Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hebrew Script In Hopewell Burial Mound?


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 bu11fr0g

bu11fr0g

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 09:46 AM

In an email invitation I received to Meldrum's lecture there is a note of Hebrew being found in an old archaeological dig. It seems like something isn't adding up right here. Does anyone know about this find?


Ancient Hebrew Verified in America’s Heartland! Only a few months ago
a stone, that was recovered in an official Smithsonian Institution
archaeological dig in 1889 in a Hopewell burial mound in Tennessee,
was scientifically verified to have an ancient Hebrew inscription
carved into its surface. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
examination was performed by American Petrographic Services at the
McClung Museum on the campus of the University of Tennessee and their
conclusions are revolutionary. This is the first artifact ever
recovered and scientifically verified to have ancient Hebrew writing
anywhere in the Americas, and it came from a Hopewell mound that dates
it to Book of Mormon time frames!

  • 0
Half the things I know are right, and half are wrong. But half the time, I don't know which half is which.

#2 mfbukowski

mfbukowski

    Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,392 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 10:21 AM

When I read your post, it contained all the information I needed

In an email invitation I received to Meldrum's lecture ...


All I needed to know is that 8th word of your post- "Meldrum".

I knew instantly that whatever came after it would be...... let's be nice and just say "suspect".

It is not surprising that "something is not adding up"!
  • 0
"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah

My Blog: Theomorphic Man http://theomorphicman.blogspot.com/

#3 cinepro

cinepro

    It's pronounced "cinepro"

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,936 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 01:10 PM

In an email invitation I received to Meldrum's lecture there is a note of Hebrew being found in an old archaeological dig. It seems like something isn't adding up right here. Does anyone know about this find?


Ancient Hebrew Verified in America’s Heartland! Only a few months ago
a stone, that was recovered in an official Smithsonian Institution
archaeological dig in 1889 in a Hopewell burial mound in Tennessee,
was scientifically verified to have an ancient Hebrew inscription
carved into its surface. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
examination was performed by American Petrographic Services at the
McClung Museum on the campus of the University of Tennessee and their
conclusions are revolutionary. This is the first artifact ever
recovered and scientifically verified to have ancient Hebrew writing
anywhere in the Americas, and it came from a Hopewell mound that dates
it to Book of Mormon time frames!


Perhaps these?
  • 0
The LDS Stake Medium Council Blog

In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.

The Flood and the Tower of Babel, by Donald W. Parry, assistant professor of Hebrew at BYU, Ensign, Jan 1998, 35

#4 Brant Gardner

Brant Gardner

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,155 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 02:04 PM

From reports I have heard, it does appear that he is referring to the Newark stones.
  • 0

#5 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,826 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:26 PM

“Among the motives for perpetrating a historical or archaeological fraud, there are instances in which individuals of a particular religious persuasion feel justified in doing so if they think that a fraud is likely to bring people to their faith, to cause people to accept a tenet of their religion, or perhaps to save their souls. The Newark Holy Stones are an example of such a fraud.” ~Brad Lepper


Dr. Lepper is known as one of the best authorities (we are talking in the world here), on the Hopewell. Dr. Kenneth Feder also up there as one of the the top experts on the Hopewell agrees 100% with Dr. Lepper. In fact I do not know of a single credible expert on the Hopewell who disagrees with them.

The Newark stones are fake. Meldrum knows this none the less he continues to use them as a support for his heartland model.
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#6 kolipoki09

kolipoki09

    Gadianton Rhetor

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,516 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:27 PM

In an email invitation I received to Meldrum's lecture there is a note of Hebrew being found in an old archaeological dig. It seems like something isn't adding up right here. Does anyone know about this find?

Ancient Hebrew Verified in America’s Heartland! Only a few months ago

a stone, that was recovered in an official Smithsonian Institution
archaeological dig in 1889 in a Hopewell burial mound in Tennessee,
was scientifically verified to have an ancient Hebrew inscription
carved into its surface. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
examination was performed by American Petrographic Services at the
McClung Museum on the campus of the University of Tennessee and their
conclusions are revolutionary. This is the first artifact ever
recovered and scientifically verified to have ancient Hebrew writing
anywhere in the Americas, and it came from a Hopewell mound that dates
it to Book of Mormon time frames!


Mormon Curtain says it's the Bat Creek Stone. Of course, everything Meldrum claims to prove is revolutionary. "Scientifically verified" is a deliberate ploy Meldrum uses to reel in his naive audience. But APS has close ties to Meldrum and May both. Both organizations have a particular interest in promoting pseudo-archaeology. Scott Wolter deliberately avoids peer reviews and dismisses calls for review (as Meldrum himself does) as being personal attacks. Of course, an SEM isn't going to prove whether the writing is Hebrew, nor will it give a precise date as to when the stone was carved.
  • 0
Academia.edu
"Morman [scholars] is just a bunch of white men trying to figure out how to better hide all there wives. and make it legal for you ppl to be able to vote legally without being jailed." - Ernie Tschikof

#7 facie ad faciem

facie ad faciem

    kissing the lipless

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:30 PM

Hmm... Actually, it sounds like he's talking about the Bat Creek stone, recovered from Tennessee in 1889. Up to very recently, it seems there's still been debate between archaeologists (granted, primarily amateur v. professional) over it's authenticity.
  • 0
In my life, why do I give valuable time to people who don't care if I live or die?... In my life, why do I smile at people I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-- Morrissey, "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now"

If God can have a frank talk with the devil, I can do the same with a mere non-believer.
-- Hamoud Al-Hitar, Yemeni judge

#8 facie ad faciem

facie ad faciem

    kissing the lipless

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:41 PM

Here's the American Petrographic Services report on the Bat Creek stone, which was requested by the Eastern Band of the Cherokee. I'm still not sure what to make of APS. I've seen them pop up here and there on History Channel and Discovery Channel "documentaries" with their analysis on possible hoaxed artifacts, like the Kensington Runestone, etc. They still could be legit, though, but analogous to zoologists playing paleontologists--they've got the tools and maybe even the expertise to understand things, but a lot gets lost in application.

Edited by facie ad faciem, 10 November 2011 - 03:44 PM.

  • 0
In my life, why do I give valuable time to people who don't care if I live or die?... In my life, why do I smile at people I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-- Morrissey, "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now"

If God can have a frank talk with the devil, I can do the same with a mere non-believer.
-- Hamoud Al-Hitar, Yemeni judge

#9 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,826 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:43 PM

Nope Bat Creek Stone is fake too.
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#10 Ron Beron

Ron Beron

    "The Red Flyer"

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,556 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:57 PM

Nope Bat Creek Stone is fake too.

Why would you say it was fake while debate on it still continues? Cyrus Gordon, noted Semitic scholar felt they were authentic.
  • 0

"Truth is enlightenment, and enlightenment is of God. Shedding light on what passes as truth is not only permitted; it is necessary, the highest calling."

Erasmus


#11 volgadon

volgadon

    Crazy Israeli & Filthy Socialist

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,527 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:03 PM

From reports I have heard, it does appear that he is referring to the Newark stones.


So, apparently there have always been Jews in Newark...
  • 4
Calba Savua's Orchard


I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo

i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon

#12 facie ad faciem

facie ad faciem

    kissing the lipless

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:12 PM

Yeah, Scott Wolter seems a bit off his rocker on some things, especially with his "Kensington Runestone made by the Knights Templar" story that he wrote a book about. (Though, like I said, his company, APS, still could be legit; this kind of "archaeopetrography" seems to be a side thing for them.)

One of the big problems is that professional archaeologists don't want to get involved in these potential or probable hoaxes. I did read the 2004 American Antiquity article "The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed" by professional (but non-academic) archaeologists, Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas. (American Antiquity is the premier journal for American archaeology.) But I came off disappointed. They were trying to connect the inscription to a Masonic text, but I found their argument not as compelling as it should've been.

I lean more towards hoax on this one, but the arguments on both sides have holes.

Edited by facie ad faciem, 10 November 2011 - 08:27 PM.

  • 0
In my life, why do I give valuable time to people who don't care if I live or die?... In my life, why do I smile at people I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-- Morrissey, "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now"

If God can have a frank talk with the devil, I can do the same with a mere non-believer.
-- Hamoud Al-Hitar, Yemeni judge

#13 facie ad faciem

facie ad faciem

    kissing the lipless

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:17 PM

So, apparently there have always been Jews in Newark...


כמובן

or

געוויינטלעך

(OK, I admit I used Google translate on those. I haven't done Hebrew in 10 yrs.)

Edited by facie ad faciem, 10 November 2011 - 04:18 PM.

  • 0
In my life, why do I give valuable time to people who don't care if I live or die?... In my life, why do I smile at people I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-- Morrissey, "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now"

If God can have a frank talk with the devil, I can do the same with a mere non-believer.
-- Hamoud Al-Hitar, Yemeni judge

#14 volgadon

volgadon

    Crazy Israeli & Filthy Socialist

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,527 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:28 PM

Kamuvan is correct, but I don't speak Yiddish.
  • 0
Calba Savua's Orchard


I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo

i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon

#15 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,826 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 11:25 PM

Why would you say it was fake while debate on it still continues? Cyrus Gordon, noted Semitic scholar felt they were authentic.

Because like the Newark stones, experts have dismissed it. Mainfort and Kwas, The Bat Creek Stone Revisited, Journal American Antiquity (2004).

Of course you can read Hu McCullochs' 1993 argument who supported Gordon but according other experts (such as Dr. Feder and Dr. Lepper) who have reviewed both arguments and have wrote that Mainfort and Kwas have "demolished this [McCulloch] argument entirely"

But hey believe what you want to believe. Although I would think if the Bat Creek Stone were to be authentic I would also expect to find more relics or artifacts to be found that would support such a find.
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#16 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,826 posts

Posted 10 November 2011 - 11:28 PM

Why would you say it was fake while debate on it still continues? Cyrus Gordon, noted Semitic scholar felt they were authentic.

Debate still continues on for many things, because debates is still persisted on many things, does not make one thing authentic, (or fraudulent).
  • 0

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#17 Zakuska

Zakuska

    Creates Worlds Without Number

  • Limited
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,567 posts

Posted 11 November 2011 - 10:44 AM

So SEM can prove the Vikings possibly related to Christopher Columbus were in the Great Lakes area in the 1300s but all the other stuff is just fake?! <_<
  • 0
"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” -- Martin Luther
"Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther

#18 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,826 posts

Posted 11 November 2011 - 01:51 PM

So SEM can prove the Vikings possibly related to Christopher Columbus were in the Great Lakes area in the 1300s but all the other stuff is just fake?! <_<

I don't understand your statement, are you being sarcastic? Are you questioning my opinions and statements?

There is evidence of Vikings journeying to America and I don't know of any who dispute that fact. I do not know what you mean by a Columbus/Viking connection and then placed in the Great Lakes area. There is no evidence whatsoever of any evidence of Columbus in the Great Lakes area. In fact Columbus in his four trips not once touched US or Canadian soil.

In my post I was stating my opinion and my opinion is the exact same opinion subscribed by the best Hopewell scholars out there. That; the Bat Creek and Newark stones are fake. The purpose of those fakes is to establish a pre-Columbian Hebrew Connection. There has been no new evidence to support this, however to the contrary their is strong evidence that those like John Emmert and others had a strong motivation for wanting such links to exist.
  • 2

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 


#19 Ron Beron

Ron Beron

    "The Red Flyer"

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,556 posts

Posted 11 November 2011 - 09:23 PM

Because like the Newark stones, experts have dismissed it. Mainfort and Kwas, The Bat Creek Stone Revisited, Journal American Antiquity (2004).

Of course you can read Hu McCullochs' 1993 argument who supported Gordon but according other experts (such as Dr. Feder and Dr. Lepper) who have reviewed both arguments and have wrote that Mainfort and Kwas have "demolished this [McCulloch] argument entirely"

But hey believe what you want to believe. Although I would think if the Bat Creek Stone were to be authentic I would also expect to find more relics or artifacts to be found that would support such a find.

I accepted the finding of Gordon for the main reason that It was found in situ with other items that were dated to a pre-Columbian period including brass and wood. In his conclusion in BAR magazine, Huston McCulloch states that the stone is, "
My own conviction is that the Bat Creek inscription is a rustic, and therefore imperfect, specimen of paleo-Hebrew. As such, however, it does not by itself indicate anything more than a minimal contact with the New World by a few Hebrew sailors, who may have had no impact on New World culture, who may not have left either descendants or communicable diseases behind, who may have had no idea where they were going when they left and who may never have returned to the Old World to tell where they had been."
While I am far from convinced these represent a transatlantic crossing by Jewish settlers it does point to the possibility of crossing by some in pre-Columbian period.

Edited by Ron Beron, 11 November 2011 - 09:24 PM.

  • 0

"Truth is enlightenment, and enlightenment is of God. Shedding light on what passes as truth is not only permitted; it is necessary, the highest calling."

Erasmus


#20 Anijen

Anijen

    My head really hurts

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,826 posts

Posted 12 November 2011 - 09:51 AM

I accepted the finding of Gordon for the main reason that It was found in situ with other items that were dated to a pre-Columbian period including brass

This gives more support that it is fake than genuine. Brass being a metal unknown to American Indians at that time. With a very broad radiocarbon date range derived from charcoal recovered from the mound, which indicated an age of somewhere between 1200 and 1900 years ago. Also I have reported this in the past but I will again state it here the copper/zinc proportions is the exact portions found in brass artifacts made in Europe at the time. Add the fact that John Emmert had a drinking problem was fired by Cyrus Gordon. Emmert knew of Gordons desire to show a link with Hebrew connection to the old world the theory (even back then) was they were inserted in the mound in hopes that Emmert could win Gordon over and get his job back. Plus there are no photographs of the artifacts in situ, which was common to do back then, no field notes or records, no detailed mapping and no eye witness corroboration of the discovery by any other field worker or Smithsonian employee. And last but not least Mainfort and Kwas (2004) have shown in the General History Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry there is a figure depicting a written message taken from a coin dating to the first Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE), the writing on the coin as shown in that 1870 book is a dead ringer for the inscription on the Bat Creek Stone.

Edited by Anijen, 12 November 2011 - 09:52 AM.

  • 2

Never mistake my kindness for weakness, my good nature for gullibility, or my smile for ignorance. 

 



0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users