM inscriptions have been found?

There are a lot of NHM-like inscriptions in Arabia, there is a place called NIHM. 

So, how many grand price power-ball winners there are in each play?  I  don't understand that point of your question. 

34 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

 There Nephi's sister-in-laws mourn.

Of course, because their father died. I wonder why Nephi mentioned small details, but didn't bother to mention the Mayas. 

34 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

fact that its root word would have been NHM in Hebrew connects it to the action of "to mourn".

You need to demonstrate that Nahom is NHM.  Just because NHM fits in Nahom doesn't mean NHM is Nahom. 

Again, "to mourn" appears 41 times in the Book of Mormon, you think there is no descent chance for coincidence?  

Don't you see the fallacy here

NHM means "to mourn" for a Hebrew, therefore NHM is Nahom. 

Edited February 24, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

"mourn" appears 41 times in the Book of Mormon. Are you sure you are not finding patterns in random data? Ever read about Apophenia and Patternicity? "Mourn" is not even mentioned in the same verse. 

Could according to LDS scholar Stephen D. Ricks "Book of Mormon Nahom could have an etymological connection “to mourn, to groan,” but the place-name Nehem of the Arabian Peninsula might have had a different etymology."  I don't see how we can rule out coincidence beyond reasonable doubt. 

but according to Robert Smith: "Only on a few occasions will one find wordplay. It doesn't simply appear everywhere, but it is very interesting when it does."
Which strengthens the possibility of coincidence.   What are the odds that "Nahom" and "mourn" appear on the same chapter? I don't know, but the odds to win just $100 in the power-ball are 1 in 36,525, and people win $100 all the time.  What are the odds to find "NHM" in South Arabia west of "Bountiful"? The odds are not that bad because there are thousands of inscriptions. 

There are more than 6,000 verses in the Book of Mormon, it is reasonable to expect some hits. 

The Book of Mormon wasn't engraved on the Plates with numbered verses or chapters.  Both chapters and verses were added to the English translation in 1879 by Orson Pratt.  Scholars ignore versification when doing their linguistic and literary analyses.  The same applies to the Bible.  Indeed, there is a consensus among scholars that wordplay takes place in all sorts of languages and literature.  Because you have not studied the subject, you assume that it is all chicanery or gambling.  You have made your own ignorance the measure of all reality.

Let me give you some examples:  

A.  In Exodus 2:5-6, an Egyptian Princess has a servant pull a baby out of the Nile River.  In verses 8-9, that same Princess has the baby nursed by his mother until weaned.  Only in verse 10 do we learn that she named him Moses, "because I drew him out of the water."  The etymology presented there makes it appear that the boy was called Moshe because she had drawn him (meshitihu) from the water.  This is clearly a false folk-etymology, but it  is also clever wordplay based on similarity of sound.  First, why would an Egyptian Princess be using Hebrew language to name the boy?  She wouldn't.  Second, we know that Moses is a common Egyptian name, and some other Hebrews in Exodus are also given Egyptian names (just like Jews living in Europe and America are often given non-Hebrew names).

B.  In 1 Nephi 17:5-6 we read about a "land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; . . . we called the place Bountiful, because of its much fruit."  in other words, we find an obvious connection between the English word "Bountiful" and an abundant supply of fruit and honey.  That is the etymology.  So what, you ask?  Well, Nephi is writing in Egyptian, and we find the very same description in the most famous work of ancient Egyptian literature, The Tale of Sinuhe, who also found such a place of abundance.  From that work we know that the Egyptian word used is  ˁšЗ(t) and it is cognate with Hebrew  ˁšr (Akkadian  ešēru).  So what, you still ask?  Well, this same tale contains many other literary topoi also found in 1 Nephi.  How can that be, since the Book of Mormon was written before the modern discovery of ancient Egyptian literature?  For one thing, Nephi probably knew that famous tale, perhaps reading it while in training as a young scribe.  As non-Mormon scholar R. Whybray has indicated, the scribal school was “an institution which the Israelites had borrowed, together with its curriculum, from the Egyptians.”^[1]

---

^[1] Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs (London: SCM, 1965), 71, quoted in John Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, 207.  Cf. R. J. Williams, “Scribal Training in Ancient Egypt,” JAOS, 92 (1972):216-221;  Brant A. Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe,” FARMS Review, 23/1 (2011):45–55.

A good book for you to consult on this is S. B. Noegel, ed., Puns and Pundits: Wordplay in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2000).

6 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

How can I know Robin and Flammarion are talking about the same temple? and 1997 is before "Radiocarbon Datings from the AlMaqah Temple of Bar’an" was published, in other words 1997 is before scientific evidence was available. 

Flammarion is the famous French publishing house.  Dates of publication do not tell when the actual analyses were done.  Your critique seems to be that these non-Mormon scholars don't know what they are doing.  I can't spoon feed this to you.  At some point you need to take responsibility to do more of your own research into the sources I have provided.  This wasn't done in a corner and hidden from view.  You showed some genuine effort when you used Google Translate.

[MormonVideoGame]

 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Your critique seems to be that these non-Mormon scholars don't know what they are doing. 

I am not saying that, I only saying the French paper was published before "Radiocarbon Datings from the AlMaqah" paper. Don't you agree that radiocarbon dating is very important? 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Because you have not studied the subject, you assume that it is all chicanery or gambling.  You have made your own ignorance the measure of all reality.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon does have Hebrew word play in some passages. That still doesn't mean Nephi was using  Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.   The word "mourn" appears 41 times in the Book of Mormon. You have to show that NHM and Nahom are connected, the scholarly community won't take you seriously without doing that.  At least demonstrate that Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.

Ever read about Apophenia and Patternicity? 

Quote

In 1 Nephi 17:5-6 we read about a "land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey

Do you see the difference between 1 Nephi 17:5-6 and 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35? 

"Book of Mormon wasn't engraved on the Plates with numbered verses or chapters"
Please don't insult my intelligence My point was that you can find anything in entire chapters. 

Quote

Flammarion is the famous French publishing house

Let me try again, Please show me where the French source says the NHM altars (or the NHM Temple whatever)  dates to the 6th century BC. 

You quoted the Wikipedia "a Wikipedia article on Nahom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom , dates the first of the three altars (with three identical inscriptions) "to between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C by French researcher Christian Rob"

The French source says Temple 3 dates to the 7th century, which tells me nothing.  

Edited February 24, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

There are a lot of NHM-like inscriptions in Arabia, there is a place called NIHM. 

So, how many grand price power-ball winners there are in each play?  I  don't understand that point of your question. 

Of course, because their father died. I wonder why Nephi mentioned small details, but didn't bother to mention the Mayas. 

You need to demonstrate that Nahom is NHM.  Just because NHM fits in Nahom doesn't mean NHM is Nahom. 

Again, "to mourn" appears 41 times in the Book of Mormon, you think there is no descent chance for coincidence?  

Don't you see the fallacy here

NHM means "to mourn" for a Hebrew, therefore NHM is Nahom. 

Nobody responsibly says NHM is Nahom, only a very sttong connection between NHM discovered and Nahom of the Book of Mormon. "Mourning" is a direct liguistic evidence of the possible, even probable, connection between the two. 

The nexttimevyou win $100 from powerball and tell me you're ball impressed. Then I will tell you I am not impressed that NHM was found during the very first real life and real time (adjusted for use of modern-day technology such as motorized vehicles) reconstruction of Lehi's journey in the direction he is reported to have taken. 

[MormonVideoGame]

57 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Nobody responsibly says NHM is Nahom, only a very sttong connection between NHM discovered and Nahom of the Book of Mormon. "Mourning" is a direct liguistic evidence of the possible, even probable, connection between the two. 

We both agree it's possible, but everything is possible. Even if the Book of Mormon is entirely true, that still doesn't mean Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. 

that it means "mourning" is irrelevant without demonstrating that Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.

Ever heard of the Bible code? Proponents of the Bible code say there are "secret messages encoded within the Hebrew text of the Torah", but I see nothing more than patterns in meaningless noise. 

Please read about patternicity and cognitive biases. Read a book called "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Taleb

The Book of Mormon makes a lot of claims, which means it is easy to find some connections and patterns.  

57 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The nexttimevyou win $100 from powerball and tell me you're ball impressed.

Let me talk about another inscription that was found in the right place, and dates to the right time. 

The city of Laman'ayin was found in Mesoamerica, and it dates to 1500 B.C. 

Of North and South America, Laman'ayin is in the right place (Mesoamerica) and right time (1500 BC). 

However, FairMormon says, "While the name of this city is an interesting coincidence, there is not sufficient information given in the Book of Mormon to allow one to assume that it correlates with any city mentioned therein." 

Edited February 24, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Meadowchik]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 2:16 PM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

So.

God is such an awesome GPS that He can guide people safely through the Arabian desert and give them detailed instructions on how to build boats capable of crossing the largest ocean on the planet and preserve a detailed description of the entire journey (including directions and place names) and then transmit said record to a Prophet living on a different continent and separated by over a thousand years ...

... but He can't bother sending anyone a vision to find Elizabeth Smart while she's being raped three times a day for nine months 18 miles from her home in Utah? 

I guess "all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." Thank G-d the Lord is keeping meticulous track of all our lost keys! 

I was a volunteer searching for Smart the Saturday after her abduction, when she was still in the woods. I wanted to stay the whole day but had to get home to my small children, so I had to search the neighborhood instead.  But I wanted to search the woods because I felt she'd more likely be there. I regretted not doing that.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Meadowchik

[notHagoth7]

On 2/20/2017 at 6:16 AM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

... but He can't bother sending anyone a vision to find Elizabeth Smart while she's being raped three times a day for nine months 18 miles from her home in Utah? 

I'll admit this... Back then, for a brief moment, I seriously considered using the tracting-location method I had learned on my mission. That was my first impression.

The thought then occurred to me that...who am I to think I could find someone I didn't even know, when perhaps hundreds of people were already out there looking for her. (I had very little self-confidence back then.)

I now know *very* clearly where the latter idea...or naysaying voice...came from......and where the first voice came from.

Joseph taught that our first impression is almost always the one that should be trusted. I can't claim I would have found her any earlier than anyone else. But it does mean that one more person would have been prayerfully searching for her...and such a prayer on wheels might have helped open the door for someone else to find her more quickly. 

My apologies to Elizabeth for not yet having enough faith in the Spirit and in myself, and for not being mature enough to trust and act on that first impression.

On 2/20/2017 at 6:16 AM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I guess "all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." Thank G-d the Lord is keeping meticulous track of all our lost keys! 

Jeremy, you might mock the experience thing. One day you won't. "I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself." (Joseph)

And I don't really blame you for mocking the "for thy good" premise too if you haven't emerged from soul-crushing trials. However, heaven has the means to transmute all things for our good...if we allow. I know it...just as my ancestors did pulling handcarts to Zion.

In the end, if not before, every tear will be wiped away.

And every heartbreak *will* be recompensed.

In that day, the Restoration will be complete.

Edited February 24, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 

I am not saying that, I only saying the French paper was published before "Radiocarbon Datings from the AlMaqah" paper. Don't you agree that radiocarbon dating is very important? 

Of course, but you missed the point again.  The date of publication of the paper in Radiocarbon is not the date when the tests were conducted.

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon does have Hebrew word play in some passages. That still doesn't mean Nephi was using  Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.   The word "mourn" appears 41 times in the Book of Mormon. You have to show that NHM and Nahom are connected, the scholarly community won't take you seriously without doing that.  At least demonstrate that Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.

Ever read about Apophenia and Patternicity? 

The word "mourn" undoubtedly appears millions of times in English literature.  That is not the issue.  What the scholar asks is Does a particular occurrence of "mourn" occur in proximity to a possible occasion for wordplay?  In 1 Nephi we have native Hebrew speakers moving through the wilderness, so the wordplay might be a Hebrew word.  We find a toponym Nahom in proximity to "mourn," and that happens to be a meaning of that word in Hebrew.  The other times "mourn" occurs are largely irrelevant, unless also  in proximity to just such a possible wordplay.  Biblical scholars use such principles of analysis everyday, and no one complains.  However, if I do it, you immediately bellyache.  Why the double standard?  Or is that you simply don't understand what wordplay is?

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Do you see the difference between 1 Nephi 17:5-6 and 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35? 

Of course.  Do you?  Perhaps you could give me your version of the difference.

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

"Book of Mormon wasn't engraved on the Plates with numbered verses or chapters"
Please don't insult my intelligence My point was that you can find anything in entire chapters.

You again miss the point entirely.  To a statistician, it makes no difference at all how many millions of times a word occurs, but it is the context in which it occurs which is of interest to the scholar.  I don't dismiss an entire phone book just because I can find your phone number and address in it.  There are rules for looking something up in a phone book (alphabetical), just as there are for all other methods of analysis.  One must use logic.

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Let me try again, Please show me where the French source says the NHM altars (or the NHM Temple whatever)  dates to the 6th century BC. 

You quoted the Wikipedia "a Wikipedia article on Nahom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom , dates the first of the three altars (with three identical inscriptions) "to between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C by French researcher Christian Rob"

The French source says Temple 3 dates to the 7th century, which tells me nothing.  

Like I said, I can't spoon feed this stuff to you.  I don't even have that French source, but you apparently do.  All those non-Mormon sources are there for you to consult.  that is what you asked for initially, but now you want me to quote from each of them as well.  I can't do all your work for you.  As I said, none of this was done in a corner, or in secret.  It is the non-Mormon scholars who did the work, and it is only them whom you trust.  Every time I say something, you express instant disbelief.  You are subject to overwhelming prejudice.  Nothing I ever say will be adequate for you.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

We both agree it's possible, but everything is possible. Even if the Book of Mormon is entirely true, that still doesn't mean Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. 

that it means "mourning" is irrelevant without demonstrating that Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.

Ever heard of the Bible code? Proponents of the Bible code say there are "secret messages encoded within the Hebrew text of the Torah", but I see nothing more than patterns in meaningless noise. 

Please read about patternicity and cognitive biases. Read a book called "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Taleb  

I don't know any scholars who take seriously The Bible Code. Will you be denouncing witchcraft next and then accusing Mormon scholars of believing in witchcraft?  Why do you insist on the anti-scientific and anti-scholarly approach?  Are you afraid to logically discuss issues of substance?  What we are discussing here is entirely normal within the best biblical scholarship.  Are you now going to begin denouncing biblical scholars throughout the world?  Why do you have such an animus for literary analysis?

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

The Book of Mormon makes a lot of claims, which means it is easy to find some connections and patterns.  

I don't understand why "lots of claims" necessarily makes it "easy to find some connections and patterns."  There are lots of claims in Tolkien's The Hobbit, or his The Lord of the Rings.  That doesn't mean that we can easily find real world connections and patterns which verify the historicity of those books.  However, if a book claims to be real history, it certainly helps the researcher to have many claims made in the book.  That way he has many tests which he can conduct.  It also helps if he has been trained to conduct such tests.

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Let me talk about another inscription that was found in the right place, and dates to the right time. 

The city of Laman'ayin was found in Mesoamerica, and it dates to 1500 B.C. 

Of North and South America, Laman'ayin is in the right place (Mesoamerica) and right time (1500 BC). 

However, FairMormon says, "While the name of this city is an interesting coincidence, there is not sufficient information given in the Book of Mormon to allow one to assume that it correlates with any city mentioned therein." 

Since Clan Lehi didn't arrive in the New World until around 586 B.C., it seems ridiculous to consider  a place named Laman'ayin from 1500 BC as relevant in any way.  That is the Jaredite period, and the Jaredites used no such name.  Are you certain you didn't misread the FairMormon entry (which you did not cite, and so I have not read)?  There are no known Mesoamerican inscriptions from that early date in any case.

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

We both agree it's possible, but everything is possible. Even if the Book of Mormon is entirely true, that still doesn't mean Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. 

that it means "mourning" is irrelevant without demonstrating that Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.

Ever heard of the Bible code? Proponents of the Bible code say there are "secret messages encoded within the Hebrew text of the Torah", but I see nothing more than patterns in meaningless noise. 

Please read about patternicity and cognitive biases. Read a book called "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Taleb

The Book of Mormon makes a lot of claims, which means it is easy to find some connections and patterns.  

Let me talk about another inscription that was found in the right place, and dates to the right time. 

The city of Laman'ayin was found in Mesoamerica, and it dates to 1500 B.C. 

Of North and South America, Laman'ayin is in the right place (Mesoamerica) and right time (1500 BC). 

However, FairMormon says, "While the name of this city is an interesting coincidence, there is not sufficient information given in the Book of Mormon to allow one to assume that it correlates with any city mentioned therein." 

"We both agree it's possible, but everything is possible. Even if the Book of Mormon is entirely true, that still doesn't mean Nephi was doing Hebrew wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. " - True but if this is your premises, 'but everything is possible', I really do not see a point to or an end to this dialogue so, let's end it. If you take the "you could be right but only because everything is possible", then there is no way to proceed.

I decided to make a new thread based on a few essays Matthew J. Bowen has written at Mormon Interpreter. These are the very essay I previously attempted to post here as superb examples of word plays in the book of Mormon. I think by presenting them they can provide readers here of a great guideline a to how word plays were used and how to spot them.