My critical response to "Irreantum"

Here is a copy of a recent email exchange I had:

Hey there,

I know you were very active in apologetics and such before leaving the
church. Could you give me your opinion about the "Irreantum" evidence that
apologists like to bring up? If you could steer me to any resources about
this that would be great.

Thanks,
(Name Withheld)
______________________________________________________
I assume the apologist "Irreantum" argument that you are referring to is the one best expressed in this article: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=288

I cannot find a link to a critical response to this specific argument. I am not a linguist, but it seems to me that the author's approach is way off and he does a lot of post hoc reasoning. For example, Nephi is supposed to know Hebrew and Egyptian. A person would expect Irreantum to be derived from one of those languages, and if the author would have found an Egyptian connection, he would have been bragging that it is exactly what he would have predicted. But, Irreantum has no connection to those languages, so after discovering that, he claims he would have predicted that it would not have been Hebrew or Egyptian because Nephi gives a translation. That is unfair, anyone can come up with explanations (many of them wrong) for why something is the way it is after the results are in. If you want to show that your position has strength, you have to make a prediction before the results are in, and then see if the results support you or discredit you.

The other way the author cheated is he took the shotgun approach and examined all the words for water in all the many languages in the area looking for anything even close to any part of the word "Irreantum". You are likely to find something in the ballpark of one of the 4 syllables that means water if you look at enough languages, even by chance. And what the author found isn't really remarkably close: 'rwy (which even he admits not knowing how to pronounce). So, the author took advantage of random chance without any guiding theory as to why he would expect one language over another. So, his results mean nothing. He makes it appear as though he has a strong argument because his post hoc explanations are reasonable. But, it is analogous to coming up with an explanation for won someone won the lottery.

In my opinion, the whole Irreantum case is much ado about nothing. In short it is shotty scholarship and you won't find one non-Mormon linguist impressed in the least.

Comments

Christopher Smith said…
It doesn't help that there's really only one expert in the world in South Semitic, her lexicon costs like a hundred dollars, and she doesn't really answer email. I suspect nobody really feels qualified to answer the Irreantum argument, which is why it hasn't been tackled at any great length.
Tue Feb 05, 01:21:00 AM PST
Anonymous said…
Your "critical response" only shows your ignorance in Semitic languages. The article's etymology of Irreantum is well within the bounds of Semitic phonology. I guess my counter argument to you would be make Irreantum fit phonologically in the English language if the author of the article was so sloppy with his work.
Tue Jul 08, 08:34:00 AM PDT
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I left the LDS Church

[Last edited 1/28/10] I was a very deeply spiritual person and easily moved to tears when thinking of the Savior and the sacrifices I believed he made for me and the rich blessings he bestowed upon me. I was born in the covenant to convert parents who were very active in the Church and true believers. I had a strong testimony of Joseph Smith and the restoration even before turning eight for I had recognized the joy of the Spirit and the love for mankind I felt when reading the Book of Mormon. And after turning eight, I had an experience which I considered to be a visitation of an angel. When I was 14, my mother passed away. I felt very much alone and learned through that experience to lean on the Lord even more. I decided that I would do what was right because it was the path to happiness, not to please my dad or because of fear of punishment. I felt particularly close to Heavenly Father over the next few years, having had countless experiences of answered prayers, premonitions that w...
Read more

My Patriarchal Blessing

First an intro: Sister Mary Lisa recently posted parts of her patriarchal blessing on her blog. I have decided to do the same. I used to believe in this document so much. I believed that God was personally telling me how much he loved me and how highly he thought of me and what he had in store for me and the mission he sent me to earth to accomplish. I even made my PB into Section 139 of my Doctrine and Covenants and divided it into verses and inserted cross references to other scriptures. It really is beautiful and inspiring and I think patriarchal blessings in general are good for raising people's self-esteem. But, that good does not make up for what I believe to be the misdirection it gives believers. Believers make very important life decisions based on this blessing, which would be great if it actually came from God, but since in all likelihood it is nothing more than the words of an old man inspired by nothing more than his own thoughts and experiences, it can be quite danger...
Read more

Spalding's "Manuscript Found" vs "Manuscript Story"

I don't claim to know who or how the BoM was written. But, there is one point of confusion about the Spalding-Rigdon theory that has been exacerbated by most who have written on the subject, both anti and apologist alike. It is very important that anyone looking into this topic understand what I am about to tell you as most everything that has been written on the Spalding-Rigdon theory focuses on the wrong book. I am borrowing generously from websites for which I will provide links to below. The following is from: http://www.mormoninformation.com/srtheory.htm The "Spalding-Rigdon theory" was first given wide publicity in 1834 with the publication of the book Mormonism Unvailed. In it, the author followed up on indications previously published in Ohio-based newspapers that a man named Solomon Spalding was the real (and unwitting) originator of the Book of Mormon. To make an extremely long story very, very short, the theory goes that Solomon Spalding authored a work called...
Read more