I just watched a video produced by Bill Reel and Corbin "Radio Free Mormon" Volluz. They claim that Dan Peterson and others are simply wrong in claiming that names like Alma and Sam were never actually raised as criticisms of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps they should try to be more careful in their research. Consider the following--
In Marian Bodine's Book of Mormon vs. the Bibe (Or Common Sense) we read:
3. I Nephi 2:5, Sam
is a Yankee name, Samuel would have been a Jewish name.
...
35. Alma is supposed
to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry. Alma in Hebrew means a betrothed
virgin. Hardly a fitting name for a man.
In another work (initially published in 2016; re-published in 2019), we read:
On the name "Sam" (a hypocoristic form of Samuel), see: John A. Tvedtnes, John Gee, and Matthew Roper, Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions
On "Alma," see Refuting Gabriel Hughes' Misinformed Arguments against the Book of Mormon
The rest of their comments are reflective of their lack of charity. Here is what we learn on Alma in the Book of Mormon:
(*) critics believed it was a mistake in the Book of Mormon to have two males having the name "Alma."
(*) the name is attested in texts Ebla (pre-dating the Book of Mormon) and the Bar Kochba documents (post-dating the Book of Mormon)
(*) The name is attested as a genuine male name in the Ancient Near East
(*) There were some men who were contemporary with Joseph Smith who had the name "Alma."
(*) It is, at worst for a Latter-day Saint apologist, evidence for "only" the verisimilitude not historicity, of the Book of Mormon.
The critics also beg the question as to why, assuming a naturalistic understanding of the Book of Mormon, Joseph would choose the name "Alma" for two ancient males and explain how he lucked out that it would be attested over a century later.