James said:
Oookaaay....That is how sure I am that NEVER will anything that sets a Hebrew civilization in precolumbian American be found..
http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com/decalog.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVHbvBiwmsk
James said:
Oookaaay....That is how sure I am that NEVER will anything that sets a Hebrew civilization in precolumbian American be found..
http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com/decalog.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVHbvBiwmsk
Here is major difference between us Richard I am touched by your concern but you are offended by mine.. You said that "It's wonderful to see the evidence of Lehi's Journey described in detail, and shows that it matches the BofM complete in every way." Where is that evidence? I have never heard of any extra BofM evidence of the kind.. I would love to see it.. Understand I don't go out of my way to belittle BofM evidence I say that there IS NO BofM evidence to do anything with.. NONE.. Not even the alters found in Omen are evidence.. A Hebrew would never offer sacrifice to God without priesthood to do so and NEVER on the alters dedicated to the worship of pagan gods, NEVER.. That part of the story is evidence against the BofM not for it..[Richard;48806]It would be a great joy to me and probably others of your friends to see you get re-baptized. It is a matter of time James, and more and more will be revealed of that which took place in areas that the BOM claimed to be. It's wonderful to see the evidence of Lehi's Journey described in detail, and shows that it matches the BOM complete in every way. That must be a piece of evidence that bothers you, since you go out of you way to try and prove this evidence does not add up.
Evidence in South America, cities built upon cities. It will take a great deal of effort and time to find all the archaeological evidence, but I do not doubt for a minute that it is there.
James, your were given a choice, accept LDS Doctrine as it's taught, or preach a different Gospel and leave. Since you disagreed with so much of Mormonism, why would you not want to have your membership removed. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, but you could not ever come to grips with a different Jesus then the Triune God. You have made your choice, and now you seem to want to defend it by trying to show other TBM's that we got it wrong. Well that is like kicking against the P R I C K S James. We defend our testimonies by understanding and believing in the revelations we receive when we ask in humility and with sincere desire to know the truth.
No Jesus is not a God of confusion, so hence your excomunication for preaching a different Gospel of an apostate. My testimony was real, I knew and God knew that I had received revelation at the age of 12. I received that same message 15 years later after coming out of inactivity and read the BOM for the fist time. Same experience as the first time, but now I understood who the Holy Ghost is, a witness that Jesus is the Christ, and the BOM was true. No God does not pick and choose, the promise is to all worthy souls, who desire to know with all their heart mind and spirit if it's true. I say worthy, I mean those who admit to their sins, and repent of them. I do not lie, the voice I heard was as clear as any voice that ever spoke to me, and it happened twice.
The Apostasy does not mean that there were not any believers of Christ on the Earth. If this were the case, there wouldn't be any Christian churches today. The apostasy is specifically about the loss of Priesthood authority, a church led by direct revelation from Jesus Christ, and key principles of the gospel being changed or lost.
2 Thessalonians 2:3
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"
1 Timothy 4: 1-2
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron."
2 Timothy 3:5
"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
Isaiah 24:5
"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."
Much of the precolumbian history of Central and South American civilizations has been uncovered and there is no reference to a Nephi, or a Lehi, or Jerusalem in any of the hieroglyphics left behind.. NOTHING.. It was the God Quetzalcoatl that the Indians were awaiting the return of.. If you read his history he was a King not a visitor. He was born around AD 947. His father, Mixcoatl, was ruler of the Toltecs. The timing again is all off for this great king to be Jesus.. One more nail on the coffin of the mormon myth that Jesus came to the Americas.. I know that sound cruel but Richard it is truth I don't invent this stuff..
The Gospel of Jesus I teach here the Gospel I put my hope in is the Gospel of the Bible.. The gospel that mormonism teaches is a lie invented in the mind of Joseph Smith a man, not a god.. A man who set the teachings of the Bible and even the BofM aside so He could be justified in his new teachings that there are "three Gods and who can contradict it".. The Bible contradicts it! The BofM Contradicts it! Smith fell away from any form of Christianity and started teaching a form of polytheism.. Not three persons in one God but three Gods united as a committee in one Godhead.. That is a huge change from the Trinitarian statement of 2 Nephi 21:31.. It is the mormon refusal to believe in that God that has them kicking against the pricks.. All it will do is end up destroying you in the end..
I know you feel that your testimony is real.. That the scripture has to take second place to your personal revelation.. But Richard Satan can appear as and angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) He can also give false revelation.. As the BofM says we MUST hold to the iron rod.. The word of God says that our hearts are deciteful above all else, That we aren't children of God until we are reborn as such.. That by our natures we are enemies of God the children of the devil.. Our feelings will lead us after the ways of our father.. We must put all that aside and trust God that He is in charge and given us His word which tells us how He wants us to live and what He wants us to be.. All other paths lead away from Jesus as the author and finisher of our faith. And that faith He finishes within us is the means by which His grace come to mankind..
All who believe are added to the true Church of Jesus by Him. It is given to no man to have authority to bring anyone to God (Acts 2:47).. Priesthood is an office of sacrifice to God.. Standing between with blood as witness that sin has been paid for.. The last and only true High Priest is the Lord Jesus.. He offers His own Blood before God as a sign that the price for sin has been paid.. Only in that sacrifice is there hope for salvation.. NOT IN ANYTHING, NO WORK, OR ORDINANCE WE CAN DO FOR OURSELVES. Only by and in Jesus do we have hope..
We can go through each of these verses.. It will be a long process to show you their real meaning but we can do it.. Let me look at just one now and if you would like we can do the others.
2 Thessalonians 2:3
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"
Look at what it says Richard.. The end won't come until there is a falling away AND the man of sin is revealed the the son of perdition.. There were some within the Church that were teaching that Jesus had already come and most of the church had been left behind. Paul was correcting them putting their minds at rest that they had not be forgotten of God.. Until the Man of sin is revealed and many of the people who had professed Jesus fall away this prophecy waits for fulfillment.. He isn't here and the Church is still strong and openly operating in the world.. As I said we can go though all the others one by one but the answer will always be the same.. The Church and Her authority as a child of Jesus has never been taken from the earth.. IHS jim
Read Jeff's post, and watch the video, every time something knew is discovered, its called a hoax or a fraud. Hmmm, interesting, wonder why people just want to bury their heads in the sand. You say that if something was found to show evidence of the Book of Mormon people, you might reconsider, well I hope that is true, but what I see is like the below snippet.Originally Posted by James Banta
"They have cradled you in custom. They have primed you with their teaching. They have soaked you with convention through and through. They have put you in a showcase. You're a credit to their teaching. But don't you hear the truth? It's calling you." Author Unknown.
Jeff has a lot of posts here I don't know which one you want me to see.. You last quote "Unknown Author" also has UNKNOWN AUTHORITY.. Richard I am not going to fall into your arms because of a hoax or a unknown quote.. Give me the authority and lets see where it leads.. Now I told you what I would do if you had some real evidence.. Are you still willing to stay in mormonism evidence or not and put your eternal life, and your families eternal life at risk when the evidence is so clear that Joseph Smith was a liar, even swearing to his followers that he had one wife when he had already been married to several women? How can you trust him when he made such a Bill Clinton statement about the state of his marital status? IHS jim
Last edited by James Banta; 02-13-2010 at 12:40 PM.
From Jeff to you James, especially you.
http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com/decalog.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVHbvBiwmsk
Richard.
So you say James, but witnessing to me is irrelevant to why this forum operates. It is here to discuss our differences, I did not come here to preach Mormonism to you and would kindly respect the same back in kind. When we Mormons bear our testimonies we get smacked around for doing so, so if it is not something acceptable to this forum then I would consider that you might want to just stay with the fact and evidences you can provide to prove the Book of Mormon is false, or the same about JS, so far you have failed miserably to convince me or any other TBM that posts here. Jeff gave a site for you to check out, and so far you have ignored his post and evidence, I wonder why that might be?
Richard.
Here is the problem then.. David Wyrick had an agenda.. He was a believer that the lost ten tribes were the mounds builders.. The writing on the stone has been identified as modern style of Hebrew writing and not that which is consistent with the writing of the era of Babylonian captivity. The Hebrews of the Lehi migration era would have written in pre-Exilic "Old Hebrew" alphabet, rather than the post-Exilic or "Square Hebrew" alphabet adopted in the time of Ezra by the Jews. As early as 1860 this was know to be a hoax but I understand why you would want it to be genuine.. Sorry but this is NOT proof of anything but a man's desire to have his pet theories be given some credence.. After Wyrick's death items such as a Hebrew Bible, engraving tools, and some black rock were found among his effects.. This is not proof that he was a liar but it sure doesn't give support to his claims.. IHS jim
I am not spending as much time on here as I had been a few weeks ago.. I have only continued with you because you seemed changed in your hated for my position and were willing to have reasonable conversation.. I have looked at the data you provided and it's right up there with the Batcreek stone. Like this 19th century production it to was found to be a product of modern manufacture.. Done by those archaeologists Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas called "cult archaeologists."
Mainfort and Kwas pointed out that fraudulent stone inscriptions purporting to show evidence of such contact—such as the Kensington Stone and the Davenport Tablets—were not uncommon, especially in the late 19th century. They took particular issue with Cyrus Gordon, whom they went so far as to call a "rogue professor" desperate for evidence to support his theories of pre-Columbian transatlantic contact (Robert Mainfort and Mary Kwas, "The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?", Tennessee Anthropologist 16, no. 1 Spring 1991).
You can keep looking to frauds to support your claims maybe it's time to have your church go and do some real scientific work out of BYU's department of antiquities or understand that the work that has been done and is going forward is NOT finding any ties between the Middle east and precolumbian America.. The BofM falls in to the same status as the Ohio Decalog and the Batcreek stone "finds" are, it is just as another 19th century hoax.. I for one am not ready to place my eternal destiny on the veracity of frauds.. IHS jim
James, the experts who believe the Bat Creek Stone is a fake, accuse the Smithsonian's excavation team leader, John Emmert, of being the faker! If they are right, then doesn't that make discoveries by Smithsonian-sponsored archaeologists unreliable? Besides, John Emmert's claim was not that the language was ancient Hebrew--that theory didn't arise until the 20th century. The Smithsonian's claim was that the inscription was CHEROKEE Indian. And seeing as how the head of their American Antiquities department, J.W. Powell, hated the LDS church (his dad, an Evan pastor, had lost a lot of his congregation when it converted to LDS), any artifact that suggested that ancient Semites could have migrated to the New World would have "gotten lost" or labeled as anything EXCEPT evidence of Diffusionism.
Here is a problem making the Batcreek stone a BofM artifact.. Cyrus Gordon translates the inscription to read "for Judea." None of the Lehi party were Jews.. They were Josephites and Ismaelites and had nothing to do with Judea.. Would you think that if they were going inscribe a stone about their heritage they would have done so about their tribe and not someone else's heritage? Also notice that much the Carbon-14 dating period of time lays outside the BofM era.. Remember that the wood found with the stone had to have been grown at a time much earlier that it was harvested and used for the purpose it was used for. It's carbon foot print would have only been identified from the time the tree was felled not when it was places in the mound. This means that the trees was grown between your dates.. That points to most of the time range of the Carbon-14 dates outside the BofM era.. These are just two of the problems. Let's look deeper..
The two primary players in this story of intrigue and mystery are Luther Meade Blackman and John W. Emmert. Blackman was an absolutely brilliant, highly educated man, Civil War officer and prominent Republican who was much molded by his hatred of Rebels and Democrats. Blackman was born in Connecticut and educated in Michigan. He came to Knoxville 1855 as a letterer and engraver for a monument company. In l857 he moved to Bat Creek to operate a monument business. In l890, he was still in the monument business as well as being a Federal Claims Commissioner and leader of Monroe County Republicans.
Emmert was a relatively uneducated, obscure former Confederate Army private from Bristol, Tennessee and life-long Democrat who was employed in l884 by the Smithsonian to dig in Indian mounds in what was a successful attempt to prove that the Mound builders were not descendants of the lost Tribe of Israel. That theory was the prevailing belief in the Nineteenth Century. Old myths die hard. There are many, including Mormons, who still cling to it. Some of these believers use the Bat Creek Stone to support their belief.
Those who have believed the Bat Creek Stone to be a forgery of fraud, include Dr. Charles Faulkner, anthropologist at the University of Tennessee and Jefferson Chapman, Director of the U.T. McClung Museum. They believe that Emmert perpetrated the fraud. My researches indicate that Emmert himself, was a victim of the fraud, set up to send in a fraudulent engraved stone so he would get fired, for the second time.
Supporting players in my story John Wesley Powell, a key founder of the Smithsonian, and Cyrus Thomas, who directed the archaeological work. By l890, Thomas proved that the Mound-builders were Native Americans and not the Lost Tribe of Israel. Like John W. Emmert, Cyrus Thomas was born and raised in Bristol. Other supporting players include John P. Rogan, “scoundrel” and cousin of Cyrus Thomas who lost his job with Thomas in l886 and became a Bristol bookseller. Others include L.C. Houk, from Sevier County, who controlled the Tennessee state Republican political machine in the l880s, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, who in the spirit of the l883 Pendleton Act, tried to clean up the corruption in the U.S. Postal Service and Pension Claims offices. Blackman worked as a Pension Claims Agent from l870 to l890. However, President Cleveland allowed most Republican’s who held Federal patronage jobs in East Tennessee to be replaced by Democrats by l886. In l889, Republicans in East Tennessee were out to get all Democrats fired from Federal jobs.
As I was engaged in my Bat Creek Stone research, always in the back of my mind was the hope that as I kept pursuing this “mystery,” that I would find some concrete evidence that Blackman was not involved, so that I could get my mind and time back on my Cherokee researches. Not one single piece of concrete evidence has excluded Blackman as the perpetrator of the Bat Creek Stone; and virtually every avenue I have pursued has added evidence that Blackman engraved the stone. He had the knowledge, skill, opportunity and extremely strong motive. by a letter written by his own hand, has proven himself to have been on the spot when the deed was done. He was intimately familiar with the U.S. Department of the Interior, of which the Smithsonian was a part. The circumstantial evidence pointing to Blackman is overwhelming.
The efforts of J. Justin McCulloch as published in a l988 article in the Tennessee Anthropologist, “The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew?” includes a large number of pieces of this puzzle. But McCulloch has not put all of them together in the right place. McCulloch is correct that the inscription is composed of ancient ”Hebrew” letters. But Chapman and Faulkner are correct in that the inscription is a skillful forgery done in the l9th Century! McCulloch wrote, “If one insists on making the Bat Creek inscription a forgery, one could easily find far more plausible culprits than Emmert.” Although it has not been easy, I have done that! What I have added to the puzzle is the man, the motive, the opportunity and the broad and complicated outline or border of the puzzle. it was the intricate and complicated was of a variety of nineteenth century developments that make up this border. When one stands back and looks at all the center of the puzzle of the Bat Creek Stone. And at the center is Major Luther Meade Blackman. ( Lowell Kirk , The Bat Creek Stone)
This is an interesting read.. Mr Kirk is NOT associated with the Smithsonian Ins***ute. These were his findings after doing his own extensive research on the validity of the stone.. You can read the entire report at http://www.telliquah.com/Batcreek.htm, you might actually learn something.. I am not saying you can't believe in these kind of forgeries, all I am saying is they are NOT scientific proof of Hebrews in precolumbian America.. IHS jim
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html
is McCulloch's 2005 article. YOU may learn something, Jim.
I have read that.. There are those that call the BatCreek stone a work of Cherokee authorship. All are in agreement that it mentions Judea or Jews.. Don't you admit there there were no Jews in the Americas? The Jaredites weren't Jews. Those of the Lehi Party weren't Jews were they? I mean I would except Lehi's family living in Jerusalem would have been Jews but they weren't.. The idea that Ishmael was acquainted with Lehi makes me think that he was not a Jew and may have been from the tribes of father Ishmael, Abraham's son.. Have you any evidence that there were any Jews in the Americas EVER? I don't know that the BofM says anyone was a Jew.. Because all these finds were just pulled out of a mound without taking the aid of archeology it is hard to say how it got there.. The men that were involved in the "find" have to be examined.. Almost without fail these "finds" were made by men that had strong beliefs in America being the home of the "lost ten tribes of Israel". Men with skill in engraving with some knowledge of ancient Hebrew.. Seems a bit fishy..
Have you read this whole article? There is also evidence that this may be an ancient Welsh.. There is no evidence that it is any of these languages.. I happen to believe it is Hebrew salted there to prove pet theories and gain notoriety.. Just like your Moses stone that is assured to be a fraud.. You are grasping at nonsense that the scientific community has branded false.. Mormons are about the only ones left cling to this flat earth society idea that Hebrew people were ever in Precolumbian America.. IHS jim
---That was the Smithsonian's OFFICIAL explanation of the inscription.
---I don't think ALL agree to that.All are in agreement that it mentions Judea or Jews..
---No. Why would I be so illogical as to declare that when I don't know whether or not it's true? Diffusion Theory makes a good case for the possibility of Semitic people being able to sail to the New World.Don't you admit there there were no Jews in the Americas?
---Yeah, no one is saying they were.The Jaredites weren't Jews.
--You, as a long-time LDS, should know that the BOM claims the Lehi Party were Israelites from the tribe of Joseph, and that they followed at least some of the Law of Moses. Whether that makes them Jews is a semantical debate, since one definition of "Jew" is "of the tribe of JUDAH." But there are other definitions.Those of the Lehi Party weren't Jews were they?
---EVER? Sure. There is decent evidence that there have been Jews in the Americas since the 18th century at least. As for when the FIRST Jews arrived here, I don't know and I don't know if any human really knows.I mean I would except Lehi's family living in Jerusalem would have been Jews but they weren't.. The idea that Ishmael was acquainted with Lehi makes me think that he was not a Jew and may have been from the tribes of father Ishmael, Abraham's son.. Have you any evidence that there were any Jews in the Americas EVER?
--It says some of the authors of the Bible were Jews. I think it says Jesus was a Jew.I don't know that the BofM says anyone was a Jew..
---I thought that Emmert was in charge of a Smithsonian-sponsored archaeological expedition.Because all these finds were just pulled out of a mound without taking the aid of archeology
--Like the guy who claims to have found Pharaoh's chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea?it is hard to say how it got there.. The men that were involved in the "find" have to be examined..
---Emmert was allegedly trying to support the idea of early CHEROKEE presence in the area.Almost without fail these "finds" were made by men that had strong beliefs in America being the home of the "lost ten tribes of Israel".
--Yes, I read it all. It is open-minded enough to mention other possible explanations for the stone's inscription.Have you read this whole article? There is also evidence that this may be an ancient Welsh..
---Your belief is full of holes, starting with the fact that NOBODY suspected it was Hebrew until decades after it was discovered and declared to be CHEROKEE.I happen to believe it is Hebrew salted there to prove pet theories and gain notoriety..
---I guess you are unaware of the GROWING support for Diffusion Theory.Mormons are about the only ones left cling to this flat earth society idea that Hebrew people were ever in Precolumbian America..
The "Bering Land Bridge ONLY" explanation for all the Precolumbian Native Americans is dying rather fast.
All that say it's Hebrew say it references the Jews..[nrajeff;48933]---I don't think ALL agree to that.
Not all Semitic people are Jews.. there are 11 other tribes and all the sons of Ismael as well.. Only one tribe would claim to being Jews.. The son of Joseph would not inscribe the words Judah, or Jew on any stone.. Do you have any evidence that Jews came to precolumbian America?---No. Why would I be so illogical as to declare that when I don't know whether or not it's true? Diffusion Theory makes a good case for the possibility of Semitic people being able to sail to the New World.
At a time in history when all 12 tribe were in existence those of Joseph would never says that they are Jews.. You are correct Lehi and his family were said to be of Joseph not Judah. Because of inheritance issues the tribes never gave up their iden***y until 10 were lost in the Assyrian captivity.. They went into captivity but only a few the Jews called Samaritans came out..--You, as a long-time LDS, should know that the BOM claims the Lehi Party were Israelites from the tribe of Joseph, and that they followed at least some of the Law of Moses. Whether that makes them Jews is a semantical debate, since one definition of "Jew" is "of the tribe of JUDAH." But there are other definitions.
EVER as to mean in the past, before Columbus.. Before that event there there was never EVER a Jew in the Americas..---EVER? Sure. There is decent evidence that there have been Jews in the Americas since the 18th century at least. As for when the FIRST Jews arrived here, I don't know and I don't know if any human really knows.
And outside the foction of the BofM there is nothing to say that Jesus was ever here.. Not in the flesh anyway..--It says some of the authors of the Bible were Jews. I think it says Jesus was a Jew.
He was a big believer in the "Lost Ten tribes in America" theory..---Emmert was allegedly trying to support the idea of early CHEROKEE presence in the area.
I don't think you have done enough reading on the subject.. Most reputable scholars believe it to be a Hoax not Cherokee..---Your belief is full of holes, starting with the fact that NOBODY suspected it was Hebrew until decades after it was discovered and declared to be CHEROKEE.
If you want to talk about the "Bering Land Bridge" explanation for the presence of the Indians in the Americas we can do it.. It is a whole different subject.. I have allowed discussion of the frauds perpetrated to try to gain acceptance for pet theories in order to show that they are indeed frauds.. And that there is NO EVIDENCE for Semantic people to have been in the Americas ever (Precolumbian). I have no problem with discussing migration but lets do that on some other thread.. Oh BTW I have only come to this thread in the past little while.. I am trying not to get sucked into being too active on here for a while.. IHS jim---I guess you are unaware of the GROWING support for Diffusion Theory. The "Bering Land Bridge ONLY" explanation for all the Precolumbian Native Americans is dying rather fast.
Sorry, can't admit what isn't true. When the first Mosiah lead his people northward and found the city of Zarahemla, the Mulekites lived there. The Mulekites were of the house of Judea, or at least they claimed to be because they claimed to descend from Mulek a son of Zedekiah.
And so we cannot say that there were not Jews in the Americas.
Marvin
PS You claim to have been LDS in a previous life, but the fact that you didn't know this weakens your claim. Or stregthens the argument that you are deceiving us.
“Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance.”
– G. K. Chesterton, The Speaker, 12/15/00
I was looking for that reference to see actually what it says I was using the name Amulet.. Maybe I can find it now.. Well it does say that Mulek was the king son I think that is clear.. It does bring up a lot of other questions but they shall pass on this thread.. Thank you for bringing it to my memory.. If you will look at my previous post I was questioning about there not being Jews not saying there wasn't any.. I thought it would be strange that Jews would be spoken of by non-Jews..
Now explain why where would be one stone with the word Judah on it is there was a complete Jewish city in America.. And why is it that only those involved in the "lost ten tribes in America" myth are the men involved in finding these stones? Why aren't there examples everywhere? Why can't we identify a city, heck why can't we identify an area on the continuant that we can call BofM lands.. Why can't the narrow neck of land be confirmed? I can show you the shoreline of Galley or the old City of Jerusalem..
After Alma does state that the Nephites used walls of stone to encircle them about, round about their cities and the borders of their lands; yea, all round about the land. (Alma 48:8). Wouldn't there be such around their most important strongholds like Zarahemla? And yet there is no such fortification even around the cities of the Inca or the Aztec.. Not that their tine line fits the BofM at all..
It is far more probable that the Bat Creek Stone like all the other purported Jewish artifacts found in the America are frauds.. After all they were not found in a scientific manner and 99% of all scientist that have examined it say it is just that a fraud.. IHS jim
You proudly proclaim that you were at one time LDS implying that this makes you some kind of expert. And when you question such an obvious point, I begin to wonder why a self-proclaimed expert wouldn't know this simple fact. Makes me wonder.
Can you find any city in the North or South American continent right now that is entirely Jewish? You might find a portion of a city that is Jewish but an entire city? I don't think so. And I think this is a confusion that is prevalent in the CLDS (thank you nrajeff) mind set. There doesn't have to be entire cities exclusively Jewish for there to be a Jewish presence in the Book of Mormon. Don't most Jews in the US also identify themselves as Americans? Couldn't this be the same case in the Book of Mormon since they were such a small portion of any population that was here before they arrived? I think so. So for you to demand that there be entire cities exclusively Jewish is not the case in the Book of Mormon?
Have you ever read any novel by Herman Wouk? He is a great novelist. Many of his novels dealt with being Jewish in New York City. "City Boy" is a great example. It was turned into a movie but the gender was changed and Elizabeth Taylor was the main character. If you examine it for Jewishness in New York City, you would find that the Jews were pretty isoalated and separate from the Gentiles in New York. Also "The Chosen" by Chaim Potok. These books exclude Gentiles so much that you might think that the Jews lived in cities entirely separate from the Gentiles. Almost the same as what that the Book of Mormon reads.
By the time that Alma writes, the word Nephites was more of a political term and not a geneological term.
Jacob 1: 13-14
13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.
14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.I think you need to reread the links that nrajeff supplied. While at the beginning it was thought to be a fraud, now that we can carbon-date the surrounding elements (and they date to the proper time to contradict the fraud claim) we can determine more accurately just when it was buried. Also there was the exact same artifact recovered in Turkey. And there was no claim of fraud on that one. If the American artifact was a fraud then the one in Turkey would have to be also since they are both so much alike. And since the American one was discovered a century before the Turkey one, and the Turkey one was discovered using the modern scientific methods, you would have to conclude that both are real.
As to your claim that the American artifact was not found using 'scientific manner' I guess that mean you reject all of the manuscripts that make up the NT since non of them were recovered using 'scientific manner'. Most of them are named for the place where they were found and it was almost never in a cave hidden in a jar like the Dead Sea Scrolls.
To say that they didn't use modern scientific methods therefore the find is invalid is like saying that Newton's Theory of Gravity is invalid because Newton didn't include a discussion of Relativity in his theory.
Marvin
“Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance.”
– G. K. Chesterton, The Speaker, 12/15/00
I am NOT going to argue with you about my past.. I don't care what you think.. In fact if you don't see any mormon in me... THANK YOU!!!
I do NOT contend that the mounds weren't built my ancient inhabitants of the Americas.. All I contend is that the Bat Creek stone, which is your only piece of archeology that would have any support to the BofM at all is not supported by any archaeologist out side the church.. It is considered to be a fraud.. The mounds would have a lot of material in them that could be time dated even earlier than the sticks that were found with this stone.. I have already dealt with the facts that the dates of the material don't match BofM dates..
Now lets deal with the idea that all Nephites were Hebrew.. The dates given by you for this "find" are near the end or the beginning of the first century.. Have you ever read the BofM? Do you know that the whole of the Land (at least those that survived the cataclysms of that struck at the time Jesus was crucified were ALL converted and according to the story that conversion lasted several hundred years? A time when the story says there were NO unbelievers in the whole land.. You seem to wants things both ways the way that makes some sense and the way the BofM reports them..
Ok you tell me of the same kind of stone being found in Turkey. Where, when, by who, where is it on display? Tell me did you know that there are marks on the Bat Creek stone that were admittedly added? This is how easy it would have been to forged.. A copy of characters written in Paleo-Hebrew letters was available to all those involved in the stone a copy of this can be seen at http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html the inscription was copied from an illustration in an 1870 Masonic reference book, and is therefore clearly a nineteenth century forgery that must have been introduced by the Smithsonian field assistant who found it. So show me your Turkish stone lets see the same inscription..
One question.. Don't you find it strange that someone would know just right where to dig to come up with such a find? I mean have you ever seen these mounds? They were huge... It just add to the mystic of the whole thing.. I know you want it to be he real thing very badly.. It just has fraud in every aspect of the discovery.. The additional marks made in the stone make it clear that laying all that time in a mound that was constantly under assault first from enemies and then by farmers doesn't help your case either.. After all it wasn't that hard to get their hands on so it wasn't too deeply buried.. I can't wait to see your Turkish stone please present it soon.. IHS jim
You seem to be forgetting a lot. Which leads me to believe that you are not the expert you claim to be. I for one question your status as an expert on LDS beliefs and doctrine as well as scripture.
You are aware, are you not, that the Bat Creek stone was found in Tennesee:
Cherokee or Hebrew?
And the object I was referring to was found in Ohio?The Bat Creek Stone was professionally excavated in 1889 from an undisturbed burial mound in Eastern Tennessee by the Smithsonian's Mound Survey project. The director of the project, Cyrus Thomas, initially declared that the curious inscription on the stone were "beyond question letters of the Cherokee alphabet." (Thomas 1894: 391:4)
The Ohio Decalog
Let's not get the two confused.The Ohio Decalog, is an ancient Hebrew artifact of pre-Columbian America, found in Newark, Ohio in November of 1860 by the local surveyor and his son, while searching the rubble of a giant stone tumulus, also known as the "Great Stone Stack," This amazing artifact has had a long and infamous history, particularly among professional anthropologists and archaeologists. It was roundly rejected at the time, as authentic, by American experts who had never been trained in old world cultures. This is still true of virtually all material with old world connections found in America even to this day. That great pile of rocks stood 45 feet high and 500 feet in circumference. In 1860 it had recently been leveled for dam building material - more than 10,000 wagon loads of stone had been carried away from the site. Under what had obviously been a huge , ancient grave marker were found some grave goods, a palette for a long-ago-decayed body, and a small stone artifact nestled within its own stone coffin. The artifact had the Ten Commandments carved in so called "modern Hebrew," a style in use for more that two thousand years. ( it can only be referred to as "relatively modern" ).
I think the Ohio Decalog is a much better find because an almost identical artifact was found in Turkey as you will find when you read the link.
If you insist that only professional scientist can find valid artifacts, you will have to erase most of science because before the 20th century, most of the scientist were not professionals but amatuers pursuing their science. And they were the ones making the discoveries and publishing the papers.
First, I don't understand what part of my argument you are addressing. Second, my point was that the term Nephite did not refer to just the descendants of Lehi, but according to the authors of the BofM, Nephite refers to those who were NOT seeking the destruction of the Nephites.
If you are going to quibble over the use of the word 'all' as in 'all were converted', you will have to deal with the Bible where it says that the whole world was darkened at the time of Christ's cruxifiction. If it was an exacf statement of a real event, then where are the other writings outside of Judea who noted that a strange thing occured in that the sky was darkened for some unknown reason. There are no writings or else we would be able to pin point with exactness the date of the Cruxifiction.
Remember, the people writing this record were not modern English users, they were not trained in modern science, and they had a view of the earth and their lives that is hard for us to understand. They were not part of a Helenized culture.
As I stated above, I am not talking about the Bat Creek stone but the Ohio Decalog. See the links above. I guess you didn't bother to read the links when NRAJeff provided them. I did and I found that there are two decalogs found in two widely different places and time making the accusation of forgery almost impossible to believe.
You attempt to discredit them just because you can't imagine them finding it is ridiculous. Fact, they found them. Fact, an almost identical artifact was also found in Turkey. Read the link. We are not talking about the Bat Creek stone here. This is the Ohio Decalog for which an identical artifact was found in Turkey.
Marvin
“Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance.”
– G. K. Chesterton, The Speaker, 12/15/00
well...to tell the truth...by bringing up the topic in this manner , it kinda shows you may need to take a break....
I did for about 3 months.. IHS jim
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Psalm 119:105
all better now then?
It did help.. IHS jim
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Psalm 119:105
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote