Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

paulpatter

What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

Recommended Posts

CFR, really? Just off the top of my head: Nephi (the First) making his tools from "ore". Then later, in America, he fashions "swords" for his people using "the sword of Laban" as the prototype. There is nothing in the text, anywhere, to suggest that Nephi resorted to some kind of degraded weapon, i.e. a macuahuitl

Not true, Alma 24:13 states

Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.
You cannot stain a metal sword it wipes clean but a wooden one can and does absorb blood and would stain a macuahuitl.

It is my belief that the steel swords were no longer made because of either lack of ingredients (such as useable ore) or the knowledge was eventually lost.

Share this post


Link to post

As in the Book of Mormon timeline? No.

They are pre-Columian. Which I know you will disagree with, but it isn't far fetched to believe the technology was also used hundreds of years earlier.

I agree, these later versions must have received their knowledge from their ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post

Bucklers are small shields Swedish14thcentury.jpg

I would use a image like this;

sorry my image didn't make it. Google Aztec warriors and you can see many holding small shields (bucklers). Mark Wright has a very good picture of a line of warriors all holding bucklers (I think from the Florentine Codice)

Seems like a good start on your web site. Although many of these postdate the Book of Mormon, it does show that they had them precolumbian.

True, and the bucklers I posted looked like they were made out of leather. This picture looks like it can withstand a blow from a sword.

My website is definitely not authoritative and admittedly biased, it was made to learn how to make a future medical practice website, but it was entertaining nonetheless. If you have any other suggestions, I would appreciate them.

Share this post


Link to post

As in the Book of Mormon timeline? No.

They are pre-Columian. Which I know you will disagree with, but it isn't far fetched to believe the technology was also used hundreds of years earlier.

Thanks.

How about the location? Have you run across anything from the area where the experts place the BoM events?

Share this post


Link to post

Not true, Alma 24:13 states

You cannot stain a metal sword it wipes clean but a wooden one can and does absorb blood and would stain a macuahuitl.

It is my belief that the steel swords were no longer made because of either lack of ingredients (such as useable ore) or the knowledge was eventually lost.

I agree with the second part of your statement. The first part I used to believe until I read these quotes in regards to steel swords. For some reason I imagine the last of the Nephites (Moroni) had steel swords - maybe because of the famous LDS paintings of Moroni with his sword by the gold plates.

"blood-stained swords, fragments of bone taken from the wound, andgarments spotted with blood" MarcusFabius Quintilianus (ca. 35 ca. 100) institutio oratoria 6.1.30

"I never more for woes that weighed on me waited help long as I lived, when, laved in blood, stood sword-gore-stained this stateliest house" Beowulf Cap 14

POL. "Since soon my blood-stained sword will not remain any longer in inactivity". Euripides "the Phoenician virgins"

"in the inner courtyard of my house build high a flaming pile andcast thereon my fathers sceptre and arms and well-known royal raiment, andsadly do I stand by the blazing welter of the pyre with blood-stained sword,and lament the feigned deed and empty funeral in fear" THE BAIDbook 5 by PUBLIUS PAPINIUS STATIUS Roman Poet late 1st AD

Maybe a steel sword can't stain and this is just figurative?

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, these later versions must have received their knowledge from their ancestors.

Sure, I could understand a couple of hundred years, but would you stretch the passed-down metal-working knowledge back as much as 1200 years?

If you take the BoM at its word, I suppose you would have to, since it says Nephi (the original) was the first Nephite metal worker, so it would follow that he passed down the knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks.

How about the location? Have you run across anything from the area where the experts place the BoM events?

In regards to smelting, Mexico and Peru.

You will have to ask the experts. I don't personally subscribe to one model even though there are some more convincing than others.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently.

J. Huston McCulloch makes a good case for them, but I guess any "professor of economics and finance" could do the same. He claims they (at least the batcreek stone) are at the Smithsonian, but I found no evidence of that.

What are you thoughts?

The Bat Creek Stone (excavated in 1889) was held at the Smithsonian (because they sponsored the dig), I don't know how long or if they have been moved since. The writing was at first thought to be in the Cherokee language (which was not developed until 1819) then someone claimed if read upside down it is Hebrew this was strongly supported by J. Huston McCulloch like you mentioned. Martin and Kwas (2004) has demolished McCulloch's argument entirely. The brass objects found with the stone have the exact percentages of zinc and copper as were made in England at the time of discovery. The radio carbon dating is for the site not the stone, which is now believed to have been planted in the mound by Cyrus Gordons assistant (Emmert is his last name I don't know his first) who was fired then remarkably after being rehired found the stones which resembled Cherokee which just happened to support his boss's view. No such stone or any artifact since has been found anywhere similar to that one in that area. Emmert coincidently had the luck to find the only one. But like I mentioned in a previous post (not in this thread) that the inscription on the stone is identical to a picture found in the General History Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry. It is a writing that exactly matches that of a coin that dates back to the first Jewish revolt (66-73 CE). Emmert owned a copy of this book, case closed.

The Newark Stone

The Hebrew on the first stone was anachronistic according to Hebrew experts (I am not one), but then coincidently another stone was found by the same researcher after that criticism without the anachronisms. I think this forger learned from his past mistakes (ha ha), However a Harvard University Professor has labeled the Newark Stones "a grotesque forgery" See Brad Lepper and Jeff Gills 2000 article in the Time Lines a publication of the Ohio Historical Society. Lepper and Gill placed the final nail in the coffin of this fake.

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree. There are too many theories and unknown factors amongst the apologists for their findings to refute much of anything. Their arguments muddy the waters as much as they help. My personal opinion is that the Michael Ash series of articles of the Deseret News has raised as many questions as it has answered.

It might "muddy the waters" for the unbelievers, but for the believers - I find it all fascinating and it strengthens my own testimony in the Book of Mormon.

Bottom line: A person will not believe in any evidence if they have already rejected the Book of Mormon. In this way, the Book of Mormon becomes a litmus test for the world.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, I could understand a couple of hundred years, but would you stretch the passed-down metal-working knowledge back as much as 1200 years?

If you take the BoM at its word, I suppose you would have to, since it says Nephi (the original) was the first Nephite metal worker, so it would follow that he passed down the knowledge.

I agree however I think making of the wooden macuahuitl with obsidian blades And they are sword like and which were sharp enough to decapitate a horse with one swing is enough to qualify.

Share this post


Link to post

The Bat Creek Stone (excavated in 1889) was held at the Smithsonian (because they sponsored the dig), I don't know how long or if they have been moved since. The writing was at first thought to be in the Cherokee language (which was not developed until 1819) then someone claimed if read upside down it is Hebrew this was strongly supported by J. Huston McCulloch like you mentioned. Martin and Kwas (2004) has demolished McCulloch's argument entirely. The brass objects found with the stone have the exact percentages of zinc and copper as were made in England at the time of discovery. The radio carbon dating is for the site not the stone, which is now believed to have been planted in the mound by Cyrus Gordons assistant (Emmert is his last name I don't know his first) who was fired then remarkably after being rehired found the stones which resembled Cherokee which just happened to support his boss's view. No such stone or any artifact since has been found anywhere similar to that one in that area. Emmert coincidently had the luck to find the only one. But like I mentioned in a previous post (not in this thread) that the inscription on the stone is identical to a picture found in the General History Cyclopedia, and Dictionary of Freemasonry. It is a writing that exactly matches that of a coin that dates back to the first Jewish revolt (66-73 CE). Emmert owned a copy of this book, case closed.

The Newark Stone

The Hebrew on the first stone was anachronistic according to Hebrew experts (I am not one), but then coincidently another stone was found by the same researcher after that criticism without the anachronisms. I think this forger learned from his past mistakes (ha ha), However a Harvard University Professor has labeled the Newark Stones "a grotesque forgery" See Brad Lepper and Jeff Gills 2000 article in the Time Lines a publication of the Ohio Historical Society. Lepper and Gill placed the final nail in the coffin of this fake.

Excellent! Thanks for posting this.

I can see why Meldrum would not be taken seriously if he is presenting these as evidence. Which is unfortunate because I believe it is "healthy" to have opposing views in regards to proposed models. Unfortunately, it is far from "healthy" these days, I was disappointed how ad hominem attacks have been used on Meldrum.

I look forward to the webinar tomorrow to make my own opinion in regards to metallurgy. If it is a complete fail, I will donate the $3 to ....................................

Share this post


Link to post

Genetics isn't as simple as a DNA swab and there are numerous factors to consider. There is also a lot we don't know in regards to genetics and to make a definitive conclusion is way too early.

But it is not entirely true that there "has not been Israelite DNA found in Native Americans".

The Cherokee prove otherwise. My link

Which is acknowledged in the quote above, "In the midst of his lengthy defenses of the Church, [scott] Woodward acknowledged that greater than 98% of American Indians came from Asia and that this conflicts with current thinking in the church regarding the whereabouts of the Lamanites today. [scott] Woodward confirmed that scientists at BYU had tested over 5000 American Indians from Peru and virtually all of their DNA lineages came from Asia as well. The ancestors of the three major civilizations in the Americas, the Aztecs, Maya and Incas, were essentially all derived from Asia...."

The fact that this conflicts with any archeological theories or current teachings of the church is the point. The fact that there are anomalies is acknowledged.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see why Meldrum would not be taken seriously if he is presenting these as evidence. Which is unfortunate because I believe it is "healthy" to have opposing views in regards to proposed models. Unfortunately, it is far from "healthy" these days, I was disappointed how ad hominem attacks have been used on Meldrum.

I look forward to the webinar tomorrow to make my own opinion in regards to metallurgy. If it is a complete fail, I will donate the $3 to ....................................

I agree opposing views makes me do better research. Sevenbak and I disagree on somethings but he is a good guy and very faithful. I like his posts they make me think. About ten years ago I argued with Brant Gardner, I used to think the that Stela B was good evidence for elephants in Mesoamerica, however since learning some Mayan (not speaking just reading) and many Mayan glyphs ( I can read many of them but I am just so so, mark Wright who posts on this board is IMO a very good expert) I have changed my opinion to that they are macaws and there is a lot more to back that claim than there is that they were elephants. That is why I like opposition not to argue but to become better educated and knowledgeable.

$3.00 isn't that much at all, and I have the time to watch this, only because I find Meldrum in it for the money (daresay priestcraft) I do not want to contribute in anyway to lining his pockets. To add to that he uses fake artifacts to support his claims, calls people apostates those who don't subscribe to his point of view and lastly misrepresents the view of actual experts, scholars who specialize in the Adena and Hopewell traditions. It is a choice I make, but I am interested in his dvds and lectures to the point I ask others if they are going etc. I am mainly interested in if he has changed his tactics (I doubt he has).

Share this post


Link to post

Which is acknowledged in the quote above, "In the midst of his lengthy defenses of the Church, [scott] Woodward acknowledged that greater than 98% of American Indians came from Asia and that this conflicts with current thinking in the church regarding the whereabouts of the Lamanites today. [scott] Woodward confirmed that scientists at BYU had tested over 5000 American Indians from Peru and virtually all of their DNA lineages came from Asia as well. The ancestors of the three major civilizations in the Americas, the Aztecs, Maya and Incas, were essentially all derived from Asia...."

The fact that this conflicts with any archeological theories or current teachings of the church is the point. The fact that there are anomalies is acknowledged.

I hear you.

I would hate for someone to reject the Book of Mormon just based on genetics. They have that right of course, but unfortunately miss the whole point of how to truly know if the Book of Mormon is true.

In addition, BIble believing Christians can't be taken seriously when they give the Bible an automatic free pass in regards to science, yet so easily reject the Book of Mormon based on the same scientific standards. = double standard.

Share this post


Link to post

In addition, BIble believing Christians can't be taken seriously when they give the Bible an automatic free pass in regards to science, yet so easily reject the Book of Mormon based on the same scientific standards. = double standard.

Point out Hughes double standard is a waste of time. He knows he has a double standard. He does not care. Having a serious discussion with him is pointless. Soon you will see this.

FYI the debate about american indians not having Israeli DNA is a total red herring.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't know if anyone has cited this, but in regards to DNA, see

Ugo A. Perego, "The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint," FARMS Review 21:1 (2010).

As for biblical archaeology, I'm glad we've been able to confirm the belief in an Israelite goddess or "Mother in Heaven." See

Jennifer Viegas, "Did God Have a Wife? Scholar Says That He Did," MSNBC (March 18, 2011).

William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Eerdmans, 2005).

Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield Academic Press, 2002).

Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford University Press, 2001).

Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God (SPCK, 1992).

Share this post


Link to post

I agree opposing views makes me do better research. Sevenbak and I disagree on somethings but he is a good guy and very faithful. I like his posts they make me think. About ten years ago I argued with Brant Gardner, I used to think the that Stella 5 was good evidence for elephants in Mesoamerica, however since learning some Mayan (not speaking just reading) and many Mayan glyphs ( I can read many of them but I am just so so, mark Wright who posts on this board is IMO a very good expert) I have changed my opinion to that they are macaws and there is a lot more to back that claim than there is that they were elephants. That is why I like opposition not to argue but to become better educated and knowledgeable.

$3.00 isn't that much at all, and I have the time to watch this, only because I find Meldrum in it for the money (daresay priestcraft) I do not want to contribute in anyway to lining his pockets. To add to that he uses fake artifacts to support his claims, calls people apostates those who don't subscribe to his point of view and lastly misrepresents the view of actual experts, scholars who specialize in the Adena and Hopewell traditions. It is a choice I make, but I am interested in his dvds and lectures to the point I ask others if they are going etc. I am mainly interested in if he has changed his tactics (I doubt he has).

I respect that.

I knew it was a debatable issue when I decided to post Stella B to my website so I included both points of view. One from G. Elliot Smith who believed it represented an elephant and Alfred M. Tozzer who believed it represented a blue maccaw - both non-LDS. Mesoweb also supported the elephant representation, more specifically "chaak/chaac". What sold me per se was the human drivers "caryatids" on top of the elephant. Hard to imagine humans riding parrots. So couldn't it just possibly be the "god chaac" in the forefront of the macaw mountain?

And doesn't chaac in itself provide evidence of elephants in the Book of Mormon? Who would make "elephant like trunks" without a knowledge of actual elephants?

My favorite in regards to elephants was the "underwater stonehenge in Lake Michigan". It will be interesting to see what they finally conclude.

I have to admit, I haven't heard or seen Meldrum use these "tactics". Definitely would be disappointing if true. I will be honest, I feel I am on the outside and I don't know who to believe on the subject in regards to Meldrum - hearsay can be very convincing, but I have been on that receiving end of false accusations so I have to side with my own opinion on the matter. He is making big claims in this webinar so that will help with the opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Point out Hughes double standard is a waste of time. He knows he has a double standard. He does not care. Having a serious discussion with him is pointless. Soon you will see this.

FYI the debate about american indians not having Israeli DNA is a total red herring.

Shoot! I had to look up what a "red herring" was, but figured much that he wasn't too serious.

I guess I will have to have a serious discussion with him about "skateboards".

Share this post


Link to post

If you look at the scope of his blog, he isn't approaching this with a preconceived notion over the possible origins of the Anthon Caractors. He looks at them as a "puzzle", and tries to use the tools of a cryptologist to "crack the code".

Isn't he preconceiving the notion that the Anthon Caractors were made up though?

I don't see him trying to deal with the possibility that it actually happened. I think he pre-assuemes that it didn't happen, sorta.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Share this post


Link to post

I respect that.

I knew it was a debatable issue when I decided to post Stella B to my website so I included both points of view. One from G. Elliot Smith who believed it represented an elephant and Alfred M. Tozzer who believed it represented a blue maccaw - both non-LDS. Mesoweb also supported the elephant representation, more specifically "chaak/chaac". What sold me per se was the human drivers "caryatids" on top of the elephant. Hard to imagine humans riding parrots. So couldn't it just possibly be the "god chaac" in the forefront of the macaw mountain?

And doesn't chaac in itself provide evidence of elephants in the Book of Mormon? Who would make "elephant like trunks" without a knowledge of actual elephants?

My favorite in regards to elephants was the "underwater stonehenge in Lake Michigan". It will be interesting to see what they finally conclude.

I have to admit, I haven't heard or seen Meldrum use these "tactics". Definitely would be disappointing if true. I will be honest, I feel I am on the outside and I don't know who to believe on the subject in regards to Meldrum - hearsay can be very convincing, but I have been on that receiving end of false accusations so I have to side with my own opinion on the matter. He is making big claims in this webinar so that will help with the opinion.

Thats okay. Just some advice, most experts (Both LDS and non-LDS) that I know it least correspond with, view them as macaws. Be careful and post from the more up to date papers on the subject quoting one from before the deciphering of Mayan you would get many elephant views afterwards not so much. I am glad you use Mesoweb, it is a good site so is FAMSI and WAYEB, be careful that the images are not bats (they look like elephants,I kid you not), ex. there are bats painted on Mayan pottery that look like elephants. I would also not put too much stock in a person riding on the back or on top of the macaw/elephant, the Mayans would often exaggerate scale in both enlarging and making smaller both the images of people, gods, animals etc. As far as Chac goes I don't know much other than I can identify him in the glyphs by his bushy long mustache or whiskers and some instances his nose. Much has been compared with the rain god (Chac)and the elephant trunk usually by people on this board again not so much with the experts (because they don't see the elephant)

There was a poster who had a lot of posts on elephants the smaller kind that starts with a G (cant remember the name right off). I think the poster went by the name Zakuska, I always enjoyed reading his elephant posts. Some I agreed with some I didn't...

Share this post


Link to post

Thats okay. Just some advice, most experts (Both LDS and non-LDS) that I know it least correspond with, view them as macaws. Be careful and post from the more up to date papers on the subject quoting one from before the deciphering of Mayan you would get many elephant views afterwards not so much. I am glad you use Mesoweb, it is a good site so is FAMSI and WAYEB, be careful that the images are not bats (they look like elephants,I kid you not), ex. there are bats painted on Mayan pottery that look like elephants. I would also not put too much stock in a person riding on the back or on top of the macaw/elephant, the Mayans would often exaggerate scale in both enlarging and making smaller both the images of people, gods, animals etc. As far as Chac goes I don't know much other than I can identify him in the glyphs by his bushy long mustache or whiskers and some instances his nose. Much has been compared with the rain god (Chac)and the elephant trunk usually by people on this board again not so much with the experts (because they don't see the elephant)

There was a poster who had a lot of posts on elephants the smaller kind that starts with a G (cant remember the name right off). I think the poster went by the name Zakuska, I always enjoyed reading his elephant posts. Some I agreed with some I didn't...

True, they were from the early 1900s. Very interesting about the bats though!

Cuvieronius of the family Gomphotheriidea fits in perfectly with the Jaredites.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree however I think making of the wooden macuahuitl with obsidian blades And they are sword like and which were sharp enough to decapitate a horse with one swing is enough to qualify.

They were actually sharper than the average cavalry sword of the Napoleonic era. That is the funny thing. Clubs are meant to crush, swords are for cutting.

So, if the macuahuitl functions as a sword and was described as such by the conquistadors- professional men-at-arms - then why is it a prepostrous proposition when it comes to the BoM?

Share this post


Link to post

True, they were from the early 1900s. Very interesting about the bats though!

Cuvieronius of the family Gomphotheriidea fits in perfectly with the Jaredites.

yeah that was what they were called.

Oh and here is the image of bats on Mayan pottery. I have to admit they look like elephants but they are bats.

gw_kear1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

They were actually sharper than the average cavalry sword of the Napoleonic era. That is the funny thing. Clubs are meant to crush, swords are for cutting.

So, if the macuahuitl functions as a sword and was described as such by the conquistadors- professional men-at-arms - then why is it a prepostrous proposition when it comes to the BoM?

You are 100% correct. it is not a "preposterous proposition" (say that ten times real fast).

Share this post


Link to post

yeah that was what they were called.

Oh and here is the image of bats on Mayan pottery. I have to admit they look like elephants but they are bats.

gw_kear1.jpg

I definitely see the bats with those teeth.

Is the figure in the Mayan Fresco considered a bat too?

post-17369-0-93056800-1302127467_thumb.j

post-17369-0-65992100-1302127480_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...