Onomasticon Wordplays by Matthew J. Bowen

[Darren10]

VideoGame;

 

It also looks as though "mourning" in the Book of Mormon is associated with either the result of sin or the result of death inflicted upon others, names husbands and brothers. Neither was the situation when Ishmael died. His death and being associated with "mourning" seems to be an anomaly. Why would that be?

[Darren10]

17 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 NHM in Hebrew is Nacham נָחַם which means "to be sorry, to console oneself". It seems the word needs "ch" to mean "to be sorry, to console oneself". http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5162.htm.  

I agree it is possible, I don't dispute that. All am saying is that coincidence is another possibility... a reasonable one.

I didn't find Hebrew scholars (LDS or non-LDS) that say Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35, And I am still waiting for evidence that the NHM altars date to at least 600 BC.  

Words connected from your link: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/nicham_5162.htm (niham = comfort, sorry, regretted); http://biblehub.com/hebrew/nachamu_5162.htm (nahamu = comfort);

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

It also looks as though "mourning" in the Book of Mormon is associated with either the result of sin or the result of death inflicted upon others, names husbands and brothers. Neither was the situation when Ishmael died. His death and being associated with "mourning" seems to be an anomaly. Why would that be?

Compare 1 Nephi 16:35 "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" to 

1 Nephi 5:1  And it came to pass that after we had come down into the wilderness unto our father, behold, he was filled with joy, and also my mother, Sariah, was exceedingly glad, for she truly had mourned because of us.

Helaman 9:10  And it came to pass that on the morrow the people did assemble themselves together to mourn and to fast, at the burial of the great chief judge who had been slain

Mosiah 7:24 Yea, I say unto you, great are the reasons which we have to mourn; for behold how many of our brethren have been slain, and their blood has been spilt in vain, and all because of iniquity 

Anyways, why would Nephi do wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:35, but didn't care to mention more important details like the presence of the Mayas?   

23 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Words connected from your link: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/nicham_5162.htm (niham = comfort, sorry, regretted); http://biblehub.com/hebrew/nachamu_5162.htm (nahamu = comfort);

Notice that dot below the "h"? According to the wikipedia. So thank you, more evidence that it needs "ch"  

Quote

" ḥ or ch "  and "ḥ/ḵ or ch/kh" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Hebrew

Edited February 27, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Compare 1 Nephi 16:35 "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" to 

1 Nephi 5:1  And it came to pass that after we had come down into the wilderness unto our father, behold, he was filled with joy, and also my mother, Sariah, was exceedingly glad, for she truly had mourned because of us.

Helaman 9:10  And it came to pass that on the morrow the people did assemble themselves together to mourn and to fast, at the burial of the great chief judge who had been slain

Mosiah 7:24 Yea, I say unto you, great are the reasons which we have to mourn; for behold how many of our brethren have been slain, and their blood has been spilt in vain, and all because of iniquity 

Anyways, why would Nephi do wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:35, but didn't care to mention more important details like the presence of the Mayas?   

Notice that dot below the "h"? According to the wikipedia. So thank you, more evidence that it needs "ch"  

Helaman and Mosiah refer to mourning due to sin or death inflicted upon family. 1 Nephi speaks of mourning when Sarah thought Nephi and his siblings, Sarah's other sons, perished in the wilderness while carrying out Lehi's unorthodox instructions. She even appears to have been upset with Lehi and there I think this passage loosely relates to sin.

Good call on the Chet. But when I looked into this further, and I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch of the imagination, a Chet may evolve into a Hei such as Nehum being "of Hebrew origin Nachum" (http://biblehub.com/greek/3486.htm).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/26/2017 at 9:49 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

No, but I have to be extra careful with free online Journals that are not recognized by the scholarly community. Neal Rappleye, Stephen Smoot, and Jeff Lindsay are not Hebrew scholars.

Since you know nothing of Hebrew scholarship, you are hardly one to pass judgement on anybody else.  You are only careful when your apriori world is called into question by facts.  Otherwise you appear to adopt anything fanciful to defend your apriori views.  As it happens, Stephen C. Smoot is a fine Hebrew scholar, and is currently in grad school at the Univ. of Toronto.

On 2/26/2017 at 9:49 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

 Stephen D. Ricks wrote "could have", and I agree with that. Bytheway, how many scholarly articles has Stephen D. Ricks written for a respected Journal? 

Ricks is author of or contributor to a number of books and articles of secular scholarship:

A Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989).

with William M. Brinner, Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions II (Decatur, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1989).

Western Language Literature on Pre-Islamic Central Arabia (Denver: American Institute for Islamic Studies, 1991);

with Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch, A Bibliography on Temples of the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean World (Lewiston ME: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991).

Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April, 1995 (New York: Brill, 1996).

“Queen of Sheba,” and “Sheba” entries in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1992);

“Kinship Bars to Marriage in Islamic Law,” Proceedings of the XXXII International Congress for Asian and North African Studies, Hamburg 25th-30th August 1986 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992).

“Magic in the Old and New Testaments: The Tradition of the Outsider,” in Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki, eds., Ritual Power and Magic in the Ancient World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995).

“The Garment of Adam in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Tradition” in Benamin H. Hary, John L. Hayes and Fred Astern, eds., Judaism and Islam, Communication and Interaction: Essays in Honor of William M. Brinner (Leiden: Brill, 2000).

On 2/26/2017 at 9:49 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

that doesn't tell me anything. 

Of course not.  Your hostility to standard scholarship prevents you from actually doing the research into these non-Mormon sources.  You engage in automatic rejection of anything which does not fit your apriori purview.  It just has to be wrong, in your view, and everyone a liar.

On 2/26/2017 at 9:49 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

When did you present evidence that Nephi was using wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35? Yes I agree it's possible, but  coincidence (and patternicity)  can explain it just as well, if not better because no one has demonstrated that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text.  If you have good evidence please present it to the scholarly community for review.  

So you agree now that the wordplay is "possible," which is what I, Stephen Ricks and others have been saying all along.  The notion of "proof," on  the other hand, is what one expects from yokels.  Scholars don't deal in nonsense such as "proof."

However, you accompany your significant admission with the proviso that (1) coincidence and patternicity "can explain it just as well, if not better," and (2) "because no has demonstrated that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text."  Since you know nothing about the rules of coincidence and patternicity, and since you know nothing about how literature is evaluated and compared to real world settings, you are nearly totally incompetent when it comes to drawing such conclusions.

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you agree now that the wordplay is "possible," which is what I, Stephen Ricks and others have been saying all along.

I said that many times "Like I said it is possible". So no, not just now. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 The notion of "proof," on  the other hand, is what one expects from yokels.  Scholars don't deal in nonsense such as "proof."

I never said I want "absolute proof". So, why don't you present that possibility to the scholarly community?  

Almost everything is possible, so just because wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 is possible doesn't mean it's true. Even if the Book of Mormon is the translation of an ancient Hebrew text, it still doesn't mean Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. So, had Ismael died in Bountiful, Nephi wouldn't have mentioned "daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly"?  

All I want is evidence that Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. It would have been very impressive had the Book of Mormon said "Nacham" is " to mourn", but unfortunately it doesn't say that. 

and what about Mesoamerica animals? Is there any evidence for horses, elephants, cows? Oxen? in Book of Mormon times? Any evidence for metals in Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times?  Why talk about the hits, but ignore the misses? 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Since you know nothing about the rules of coincidence and patternicity

What? Okay, explain them because I think you are the one that doesn't understand patternicity and coincidence.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

you are nearly totally incompetent when it comes to drawing such conclusions.

It's true I am no Hebrew expert, but I understand probability, coincidence, and cognitive biases. 

So, send your papers to the scholarly community, don't be afraid of them. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not.  Your hostility to standard scholarship prevents you from actually doing the research into these non-Mormon sources.  You engage in automatic rejection of anything which does not fit your apriori purview.  It just has to be wrong, in your view, and everyone a liar.

Listen, whether or not the NHM altars date to 600 BC or not is irrelevant, it won't change anything. 

I was simply asking out of curiosity, you didn't quote non-Mormon sources that say the NHM altars (or the same temple) date to 600 or 700 BC. If you have evidence there is no reason for me to deny it. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  As it happens, Stephen C. Smoot is a fine Hebrew scholar, and is currently in grad school at the Univ. of Toronto.

When Smoot wrote "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions" in 2014 he probably didn't even have his Bachelor's degree, let alone a PhD on ancient Hebrew. In the University of Toronto he is studying Egyptology, not Hebrew. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since you know nothing of Hebrew scholarship

Kerry Shirts revealed how The FARMS Review worked, it had no double-blind review process. Are they going to send the Interpreter papers to a scholarly journal?  

Edited March 1, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/1/2017 at 0:24 AM, MormonVideoGame said:

I said that many times "Like I said it is possible". So no, not just now. 

I never said I want "absolute proof". So, why don't you present that possibility to the scholarly community?  

Almost everything is possible, so just because wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 is possible doesn't mean it's true. Even if the Book of Mormon is the translation of an ancient Hebrew text, it still doesn't mean Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. So, had Ismael died in Bountiful, Nephi wouldn't have mentioned "daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly"?  

All I want is evidence that Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. It would have been very impressive had the Book of Mormon said "Nacham" is " to mourn", but unfortunately it doesn't say that. 

and what about Mesoamerica animals? Is there any evidence for horses, elephants, cows? Oxen? in Book of Mormon times? Any evidence for metals in Mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times?  Why talk about the hits, but ignore the misses? 

What? Okay, explain them because I think you are the one that doesn't understand patternicity and coincidence.  

It's true I am no Hebrew expert, but I understand probability, coincidence, and cognitive biases. 

So, send your papers to the scholarly community, don't be afraid of them. 

Listen, whether or not the NHM altars date to 600 BC or not is irrelevant, it won't change anything. 

I was simply asking out of curiosity, you didn't quote non-Mormon sources that say the NHM altars (or the same temple) date to 600 or 700 BC. If you have evidence there is no reason for me to deny it. 

When Smoot wrote "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions" in 2014 he probably didn't even have his Bachelor's degree, let alone a PhD on ancient Hebrew. In the University of Toronto he is studying Egyptology, not Hebrew. 

Kerry Shirts revealed how The FARMS Review worked, it had no double-blind review process. Are they going to send the Interpreter papers to a scholarly journal?  

The issues you pretend to raise here (and changing the goal posts) have been discussed many times on this board over the years and standard scholarship cited regularly.  Even if you bother to read it, it obviously means nothing to you since it has to be automatically rejected.  A little sincerity wouldn't hurt in your inquiry, instead of introducing false notions -- such as deliberately inserting "absolute" into the false notion of "proof."  Only someone completely unfamiliar with scholarship would engage in that sort of nonsense.  Unlike your approach, scholars play by the rules and hold each other up to rigorous standards.  You simply invent your own anti-scholarly standards and ignore standard non-Mormon scholarship, blaming everyone but yourself for your lack of knowledge.

Yokels never seem to understand that Hebrew scholars can study Egyptian language (Hebrew and Egyptian are both part of the much larger Afro-Asiatic language family, once commonly known as Hamito-Semitic -- the languages have much in common), so they actively invent restrictions on what someone is allowed to study.  Scholars have no such bar to their studies.

Probably the only way you would realize how wrong you are here is to actually professionally study the subject matter under discussion, as well as to adopt honesty and integrity as part of your personal credo.  Without those ingredients, you will continue to whine and cry and demand special favors, instead of doing your own research into what non-Mormon scholarship has in fact been saying all along.

[MormonVideoGame]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Unlike your approach, scholars play by the rules and hold each other up to rigorous standards.  You simply invent your own anti-scholarly standards and ignore standard non-Mormon scholarship, blaming everyone but yourself for your lack of knowledge.

Okay, send your "possibilities" to the scholarly community. Send 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 to them, you don't even have to tell them it's from the Book of Mormon. 

You know what, let me do it myself. Which article do you want me to send to a non-Mormon Hebrew scholar? You tell me which one. Or help me find a scholarly article (published in BYU) the argues Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 so I can send it to the scholar. 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

.  A little sincerity wouldn't hurt in your inquiry, instead of introducing false notions -- such as deliberately inserting "absolute" into the false notion of "proof."  

and when did I say "I want proof"? All I want is evidence. You failed to demonstrate that wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 is more probable than coincidence and patternicity. 

You even failed to demonstrate that the NHM altars date to at least 600 BC.  

Quote

instead of doing your own research into what non-Mormon scholarship has in fact been saying all along

"even if we suppose that Vogel is right, and the idea of a wordplay between Nahom and nḥm is untenable, there is still the matter of the Book of Mormon correctly placing an archaeologically verified toponym at the right place and during the right time in south Arabia" - Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot

I originally said that finding NHM is south Arabia is not impressive, no scholarly background is required to know that, all you need is an understanding of probability and cognitive biases. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Okay, send your "possibilities" to the scholarly community. Send 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 to them, you don't even have to tell them it's from the Book of Mormon. 

You know what, let me do it myself. Which article do you want me to send to a non-Mormon Hebrew scholar? You tell me which one. Or help me find a scholarly article (published in BYU) the argues Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 so I can send it to the scholar. 

and when did I say "I want proof"? All I want is evidence. You failed to demonstrate that wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 is more probable than coincidence and patternicity. 

You even failed to demonstrate that the NHM altars date to at least 600 BC.  

"even if we suppose that Vogel is right, and the idea of a wordplay between Nahom and nḥm is untenable, there is still the matter of the Book of Mormon correctly placing an archaeologically verified toponym at the right place and during the right time in south Arabia" - Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot

I originally said that finding NHM is south Arabia is not impressive, no scholarly background is required to know that, all you need is an understanding of probability and cognitive biases. 

Do whatever you like, guy.  That's what you do anyway, regardless of the evidence which you falsely declare interests you -- since "no scholarly background is required" anyhow.  Right?  Well, according to you.  It is the non-Mormon scholars who excavated the site with the NHM altars, and they who dated them.  Yet, you choose to blame the Mormons for your own failure to find out whether those non-Mormon scholars know what they are doing.

Yes, by all means do it yourself.  You don't believe anyone else anyway.  As usual, you make your own ignorance the measure of all reality.

[MormonVideoGame]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do whatever you like, guy.  That's what you do anyway, regardless of the evidence which you falsely declare interests you -- since "no scholarly background is required" anyhow.  Right?  Well, according to you.  It is the non-Mormon scholars who excavated the site with the NHM altars, and they who dated them.  Yet, you choose to blame the Mormons for your own failure to find out whether those non-Mormon scholars know what they are doing.

Yes, by all means do it yourself.  You don't believe anyone else anyway.  As usual, you make your own ignorance the measure of all reality.

Are you misreading what I am saying? or did I misread what you wrote? when did you give me evidence? 

You gave me some examples of  apparent "word-play" in the Book of Mormon, but those few examples don't demonstrate that Nephi was doing word-play in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.

Not only that, I presented an article that says it's suppose to be "nacham", but you dismissed it.  

Quote

It is the non-Mormon scholars who excavated the site with the NHM altars, and they who dated them

Again, when did you quote non-Mormon scholars that date the NHM altars to the 6th or 7th century? All you quoted was, "the numbers are given in centuries, in item 1, "aus dem 7. und 8. Jh. v. Chr.," meaning "from the 7th and 8th centuries B.C." Not the same thing, but still pre-Lehi. For those who want to look at the article online, go to", but your quote doesn't say anything about the NHM altars.  Not only that, you seem to think scholarly methods are better than radiocarbon dating. That other paper was published before the radiocarbon dating paper. 

Edited March 3, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

On 2/27/2017 at 2:02 PM, Darren10 said:

Good call on the Chet. But when I looked into this further, and I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch of the imagination, a Chet may evolve into a Hei such as Nehum being "of Hebrew origin Nachum" (http://biblehub.com/greek/3486.htm).

"Definition: Nahum, an ancestor of Jesus" -> "of Hebrew origin Nachum" ->  "Definition an Isr. prophet" -> "Word Origin from nacham" -> "Definition to be sorry, console oneself"
It still says you need "ch" to mean "to be sorry, console oneself". Bytheway, does the Book of Mormon say "console oneself" in that passage? 

You guys seem to be forcing the evidence. 

Edited March 3, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Are you misreading what I am saying? or did I misread what you wrote? when did you give me evidence? 

A deliberate misinterpretation by you.  You need to go back and reread your own words.  Then be honest with yourself and everyone else.

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

You gave me some examples of  apparent "word-play" in the Book of Mormon, but those few examples don't demonstrate that Nephi was doing word-play in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35.

Not only that, I presented an article that says it's suppose to be "nacham", but you dismissed it.  

Again, when did you quote non-Mormon scholars that date the NHM altars to the 6th or 7th century? All you quoted was, "the numbers are given in centuries, in item 1, "aus dem 7. und 8. Jh. v. Chr.," meaning "from the 7th and 8th centuries B.C." Not the same thing, but still pre-Lehi. For those who want to look at the article online, go to", but your quote doesn't say anything about the NHM altars.  Not only that, you seem to think scholarly methods are better than radiocarbon dating. That other paper was published before the radiocarbon dating paper. 

You talked big about conducting the inquiry yourself, but apparently did not mean it at all.  You have shown no real interest in standard scholarship, except to obfuscate, while an honest man would at least make an effort to find out what the facts are.  Once you have stopped pretending and giving lip service to the facts, you might be able to reflect the nature of the ancient world as it in fact once was.  All your comments here were replied to.  If you were really interested in a frank exchange of views, that would be shown by your actual replies, instead of your blatant ignorance.

[MormonVideoGame]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All your comments here were replied to.  

Yes, but you didn't quote a non-mormon source that says the NHM altars date to the 6th or 7th century BC. Just forget everything else, at least do that for me please. 

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 You have shown no real interest in standard scholarship, except to obfuscate

 Larry Hurtado (New Testament scholar) wrote, "genuinely scholarly claims are submitted for review by other scholars competent to judge matters. This is how real scholarship works, not by rushing into print with some sensational claim (for which the author is scarcely qualified), by-passing scholarly review critique...Peer-reviewed journals are those that send out submitted articles to other scholars in the field for review as to whether to publish them, revise them for publication, or reject them outright. This process now typically is “double-blind”: I.e., the name of the author is removed from the article, and the names of the reviewers are also confidential" 

I admit I don't know anything about Hebrew, I probably can't tell the difference between Hebrew and Chinese, but at least I understand how real scholarship works. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Yes, but you didn't quote a non-mormon source that says the NHM altars date to the 6th or 7th century BC. Just forget everything else, at least do that for me please. 

 Larry Hurtado (New Testament scholar) wrote, "genuinely scholarly claims are submitted for review by other scholars competent to judge matters. This is how real scholarship works, not by rushing into print with some sensational claim (for which the author is scarcely qualified), by-passing scholarly review critique...Peer-reviewed journals are those that send out submitted articles to other scholars in the field for review as to whether to publish them, revise them for publication, or reject them outright. This process now typically is “double-blind”: I.e., the name of the author is removed from the article, and the names of the reviewers are also confidential" 

I admit I don't know anything about Hebrew, I probably can't tell the difference between Hebrew and Chinese, but at least I understand how real scholarship works. 

Hurtado is a genuine scholar, and his words are correct.  The problem is that you most certainly do not know how scholarship works, and you have proven that fact repeatedly here.  I have given you the sources on the NHM altars site and dating, and you could ask those scholars what they in fact think about your off-the-wall nonsense -- since nothing any Mormon says impresses you.  Again, a little sincerity would help you a lot in your inquiry.

[MormonVideoGame]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 I have given you the sources on the NHM altars site and dating

Just quote them and you win the day, deal? Let's forget about everything else because I understand you can't demonstrate that Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. 

Please quote them. 

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

since nothing any Mormon says impresses you.  Again, a little sincerity would help you a lot in your inquiry.

the philosophy of Lincoln Cannon does impress me, I don't necessarily believe it, but it is impressive.  

Edited March 4, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Just quote them and you win the day, deal? Let's forget about everything else because I understand you can't demonstrate that Nephi was doing wordplay in 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35. 

Please quote them. 

the philosophy of Lincoln Cannon does impress me, I don't necessarily believe it, but it is impressive.  

Please do your own research on these matters and let me know what you find out.  As to Lincoln Cannon, who is new to me, I have no problem with his desire to understand both religion and science, and I agree that LDS theology is humanistic and naturalistic.  Apart from that, I am uncertain on the details of his beliefs.

[Darren10]

On 3/3/2017 at 0:21 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

"Definition: Nahum, an ancestor of Jesus" -> "of Hebrew origin Nachum" ->  "Definition an Isr. prophet" -> "Word Origin from nacham" -> "Definition to be sorry, console oneself"
It still says you need "ch" to mean "to be sorry, console oneself". Bytheway, does the Book of Mormon say "console oneself" in that passage? 

You guys seem to be forcing the evidence. 

Exactly. Even here, "naham" is related to "nacham" 

"

na'-ham (nacham, "comfort"):

A Judahite chieftain, father of Keilah the Garmite (1 Chronicles 4:19); the passage is obscure."

 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/naham/

[churchistrue]

I'm a little late on this.  Help me out here, I'm not as familiar with this as most of you are.  What is the theory for how wordplay like Abish or Moroni come about?  Moroni's not mentioned here, but I saw that in the article Dan Peterson linked to on his blog recently, which was from the same kind of material. 

Let's take Abish.  Is the idea here that Abish is her actual name, given to her at birth, which maybe God orchestrated to provide interesting wordplay in her life?  Or that someone who wrote the story down on plates, either Ammon or Alma initially, or Mormon later on in his abridgment?  Or even as Benjamin Seeker suggests, could it be Joseph Smith doing the wordplay?  Or God or some other spiritual entity doing the wordplay during the translation process?  

Also, how does this fit into LGT?  I understand the LGT'ers explain away Mormon 9:33 that it's a reference to a small number of elite ruling Nephite class that learned and spoke Hebrew kind of as a secret language. Is that right?  Abish, a Lamanite, born 400+ years after the arrival to the New World, being given a Hebrew name, implying her Lamanite father spoke Hebrew would throw all that upside down.  No?  I must not be understanding something.

 

 

     

[MormonVideoGame]

On 3/4/2017 at 8:55 PM, Darren10 said:

Exactly. Even here, "naham" is related to "nacham" 

na'-ham (nacham, "comfort"):

A Judahite chieftain, father of Keilah the Garmite (1 Chronicles 4:19); the passage is obscure."

Where does it say that Naham means "comfort"? and when does 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 mention "comfort"? 

Naham may be related to Nacham, but it doesn't mean Naham means "to comfort". 

 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Where does it say that Naham means "comfort"? and when does 1 Nephi 16:34 - 35 mention "comfort"? 

Naham may be related to Nacham, but it doesn't mean Naham means "to comfort". 

 

I linked you where Naham means "comfort".

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/naham/

My point is that requiring a "Chet" in Hebrew may not be so stringent as you purported it to be.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I'm a little late on this.  Help me out here, I'm not as familiar with this as most of you are.  What is the theory for how wordplay like Abish or Moroni come about?  Moroni's not mentioned here, but I saw that in the article Dan Peterson linked to on his blog recently, which was from the same kind of material. 

Let's take Abish.  Is the idea here that Abish is her actual name, given to her at birth, which maybe God orchestrated to provide interesting wordplay in her life?  Or that someone who wrote the story down on plates, either Ammon or Alma initially, or Mormon later on in his abridgment?  Or even as Benjamin Seeker suggests, could it be Joseph Smith doing the wordplay?  Or God or some other spiritual entity doing the wordplay during the translation process?  

Also, how does this fit into LGT?  I understand the LGT'ers explain away Mormon 9:33 that it's a reference to a small number of elite ruling Nephite class that learned and spoke Hebrew kind of as a secret language. Is that right?  Abish, a Lamanite, born 400+ years after the arrival to the New World, being given a Hebrew name, implying her Lamanite father spoke Hebrew would throw all that upside down.  No?  I must not be understanding something.

 

 

     

Very interesting stuff, and Bowens essay on Abish is one of my favorites but this is way beyond the scope I intended for this thread.

[MormonVideoGame]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I linked you where Naham means "comfort".

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/naham/

My point is that requiring a "Chet" in Hebrew may not be so stringent as you purported it to be.

Okay fair enough, it took my just 3 minutes to find something very interesting. 

The Abarim Publications' online Biblical Hebrew says, "The multifarious verb נחם (naham), may mean to be sorry in the sense of being compassionate (Jeremiah 15:6), to be sorry in the sense of being regretful (Exodus 13:17), or it may mean to comfort oneself (Genesis 38:12), depending on the context.

That this root came to denote such a wide array of meanings may have to do with its origin, which, according to HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, was to reflect the idea of breathing deeply. When the verb means to repent, the subject is most often God! This word is used in such enigmatic statements as Genesis 6:6-7 (God regrets having made man), Exodus 32:14 (God changes His mind upon Moses' plea) or 1 Samuel 15:11 (God regrets having made Saul king).

"Repent" is probably not even a very accurate word but for lack of a better one, it serves. Perhaps there is only one action to the verb נחם (naham) but two perspectives. The second perspective then is that of how humans perceive this action: comfort. Our verb occurs most famously in Isaiah 40:1, "Comfort, O comfort My people . . .," and in Psalm 23:4, "Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me".

 Derivations of the verb נחם (naham) are: The masculine noun נחם (noham), meaning sorrow or repentance (Hosea 13:14 only). The masculine noun נחום (nihum), meaning comfort (Isaiah 57:18) or compassion (Hosea 11:8). The feminine noun נחמה (nehama), meaning comfort (Psalm 119:50, Job 6:10 only). The masculine noun תנחום (tanhum), meaning consolation. This noun occurs only in the plural form (Jeremiah 16:7, Psalm 94:19)."

 I still don't see evidence that Nephi was doing word-play 1 Nephi 16:34, assuming that he even existed. 

 1 Nephi 16:34 never says anything about "to be sorry in the sense of being regretful" or "to be sorry in the sense of being compassionate"  or "to comfort oneself" 

Anways, I see a lot of room for Patternicity when looking for Hebrew wordplay. 

Edited March 6, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Calm]

20 hours ago, churchistrue said:

  Abish, a Lamanite, born 400+ years after the arrival to the New World, being given a Hebrew name, implying her Lamanite father spoke Hebrew would throw all that upside down.  No?  I must not be understanding something.     

Generally speaking, names last a long time after a language ceases to be used.  Just look at all the immigrants' grandchildren carrying names that would be typical in the birthland of their grandparents or great grandparents.  My maiden name is Hebrew though no family member has likely spoke it for hundreds of years and I only know the meaning because I looked it up.  In the past they were usually more conscientious about handing meanings down.  Names were more important in many societies.  They tied us to our ancestors, spoke of our destinies, gave us a bond of honor.  My mom's name was chosen as a word play on her grandparents' names, names that had acclimated to the New World.  My daughter's is a combination of the three people who wanted her to come into the world the most.  Perhaps when she is older, she will see that as defining her as dependent rather than loved and so change it for something that defines her better.  I have a cousin who has named her child for an ancestor she only knows the name of.  Names are the most portable history one could carry with them and adaptable; change a name, change a history.

My mom had a baby name book way after she stopped having babies.  She taught me the meaning of names was important, names of people, names of places, name of countries, name of plants and animals.  How the name came to be was often the story of the creature/organization.  It shocked me when I got to school and my friends started having kids and I would ask them why they choose the name and they would respond it sounds nice.  Sometimes, depending on the meaning, I would tell them, sometimes not.

It is rather easy to do wordplay on names, whatever language they are.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Generally speaking, names last a long time after a language ceases to be used.  Just look at all the immigrants' grandchildren carrying names that would be typical in the birthland of their grandparents or great grandparents.

Any evidence that Hebrew survived for a long time in Mesoamerica? at least published in the Mormon Interpreter? 

Book of Mormon says the prophets wrote on metal plates, so one would expect that the Nephites had the capacity to create inscriptions.The inscriptions in Mesoamerica date "300 BCE to 1697 CE"  

Any linguistic evidence that at least some mesoamerican languages or names were influenced by Hebrew? The Mayas didn't talk to the Nephites? 

Fairmormon says, "The reason for rather sudden transition of the Maya from a simple agrarian society to a higher level of culture and expansion is not known...Dr. Coe states:.... The possibility of some trans-Pacific influence on Mesoamerican cultures cannot, however, be so easily dismissed.."  In other words it is possible that Hebrews influenced the Maya, where it the evidence?  

Edited March 7, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Calm]

I would suggest studying Brant Gardner's work.  So far he seems to me to be the most realistic about possible impact or lack thereof.