P.S. Here's a link to the Wikipedia article that got my attention.
http://en.wikipedia....ark_Holy_Stones
Edited by inquiringmind, 16 August 2012 - 01:40 AM.
0
Newark Holy Stones?
Started by
inquiringmind
, Aug 16 2012 01:36 AM
31 replies to this topic
#1
inquiringmind
-
- Members
-
- 1,964 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:36 AM
Has anyone heard of the Newark Holy Stones, and could they possibly be genuine Lehite artifacts?
P.S. Here's a link to the Wikipedia article that got my attention.
http://en.wikipedia....ark_Holy_Stones
P.S. Here's a link to the Wikipedia article that got my attention.
http://en.wikipedia....ark_Holy_Stones
#2
altersteve
-
- Members
-
- 2,551 posts
Legen... wait for it...
Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:36 AM
I believe the Lehites lived in Mesoamerica, so in my opinion, no.
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
—Mahatma Ghandi
#3
livy111us
-
- Members
-
- 1,506 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:03 AM
I believe it is a fraud for several reasons. Archaeologists have written numerous times on evidence of it being a forgery. If you look at what experts say, it is considered a forgery. But there are always those who have an agenda and want it to be true so badly that evidence doesn't matter all that much. But even if it were authentic, it is written in block hebrew. If it was written by a descendant of Lehi, it would have been written in paleo-hebrew.
Archaeologists have written:
"Abraham Geiger, a highly respected German rabbi and scholar of Hebrew, concluded in the July 27, 1860, New York Times that the Decalogue Stone inscription was “the bungling work of an unskilled stone mason and the strangeness of some letters as well as the many mistakes and transpositions was his fault. The letters are not antique. This is not a relic of hoary antiquity” (qtd. in Alrutz 1980, 41).
Geiger’s assessment has been confirmed and elaborated by our colleague Jeff Gill, who noted specific errors in the inscription that could have occurred only if someone were working from a conventional nineteenth-century typeface Hebrew text and then converting each letter into the corresponding antique-looking character of the Decalogue alphabet. Doing so would result in a recurring pattern of error, which confirms the modern source for the inscription (Lepper and Gill 2000, 20). Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University professor of Near Eastern languages and one of the foremost contemporary authorities on ancient Hebrew, fully corroborated Gill’s conclusions, writing that it was clear that “the modern forms of the Hebrew character[s] . . . stand ultimately behind” the Decalogue Stone inscription (Cross 1991). Cross offered his opinion that the Decalogue Stone was a “grotesque” forgery that could not be taken seriously.
May’s peremptory dismissal of the idea that Wyrick might have been able somehow to bury the fraudulent Decalogue Stone in front of the “nine” witnesses is completely unwarranted, since the mound in question had been dug into on at least two previous occasions. Moreover, Wyrick’s plan to continue his investigation of the mound was known by at least five other individuals, any one of whom would have had ample opportunity to plant the artifact within the excavation before the day arranged for the second expedition. Nicol’s subsequent involvement in a similar proven hoax casts considerable suspicion in his direction.
May’s claims about the significance of block Hebrew, also called monumental Hebrew, are specious and uninformed. “Block Hebrew” is simply what palaeographers and epigraphers call Classical Hebrew orthography from the Second Temple–era down to the present, and there is no coherent correspondence between any ancient epigraphic Hebrew and the Decalogue alphabet.
Finally, by ignoring the historical context in which the Newark “Holy Stones” appeared, May and other diffusionists lose the opportunity to understand the true nature of the forgeries. The Newark “Holy Stones” represented an attempt to encompass the prehistory of the New World within the biblical history of the Old World, thereby undermining the dangerous doctrine of polygenesis, which sought to provide a scientific justification for both the enslavement of African people and the forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands. Ironically, these ideas would have provided some support and nuance for a central theme of the Lost Civilizations of North America documentary." http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_two_false_messages/
Archaeologists have written:
"Abraham Geiger, a highly respected German rabbi and scholar of Hebrew, concluded in the July 27, 1860, New York Times that the Decalogue Stone inscription was “the bungling work of an unskilled stone mason and the strangeness of some letters as well as the many mistakes and transpositions was his fault. The letters are not antique. This is not a relic of hoary antiquity” (qtd. in Alrutz 1980, 41).
Geiger’s assessment has been confirmed and elaborated by our colleague Jeff Gill, who noted specific errors in the inscription that could have occurred only if someone were working from a conventional nineteenth-century typeface Hebrew text and then converting each letter into the corresponding antique-looking character of the Decalogue alphabet. Doing so would result in a recurring pattern of error, which confirms the modern source for the inscription (Lepper and Gill 2000, 20). Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University professor of Near Eastern languages and one of the foremost contemporary authorities on ancient Hebrew, fully corroborated Gill’s conclusions, writing that it was clear that “the modern forms of the Hebrew character[s] . . . stand ultimately behind” the Decalogue Stone inscription (Cross 1991). Cross offered his opinion that the Decalogue Stone was a “grotesque” forgery that could not be taken seriously.
May’s peremptory dismissal of the idea that Wyrick might have been able somehow to bury the fraudulent Decalogue Stone in front of the “nine” witnesses is completely unwarranted, since the mound in question had been dug into on at least two previous occasions. Moreover, Wyrick’s plan to continue his investigation of the mound was known by at least five other individuals, any one of whom would have had ample opportunity to plant the artifact within the excavation before the day arranged for the second expedition. Nicol’s subsequent involvement in a similar proven hoax casts considerable suspicion in his direction.
May’s claims about the significance of block Hebrew, also called monumental Hebrew, are specious and uninformed. “Block Hebrew” is simply what palaeographers and epigraphers call Classical Hebrew orthography from the Second Temple–era down to the present, and there is no coherent correspondence between any ancient epigraphic Hebrew and the Decalogue alphabet.
Finally, by ignoring the historical context in which the Newark “Holy Stones” appeared, May and other diffusionists lose the opportunity to understand the true nature of the forgeries. The Newark “Holy Stones” represented an attempt to encompass the prehistory of the New World within the biblical history of the Old World, thereby undermining the dangerous doctrine of polygenesis, which sought to provide a scientific justification for both the enslavement of African people and the forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands. Ironically, these ideas would have provided some support and nuance for a central theme of the Lost Civilizations of North America documentary." http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_two_false_messages/
"Oh, I don't remember Christ doing any such thing [pointing out the errors in Meldrums theory], I guess its the influence of His brother. What? are you now planning my execution?... You are a fool...You are dangerous to the Church...I hope you get a life so you won't continue to ruin the lives of others" Rodney Meldrum
#4
altersteve
-
- Members
-
- 2,551 posts
Legen... wait for it...
Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:24 AM
livy111us, on 16 August 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:
I believe it is a fraud for several reasons. Archaeologists have written numerous times on evidence of it being a forgery. If you look at what experts say, it is considered a forgery. But there are always those who have an agenda and want it to be true so badly that evidence doesn't matter all that much. But even if it were authentic, it is written in block hebrew. If it was written by a descendant of Lehi, it would have been written in paleo-hebrew.
Archaeologists have written:
"Abraham Geiger, a highly respected German rabbi and scholar of Hebrew, concluded in the July 27, 1860, New York Times that the Decalogue Stone inscription was “the bungling work of an unskilled stone mason and the strangeness of some letters as well as the many mistakes and transpositions was his fault. The letters are not antique. This is not a relic of hoary antiquity” (qtd. in Alrutz 1980, 41).
Geiger’s assessment has been confirmed and elaborated by our colleague Jeff Gill, who noted specific errors in the inscription that could have occurred only if someone were working from a conventional nineteenth-century typeface Hebrew text and then converting each letter into the corresponding antique-looking character of the Decalogue alphabet. Doing so would result in a recurring pattern of error, which confirms the modern source for the inscription (Lepper and Gill 2000, 20). Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University professor of Near Eastern languages and one of the foremost contemporary authorities on ancient Hebrew, fully corroborated Gill’s conclusions, writing that it was clear that “the modern forms of the Hebrew character[s] . . . stand ultimately behind” the Decalogue Stone inscription (Cross 1991). Cross offered his opinion that the Decalogue Stone was a “grotesque” forgery that could not be taken seriously.
May’s peremptory dismissal of the idea that Wyrick might have been able somehow to bury the fraudulent Decalogue Stone in front of the “nine” witnesses is completely unwarranted, since the mound in question had been dug into on at least two previous occasions. Moreover, Wyrick’s plan to continue his investigation of the mound was known by at least five other individuals, any one of whom would have had ample opportunity to plant the artifact within the excavation before the day arranged for the second expedition. Nicol’s subsequent involvement in a similar proven hoax casts considerable suspicion in his direction.
May’s claims about the significance of block Hebrew, also called monumental Hebrew, are specious and uninformed. “Block Hebrew” is simply what palaeographers and epigraphers call Classical Hebrew orthography from the Second Temple–era down to the present, and there is no coherent correspondence between any ancient epigraphic Hebrew and the Decalogue alphabet.
Finally, by ignoring the historical context in which the Newark “Holy Stones” appeared, May and other diffusionists lose the opportunity to understand the true nature of the forgeries. The Newark “Holy Stones” represented an attempt to encompass the prehistory of the New World within the biblical history of the Old World, thereby undermining the dangerous doctrine of polygenesis, which sought to provide a scientific justification for both the enslavement of African people and the forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands. Ironically, these ideas would have provided some support and nuance for a central theme of the Lost Civilizations of North America documentary." http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_two_false_messages/
Archaeologists have written:
"Abraham Geiger, a highly respected German rabbi and scholar of Hebrew, concluded in the July 27, 1860, New York Times that the Decalogue Stone inscription was “the bungling work of an unskilled stone mason and the strangeness of some letters as well as the many mistakes and transpositions was his fault. The letters are not antique. This is not a relic of hoary antiquity” (qtd. in Alrutz 1980, 41).
Geiger’s assessment has been confirmed and elaborated by our colleague Jeff Gill, who noted specific errors in the inscription that could have occurred only if someone were working from a conventional nineteenth-century typeface Hebrew text and then converting each letter into the corresponding antique-looking character of the Decalogue alphabet. Doing so would result in a recurring pattern of error, which confirms the modern source for the inscription (Lepper and Gill 2000, 20). Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University professor of Near Eastern languages and one of the foremost contemporary authorities on ancient Hebrew, fully corroborated Gill’s conclusions, writing that it was clear that “the modern forms of the Hebrew character[s] . . . stand ultimately behind” the Decalogue Stone inscription (Cross 1991). Cross offered his opinion that the Decalogue Stone was a “grotesque” forgery that could not be taken seriously.
May’s peremptory dismissal of the idea that Wyrick might have been able somehow to bury the fraudulent Decalogue Stone in front of the “nine” witnesses is completely unwarranted, since the mound in question had been dug into on at least two previous occasions. Moreover, Wyrick’s plan to continue his investigation of the mound was known by at least five other individuals, any one of whom would have had ample opportunity to plant the artifact within the excavation before the day arranged for the second expedition. Nicol’s subsequent involvement in a similar proven hoax casts considerable suspicion in his direction.
May’s claims about the significance of block Hebrew, also called monumental Hebrew, are specious and uninformed. “Block Hebrew” is simply what palaeographers and epigraphers call Classical Hebrew orthography from the Second Temple–era down to the present, and there is no coherent correspondence between any ancient epigraphic Hebrew and the Decalogue alphabet.
Finally, by ignoring the historical context in which the Newark “Holy Stones” appeared, May and other diffusionists lose the opportunity to understand the true nature of the forgeries. The Newark “Holy Stones” represented an attempt to encompass the prehistory of the New World within the biblical history of the Old World, thereby undermining the dangerous doctrine of polygenesis, which sought to provide a scientific justification for both the enslavement of African people and the forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands. Ironically, these ideas would have provided some support and nuance for a central theme of the Lost Civilizations of North America documentary." http://www.csicop.org/si/show/civilizations_lost_and_found_fabricating_history_-_part_two_false_messages/
There's that too.
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
—Mahatma Ghandi
#5
inquiringmind
-
- Members
-
- 1,964 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:04 PM
livy111us, on 16 August 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:
Nicol’s subsequent involvement in a similar proven hoax casts considerable suspicion in his direction.
Who is Nicol, and what proven hoax was he involved in?
Edited by inquiringmind, 16 August 2012 - 12:05 PM.
#6
inquiringmind
-
- Members
-
- 1,964 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:45 PM
Is this the "Nicol" you mean?
http://www.unmuseum.org/decalog.htm
If he was responsible for the Newark Holy Stones, why would he want to siscredit them?
Who were the mound builders?
Is there any reason they couldn't be the Nephites?
And if the Lehites were here for something like 800 years, is there any reason they couldn't they have landed in central America, and fought their last battles in upstate New York?
I mean, couldn't their civilization have spread to include North America?
Quote
Perhaps the best candidate for a hoaxer, if there was one, was John H. Nicol. In 1864 two additional Hebrew-inscribed stones were found during the excavation of a mound east of Newark. They became known as the Inscribed Head and the Cooper Stone. Shortly after they were found, Nicol, a local dentist, admitted that he had carved them and introduced them into the excavation with the intention of showing how easily the Decalogue and Keystone could have been faked. The Inscribed Head reads in Hebrew letters as:
J-H-NCL
Short vowels in Hebrew are not represented by letters so this is how one would write:
J-H-NiCoL
The Nicol hoax helped discredit the Decalogue and Keystone at the time and some even suspect that Nicol was responsible for carving the original stones. The character of the carving in the Decalogue seems totally different than that of the Nicol stones, though, and Nicol never attempted to take credit for making them.
If he was responsible for the Newark Holy Stones, why would he want to siscredit them?
Who were the mound builders?
Is there any reason they couldn't be the Nephites?
And if the Lehites were here for something like 800 years, is there any reason they couldn't they have landed in central America, and fought their last battles in upstate New York?
I mean, couldn't their civilization have spread to include North America?
Edited by inquiringmind, 16 August 2012 - 06:33 PM.
#7
livy111us
-
- Members
-
- 1,506 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 16 August 2012 - 03:33 PM
inquiringmind, on 16 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:
Is this the "Nicol" you mean?
Yup
inquiringmind, on 16 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:
If he was responsible for the Newark Holy Stones, why would he want to siscredit them?
I don't think I would point the finger at Nicol as the forger, but his forgeries were awfully similar to other "artifacts" that were being found in that area during that time. Forgeries were not uncommon and Nicol showed how easy it was to fool others.
inquiringmind, on 16 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:
Who were the mound builders?
The Hopewell are generally known as the moundbuilders even though there were other groups who built mounds
inquiringmind, on 16 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:
Is there any reason they couldn't be the Nephites?
Yes, there are many. Here are a few articles on that topic
http://www.bmaf.org/node/394
http://www.bmaf.org/node/243
inquiringmind, on 16 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:
And if the Lehites were here for something like 800 years, is there any reason they couldn't they have landed in central America, and fought their last battles in upstate New York?
It is definitely a possibility. I think it is quite possible that there were Nephites in the Great Lakes area, but I believe that they were part of the northward migrations mentioned in The Book of Mormon.
http://www.bmaf.org/node/458
inquiringmind, on 16 August 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:
I mean, couldn't their civilization have spread to include North America?
Read this article. I think there is enough evidence to say it is plausible that there were Nephites in that area (if you subscribe to a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon). http://www.bmaf.org/node/458
I share the opinion of Fletcher Hammond and Norman Pierce.
“it is possible and quite probable, that sometime during the Book of Mormon history, some adventurous Nephites and Lamanites settled in what is now the western plains of the United States, the Mississippi Valley, and as far north as the Great Lakes region. But, no account of what they did was important enough forMormon to include it in the abridgment of the Large Plates of Nephi.”
Regarding Zelph, Pierce asks “Why were the prominent chieftain Zelph and the great Prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains, not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon? Surely a prophet of such prominence would have received some notice had he been known to the historians of the Book of Mormon. The answer is very obvious:—Because the Book of Mormon historians who were down in Central America, knew nothing at all of either the Prophet Onandagus or [of] the Chieftain Zelph. It was more than 400 years before Mormon’s time that Hagoth sailed north, and we only have a report of the first ship returning. . . . Naturally, both Mormon and Moroni were too far removed from Onandagus and Zelph to report them.”
"Oh, I don't remember Christ doing any such thing [pointing out the errors in Meldrums theory], I guess its the influence of His brother. What? are you now planning my execution?... You are a fool...You are dangerous to the Church...I hope you get a life so you won't continue to ruin the lives of others" Rodney Meldrum
#8
wenglund
-
- Contributor
-
- 13,512 posts
Creates Man & Woman
Posted 16 August 2012 - 04:18 PM
inquiringmind, on 16 August 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:
Has anyone heard of the Newark Holy Stones...
Is it related to the Chicago Holy Stone--i.e. the several tone granite stone marking the spot where Barak first kissed Michele?
http://www.daylife.c...&q=Barack Obama
My Blog; You may be a useful idiot if...
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
#9
ERayR
-
- Contributor
-
- 10,015 posts
Stranger in a Strange Land
Posted 16 August 2012 - 04:45 PM
livy111us, on 16 August 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:
Yup
I don't think I would point the finger at Nicol as the forger, but his forgeries were awfully similar to other "artifacts" that were being found in that area during that time. Forgeries were not uncommon and Nicol showed how easy it was to fool others.
The Hopewell are generally known as the moundbuilders even though there were other groups who built mounds
Yes, there are many. Here are a few articles on that topic
http://www.bmaf.org/node/394
http://www.bmaf.org/node/243
It is definitely a possibility. I think it is quite possible that there were Nephites in the Great Lakes area, but I believe that they were part of the northward migrations mentioned in The Book of Mormon.
http://www.bmaf.org/node/458
Read this article. I think there is enough evidence to say it is plausible that there were Nephites in that area (if you subscribe to a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon). http://www.bmaf.org/node/458
I share the opinion of Fletcher Hammond and Norman Pierce.
“it is possible and quite probable, that sometime during the Book of Mormon history, some adventurous Nephites and Lamanites settled in what is now the western plains of the United States, the Mississippi Valley, and as far north as the Great Lakes region. But, no account of what they did was important enough forMormon to include it in the abridgment of the Large Plates of Nephi.”
Regarding Zelph, Pierce asks “Why were the prominent chieftain Zelph and the great Prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains, not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon? Surely a prophet of such prominence would have received some notice had he been known to the historians of the Book of Mormon. The answer is very obvious:—Because the Book of Mormon historians who were down in Central America, knew nothing at all of either the Prophet Onandagus or [of] the Chieftain Zelph. It was more than 400 years before Mormon’s time that Hagoth sailed north, and we only have a report of the first ship returning. . . . Naturally, both Mormon and Moroni were too far removed from Onandagus and Zelph to report them.”
I don't think I would point the finger at Nicol as the forger, but his forgeries were awfully similar to other "artifacts" that were being found in that area during that time. Forgeries were not uncommon and Nicol showed how easy it was to fool others.
The Hopewell are generally known as the moundbuilders even though there were other groups who built mounds
Yes, there are many. Here are a few articles on that topic
http://www.bmaf.org/node/394
http://www.bmaf.org/node/243
It is definitely a possibility. I think it is quite possible that there were Nephites in the Great Lakes area, but I believe that they were part of the northward migrations mentioned in The Book of Mormon.
http://www.bmaf.org/node/458
Read this article. I think there is enough evidence to say it is plausible that there were Nephites in that area (if you subscribe to a Mesoamerican setting for The Book of Mormon). http://www.bmaf.org/node/458
I share the opinion of Fletcher Hammond and Norman Pierce.
“it is possible and quite probable, that sometime during the Book of Mormon history, some adventurous Nephites and Lamanites settled in what is now the western plains of the United States, the Mississippi Valley, and as far north as the Great Lakes region. But, no account of what they did was important enough forMormon to include it in the abridgment of the Large Plates of Nephi.”
Regarding Zelph, Pierce asks “Why were the prominent chieftain Zelph and the great Prophet Onandagus, who was known from the eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains, not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon? Surely a prophet of such prominence would have received some notice had he been known to the historians of the Book of Mormon. The answer is very obvious:—Because the Book of Mormon historians who were down in Central America, knew nothing at all of either the Prophet Onandagus or [of] the Chieftain Zelph. It was more than 400 years before Mormon’s time that Hagoth sailed north, and we only have a report of the first ship returning. . . . Naturally, both Mormon and Moroni were too far removed from Onandagus and Zelph to report them.”
Also a John D Nelson did some interesting work on a possible connection between Hagoth and Northern Europe. I don't know if he can still be contacted or not. He sent me a copy of an unpublished manuscript that I study every once in a while. I really think the man was on to something.
It is called Nephites in Europe.
Edited by ERayR, 16 August 2012 - 04:47 PM.
#10
Pahoran
-
- Contributor
-
- 9,775 posts
Creates Beasts Of The Earth
Posted 16 August 2012 - 05:48 PM
wenglund, on 16 August 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:
Is it related to the Chicago Holy Stone--i.e. the several tone granite stone marking the spot where Barak first kissed Michele?
http://www.daylife.c...&q=Barack Obama
http://www.daylife.c...&q=Barack Obama
Right?
Regards,
Pahoran
(1) Honest. (2) Well-informed. (3) Denying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a Christian institution without interruption from the beginning of its history.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.
#11
wenglund
-
- Contributor
-
- 13,512 posts
Creates Man & Woman
Posted 16 August 2012 - 06:08 PM
Pahoran, on 16 August 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:
I thought you were joking. Then when I went to the link, I thought "this has to be a spoof, right?"
Right?
Regards, Pahoran
Right?
Regards, Pahoran
Yes...it is a spoof, though unintended. Only in America. LOL
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
My Blog; You may be a useful idiot if...
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
#12
Pahoran
-
- Contributor
-
- 9,775 posts
Creates Beasts Of The Earth
Posted 16 August 2012 - 06:15 PM
wenglund, on 16 August 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:
Yes...it is a spoof, though unintended. Only in America. LOL
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I find that -- really incredible.
Regards,
Pahoran
(1) Honest. (2) Well-informed. (3) Denying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a Christian institution without interruption from the beginning of its history.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.
#13
hagoth7
-
- Members
-
- 2,476 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 17 August 2012 - 08:32 PM
ERayR, on 16 August 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:
Also a John D Nelson did some interesting work on a possible connection between Hagoth and Northern Europe. I don't know if he can still be contacted or not...
"For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men..." (Nephi)
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Before we can beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruninghooks, we must learn how to turn a gavel into a blossoming rod and a soapbox into a mercy-seat. (mercyngrace)
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Before we can beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruninghooks, we must learn how to turn a gavel into a blossoming rod and a soapbox into a mercy-seat. (mercyngrace)
#14
Alan
-
- Members
-
- 1,530 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 19 August 2012 - 04:19 PM
I don't know whether these discoveries are genuine or not, but I suspect they probably are.
I do not subscribe to the mesoamerican theory regarding the Lehite colony so this discovery is consistent with that.
I do not subscribe to the mesoamerican theory regarding the Lehite colony so this discovery is consistent with that.
#15
livy111us
-
- Members
-
- 1,506 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:50 PM
Alan, on 19 August 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:
I don't know whether these discoveries are genuine or not, but I suspect they probably are.
I do not subscribe to the mesoamerican theory regarding the Lehite colony so this discovery is consistent with that.
I do not subscribe to the mesoamerican theory regarding the Lehite colony so this discovery is consistent with that.
"Oh, I don't remember Christ doing any such thing [pointing out the errors in Meldrums theory], I guess its the influence of His brother. What? are you now planning my execution?... You are a fool...You are dangerous to the Church...I hope you get a life so you won't continue to ruin the lives of others" Rodney Meldrum
#16
cinepro
-
- Contributor
-
- 12,599 posts
It's pronounced "cinepro"
Posted 20 August 2012 - 12:42 PM
livy111us, on 19 August 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:
You are free to to believe in any geography theory you like, as well as any artifact as well. But are you saying you only believe in the Newark Holy Stones because they fit into the land where you believe The Book of Mormon took place? If so, that is extremely flawed reasoning. You should take every artifact, no matter where it is found, and weigh the evidence. After that, if you choose to believe it, you are at least informed. But you are at least being a bit more unbiased in your research.
It is entirely consistent (and logical) to use Hebrew-etched artifacts as evidence for the Book of Mormon geography.
It's possible if the stones were found in Poland that he might not see them as support for a Book of Mormon geography, but that's not what he said.
And since it is entirely possible for ancient peoples to leave Hebrew-inscribed artifacts that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon people, the location of the artifact should probably be at least considered before relating it to the Book of Mormon.
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
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
#17
livy111us
-
- Members
-
- 1,506 posts
Separates Water & Dry Land
Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:26 PM
cinepro, on 20 August 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:
It is entirely consistent (and logical) to use Hebrew-etched artifacts as evidence for the Book of Mormon geography.
It's possible if the stones were found in Poland that he might not see them as support for a Book of Mormon geography, but that's not what he said.
And since it is entirely possible for ancient peoples to leave Hebrew-inscribed artifacts that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon people, the location of the artifact should probably be at least considered before relating it to the Book of Mormon.
It's possible if the stones were found in Poland that he might not see them as support for a Book of Mormon geography, but that's not what he said.
And since it is entirely possible for ancient peoples to leave Hebrew-inscribed artifacts that have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon people, the location of the artifact should probably be at least considered before relating it to the Book of Mormon.
I agree that it is consistent to accept Hebrew artifacts to support BOM geography, but that was not what I stated. My argument was that you should not accept an artifact wholeheartedly *only* because it was found within your own proposed geography. That does not make it authentic. If; you look at the evidence for and against the artifact and choose to believe in it's authenticity, then more power to you. But to accept any artifact blindly without looking at the evidence only because you like where it was found, is not being honest.
"Oh, I don't remember Christ doing any such thing [pointing out the errors in Meldrums theory], I guess its the influence of His brother. What? are you now planning my execution?... You are a fool...You are dangerous to the Church...I hope you get a life so you won't continue to ruin the lives of others" Rodney Meldrum
#18
ANACO
-
- Banned
-
- 267 posts
Member: Moves Upon the Waters
Posted 20 August 2012 - 03:11 PM
livy111us, on 20 August 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:
I agree that it is consistent to accept Hebrew artifacts to support BOM geography, but that was not what I stated. My argument was that you should not accept an artifact wholeheartedly *only* because it was found within your own proposed geography. That does not make it authentic. If; you look at the evidence for and against the artifact and choose to believe in it's authenticity, then more power to you. But to accept any artifact blindly without looking at the evidence only because you like where it was found, is not being honest.
I don't believe any Hebrew artifacts, even forgeries, have ever been discovered in Mesoamerica. Apparently the forgers thought so low of Mesoamerica as being a believable location for the Book of Mormon, that they considered it a waste of time to place their forgeries there. LOL!
In other words, Livy, if evil-scheming men decided to undermine the words of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, such as stealing the 116 pages, wouldn't they place their falsified Hebrew artifacts in locations where they knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith said the history of the Book of Mormon occurred?
Edited by ANACO, 20 August 2012 - 03:21 PM.
#19
ERayR
-
- Contributor
-
- 10,015 posts
Stranger in a Strange Land
Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:20 PM
ANACO, on 20 August 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:
I don't believe any Hebrew artifacts, even forgeries, have ever been discovered in Mesoamerica. Apparently the forgers thought so low of Mesoamerica as being a believable location for the Book of Mormon, that they considered it a waste of time to place their forgeries there. LOL!
In other words, Livy, if evil-scheming men decided to undermine the words of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, such as stealing the 116 pages, wouldn't they place their falsified Hebrew artifacts in locations where they knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith said the history of the Book of Mormon occurred?
In other words, Livy, if evil-scheming men decided to undermine the words of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, such as stealing the 116 pages, wouldn't they place their falsified Hebrew artifacts in locations where they knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith said the history of the Book of Mormon occurred?
If I begin to use your reasoning then I should expect Joseph Smith to have Identified various cities. like Zarahemla, the river Sidon and other Book of Mormon places that were close around him. So tell me now where is the city of Lehi?
Edited by ERayR, 20 August 2012 - 05:21 PM.
#20
Pahoran
-
- Contributor
-
- 9,775 posts
Creates Beasts Of The Earth
Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:28 PM
ANACO, on 20 August 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:
I don't believe any Hebrew artifacts, even forgeries, have ever been discovered in Mesoamerica. Apparently the forgers thought so low of Mesoamerica as being a believable location for the Book of Mormon, that they considered it a waste of time to place their forgeries there. LOL!
ANACO, on 20 August 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:
In other words, Livy, if evil-scheming men decided to undermine the words of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, such as stealing the 116 pages, wouldn't they place their falsified Hebrew artifacts in locations where they knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith said the history of the Book of Mormon occurred?
I've seen some pretty lame arguments for traditional assumptions about Book of Mormon geography, but that one should score all the prizes.
No doubt Joseph had opinions about where the history occurred. In fact, at one time, he was convinced that the land of Zarahemla (in the Book of Mormon Land Southward) was north of the "isthmus of Darien," which is Panama, and up into Mexico. IOW, he was looking at (1) a limited geography, (2) in Mesoamerica.
Just so you know.
Regards,
Pahoran
Edited by Pahoran, 20 August 2012 - 05:28 PM.
(1) Honest. (2) Well-informed. (3) Denying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a Christian institution without interruption from the beginning of its history.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
