Jump to content

Tajara

New Member
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Tajara

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. Beginning with a question that I didn't copy, yes, there is no proof. As for evidence, it depends upon the nature and quality of the evidence, and that leads us to the quoted material. It is absolutely true that there have been entire books dedicated to the topic. You see that the ones quoted are from the 1800s. You will find that most of them are. That was an era that preceded serious and careful archaeology, and is an era known for speculation and sometimes imaginary evidence. For example: 1) language: there were many attempts to show that native american languages were related to Hebrew. None can pass a modern linguistic test. These were people making connections without understanding. 2) traditions: this is complicated because the way that the traditions are recorded certainly make it seem that there must have been some similarity. However, in Central Mexico where there were native documents written in European script soon after the conquest, there is enough evidence to compare native traditions with what was said about them. What was said about them is what is most obvious in similarity--and very similar to the themes we see in South America and North America. That is, when the Europeans encountered the natives, there were similar ways in which they understood native traditions. The evidence of Central Mexico tells us that they misunderstood and recast the traditions into the European Christian (and conquest-affirming) interests. 3) Customs and habits: Ethnographers do not find what the earlier books said was so obvious. 4) religious rites and ceremonies: These are also interpreted through the writers' lens and not authentic descriptions. 5) public worship and religious opinions and prejudices: these follow the same rules of contact and reinterpretation as see for the legends. In the 1800s there were a lot of obvious similarities, but those similarities were the result of intentional recasting as part of the descriptions. More careful archaeology, history, and linguistics have shown that anything from the 1800s is questionable. We know we are supposed to be careful of what we see on the Internet, and books in the 1800s were the day's Internet. With all due respect, does it not occur to you that the Europeans in the 1600's - 1800's who actually observed the culture, customs, habits, religious rites and ceremonies of the Native Americans first hand, would know far more about them than you do?! Those who interacted with them, heard and learned their language, spoke with them about their history, lived among them, fought with them, etc. were in a far better position to judge, and they graciously left us plenty of evidence. How is it that you think you have a better understanding of them 200 years after they have vanished from the earth? It is so easy to simply say that particular evidence is not proof enough for you, but just because you say it, does not make it true. The Book of Mormon clearly outlines the Hebrew origin of native American peoples and evidence of them is abundant right here in America whether you or anyone else believes it or not, really doesn't matter. The truth will prevail. Five ancient Hebrew holy stones were discovered near Newark, Ohio -- evidence. The Bat Creek stone with Paleo-Hebrew written on it -- evidence. The list goes on. Yes, I am aware that some will claim these finds are all a hoax. Not true. Some(not all) of them have been tarnished with doubt, but even those have not been proven. Some here have insisted that there was no ancient writing in North America. That is absolutely not true. The Book of Mormon is all the evidence we need, yet not all the evidence we have.
  2. Thank you, Burnside. It is so nice to meet someone here that actually understands. I love this quote from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland: "Truth borne by the Holy Spirit comes with, in effect, two manifestations, two witnesses if you will -- the force of fact as well as the force of feeling... I believe God intends us to find and use the evidence He has given -- reasons, if you will -- which affirm the truthfulness of His work... Evidence is still evidence even if it is not immediately observable." And this, "The issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon highlights the difference between those who rely solely on scholarship and those who rely on revelation, faith, and scholarship. Those who rely solely on scholarship reject revelation and focus on a limited number of issues. But they can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon through their secular evidence and methods. On the other hand, those who rely on a combination of revelation, faith, and scholarship can see and understand all of the complex issues of the Book of Mormon record, and it is only through that combination that the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon can be answered." ~Elder Dallin H. Oaks.
  3. I am sorry I forgot about this, Calm. I was referring to Glade Burgon in 1972 with regards to the American inscriptions (Kinderhook, Michigan, etc.). I will try to find a more complete reference, but an excerpt was included in the Kinderhook article previously posted.
  4. I do not know either -- part of the reason it was interesting to me.
  5. If so, a skeptic who chooses not to be convinced even in light of an abundance of irrefutable evidence, could just continue to say "there is no proof..." and be correct. 🙄 In which case, it would be completely pointless to present to them any evidence of any truth. Or even have a conversation. So, my question stands. Who or what determines the precise circumstance when evidence becomes proof? 🤔
  6. And who determines whether or not doubt has been removed? The skeptic who chooses not to be convinced no matter the quantity of irrefutable evidence?
  7. Are you seriously trying to say that there is no proof of a link between the Native Americans and the ancient Israelites? "Theories with no proof" ? Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. Perhaps it was a very common practice back then because they could not help but take notice of the obvious similarities in: * language, * traditions, * customs and habits, *religious rites and ceremonies, * public worship and religious opinions and prejudices. Entire books were published on the subject dedicated "To all students of Archaeology and lovers of History, and especially all true friends of the Israel of God..." See the works of Timothy Jenkins -1883, Ethan Smith - 1825 and others.
  8. Please forgive me but I can not find the beginning of this story. Oklds, this is fascinating -- especially the 400 B.C. coin with a North American origin. Where is this site you speak of? (General area only, of course). And where did the 116 sheets come from? For that matter, what is meant by "sheets"? I would love to hear more of the story.
  9. Yikes! Yes, Burgon. Sorry for the typo. No, I was not referring to that.
  10. Sorry just getting back from a much needed vacation abroad and just saw this today. NO, no, no, none of this "you first" stuff. You made the claim of pre-Columbian languages, now you back it up. This is an official CFR. As for my resources: New York Anthropology Depart New York Archaeology Association South Dakota Bureau of Indian Affairs Chief Left Hand Tribal Law College University of New Mexico Anthropology Dept. Brian Stubbs Ancient American Language Expert see this article here "You first?" was a question, lol. I too, am sorry for the delayed response. A few of my resources: Copway, George. The Ojibway Nation Bergen, Glade. BYU Dept. of Ancient Scriptures Navajo records keeper Pickett, Albert James. History of Alabama Bird, Traveller. Tell Them They Lie Adair, James. The History of the American Indians
  11. Anijen, You ask me to back up this claim with credible sources or retract: "There is evidence of metallurgy including brass, iron and steel if you know where to look, and as far as the issue of writing... Many are unaware that the Taliwa, Navajo, Cherokee, Muskogee (Creek and Shawnee), Iroquois, and many others had pre-Columbian, written records on bark, clay, stone, lead, copper, silver, and even gold plates." I am happy to give you my references and expect the same from you. Back up your claim with credible source or retract: "Not true, incredibly false, fiction, dishonest, untruthful, deceitful, corrupt, scrupulous, dishonorable, untrustworthy, and falsehearted are the claims there was a pre-Columbian written language." (emphasis mine) You first? ~ Tajara
×
×
  • Create New...