God probably won't allow us to find Nahom

[Robert F. Smith]

50 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There is no proof that Smith used notes, just like there is no proof that ancient Nhmyn is the same Nihm tribe. However, because the Book of Mormon has many KJV passages you the Physics Guy can argue Smith used a Bible because Robert Smith says "We are only extrapolating".  Some LDS scholars argue Smith did use a KJV Bible, if true it would mean Cowdery didn't notice. Both Robert and Glenn tell me we don't need proof.  

Some LDS scholars do infer that Joseph Smith used a KJV Bible (an 1828 Phinney Bible) when he came to those long Isaiah quotations.  Yet we have no witnesses who saw that.  Indeed, with his head inside the hat, he would not have been able to read a book anyhow.  Moreover, since the text of the Book of Mormon is in long extinct Early Modern English, Joseph could not have created it.  All he could do was to read it off the stone.

50 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

By definition proof means "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement" 

I gave you an excellent example of proof (from a Neo-Babylonian Chronicle), and you refused to respond to it.  Instead, you offer here a lame definition which tells us nothing.

50 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Thank you for clarifying it is not clear.  Nihm tribe comes much the larger Hamadan and Bakil tribes. 

Yes, and what does it mean to you that the Nihm tribe comes from a larger tribe?  Do you know anything about Arab tribes and clans?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If the Lehites had made a stop at a place called Barak, then the local occurrence of the OSA brk toponym would be relevant.  

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of ancient toponyms in Yemen that match many old Testament names. Ryan Dahle agrees it is a "significant argument", and I hope you see why. If not hopefully someone here can do a better job than me in explaining why.   

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The -yn ending on nhmyn is merely a collective or plural ending for NHM, which can be taken as a tribal identification.

So Nhmyn can be translated as "stone-cutter", and Nhmyn may not be a tribe after all.  Is there anything from 600 BC that confirms Nhmyn was a tribe? 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some LDS scholars do infer that Joseph Smith used a KJV Bible (an 1828 Phinney Bible) when he came to those long Isaiah quotations.  Yet we have no witnesses who saw that.  

So the PhysicsGuy can make a good argument because we don't need proof. 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I gave you an excellent example of proof (from a Neo-Babylonian Chronicle), and you refused to respond to it.  Instead, you offer here a lame definition which tells us nothing.

I understand, but we rarely need proof right?

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and what does it mean to you that the Nihm tribe comes from a larger tribe?  

It probably means the Nihm tribe was created after the Hamadan and Bakil tribes in "the 1st century B.C".   I don't know, does Nihm come from Hamadan and Bakil? 

Edited October 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of ancient toponyms in Yemen that match many old Testament names. Ryan Dahle agrees it is a "significant argument", and I hope you see why. If not hopefully someone here can do a better job than me in explaining why. 

Again you miss the point, probably deliberately.  You need to go back and read it again, or simply admit that you refuse to use logic or good sense in evaluating whatever Ryan tells you.  Biblical names are of no significance unless they actually match something Lehi encountered and described using such a name.

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So Nhmyn can be translated as "stone-cutter", and Nhmyn may not be a tribe after all.  Is there anything from 600 BC that confirms Nhmyn was a tribe? 

You have seen scholars translating it "Nihmite" as well as "the stone-cutter," as a descriptor attached to the name.  Did you miss that?  You're playing games, Sam.

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So the PhysicsGuy can make a good argument because we don't need proof. 

I understand, but we rarely need proof right?

You asked what proof was.  I gave you a good example, which you refused to acknowledge.  Another instance of blatant dishonesty from you, Sam.

10 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It probably means the Nihm tribe was created after the Hamadan and Bakil tribes in "the 1st century B.C".   I don't know, does Nihm come from Hamadan and Bakil? 

It means no such thing.  We have no evidence telling us when any of those tribes came into existence.  Again, you are playing fast and loose with Arab culture -- inventing facts to fit your preconceptions.  I'd recommend that you study the history and anthropology of the Near East at the college level, but I fear that you would get "D"s and "F"s on all your exams.  You just don't pay attention.

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The evidence is not so good, Robert told me "One can translate "Nihmite" or "stone-cutter" for that same designation. It isn't clear which should be used." So it is possible that Nhmyn was not a tribe in Lehi's time. Please notice that Nhmyn and Nihm are not necessarily the same. 

The evidence is not so good in whose opinion? The archaeologists that did the excavation and discovered the altars are pretty sure that a tribe called Nihm existed at the time. You are the only person I know that disputes that probability. It may be possible that there was no Nihm tribe during Lehi's time, but the evidence strongly suggests that there was. Check the information at http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=dasi_prj_sit&prjId=1&navId=348682409&recId=39. There was a NHM tribe listed there. If you check the coordinates you will find that it was in the general area of which we are talking. The translations that I have seen severally say (1) tribe of Nihm (2) from Nihm (3) Nihmite all of which would most likely denote a tribe, especially since there is a Nihm tribe still hanging out in the same area, part of the Bikal tribal confederation, not the Bikal tribe.

Sam, you still are hanging with you alternative theories, but they do not coincide with current evidence and scholarship.

Glenn

[SamuelTheLamanite]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again you miss the point, probably deliberately.  You need to go back and read it again, or simply admit that you refuse to use logic or good sense in evaluating whatever Ryan tells you.  Biblical names are of no significance unless they actually match something Lehi encountered and described using such a name.

Hopefully someone else explains why it is a very significant argument.  I didn't miss the point. Read Ryan's fourth post on page nine of this thread.  

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have seen scholars translating it "Nihmite" as well as "the stone-cutter," as a descriptor attached to the name.  Did you miss that?  You're playing games, Sam.

I am not, you need to clarify. Nhmyn can be translated as "Nihmite" and "stone-cutter", but Nhmyn can't be both a tribe and a stone-cutter. Which is it?   

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The archaeologists that did the excavation and discovered the altars are pretty sure that a tribe called Nihm existed at the time.

I am going to ask ancient Yemen scholar Dr. Mohammed Maraqten.  We will have to wait for his response. 

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

1.  Check the information at http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=dasi_prj_sit&prjId=1&navId=348682409&recId=39.

Yes, there is another translation according to the same database.  I am asking Maraqten.  Robert says  Nhmyn can be translated as both "Nihmite" or "stone-cutter".  

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 There was a NHM tribe listed there. If you check the coordinates you will find that it was in the general area of which we are talking.

Yes, but the page is specifically talking about as-Sawdāʾ.  I am asking Maraqten. 

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It means no such thing.  We have no evidence telling us when any of those tribes came into existence.  Again, you are playing fast and loose with Arab culture -- inventing facts to fit your preconceptions.  I'd recommend that you study the history and anthropology of the Near East at the college level, but I fear that you would get "D"s and "F"s on all your exams.  You just don't pay attention.

I am going to ask Maraqten to see if Nhmyn is Nihm.  

Edited October 5, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am going to ask Maraqten to see if Nhmyn is Nihm

It is not. We already know that. But they are related, as the translation of the altar inscriptions attest.

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It is not. We already know that. But they are related, as the translation of the altar inscriptions attest.

 

or related. He hasn't replied. I have a feeling that many people ask him about Nahom 

Anyways, Ryan told me "Now if you actually do find a relatively large number of legitimate place names from close to Lehi's day in the general area surrounding the Nihm tribal grounds which have legitimate BofM or Bible correspondences, then that would be significant to your argument." 

I have a significant argument because I am finding plenty of ancient toponyms near Nihm that match (or fit in) many Biblical names. I don't know how to explain to Robert why it is a significant argument, perhaps you can help me out.   

Edited October 5, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anyways, Ryan told me "Now if you actually do find a relatively large number of legitimate place names from close to Lehi's day in the general area surrounding the Nihm tribal grounds which have legitimate BofM or Bible correspondences, then that would be significant to your argument." 

I disagree with that as does Robert, if I understand him correctly. As I already have noted, the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula and the Hebrew language share common roots and there is also a shared ancestry some of which goes back to Abraham. These include Midian, the son of Abraham and Keturah, Ishmael the son of Abraham and Hagar, Kedar, the grandson of Abraham and son of Ishmael, Edom (Esau), the fraternal twin of Jacob/Israel, Joktan who supposedly founded Nejd. I am not a Bible historian nor a historian of the peoples of the Arabian peninsula, so there may be even more close ties that I am not aware of. It would actually be puzzling if there were no place names on the Arabian peninsula that do not have or did not have place names in common with the Bible (and Qur'an). 

Glenn

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I disagree with that as does Robert, if I understand him correctly. As I already have noted, the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula and the Hebrew language share common roots 

I understand they share common roots, but that only strengthens my argument, it doesn't make it weaker.  Hopefully PhysicsGuy explains why.    

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It would actually be puzzling if there were no place names on the Arabian peninsula that do not have or did not have place names in common with the Bible (and Qur'an). 

You are helping my argument, but it is obvious I am not doing a good job in explaining why. 

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

no place names on the Arabian peninsula that do not have or did not have place names in common with the Bible

By the way,  according to a blog Dr. Mohammed Maraqten wrote, "the partly damaged letters are / N / and / H / (like Arabic Hirra) and the complete word is NHMYN and has for sure NOTHING to do with Biblical NḤM with / Ḥ / and the Canaanite root NḤM. The root is NHM and not NḤM" and "Two possibilities to understand this word: – NHMYN (al-Nihmī) is Nisbe to the very famous and many time attested in the inscriptions, in the Islamic period and still in the same place northeast of Sanaa. Also the Nisbe NHMYN is attested may times. – NHMYN is a designation of a profession “Stonemason”, Munahhim or Muhandis, the verb NHM is well known in the inscriptions and the Arabic sources as a Yemeni term in the meaning of “to dress stones”."  http://tabsir.net/?p=2419

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You are helping my argument, but it is obvious I am not doing a good job in explaining why. 

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

At this point I do not know what argument you are making.

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

By the way,  according to a blog Dr. Mohammed Maraqten wrote, "the partly damaged letters are / N / and / H / (like Arabic Hirra) and the complete word is NHMYN and has for sure NOTHING to do with Biblical NḤM with / Ḥ / and the Canaanite root NḤM. The root is NHM and not NḤM" and "Two possibilities to understand this word: – NHMYN (al-Nihmī) is Nisbe to the very famous and many time attested in the inscriptions, in the Islamic period and still in the same place northeast of Sanaa. Also the Nisbe NHMYN is attested may times. – NHMYN is a designation of a profession “Stonemason”, Munahhim or Muhandis, the verb NHM is well known in the inscriptions and the Arabic sources as a Yemeni term in the meaning of “to dress stones”."  http://tabsir.net/?p=2419

By the way the link you posted is not to a blog by Dr. Mohammed Maraqten. It is by a blogger with the handle tabsir at an Islamic site. He quotes something by Dr. Maraqten with no references to check for context or completeness. In that quote Dr. Maraqten says there are two possible meanings, the first of which does not make much sense to me except in the following context.

At a site which I have already linked before (http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=dasi_prj_sit&prjId=1&navId=348682409&recId=39) giving information on an ancient Yemeni site Ns²n lists several tribes associated. One is NHM (nisba: nhmyn). A nisba is an adjective can denote tribal affiliation, place of origin. In the context of the inscriptions on the altars in light of the existence of the Nihm tribe one would logically infer that the inscription is referring to the tribal affiliation rather than the profession. And that is what the archaeologists that have been doing the work have concluded. This is not something that LDS scholars came up with on their own. It was something handed to them by non-LDS scholars.

Is the partial quote of Dr. Maraqten what you meant by "I am going to ask Maraqten to see if Nhmyn is Nihm?" Do you know him/ Have you had actual correspondence with him?

Glenn

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

By the way the link you posted is not to a blog by Dr. Mohammed Maraqten. It is by a blogger with the handle tabsir at an Islamic site.

Correct, that is why I said "according to blog". Didn't say "his blog". I am skeptical too. 

9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Is the partial quote of Dr. Maraqten what you meant by "I am going to ask Maraqten to see if Nhmyn is Nihm?" Do you know him/ Have you had actual correspondence with him?

No. I am just hoping he replies to my e-mail.  

11 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

At this point I do not know what argument you are making.

Yes, hopefully the PhysicsGuy or someone else explains what I am trying to argue. 

[Glenn101]

52 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Correct, that is why I said "according to blog". Didn't say "his blog". I am skeptical too. 

Your remark was confusing. " according to a blog Dr. Mohammed Maraqten wrote" sounds like you were saying that Dr. Maraqten was the one that wrote the blog. Thanks for the clarification. I am not skeptical that Dr. Maraqten may have chimed in on the subject. I would just like to see the article from which the quote was taken. But it really does not change anything. But it does pose an interesting question, and that is what is the origin of the Nihm tribe name? Were they a tribe of stone workers that built temples and other buildings made of limestone?

Glenn

[Ryan Dahle]

On 10/4/2017 at 3:49 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of ancient toponyms in Yemen that match many old Testament names. Ryan Dahle agrees it is a "significant argument", and I hope you see why. If not hopefully someone here can do a better job than me in explaining why. 

Samuel,

I have tapped out for a while, and upon returning I am not really pleased with how you are representing my statements. I made that statement sort of on the fly, before I had realized how many names were actually in the Bible (I simply hadn't ever taken the time to count prior to looking at it more deeply). You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument. Even if you did, the chances would still be less than 1/100 for getting a coincidental match. You would have to find a LOT of Bible names in this area (several hundred) for it to make any significant impact at all. And they would have to be actual toponyms from approximately the right time. Are you getting anywhere near the 50-100 name threshold? 

Also, I don't think this is the only issue at all. Even if you find 500 Bible names in this area, you still have to account for the 58% chance that he didn't choose a Bible name. And you still have to account for the other details of the journey such as the eastward turn, the correlation with Bountiful, and the wordplay. I'm not going to get into all of this again, because I honestly think it is going nowhere, but I want you to stop using me in your arguments. Overall, I don't think your project has any real bearing on anything. As a micro-argument it has some, but really very little, chance of being significant. In the grand scope, it is, from my perspective, interesting but insignificant.

In light of the argument that I fully developed, please stop misrepresenting my view. Also, please, if you would, clarify for everyone whether or not you personally believe that Nephi was a historical person as portrayed in the Book of Mormon and if he and his family truly stopped in a place called Nahom. If you believe that, and if your goal is to demonstrate to yourself and other believing Latter-day Saints that it is not likely for us to find the real Nahom (or stated another way, not likely that we have already found the real-world location of Nahom), then you are making a fundamentally flawed argument. I asked you this before, and you deflected by asking your own question. Maybe answer straightforwardly this time.

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 10/5/2017 at 8:11 PM, Glenn101 said:

At this point I do not know what argument you are making.

Ryan replied, please read his comment. 

On 10/4/2017 at 3:10 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

 Biblical names are of no significance unless they actually match something Lehi encountered and described using such a name.

For Ryan "You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument". 

Edited October 11, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Ryan replied, please read his comment. 

Ryan understands why, for Ryan "You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument". 

Ryan Dahle seems to pretty much agree with what I have been saying to you all along.  I have read his most recent comment and like his approach.  Do you understand him, Sam?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 10/9/2017 at 4:47 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

I have tapped out for a while, and upon returning I am not really pleased with how you are representing my statements. I made that statement sort of on the fly, before I had realized how many names were actually in the Bible (I simply hadn't ever taken the time to count prior to looking at it more deeply). You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument. Even if you did, the chances would still be less than 1/100 for getting a coincidental match.

For 50 the odds would be 1 in 46  (2300 Biblical names). For 20 the odds would be 1 of 115. I wouldn't be impressed with 1 in 115 odds, let alone 1 in  46. There are many possible aspects about the Book of Mormon, so we can reasonably assume NHM = Nahom is "a modest coincidence" like the Physics Guy says.  You won't impress anyone if you win 10 dollars with 1 in 500 odds in a lottery ticket, why should we be impressed by 1 in 115? To clarify finding 50 is not less than 1/100.  We can never prove coincidence, you can only demonstrate that it is a decent possibility.  

Why are we going from 20 to 50?  If I find 50 would you tel me to find 200? 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ryan Dahle seems to pretty much agree with what I have been saying to you all along.  I have read his most recent comment and like his approach.  Do you understand him, Sam?

Yes. So do you agree with "You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument"? Can it be at least 20?  I explain above why we don't need to find more than 20. 

Edited October 11, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Glenn101]

34 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Ryan replied, please read his comment. 

 

29 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes. So do you agree with "You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument"? Can it be at least 20?  I explain above why we don't need to find more than 20. 

I do not see place names from the Bible impacting the argument at all. As I have pointed out the ancient Arabian inhabitants share common histories and ancestors (Abraham and Esau for starters). Their languages have common roots. There would be nothing exceptional to find an ancient place name in Arabia that is mentioned in the Bible. In fact, for the historical side of the Bible, one would hope that such would be the case. But that is really irrelevant to the discussion of Nahom since it is not a place name in the Bible. As has been noted, there are several people noted in the Bible that contain the NHM consonants. Nahum, Naham, Nehum, etc. In fact one report says that it appears about 25 times in the Bible in various forms. But so far no place name NHM in the Bible. Only the Book of Mormon.

Biblical names that have been found as place names in the Bible include Dedan (Isaiah 21:13 ties it to Arabia), Kedar (also Arabia) both in the proper context. And the context is what we are talking about. A name without context, a name out of time or place is of but little importance to the discussion.

The context is the starting point, the travel narrative including directions, the turning point (Nahom) and the Old World ending point. That is the narrative presented by the Book of Mormon. The "place called Nahom" fits into that context but no other place named anything like Nahom has even been found much less to fit into the context which the Book of Mormon describes.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes. So do you agree with "You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument"? Can it be at least 20?  I explain above why we don't need to find more than 20. 

You need to read his whole discussion to make any sense of it.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 10/10/2017 at 9:48 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to read his whole discussion to make any sense of it.

Please tell me what did Ryan meant when he told me, "You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument". 

Tell me why many Old Testament names that fit in Old S Arabia toponyms don't make an impact?  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:24 PM, Glenn101 said:

 

I do not see place names from the Bible impacting the argument at all. As I have pointed out the ancient Arabian inhabitants share common histories and ancestors (Abraham and Esau for starters). Their languages have common roots. There would be nothing exceptional to find an ancient place name in Arabia that is mentioned in the Bible. In fact, for the historical side of the Bible, one would hope that such would be the case. But that is really irrelevant to the discussion of Nahom since it is not a place name in the Bible. As has been noted, there are several people noted in the Bible that contain the NHM consonants. Nahum, Naham, Nehum, etc. In fact one report says that it appears about 25 times in the Bible in various forms. But so far no place name NHM in the Bible. Only the Book of Mormon.

Biblical names that have been found as place names in the Bible include Dedan (Isaiah 21:13 ties it to Arabia), Kedar (also Arabia) both in the proper context. And the context is what we are talking about. A name without context, a name out of time or place is of but little importance to the discussion.

The context is the starting point, the travel narrative including directions, the turning point (Nahom) and the Old World ending point. That is the narrative presented by the Book of Mormon. The "place called Nahom" fits into that context but no other place named anything like Nahom has even been found much less to fit into the context which the Book of Mormon describes.

Glenn

I understand your point Sir, but it seems only Ryan understand my point. 

[Glenn101]

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I understand your point Sir, but it seems only Ryan understand my point. 

Maybe you could articulate the point yourself. I do not really know what point you are trying to make, what your argument is any longer. You do not actually respond to the points that are being made.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Please tell me what did Ryan meant when he told me, "You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument". 

Tell me why many Old Testament names that fit in Old S Arabia toponyms don't make an impact?  

Here is the whole quote from Ryan Dahle, with the points you need to read in bold:

Quote

Samuel,

I have tapped out for a while, and upon returning I am not really pleased with how you are representing my statements. I made that statement sort of on the fly, before I had realized how many names were actually in the Bible (I simply hadn't ever taken the time to count prior to looking at it more deeply). You would have to find 50 or so place names in this area for it to even begin to make an impact in the argument. Even if you did, the chances would still be less than 1/100 for getting a coincidental match. You would have to find a LOT of Bible names in this area (several hundred) for it to make any significant impact at all. And they would have to be actual toponyms from approximately the right time. Are you getting anywhere near the 50-100 name threshold? 

Also, I don't think this is the only issue at all. Even if you find 500 Bible names in this area, you still have to account for the 58% chance that he didn't choose a Bible name. And you still have to account for the other details of the journey such as the eastward turn, the correlation with Bountiful, and the wordplay. I'm not going to get into all of this again, because I honestly think it is going nowhere, but I want you to stop using me in your arguments. Overall, I don't think your project has any real bearing on anything. As a micro-argument it has some, but really very little, chance of being significant. In the grand scope, it is, from my perspective, interesting but insignificant.

In light of the argument that I fully developed, please stop misrepresenting my view. Also, please, if you would, clarify for everyone whether or not you personally believe that Nephi was a historical person as portrayed in the Book of Mormon and if he and his family truly stopped in a place called Nahom. If you believe that, and if your goal is to demonstrate to yourself and other believing Latter-day Saints that it is not likely for us to find the real Nahom (or stated another way, not likely that we have already found the real-world location of Nahom), then you are making a fundamentally flawed argument. I asked you this before, and you deflected by asking your own question. Maybe answer straightforwardly this time.

Ryan and I basically agree on the main issues.  Can you see and understand that, Sam?

Edited October 13, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Glenn101]

26 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Tell me why many Old Testament names that fit in Old S Arabia toponyms don't make an impact? 

Actually I have already told you, but you have presented anything to rebut it, nor even presented any opposing argument at all except to appeal to something Ryan said.

Glenn

[Physics Guy]

I'm also fuzzy on exactly what the probability calculation is, here. I do note that even an event whose prior probability is in the 1 in 1000 range, or lower, is actually much less impressive than it sounds. The issue is this.

Suppose you have never bought a lottery ticket in your life, but one morning this thought pops into your head, and sticks there like a catchy tune: I ought to play the numbers 777999 in the lottery! So you buy a ticket and scratch off those numbers. And when the draw comes you have four numbers right, so you win $100! That's kind of spooky. You can't help wonder whether that mysteriously catchy thought was something more than a weird fluke. Nothing like it has ever happened to you before, and if it's a coincidence, it's a pretty extreme one.

It would not be reasonable to be convinced by this one event that you have psychic powers, but it probably would be reasonable to invest some further time and money in trying to test the hypothesis. Buy a few more tickets, and try to repeat the experience. If it doesn't pan out within a few weeks, you should probably quit. That one initial experience will still make a good story—it really was kind of weird.

Suppose instead that you are addicted to playing the lottery. Every week for ten years you've played dozens of tickets, always trying number combinations drawn from dreams and sudden hunches and little coincidences in your life. Your friend doesn't think much of your system of hunches. You protest, "But just last month I had the hunch for 777999, and I won a hundred dollars! That was a one-in-ten-thousand hit!" In this case, though, your friend has a point. If you keep looking and looking for coincidences, you will eventually find a very unlikely one. The fact that you finally found one, after all that time looking, isn't even a good story, really—unless you fudge the story by pretending that the lucky fluke happened on your first try.

So even if NHM really is quite unlikely as a coincidence, it isn't an isolated event that represents the one and only time the Book of Mormon was put on the spot. Instead it's the single best find that Mormon apologists have turned up in over one hundred years of searching a lot of land, and a lot of time, and all through the Book. 

Precisely reckoning the odds seems unlikely to be worthwhile to me, but my rough statistical sniff test tells me that NHM is not significantly more unlikely than I would expect the most unlikely find to be, after all this time.