The voyage of Lehi and Company

[_Daniel Peterson]

There is, I think, linguistic reason to believe that Arabic is in fact much older than the inscriptional evidence first recording it.

Which shouldn't be surprising, since speaking and writing are quite distinct activities, and since the area in which Arabic apparently originated and certainly first flourished is very sparsely populated and is nomadic, rather than urban.

It is, grammatically speaking, extraordinarily complex, with features that seem to have disappeared from other Semitic languages (e.g., Hebrew, Akkadian, etc.). Its earliest "literary" productions are the qasidas or "odes" of the period known as the Jahiliyya (the pre-Islamic era), which cannot be dated much before 500 AD but appear suddenly, fully formed, with sophisticated rules of structure and rhyme and rhythm and content -- suggesting a lengthy period of unrecoverable pre-history and orality for the genre.

Whether Arabic goes back to 600 BC, of course, is a very good question. Maybe. Maybe not. But a proto-form was almost certainly present on the Arabian Peninsula at the time.

[_William Schryver]

There is, I think, linguistic reason to believe that Arabic is in fact much older than the inscriptional evidence first recording it.

Which shouldn't be surprising, since speaking and writing are quite distinct activities, and since the area in which Arabic apparently originated and certainly first flourished is very sparsely populated and is nomadic, rather than urban.

It is, grammatically speaking, extraordinarily complex, with features that seem to have disappeared from other Semitic languages (e.g., Hebrew, Akkadian, etc.). Its earliest "literary" productions are the qasidas or "odes" of the period known as the Jahiliyya (the pre-Islamic era), which cannot be dated much before 500 AD but appear suddenly, fully formed, with sophisticated rules of structure and rhyme and rhythm and content -- suggesting a lengthy period of unrecoverable pre-history and orality for the genre.

Whether Arabic goes back to 600 BC, of course, is a very good question. Maybe. Maybe not. But a proto-form was almost certainly present on the Arabian Peninsula at the time.

You've aroused my curiosity. Are there any perceived relationships between Arabic script and Egyptian hieratic and/or demotic?

[_moksha]

However, Lehi and company traveled through the Arabian peninsula. This could serve as further proof that the Arabic culture had some of its place names influenced by the Lehites (along with the name Nahom) as did the native culture of the Indian Ocean island in question.

No, it couldn't. Classical Arabic wasn't spoken in the areas that Lehi and company traveled through.

However, older languages leave their mark on subsequent languages. Proto languages can exchange words.

[_Morrissey]

Is it possible that during their voyage to the new world, Lehi and Company stopped at the Island of Cumora near the village of Moroni before sailing around Cape Horn and that both names got incorporated into the Reformed Egyptian list of possible names?

If so, would this not prove more compelling that the current proof of Nahom?


.

Nahum is a Biblical figure in the Old Testament. Is not a more plausible explanation that Joseph Smith took a term he was familiar with in the Old Testament and slightly altered it to produce the name of a location (Nahom) in the Book of Mormon than the occurrence of the word Nahom in the Book of Mormon is evidence that the Book of Mormon is really a historical record of a large, lost, pre-Columbian MesoAmerican civilization that worshiped Christ, rode horses, traveled in wheeled Chariots, cultivated barley, forged steel, and that a long-dead citizen of this civilization appeared to Joseph Smith, lead him to golden plates buried in a hill, which Joseph Smith in turn did not use to translate the ancient record, and that God later sent another angel with a flaming sword to command Joseph Smith to commit adultery on pain of death if he disobeyed, etc., etc.?

I see that there are a number of fans of parsimony among our apologist friends. Is not the former a more parsimonious explanation than the latter?

[_moksha]

I see that there are a number of fans of parsimony among our apologist friends. Is not the former a more parsimonious explanation than the latter?

Are you asking if one possibility is more worthy of Occam's razor than the other? Who knows. I would peg them as both possibilities. I have no proof one way or another, not even a case of heartburn.

[_Morrissey]

I see that there are a number of fans of parsimony among our apologist friends. Is not the former a more parsimonious explanation than the latter?

Are you asking if one possibility is more worthy of Occam's razor than the other? Who knows. I would peg them as both possibilities. I have no proof one way or another, not even a case of heartburn.

My question is which one is more parsimonious? In answering the question, one should consider that in selecting the second option, one needs further to provide explanations for all of the other anachronisms, difficulties, etc. posed by Mormon history and teachings to support a conclusion that the Book of Mormon is an actual history, and, therefore, Joseph Smith was indeed God's one and only prophet, and, therefore, the Mormon Church is true.

In selecting the first option, however, one has no need to explain away anything else.

In determining which option is more parsimonious is not the same thing, however, as determining which is more plausible. The answer to this question should (to all but the most self-deceptive believer/apologist) be obvious.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nahum is a Biblical figure in the Old Testament. Is not a more plausible explanation that Joseph Smith took a term he was familiar with in the Old Testament and slightly altered it to produce the name of a location (Nahom) in the Book of Mormon than the occurrence of the word Nahom in the Book of Mormon is evidence that the Book of Mormon is really a historical record

If it were only about a random toponym, your suggestion might seem potentially adequate.

But it's not.

[_Morrissey]

Nahum is a Biblical figure in the Old Testament. Is not a more plausible explanation that Joseph Smith took a term he was familiar with in the Old Testament and slightly altered it to produce the name of a location (Nahom) in the Book of Mormon than the occurrence of the word Nahom in the Book of Mormon is evidence that the Book of Mormon is really a historical record

If it were only about a random toponym, your suggestion might seem potentially adequate.

But it's not.

No, it's at best a lucky hit. Not too dissimilar from the case where I might be thinking about someone at the very second she calls. Some of the more gullible disposition might see it as evidence of prescience, ignoring the many times I thought about this person and she didn't call. Or not too dissimilar from the psychic who guesses correctly 10% of the time but guesses incorrectly 90% of the time. Someone who really, really wants to believe in the psychic will find this powerful evidence of psychic ability

Kind of like the numerous other geographical references in the Book of Mormon for which there has been no independent and unbiased verification. What's Joseph's hit rate? Not too good, it turns out.

Joseph Smith did, however, have a habit of borrowing words and inserting them in full form or in altered from into his narratives. Borrowing and altering the word Nahum, with which he would have been familiar, and achieving one lucky hit (in the midst of dozens if not into the hundreds of misses), is a far more parsimonious and plausible explanation than the Book of Mormon is an actual ancient record of a lost civilization, and all the implausible baggage that drags in its train.

I'm wondering, how many non-FARMS scholars, non-LDS scholars in the appropriate fields find your toponym evidence as compelling as you appear to do? Surely, if this evidence is so persuasive as you make it out to be, you and your colleagues have used this wonderful evidence to win over your skeptical colleagues?

I thought not.

[_Calculus Crusader]

No, it's at best a lucky hit. Not too dissimilar from the case where I might be thinking about someone at the very second she calls. Some of the more gullible disposition might see it as evidence of prescience, ignoring the many times I thought about this person and she didn't call. Or not too dissimilar from the psychic who guesses correctly 10% of the time but guesses incorrectly 90% of the time. Someone who really, really wants to believe in the psychic will find this powerful evidence of psychic ability

Kind of like the numerous other geographical references in the Book of Mormon for which there has been no independent and unbiased verification. What's Joseph's hit rate? Not too good, it turns out.

Joseph Smith did, however, have a habit of borrowing words and inserting them in full form or in altered from into his narratives. Borrowing and altering the word Nahum, with which he would have been familiar, and achieving one lucky hit (in the midst of dozens if not into the hundreds of misses), is a far more parsimonious and plausible explanation than the Book of Mormon is an actual ancient record of a lost civilization, and all the implausible baggage that drags in its train.

I'm wondering, how many non-FARMS scholars, non-LDS scholars in the appropriate fields find your toponym evidence as compelling as you appear to do? Surely, if this evidence is so persuasive as you make it out to be, you and your colleagues have used this wonderful evidence to win over your skeptical colleagues?

I thought not.

Not only that, but I'm pretty sure the inscription reads NHM and one has to supply the vowels, which need not be "a" and "o"

[_maklelan]

Nahum is a Biblical figure in the Old Testament. Is not a more plausible explanation that Joseph Smith took a term he was familiar with in the Old Testament and slightly altered it to produce the name of a location (Nahom) in the Book of Mormon than the occurrence of the word Nahom in the Book of Mormon is evidence that the Book of Mormon is really a historical record of a large, lost, pre-Columbian MesoAmerican civilization that worshiped Christ, rode horses, traveled in wheeled Chariots, cultivated barley, forged steel, and that a long-dead citizen of this civilization appeared to Joseph Smith, lead him to golden plates buried in a hill, which Joseph Smith in turn did not use to translate the ancient record, and that God later sent another angel with a flaming sword to command Joseph Smith to commit adultery on pain of death if he disobeyed, etc., etc.?

So evidence can be dismissed without evaluation if we find the conclusion it supports unlikely?

I see that there are a number of fans of parsimony among our apologist friends. Is not the former a more parsimonious explanation than the latter?

Parsimony is how you develop more likely hypotheses, which must then be tested. Parsimony is not how you decide whether evidence is valid or not. It certainly can't be called upon to determine whether evidence needs to be engaged or not.