Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:38 am**

I hope you dont mind if I have started a new thread on this.

You have presented a list of what you call "assumptions". I think it best if we discuss them individually. Let us determine just how much assuming is going on here.

1) that the city described in the BoM was named by locals and not the Lehi group. The inscription on the altars are not Hebrew....so if Nahom was a Hebrew name...then the LDS would have to concede that it was merely a coincidence. LDS apologists point out that the passage in the BoM is in the passive tense. It reads "the place which was called Nahom". Again, the BoM does not specify who called the place Nahom.....given the various interpretations that LDS apologists allow for the BoM in order to avoid anachronisms, it is somewhat odd that they should derive any conclusion from the usage of the passive tense.

Well there is compelling evidence that the city was named by a different group. In each instance where they stopped Nephi told us what they named the location. But in this case at Nahom he says that it was the "place which was called Nahom", a different structure than all previous and following place names given by him. It certainly does indicate that the name of the area was Nahom before they arrived there.

8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.
9 And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the afountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness!

10 And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, afirm and bsteadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!
...
14 And it came to pass that my father did speak unto them in the avalley of Lemuel...
6 Now, all these things were said and done as my father dwelt in a tent in the avalley which he called Lemuel.

It is clear that Lehi named these two areas after his sons and made a lesson out of it.

13 And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place aShazer.

Again, they named it Shazer, whether or not it had an existing name.

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

So we see that Lehi and his family gave names to all of these places. The text is specific in mentioning that.
However in this one case it is different:

34 And it came to pass that aIshmael died, and was buried in the place which was called bNahom.

This is the only place along their journey that had a name that Nephi didn't mention that they themselves had named. It was the place called Nahom. If it was named by them, he would have kept to the formula and mentioned that. He probably would have mentioned why they named it Nahom, since he had in 4 out of 5 of the others.

It is a normal thing for an Israelite to rename a place, even if it already has a name. For example, I believe that the Valley of Lamuel surely must have already been discovered by someone before him, and likely had a name that Lehi knew. But in order to teach a lesson to his family he called it the Valley of Lemuel, which Nephi included in the record as a spiritual teaching(the point of the book).
The area where Nahom would have been would indeed have been inhabited by non-hebrew speaking peoples. Nonetheless they would have been semitic speaking. If they had named the region NHM, it doubtlessly would have reminded Lehi of the corresponding NHM in hebrew, which I believe means something like "console or comfort". Being the place where Ishmael was buried, it would appropriate for him to simply not rename the area, since the original already carried a meaninful name.
Couple this with the peculiar evidence that it was "the place which was called" Nahom, and the existence of NHM in southern arabia and we have more than an unlikely assumption here.

Sargon

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:48 pm**

Sargon wrote:I hope you dont mind if I have started a new thread on this.

no sweat...

This is the only place along their journey that had a name that Nephi didn't mention that they themselves had named.

are you sure that they named all the others? Here's the passage you quoted re Bountiful and Irreantum:
And we did come to the land which we called aBountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey; and all these things were prepared of the Lord that we might not perish. And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.

It says "called" not "named". Is "Irreantum" a Hebrew name? In what language does that mean "many waters"? It doesn't seem clear that the Lehi group produced the name for Irreantum. In any event, the thing about your analysis is that it requires the author to be very deliberate, precise, careful etc. wrt his choice of words. In that regard, let me remind you of what I posted before re Lemuel:

from 1 Nephi 2:

2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness.
3 And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord, wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him.
4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.
5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.
6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water

wrt to the bold bit, you must interpret it to actually say "that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness after leaving the borders of the Red Sea"....otherwise the whole story collapses before it gets off the ground. As indicated, Jeff Lindsay acknowledges this imprecision by stating that the BoM "appears" to say.... and that is the problem with your latest assumption...there is no reason to assume that the BoM was written with the precision of detail or the careful selection of word required to support a conclusion based on the use of the "passive tense"....particularly with a test sample size of only 5 uses.

It was the place called Nahom. If it was named by them, he would have kept to the formula and mentioned that.

this is an assumption, or a conclusion based on the assumption that the author was very deliberate, precise, careful etc. wrt his choice of words....so you add yet another assumption in order to justify assumption#1.

He probably would have mentioned why they named it Nahom, since he had in 4 out of 5 of the others.

here we are back to considering probability and as you likely know, a sample of 4 is not a strong sample size upon which one should draw conclusions.

The area where Nahom would have been would indeed have been inhabited by non-hebrew speaking peoples.

is this your assumption or is such stated in the BoM? In my list of assumptions I mistakenly describe it as a "city" called Nahom....when the BoM only calls it a "place".

Couple this with the peculiar evidence that it was "the place which was called" Nahom, and the existence of NHM in southern arabia and we have more than an unlikely assumption here.

to make this connection between NHM and Nahom you are utilizing assumptions 2, 3, and 4....and that is the problem I see with many of the arguments from the LDS. They rely on assumptions 2, 3 and 4 to conclude that assumption #1 should be made....then they rely on assumptions 1, 3 and 4 to conclude that assumption #2 should be made....and on and on
....and as is the case with your last post, in order justify an assumption, one, two or three more assumptions are often made.

BTW, what % of probability would you put on the correctness of assumption #1?

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:34 pm**

Let's try and stick to one "assumption" at a time. And by the way I appreciate the civility with which you compose yourself, I hope I can mirror it.

It says "called" not "named"

You are right. I was in error by saying that they "named" the lands as opposed to "called" the lands. To me the word call actually indicates that the place in question had a previous name or identification, and that Lehi's family "called" it something else for their own purposes.
My point was that in all of the example given Nephi says:

he called (River of Laman)
which he called (Valley of Lemuel)
we did call (Shazer)
we called (Bountiful)
we called (Irreantum)

I agree that Nephi was not in the business of trying to give a detailed account of the trip, and he probably didnt think too hard about which exact words to write when telling us that they "called" a place anything. However Nephi clarified in each of the above examples that each respective place was "called" by a member of their group. It makes no mention of having been named or called anything by a previous group.

In the example of Nahom, which says "the place which was called Nahom", we have a different structure. It is no longer clarified that a member of their family "called" it, but rather that "it was called."
I will submit that this is not undeniable evidence, for the possibility always remains that Nephi forgot to clarify in this instance. But the change in structure, followed by a return to the original structure is interesting.

The text appears to be distinguishing Nahom from the others, whether or not Nephi meant it to. If he didn't, in my opinion that is still a strong evidence. If this is the case, Nephi believed the reader would make the connection with the actual NHM without him having to deliberatly specify that it was previously called that before Lehi came along. And the situation becomes even more convincing when an actual region called NHM is found in southern arabia.

There is no assuming going on here. You have suggested that either Nephi deliberatley set it apart from the others, or he was not careful with his words as you suggest he wasn't in other passages. If he was careful, then he certainly did distinguish it from the others. If he was not careful, then he still included this change unconciously, telling us that there was something different about Nahom.

As mentioned before I am not a linguist, so I do not know much about the passive voice used here, but it is argued by apologists that this is very significant.

Is "Irreantum" a Hebrew name? In what language does that mean "many waters"? It doesn't seem clear that the Lehi group produced the name for Irreantum.

As far as I am aware, there is no known translation for Irreantum. This doesn't rule out future discoveries though. But I am not resting my argument on future discoveries. It does seem clear to me that the Lehi group produced the name Irreantum.

...which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters.

Had Lehi used the name previously given to the area there would be a possibility of locating the area with a similar name today. Because that has not happened, and NHM has been found, and because the text matches the "calling" of the river of Laman and the valley of Lemuel we have a strong case that Irreantum was produced by Lehi. Of course if a place called Irreantum that can be proven to correspond with the Irreantum in Nephi's narrative is found that would make this argument different.
What language "Irreantum" is I do not know. But it is clear that Nephi knew multiple languages, for he obviously was versed in egyptian, the language of the plates. And after spending 8 years travelilng the desert he surely picked up some of the native dialects. You can call that an assumption if you want, but a very very probably one.

So you are correct in suggesting that the evidence is not undeniable and indisputable. But neither is the evidence for the plate tectonics theory. Firm conclusions are made based on an abundance of evidence, and weak hypothesi that suggest the contrary do not make the conclusion a mere assumption.

Sargon

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:53 pm**

Sargon wrote:What language "Irreantum" is I do not know. But it is clear that Nephi knew multiple languages, for he obviously was versed in egyptian, the language of the plates.

Until you can produce the plates, there is no evidence that they exist, let alone that they were written in Egyptian.

So you are correct in suggesting that the evidence is not undeniable and indisputable. But neither is the evidence for the plate tectonics theory.

Actually the evidence for plate tectonics is both undeniable and indisputable.

Firm conclusions are made based on an abundance of evidence, and weak hypothesi that suggest the contrary do not make the conclusion a mere assumption.

In this case you do not have an 'abundance of evidence'. You have one inscription with the letters 'NHM', concerning which you are making all kinds of assumptions.

Posted: **Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:16 pm**

Until you can produce the plates, there is no evidence that they exist, let alone that they were written in Egyptian.

Producing the plates would be considered the only form of evidence for their existence? Do you discount the many eye witness testimonies? I don't think you would believe even if an angel appeared and handed them to you. You don't want to believe.

Actually the evidence for plate tectonics is both undeniable and indisputable.

Without getting too far off topic, I would disagree. There is an abundance of evidence that all points to the plate tectonics theory, and it is accepted by every respected geologist. But there are many things about the earth that do not fit the theory, such as earthquakes in the middle of Missouri. Let us not get too far on this tangent, because it is not my specialty. Im only repeating what a PhD geologist told me.

In this case you do not have an 'abundance of evidence'. You have one inscription with the letters 'NHM', concerning which you are making all kinds of assumptions.

No, no assumptions are made about the letters NHM. An area in Arabia on multiple maps has been labeled for centuries as differing spellings of Nahom, a tribe called Nihm has been there forever, and altars were found dating from the time of Lehi bearing the inscription NHM. And a book that claims to be an text that is accepted by millions as authentic tells of an area called Nahom in southern Arabia. Individually none of these things prove anything, but collectively it is an abundance of evidence.

Sargon

Posted: **Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:35 pm**

Sargon wrote:
Until you can produce the plates, there is no evidence that they exist, let alone that they were written in Egyptian.

Producing the plates would be considered the only form of evidence for their existence?

Well yes. Certainly you cannot make any claims regarding what is on them without providing the plates as evidence. You can't read 'reformed Egyptian', and neither could the witnesses, so there's no use in appealing to them as proof that golden plates written in 'reformed Egyptian' exist.

Do you discount the many eye witness testimonies?

Certainly, until there is some evidence to support them. If the plates really existed, there wouldn't be any need for eye witness testimony.

I don't think you would believe even if an angel appeared and handed them to you. You don't want to believe.

Please spare me the personal attacks, and just stay with the issue at hand.

Without getting too far off topic, I would disagree. There is an abundance of evidence that all points to the plate tectonics theory, and it is accepted by every respected geologist. But there are many things about the earth that do not fit the theory, such as earthquakes in the middle of Missouri. Let us not get too far on this tangent, because it is not my specialty. Im only repeating what a PhD geologist told me.

I would need a lot more evidence than this to believe that the plate tectonics model isn't correct.

No, no assumptions are made about the letters NHM. An area in Arabia on multiple maps has been labeled for centuries as differing spellings of Nahom, a tribe called Nihm has been there forever, and altars were found dating from the time of Lehi bearing the inscription NHM. And a book that claims to be an text that is accepted by millions as authentic tells of an area called Nahom in southern Arabia. Individually none of these things prove anything, but collectively it is an abundance of evidence.

It is not an 'abundance of evidence'. You asume that 'An area on multiple maps has been labeled for centuries as differing spellings of Nahom', and the best you can give us is a 'tribe called Nihim' (which isn't the same word), and an inscription 'NHM' (which is totally ambiguous).

I find it ironic that you think the letters 'NHM' on an inscription constitute 'an abundance of evidence' that the Book of Mormon referred specifically to that particular site, but you dismiss as mere 'coincidence' the following names in the Book of Mormon, taken from the local North American geography.

And then there are all these names and places in the Book of Mormon, all of which are identical or almost identical to the names in a list found in Bibles commonly used in Smith's era. Coincidence?

Lehi I Nephi 1:4 Lehi (Judges 15:9)

Sariah I Nephi 2:5 Sarai (Genesis 11:29)

Laman I Nephi 2:5 Laban (Genesis 24:29)
Lamen View of the Hebrews pg 90

Lemuel I Nephi 2:5 Lemuel (Proverbs 31:1) (Lemuel Durfee, Sr. was the
owner of the Smith farm where they lived as tenant farmers after 1825. See Inside the Mind
of Joseph Smith for more on why this "coincidence" may be important.)

Sam I Nephi 2:5 Samuel (I Samuel 1:20) (See pages 51-2 of Inside the Mind
of Joseph Smith for more on Nephi/Joseph Smith Jr.'s families.)

Laban I Nephi 3:3 Laban (Genesis 24:29) (Lebanon was the
town where Joseph Smith had his three surgeries as a child. See Inside the Mind
of Joseph Smith for more on why this "coincidence" may be important.)

Zoram I Nephi 4:35 Zorah (Joshua 19:41)

Ishmael I Nephi 7:2 Ishmael (Genesis 16:11)

Nahom (Site) I Nephi 16:34 Nahum (Nahum 1:1)

Irreantum I Nephi 17:5 Israel & Miletum (2 Timothy 4:20) (both sites)
(Site)

Jacob I Nephi 18:7 Jacob (Genesis 25:26)

Joseph I Nephi 18:7 Joseph (Genesis 30:24)

Zenock I Nephi 19:10 Zadok (II Samuel 8:17)

Neum I Nephi 19:10 Nahum (Nahum 1:1)

Zenos I Nephi 19:10 Zenas (Titus 3:13)

Sherem Jacob 7:1 Sheresh (I Chronicles 7:16)

Jarom Jarom 1:1 Joram (II Samuel 8:10)
Another possible stone derivative?

Omni Jarom 1:15 Omri (IKings 16:16)

Amaron Omni 1:3 Amariah (I Chronicles 6:7)

Chemish Omni 1:8 Chemosh (Numbers 21:29)
Chemim View of the Hebrews pg 90

Abinadom Omni 1:10 Abinadab (I Samuel 7:1)

Amaleki Omni 1:12 Amalek (Genesis 36:12)

Mosiah Omni 1:12 Moses (Exodus 2:10) and Isaiah (Isaiah 1:1)

Zarahemla Omni 1:12 Zara (Matthew 1:3) and Imla (II
(site) Chronicles 18:7)

Coriantumr Omni 1:21 Coriander (Exodus 16:31)

Benjamin Omni 1:23 Benjamin (Genesis 35:18) (Rev. Benjamin Stockton was the
Presbyterian minister during the 1824-5 Palmyra revival. He had personal dealings with the
Smith family including offending Joseph Smith Sr. at Alvin Smith's funeral. It is thought
that his sermons were like that of the Book of Mormon's Benjamin. See Inside the Mind
of Joseph Smith for more on this "coincidence".)

Mormon Words of Mormon Moriah (Genesis 22:2) and Solomon (II
1:1 Samuel 5:14)

Moroni Words of Mormon Capital of Comoros (Camorah)
1:1 (See Cumorah below for more info)

Helorum Mosiah 1:2 Helon (Numbers 1:9) and Harum (I Chronicles 4:8)
(via email I received this tip: An alternative would be the "Helorum"
in Livy's "History of Rome", the source of many, many Solomon Spalding borrowings)

Helaman Mosiah 1:2 Helam (II Samuel 10:16)

Shilom (site) Mosiah 7:5 Shiloh (Genesis 49:10) also View of the Hebrews pg 90

Helem Mosiah 7:6 Helam (II Samuel 10:16)

Hem Mosiah 7:6 Ham (Genesis 5:32)

Limhi Mosiah 7:9 Lemhi Indians of Idaho

Noah Mosiah 7:9 Noah (Genesis 5:29)

Zeniff Mosiah 7:9 Zenan (Joshua 15:37) and Ziph (Joshua 15:24)

Neas (food) Mosiah 9:9 Neah (Joshua 19:13)

Sheum (food) Mosiah 9:9 Shem (Genesis 5:32)

Shemlon (site) Mosiah 10:7 Shem (Genesis 5:32)

Ziff (metal) Mosiah 11:3 Ziph (Joshua 15:24)

Abinadi Mosiah 11:20 Abinadab (I Samuel 7:1)

Alma Mosiah 17:2 Almon (Joshua 21:18) (also a town in Quebec)

Gideon Mosiah 19:4 Gideon (Judges 6:11)

Amulon Mosiah 23:31 Amalek (Genesis 36:12)
(site/name)

Mulek Mosiah 25:2 Amalek (Genesis 36:12)

Ammon(ite) Mosiah 27:34 Ammon (Genesis 19:38)
Also see Nephi and Jared and the Ammonite entry in the same dictionary.

Aaron Mosiah 27:34 Aaron (Exodus 4:14)

Omner Mosiah 27:34 Omer (Exodus 16:16)

Himni Mosiah 27:34 Shimhi (I Chronicles 8:21)

Nehor Alma 1:15 Nahor (Genesis 11:22)

Manti (site) Alma 1:15

Amlici Alma 2:1 Amalek (Genesis 36:12)

Amnihu (site) Alma 2:15 Amnon (II Samuel 3:2) and Jehu (I Kings 16:1)

Sidon (site) Alma 2:15 Sidon (Genesis 10:15)

Zeram Alma 2:22 Zerah (Genesis 36:13)

Amnor Alma 2:22 Amnon (II Samuel 3:2)

Limher Alma 2:22 Limhi (Mosiah 7:9)

Minon (site) Alma 2:24 Pinon (Genesis 36:41)

Nephihah Alma 4:17 Nephi (II Maccabbes 1:36)

Melek (site) Alma 8:3 Amalek (Genesis 36:12)

Ammonihah Alma 8:6 Ammon (Genesis 19:38)
(site)

Amulek Alma 8:21 Amalek (Genesis 36:12)

Giddonah Alma 10:2 Megiddon (Zechariah 12:11)

Aminadi Alma 10:2 Aminadab (Matthew 1:4)

Zeezrom Alma 10:31 Zeeb (Psalms 83:11) & Ezrom (Alma 11:6)

Senine (coin) Alma 11:3 Senir (Ezekiel 27:5)

Senum (coin) Alma 11:3 Senuah (Nehemiah 11:9)

Seon (coin) Alma 11:5 Sion (Deuteronomy 4:48)

Shum (coin) Alma 11:5 Shem (Genesis 5:32)

Limnah (coin) Alma 11:5 Limhi (Mosiah 7:9)

Ezrom (coin) Alma 11:6 Esrom (Matthew 1:3)

Onti (coin) Alma 11:6

Shiblon (coin) Alma 11:15 Shibboleth (Judges 12:6)

Shiblum (coin) Alma 11:16 Shiblon (Alma 11:15)

Leah (coin) Alma 11:17 Leah (Genesis 29:16)

Antion (coin) Alma 11:19 Antioch (Acts 6:5)

Antionah Alma 12:20 Antion (Alma 11:19)

Sidom (site) Alma 15:1 Sidon (Genesis 10:15)

Lamoni Alma 17:21 Laman (I Nephi 2:5)

Sebus (site) Alma 17:26 Seba (Genesis 10:7)

Rabbanah Alma 18:13 Rabboni (John 20:16)
(title)

Abish Alma 19:16 Abishai (I Samuel 26:6)

Middoni Alma 20:2 Midian (Genesis 25:2)

Muloki Alma 20:2 Amalek (Genesis 36:12)

Ammah Alma 20:2 Ammah (II Samuel 2:24)

Antiomno Alma 20:4 Antioch (Acts 6:5) and Omni (Jarom 1:15)

Ani-Anti Alma 21:11 Antiomno (Alma 20:4)

Shimnilom Alma 23:12 Shimon (I Chronicles 4:20)
(site)

Jershon (site) Alma 27:22 Gershon (Genesis 46:11)

Korihor Alma 30:12 Korah (Numbers 16:1) also View of the Hebrews pg 90

Antionum Alma 31:3 Antiomno (Alma 20:4)
(site)

Corianton Alma 31:7 Coriantumr (Omni 1:21)

Rameumptom Alma 31:21 Ramiah (Ezra 10:25), Reumah (Genesis 22:24),
(site) Miletum (2 Timoty 4:20)

Onidah (site) Alma 32:4 Oneida Indians of Ontario (name means "people of the stone")

Gazelem Alma 37:23 Gazzam (Ezra 2:48) (Also see the above)

Liahona Alma 37:38 Liani/Lihene View of the Hebrews pg 90

Siron (site) Alma 39:3 Sidon (Genesis 10:15)

Isabel Alma 39:3 Jezebel (I Kings 16:31)

Zerahemnah Alma 43:5 Zarahemla (Omni 1:12)

Riplah (site) Alma 43:31 Riblah (Numbers 34:11, II Kings 25:6, II Kings 23:33, Jeremiah 39:5, Jeremiah 52:9)

Amalickiah Alma 46:3 Amalek (Genesis 36:12)

Antipas (site) Alma 47:7 Antipas (Revelation 2:13)

Lehonti Alma 47:10 Lehi (Judges 15:9) and Onti (Alma 11:6)

Morianton Alma 50:25 Moriah (Genesis 22:2)
(site)

Pahoran Alma 50:40 Paran (Genesis 21:21)

Judea (site) Alma 56:9 Judea (Ezra 5:8)

Antipus Alma 56:9 Antipas (Revelation 2:13)

Cumeni (site) Alma 56:14 Cummin (Isaiah 28:25)

Antiparah Alma 56:14 Antipas (Revelation 2:13) and Parah
(site) (Joshua 18:23)

Teomner Alma 58:16 Tamar (Genesis 38:6)

Pachus Alma 62:6

Moronihah Alma 62:43 Moroni (Words of Mormon 1:1)

Hagoth Alma 63:5 Haggith (II Samuel 3:4)

Paanchi Helaman 1:3

Pacumeni Helaman 1:3 Pachus (Alma 62:6) and Cumeni (Alma 56:14)

Kishkumen Helaman 1:9 Kish (I Samuel 9:1) and Cumeni (Alma 56:14)

Tubaloth Helaman 1:16 Tubal (Genesis 10:2)

Gadianton Helaman 2:4 Gideon (Judges 6:11)

Cezoram Helaman 5:1 Zoram (I Nephi 4:35)

Aminadab Helaman 5:39 Aminadab (Matthew 1:4)

Ezias Helaman 8:20 Esaias (John 1:23)

Seezoram Helaman 9:23 Cezoram (Helaman 5:1)

Seantum Helaman 9:26

Samuel Helaman 13:2 Samuel (I Samuel 1:20)

Lachoneus III Nephi 1:1 Lacunus (I Esdras 9:31) Greek or Latin name that
shouldn't be in a Hebrew or 'Reformed Egyptian' book.

Giddianhi III Nephi 3:9 Gideon (Judges 6:11)

Gidgiddoni III Nephi 3:18 Giddianhi (III Nephi 3:9)

Zemnarihah III Nephi 4:17 Zemaraim (Joshua 18:22)

Gilgal (site) III Nephi 9:6 Gilgal (Deuteronomy 11:30)

Onihah (site) III Nephi 9:7 Onidah (Alma 32:4)

Mocum (site) III Nephi 9:7

Gadiandi III Nephi 9:8 Gadianton (Helaman 2:4)
(site)

Gadiomnah III Nephi 9:8 Gadianton (Helaman 2:4)
(site)

Gimgimno III Nephi 9:8 Gimzo (II Chronicles 28:18)
(site)

Jacobugath III Nephi 9:9 Jacob (Genesis 25:26) and Gath (I Samuel
(site) 17:23)

Josh III Nephi 9:10 Joshua (Exodus 17:9)

Gad III Nephi 9:10 Gad (Genesis 30:11)

Timothy III Nephi 19:4 Timothy (II Corinthians 1:1) - Another Greek name
that shouldn't be in the Book of Mormon

Jonas III Nephi 19:4 Jonas (Matthew 12:39)

Mathoni III Nephi 19:4 Matthew (Matthew 9:9) and Lamoni (Alma 17:21)

Mathonihah III Nephi 19:4 Mathoni (III Nephi 19:4)

Kumen III Nephi 19:4 Cumeni (Alma 56:14)

Kumenonhi III Nephi 19:4 Kumen (III Nephi 19:4)

Shemnon III Nephi 19:4 Shem (Genesis 5:32) and Amnon (II Samuel 3:2)

Ammaron IV Nephi 1:47 Amariah (I Chronicles 6:7)

Antum (site) Mormon 1:3

Shim (site) Mormon 1:3 Shem (Genesis 5:32)

Angola (site) Mormon 2:4 African State (Spelt Angelah in 1830 version)

Joshua (site) Mormon 2:6 Joshua (Exodus 17:9)

Jashon (site) Mormon 2:16 Jashen (II Samuel 23:32)

Shem (site) Mormon 2:20 Shem (Genesis 5:32)

Boaz (site) Mormon 4:20 Boaz (Ruth 2:1)

Cumorah (site) Mormon 6:2 Comoros (Capital City is Moroni) - Island chain East of
Mozambique, Africa (note: See this site for more info)

Gidgiddonah Mormon 6:13 Gadiomnah (III Nephi 9:8)
(site)

Lamah (site) Mormon 6:14 Laman (I Nephi 2:5)

Limhah (site) Mormon 6:14 Limhi (Mosiah 7:9)

Jeneum (site) Mormon 6:14

Cumenihah Mormon 6:14 Cumeni (Alma 56:14)
(site)

Shiblom (site) Mormon 6:14 Shiblon (Alma 11:15)

Ether Ether 1:2 Ether (Joshua 15:42)

Coriantor Ether 1:6 Coriantumr (Omni 1:21)

Moron Ether 1:7 Moroni (Words of Mormon 1:1)

Ethem Ether 1:8 Ether (Joshua 15:42)

Ahah Ether 1:9 Ahab (I Kings 16:28)

Seth Ether 1:10 Seth (Genesis 4:25)

Com Ether 1:12

Coriantum Ether 1:13 Coriantumr (Omni 1:21)

Amnigaddah Ether 1:14 Amnon (II Samuel 3:2) and Gadiandi (III Nephi 9:8)

Heth Ether 1:16 Heth (Genesis 10:15)

Hearthom Ether 1:16

Lib Ether 1:17 Libya (Ezekiel 30:5) also African state

Kish Ether 1:18 Kish (I Samuel 9:1) also View of the Hebrews pg 90

Corom Ether 1:19 Coriantum (Ether 1:13)

Levi Ether 1:20 Levi (Genesis 29:34)

Kim Ether 1:21

Riplakish Ether 1:23 Riplah (Alma 43:31) and Kish (Ether 1:18)

Shez Ether 1:24

Emer Ether 1:28 Omer (Exodus 16:16)

Omer Ether 1:29 Omer (Exodus 16:16)

Shule Ether 1:30 Shual (I Samuel 13:17)

Kib Ether 1:31

Orihah Ether 1:32 Orion (Job 9:9)

Jared Ether 1:32 Jared (Genesis 5:15)
See also Nephi and Ammon. Jade or jadery slightly changed to Jared?

Deseret Ether 2:3
(insect)

Moriancumer Ether 2:13 Moriah (Genesis 22:2) and Cumeni (Alma
(site) 56:14)

Shelem (site) Ether 3:1 Shelemiah (I Chronicles 26:14)

Jacom Ether 6:14 Jacob (Genesis 25:26)

Gilgah Ether 6:14 Gilgal (Joshua 4:19)

Mahah Ether 6:14 Mahath (I Chronicles 6:35)

Pagag Ether 6:25 Agag (I Samuel 15:8)

Corihor Ether 7:3 Korihor (Alma 30:12)

Cohor Ether 7:15 Corihor (Ether 7:3)

Esrom Ether 8:4 Esrom (Matthew 1:3)

Akish Ether 8:10 Kish (I Samuel 9:1)

Kimnor Ether 8:10

Ablom Ether 9:3 Absalom (II Samuel 3:3)

Nimrah Ether 9:8 Nimrah (Numbers 32:3)

Curelom Ether 9:19
(animal)

Cumom (animal) Ether 9:19

Amgid Ether 10:32

Zerin (site) Ether 12:30 Zeri (I Chronicles 25:3)

Shared Ether 13:23 Jared (Genesis 5:15)

Heshlon (site) Ether 13:28 Heshmon (Joshua 15:27)

Gilead Ether 14:8 Gilead (Genesis 31:21)

Agosh (site) Ether 14:15 Goshen (Genesis 45:10)

Shiz Ether 14:17 Shez (Ether 1:24)

Shurr (site) Ether 14:28 Shur (Genesis 16:7)

Comnor Ether 14:28

Ripliancum Ether 15:8 Riplah (Alma 43:31)
(site)

Ogath Ether 15:10 Gath (I Samuel 17:23)

Ramah Ether 15:11 Ramah (Joshua 18:25)

Archeantus Moroni 9:2 Archelaus (Matthew 2:22)

Luram Moroni 9:2 Ludim (Genesis 10:13) and Ramah (Joshua 18:25)

Emron Moroni 9:2 Esrom (Matthew 1:3)

Amoron Moroni 9:7 Amorite (Joshua 9:1)

Sherrizah Moroni 9:7 Sherezer (Zechariah 7:2)

Moriantum Moroni 9:9 Moriancumer (Ether 2:13)

Zenephi Moroni 9:16 Zeniff (Mosiah 7:9) and Nephi (Nephi 1:1)

Source.

Posted: **Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:45 pm**

Fortigurn,

I admire your zeal in attempting to prove me wrong. However I disagree with your approach. What is that like the 4th time you have posted that map and that list? Can't you at least stick to the topic of this thread? I do not dismiss those things as mere coincidences, so I politely ask you to please quit making up my mind for me. We have begun discussion on those topics in another thread, and carrying it into this one is not needed.

I am not going to debate with you about the witnesses to the BoM, how much evidence is needed for proof of the existence of the plates, etc...It is not extremely relevant to this thread, and frankly I do not think your arguments are even worth addressing. I find them to be very poor. I certainly would agree to addressing them in a different thread, and at a different time, but for now I think we have enough discussions going on at once. But if you feel like you must have the last word on this topic then go ahead, I wont say anything more.

You asume that 'An area on multiple maps has been labeled for centuries as differing spellings of Nahom',

That is not an assumption, that is a fact. Unless you mean that they are'nt different spellings of "Nahom", in which case I would reply "Ok, then they are different spellings of "Nihm" or "NHM", or any other version of the same root." Could I prove that they all come from the same root? I don't know, I dont know that much about linguistics. But I do know that different versions of NHM have been seen on maps, on alters, and in tribal names all in the same region.

and the best you can give us is a 'tribe called Nihim' (which isn't the same word), and an inscription 'NHM' (which is totally ambiguous).

This is a discussion which we could spend weeks on, but I will wait for tteows to return. He demonstrates a class that I find enjoyable.

Sargon

Posted: **Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:31 am**

Sargon wrote:Fortigurn,

I admire your zeal in attempting to prove me wrong. However I disagree with your approach. What is that like the 4th time you have posted that map and that list? Can't you at least stick to the topic of this thread?

This is actually the topic of the thread - the methodology by which we determine where the names in the Book of Mormon come from.

I do not dismiss those things as mere coincidences, so I politely ask you to please quit making up my mind for me.

You did exactly that in another thread.

We have begun discussion on those topics in another thread, and carrying it into this one is not needed.

They are relevant because they address the methodology by which we determine where the names in the Book of Mormon come from.

I am not going to debate with you about the witnesses to the BoM, how much evidence is needed for proof of the existence of the plates, etc...It is not extremely relevant to this thread, and frankly I do not think your arguments are even worth addressing. I find them to be very poor.

Firstly it is very relevant to this thread, because unless we can actually determine that the plates from which the Book of Mormon was allegedly transated exist, then there's nothing to discuss in this thread.

Secondly it's strange that you should say that my arguments are 'very poor', since I have in fact asked you to present evidence for your claims regarding the Book of Mormon. If you think it's 'very poor' of me to ask for such evidence, I have to ask you why you think so.

That is not an assumption, that is a fact.

No, it is an assumption unless you can prove it.

Unless you mean that they are'nt different spellings of "Nahom", in which case I would reply "Ok, then they are different spellings of "Nihm" or "NHM", or any other version of the same root." Could I prove that they all come from the same root? I don't know, I dont know that much about linguistics.

If you can't even prove they're from the same root, how can you claim that they're all different spellings of the same word?

But I do know that different versions of NHM have been seen on maps, on alters, and in tribal names all in the same region.

That's hardly surprising, given that the letters 'NHM' could refer to a dozen different words or names, depending on the vowel sounds you insert. So we could have one NHM which was read 'Naham', one which was read 'Nohim', one which was read 'Nehum', one which was read 'Nohom', or any other combinations you can think of. Attempting to claim that all of these combinations referred to the same place is an exercise in speculation.

This is a discussion which we could spend weeks on, but I will wait for tteows to return. He demonstrates a class that I find enjoyable.

In other words, you don't like answering my questions.

Posted: **Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:16 pm**

Sargon wrote:There is no assuming going on here. You have suggested that either Nephi deliberatley set it apart from the others, or he was not careful with his words as you suggest he wasn't in other passages. If he was careful, then he certainly did distinguish it from the others. If he was not careful, then he still included this change unconciously, telling us that there was something different about Nahom.

You are missing an option and I would describe the options as:
a) the difference in wording is intended to make a distinction (by the author or ultimate Author), but even in that case the wording is not applied carefully enough to make such distinction absolutely clear. (Obviously it could have been made clear by adding but a few words such as: "the place named Nahom by the locals")
b) the difference in wording is not intended to make a distinction (the author didn't realize a difference in wording would lead some to make a distinction) and Nahom was named by the Lehi group, same as the other sites.

It then falls to us to look at the wording and strive to make a proper assessment as to the probabilities one should attribute to the two options (w/o relying on any other assumptions to make that assessment) As you have probably already anticipated...if we went through the five assumptions I listed and attributed an average of a 2/3 probability to each of those assumptions, and each one is necessary for NHM to be considered authentication evidence for the BoM, then at 2/3 there is only a 13.5% chance that we should consider the NHM inscriptions in that fashion. At 3/4 a 23.7% chance and at 1/2 a 3.1% chance. You must get to an average of almost a 90% probability for each of the 5 assumptions before it is more likely than not that the NHM inscriptions should be considered authentication evidence for the BoM. This is why I asked you earlier what % of probability would you put on the correctness of assumption #1?

Posted: **Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:18 pm**

Well, if I am given the following 4 options to choose from, I think I have a high probability of my conclusion being correct:

1. Nephi was careful and deliberate in separating Nahom from the others.
2. Nephi was not careful and deliberate but still unconciously seperated Nahom from the others.
3. Nephi was somewhat deliberate in seperating Nahom from the others but did make it perfectly clear so that none would doubt.(An option I find very appealing, because I dont think Nephi foresaw the implications it would have on future BoM archaeology)
4. The difference in wording is not making a distinction, and Nahom is a name given by Lehi's family alone to the area.

Of these options, I see a 75% probability that Nahom was the name given by the locals before Lehi arrived. The fourth option is not altogether problematic, because many possibilities exist that allow for the original name to have been something close to Nahom, such as an Arabic word, and Lehi simply modified it for his tongue.

Sincerely,

Sargon

Posted: **Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:46 pm**

Sargon wrote:Well, if I am given the following 4 options to choose from, I think I have a high probability of my conclusion being correct:

1. Nephi was careful and deliberate in separating Nahom from the others.
2. Nephi was not careful and deliberate but still unconciously seperated Nahom from the others.
3. Nephi was somewhat deliberate in seperating Nahom from the others but did make it perfectly clear so that none would doubt.(An option I find very appealing, because I dont think Nephi foresaw the implications it would have on future BoM archaeology)
4. The difference in wording is not making a distinction, and Nahom is a name given by Lehi's family alone to the area.

Of these options, I see a 75% probability that Nahom was the name given by the locals before Lehi arrived. The fourth option is not altogether problematic, because many possibilities exist that allow for the original name to have been something close to Nahom, such as an Arabic word, and Lehi simply modified it for his tongue.

Sincerely,

Sargon

What evidence is there that 'Nahom' is an accurate transliteration of the 'reformed Egyptian' name in the original plates? Or is it one of those approximations made by Smith because he couldn't translate the word precisely?

Posted: **Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:53 am**

Sargon wrote:....Of these options, I see a 75% probability that Nahom was the name given by the locals before Lehi arrived.

I was betting you'd come in at about 80%-90% and so I think your estimate is "very fair" given your biases. Our biases are different, and so I am in the 50-66% range. I think 75% is high, but it is not that far from the top end of my range and so I'd suggest we move on (and we can use 75% for our global assessment of the assumptions).

Posted: **Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:23 pm**

I was betting you'd come in at about 80%-90% and so I think your estimate is "very fair" given your biases. Our biases are different, and so I am in the 50-66% range. I think 75% is high, but it is not that far from the top end of my range and so I'd suggest we move on (and we can use 75% for our global assessment of the assumptions).

Well, I don't count myself to be an expert on these things. I think the probability is higher than 75%, but I am willing to work with that number. However, I am not entirely sure that this is the best way to go about our deciding. I don't know that we have come up with every option between the two of us, and I am not trusting enough of my own capacity to understand the issue fully. Nonetheless, it is an interesting approach.

What evidence is there that 'Nahom' is an accurate transliteration of the 'reformed Egyptian' name in the original plates? Or is it one of those approximations made by Smith because he couldn't translate the word precisely?

Well, unless we uncovered an inscription that clearly was pronouced "Nahom", it wouldn't really matter. The focus is on the root NHM.

Sargon

Posted: **Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:03 pm**

Sargon wrote:
What evidence is there that 'Nahom' is an accurate transliteration of the 'reformed Egyptian' name in the original plates? Or is it one of those approximations made by Smith because he couldn't translate the word precisely?
Well, unless we uncovered an inscription that clearly was pronouced "Nahom", it wouldn't really matter. The focus is on the root NHM.

But how do you know that NHM is the root of the word translated by Smith? Or rather, transliterated, in this case? You have to decide whether he was translating 'reformed Egyptian' or Hebrew.

Posted: **Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:54 pm**

Well Nahom certainly is not an english word. The Book of Mormon claims to be the account of a family who speaks hebrew, but wrote the book of mormon in hebrew. So when Joseph is translating the egyptian characters on the plate, he is translating hebrew written in egyptian. So Nephi would have written the Hebrew word, in egyptian characters. How do we know that NHM is the root of the word Nahom? I guess it's just obvious. Kind of like how car and carriage and carry all have the same root. In portuguese those words are carro, caruco, and carregar. All with the same root.

Sargon

Evidence for God from Science

Nahom

Nahom

Re: Nahom