GZ How do you know for sure? In 1792 Robert Heron published a two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s first work titled Niebuhr’s Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East, which on a map contained the place name "Nehhm" at a location approximately twenty-five miles northeast of the Yemen capital Sana'a.
And this was available to a backwoods boy in the 1820s? You might want to spend some time looking at On NAHOM / NHM, a research paper by the Nephi project where they research the books Joseph had available to him. Just because a book was published and available in England does not mean it was available to farm boys in the then frontier in Palmyra New York. Farm boys in America the 1820's did not get to learn much about the interior of Arabia, even if they had wanted to, and had the time to study.
DU Lurkers, if I may be so bold as to suggest an action, go watch the Video, then decide for yourselves.
GZ Lurkers, The current pronunciation of the location and tribal area is said to be Nihm (usually vocalised as NIHM or NEHEM or NAHM), and is documented by Warren and Michaela Aston who wrote the mormon article that started this farce. As usual, DU is shooting arrows and drawing the circles around them. The authors of the report agree with what I said. Actually, it's Naholm, go Listen your self, it's right at 2:03 into the Video where a native says the name. And this is hardly a case of painting targets around arrows When the Book of Mormon came out people ridiculed it saying there was no such place as Naholm in Arabia. This is simply part of the process of proving that critics know less than Joseph did (through Revelation), the place exists, it's the right distance from Jerusalem, Due east is a place that is probably the only place in Arabia that matches the description of bountiful in the book of Mormon.
DU Then find me one, just one other location on the map that fits, find me another "Bountiful" that fits.
GZ Since Smith had access to a map, it is probable he used it. As far a bountiful really able to do what the bom says, well we’ll look at that later on in this post.
Just where did you establish that Joseph Smith had a map? (you didn't) not only that, but you cut out what I was responding to, thus destroying the Context for the question.
In Post #397
You said "From a book so generic that just about any place could match the description."
I responded with the "find me one, just one" challenge.
Come on, then, Show us another location, or now it's Joseph had a map (unproven and unprovable and it would be highly unlikely that anyone in frontier America had such a map) if you'll pardon me saying, you are all over the map (LOL).
When it becomes obvious that you can't back up your assertions, you edit posts without notation and change what you were saying.
Lurkers, note this tactic by a man who claims he is after truth, he can't even keep from editing "history" on the thread.
GZ Dissmissial a priori, by all equal application of archaeological practice, there should be tons of evidence. Where is it? DU sez check the UFO websites.
I dunno, did you edit something out?
Scientists who edit their findings are well... they get made fun of a lot by real scientists.
GZ Go back to geography 101 DUh. There are no tropical rain forests at that latitude (First hint – deserts). Have you ever been in a rain forest DU? I have and what is pictured does not even come close to that definition. Palm/date trees do not make a rainforest. The vegitation of an oasis does not make a rainforest.
Sorry, there is a Rain Forrest, and they talk about Tropical vegetation... read them and weep, or in this case Watchem and weep "Nephi's Bountiful in Arabia: The Book of Mormon" Talks about what I am saying. then again, since you are willing to edit what you have said, you will never admit to being wrong, reality is I guess for you truly what you make of it. (LOL!)
DU As for Iron, you have to dig for that, and It would not take much to make a few tools, that much can be found almost anywhere there are mountains and bluffs Besides, where does it say Iron?
GZ Where, where are the iron ore bodies at DU?
Well, there's one out behind my house, it's a big orange streak on the mountain... How much Iron do you need to make tools to cut down trees and shape the wood?
GZ You just can’t dig anywhere and get iron.
Um, I'm not a Geologist, but doesn't that depend on how much Iron you are looking for? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can get iron from dirt if you want to work hard enough.
GZ You fail geology 101 too DU, I have a mining geology background DU, so you’ll have to do better than that.
Really, why? I'm not here to convert you, we were talking about DNA evidence, how does Iron ore deposits relate to DNA and how a corrupted sample means a corrupted result, oh yeah, that would be if we were having a logical conversation, sorry, I almost forgot who I was talking to here.
GZ LOL! Deserts preserve things like mines and residue from smelting – where has that been found? Furthermore, you gotta have some tools in order to make the tools to begin with.
Ohhh Kaaaay, Bountiful is not a Desert, remember? You may be a the worlds foremost geologist, but you seem to have missed a few facts on the way to disproving Naholm and Bountiful, let me give you the links again just so you and the Lurkers can review:
Nahom in The Book of Mormon
Nephi's Bountiful in Arabia: The Book of Mormon
Now, Bountiful is small enough that Nephi could have left and gone to the desert for the ore, and he could have melted it over a charcoal fire. He didn't need a smelter unless he was trying to make Steel. Knowing that in Jerusalem, the Copper and Bronze of today were also referred to as steel, it could have been any metal (I know this offends your sense of exactness, but that's history for you, people were not as exact back then in their knowledge of metals).
You're the Geologist, is it possible to find metals (copper, nickel, iron, etc) in a setting like Bountiful and the surrounding mountains (Nephi said God showed him where to go in the mountains to find the ore, to Molten into tools.) ! Nephi 17: 7-11, Nephi used a bellows that he made from the skins of animals to blow on the Fire to make it hotter and he made tools to make a ship.
GZ Where did Nephi get those tools? You just don’t toss the ore into a fire and out pop tools LOL. You’re drowning again DU.
So you re telling me that you couldn't make something? He had all the gear they had been using to travel, he wasn't starting with his bare hands.
I have dona bit of metal work, not a lot, but it was fun, I melted ore in a ceramic dish and scraped off the dross, I have made molds out of clay and poured metal into them, I could have made an Adz and and Axe and some stuff given a little time and some ore. I'm not drowning, you are always rushing to your preconceived conclusion and trying to drag everyone with you, sorry we won't go.
You so messed up the Questions leading to this next section that I go back to the prior post to sort this out.
DU there is evidence of Horses in the ancient Americas.
GZ This is twice you’ve made this claim. I’ve already shot down one, where are your documented sources that there were horses during the bom era? Or were they deer or tapirs as Sorensen et.al. try to claim. Provide citation or withdraw the claim. DU Sigh, My father once told me "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.", Read'em and weep from a site called "Horses and The Book of Mormon" which is the first site that comes up when you search on horses in ancient Americas, Google, sometimes if just keeps people from looking silly, in this case nope! GZ Wow, this really had me concerned. DU actually provided a link to support his allegations.
Actually, I supplied three maybe that's why you butchered the preceding section, losing all the links...
GZ Read’em and weep - from the Chapman Research Group – impressive sounding name, until one finds that the author is a physicist and has done no primary research in the subjects, only copied and compiled other stories.
Kind of like the anti's on Freerepublic? when it comes to research, I get stuff from websites, you have even linked to them, LOL! This is a particularly funny comment coming as it does about DNA studies in which the person saying he has disproved the Book of Mormon did no studies of his own, he just reinterpreted other people's data, hey, I guess it's the cheaper way to come to a preconceived conclusion.
GZ Not a real vertabrate palontology or zoology or similar publication but a site but by an amateur.
Like you when it comes to our religion, right?
GZ This is a psudoscholarly site that only quote mines and does no origional research.
Kind of like the Guy that did his DNA research by ... Well, you know where I'm going with that. This thread is supposed to be about DNA, I know I keep bringing it back to the pesky topic, but it's funny how no matter how far afield you drag us, the arguments you bring to bear still apply to Simon Southerton, isn't it.
GZ This is the kind of source spoken of by Sorenson:
I'll skip your quote since it's just an ad homonym attack on Mormons (suprise!)
<--Snip-->
The horses as a tapir argument was only brought up by others (I have never argued that) to show how sometimes when describing an animal people would use one they were familiar with to describe one they were not, a visual "tastes like Chicken" kind of a thing.
GZ Right, some one from Israel where there are horses classifying a tapir as a horse.
Why would anyone need to do that if there were real horses in the US?
GZ Oh another reference to Chapman, looks like all three are. Psst DU, they are not archaeologists, they are quote miners. If their evidence so solid, FARMS/Maxwell wouldn’t have to be spinning horses as tapirs now would they?
You are a bit behind the times, fairLDS has put this video on you tube :Horses and The Book of Mormon.
DU FYI, look at a few more sites they all say the same thing, it's been confirmed even by "Archeologists" the horse was here before the Spanish brought some.
GZ Like this one showing they became extinct by 10,000 B.C (woops not around for Nephi) Or these archaeologists here.
DU You will find some frantic sites claiming silly things like "700 BC is not 600BC so they were gone by then", and the like which is exactly what we would expect from the flat earthers.
GZ No we will find such claims by mormons exactly what Sorenson condemns: any source of information will serve no matter how unreliable. The Texas State U and National Geographic studies are done by real people doing primary research, not quote mining by Chapman Inst.
This is sooooo Funny Coming from you Guys! Ya Got this Guy Simon Southerton who left the church (having an affair while Faculty at BYU is not a resume enhancement...) then goes outside his area of expertise and writes a book that Co-opts other peoples DNA studies (for other things) and reinterprets their data to "disprove" the Book of Mormon, What a shock! The Guy makes his living off of this assertion now, and you guys think he's great, Oh and the Guy who's work he quoted all over the place? You know, Keith Crandall, an actual Population Geneticist? Well, He finds out this guy, Simon Southerton, is using his work, and may make him look bad. So, Keith investigates the claims, and the Book of Mormon, Denounces Simon Southerton's methodology, and Joins the Church Simon Southerton was punted out of for not being able to keep his marriage vows and you LOL! You say we have a problem with our sources! ROTFLOL! Stop, My sides hurt....
Now, if horses were in the America's in 10,000 BC, when did they leave? (we don't know yet) If there are indeed horse bones carbon dating to 600 BC to 400 AD, then we have a winner and the Book of Mormon being confirmed Video needs to be updated to show another Green brick...
Then I talked about Book of Mormon being confirmed Video, and you said... GZ Wow a powerpoint presentation with no documentation to support, that is just overwhelming. I can see the gentiles now just banging at the gates wanting in, scientists by the gadzillions throwing down their work
But then you cut all that from your response, which is one reason why these things get so disjointed.
DU As if science is just a means to the end of discrediting the Book of Mormon... A truly flat earth attitude. (we know the earth is flat, we just have to discredit all evidence to the contrary to prove it!)
GZ Once again, if science, where are the listing of published studies proving those things. A guy can stand up and do a youtube presentation now a days. It is absolutely worthless with out documentary support. then by your own logic, your criticisems are worthless without documentary support.
Let's see, so far in this post you have linked to three whole sites, one about horses not being around when the Spaniards got here (A point that is not in dispute) and a couple of Archeology sites that show horses were here, but 10,000 years ago. So how does your including those sites do anything? It muddies the water that is all.
DU If you know a spiritual truth, then you don't have to "prove" it to anyone else, you already know it, it's called faith (I believe you would call that being an in-dwelling faither, which I am).
GZ We are not talking about a spiritual truth here DU, we are talking about a book that claims to document the history and origins of the native americans 600 BC – 400 AD. Paul made the solid connection – that if Jesus did not rise from the dead (a statement of fact) then our faith (spiritual truth) is in vain.
Yes, Paul made that statement, but it was a spiritual statement, not a provable fact. Jesus did indeed rise from the tomb, Jesus did indeed teach, and eat and heal the sick after he rose from the dead and then Jesus rose up into the heavens and there is no archeological proof of that, or that he did any of the other things either. The Smithsonian will never certify Jesus as a resurected being. There are no scientific peer reviews of papers proving Jesus is the Son of God. These are spiritually discerned truths. I believe that God ordained that it be that way for a reason. You may believe what you wish.
I have testified here of direct communication from God just as Paul testified of his direct observation of Jesus' resurrection. There were many in Paul's day who did not believe him. There are many in mine who will not believe me either. I don't let that bother me, Paul's road was a much harder road than mine.
Godzilla asked where he could get a copy of Keith Crandall's report, then cut that from this narrative leaving this piece disjointed...
. DU I don't know, presumably in some dusty journal of Genetics. I do know that FAIR has publicized it rather extensively, and you can buy a book which contains a copy of the report, here: Book of Mormon and New World DNA.
GZ That document is already been invalidated by the 2009 findings that included the Sorenson genetic institute. The fact that you don’t bother to examine further (dusty journal of Genetics) shows just how shallow you efforts are. I’ve found and linked plenty of peer reviewed documents and studies, and they continually show mormon interpretation to be wrong.
Garbage in Garbage out, remember? I don't have to look at the output of a program if I know garbage data was fed to it, even if the program works flawlessly you still get garbage out.
The DNA of the Lehi group was not provably purely from the middle east. The DNA of the groups they combined with in the Americas was not provably from the middle east, there is no way to prove they didn't come because they didn't start out with a provably pure middle eastern DNA sample and they didn't try to preserve their "genetic purity". No test in the world can prove what you are saying because the input data does not support it. I don't have to waste time chasing down and disproving every study you come up with because the data is not there to start with. That is what Keith Crandall had to say about Scott Southerton and his DNA recycling of data it's just not possible to prove the negative with the Book of Mormon by it's own tenets because the Book of Mormon does not claim a purely middle eastern group.
All the "studies" you quote to me, can't get past the erroneous assumption that the Book of Mormon claims a genetically pure group, and since it does not do that they all fall apart, no matter what their methodology.
Then you add to that the fact that most of them are assuming that DNA from the tribe of Joseph and DNA from the tribe of Judah will match well you just don't have a leg to stand on, though it's funny to watch you try.
Again you cut what you said out, I'm going to include it here:
GZ Crandall diverted the focus, thus losing the forest because of the trees.DU Pray tell, just how you know what Keith Crandall's focus was, we are all ears, is that you miss Cleo?
GZ He is speaking as an apologetic for the disappearing field of bom dna studies. In the first several seconds they attack Southerton and others, so his talk would be directed in support of that. It isn’t rocket science to discern that.
Really, it's not rocket science to discern what? That Keith Crandall is the acknowledged expert in this field? That he joined the church after studying the Book of Mormon for DNA evidence? That Keith Crandall is a man of principle? No you want to tell me that you know what he was focusing on while doing his research and there is really no way for you to have the foggiest idea.
DU Keith did not say he had found Jewish DNA, he said if that's what you are looking for, then this is your most likely group. Go listen to the Video!
GZ DU, a little honesty here is applicable, this is what he says right at the very beginning
The most recent DNA evidence that I’ve seen, in terms of peopling of the Americas, shows this Middle Eastern haplotype at greatest frequencies in the Mayan people; so if that’s your perception of where Lehi and company set up shop then the DNA evidence would be consistent with that.Um, what he said and what I said are close, but I was trying to be brief. Lurkers, Here are the links to the Video, listen for yourselves:
part 1 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
part 2 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
Part 3 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
GZ What Middle Eastern haplotype is he talking about DU, did you pay that much attention? mtDNA X. As I pointed out earlier he references (and misrepresents) Rosenberg’s 2005 study for his evidence.
Are you an expert? Do you know he is misrepresenting DNA evidence by interpreting it? How would you know, you are a geologist...
GZ As I’ve already pointed out the 2009 study involving the Sorenson institute makes it very clear that any X is Mayan populations is NOT related to the middle east.
and as I keep pointing out, it does no matter if you find DNA from New York City, the Sample was not purely from the Middle east and they keep diluting their Middle eastern DNA as they went.
GA This was known and available to him by a 2003 study stating the same.
and he knew it was irrelevant all the time, I'm sure he has more studies than you or I have available to us, since that is his profession, but since they started with a garbage sample that is all they could come out with.
GZ Nothing like repeating myself, but as long as you want to be obtuse about it, I’ll continue to show that he is refuted.
Speaking of Obtuse, do you understand that if you include people of an unknown origin in you population and then continue to add in people of an unknown genetic origin for hundreds and then Thousands of years, you get an unpredictable genetic result?
GZ The 2009 study kills Crandall’s argument. Now who is selectively using studies DU?
It can't kill Keith Crandall's argument, Keith Crandall's argument goes to the foundation of DNA studies and I don't care what you build on an unstable foundation, it will be unstable too.
Garbage in Garbage out, remember?
DU What he did say is that you don't have a pure sample to start with, they didn't stay genetically conservative in their marriages, so proving a negative is impossible!
GZ According to the bom. peoples that came over in 600 BC were all of middle eastern descent, characterized by the mtDNA X group.
You keep saying that, but it's just not true, the Book of Mormon specifically includes salves that marry into the group. We have no idea where the slaves come from genetically speaking, you would have to ASSUME they were of middle eastern descent with the mtDNA X group to even have a shot and it's not an assumption you can make and be a scientist. when Keith Crandall says the DNA does not support a negative conclusion, he knows what he is talking about. Geologists who argue with population geneticists about DNA studies are as reliable as population Geneticists who try to tell geologists about rock formations, get it?
GZ They would be conservative because every one they’d marry was of middle eastern descent.
Again, this is not backed up by the Book of Mormon, they keep meeting groups of people, they have slaves who have married in, they keep diluting their DNA signature and all the wishing and insisting that it's not so is just denial of reality. (which is par for the course)
GZ They could marry who ever, they’d all carry the same genetic markers.
Yeah, they could, in your fantasy, in the Book of Mormon, you have a genetic diversity and this is borne out in the findings.
DU Now all your Halpo type X crap I admit right here and right now it does not prove the Book of Mormon to be true. I do not believe anyone will ever prove the Book of Mormon true with archeology. God wants people to have to ask HIM! Get it?
GZ Such a disingenuous statement DU. You didn’t even bother to read it, are you that afraid that your testimony would be hurt?
My testimony is not based on science, my testimony is based on God's word to me. That has never been and will never be endangered by any anti Mormon.
GZ Your prophets challenged all to test the bom by other than a warm fuzzy. It is tested and found totally void of truth.
I have tested it and found truth for I started with a testimony of the Bible and an Open mind, you seem to have prejudged and then sought support for your conclusions.
If you go back and look, I posted an excerpt from an article called Is the Book of Mormon really an ancient book?" and indented the text like this:
Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology. (From 'The Ensign' magazine, September, 1984, pg. 33)The Picture archeologists have of the Americas will have more shocks and more changes, eventually, they will be more in line with the Book of Mormon, I can wait.A prime example of a topic on which expert views have changed drastically to be more in agreement with the Book of Mormon is armed conflict. Until recently the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only peaceful societies existed in the the climatic Classic era, exemplified by the spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about AD 300 to 800.(From the Book of Mormon, Alma 49:18-20)
Mayan leaders were supposed to have spent their time peacefully contemplating and worshiping a complex set of gods, gazing at notable art, playing philosophical games with their calendar, and otherwise acting like "the Greeks of the New World." Only after AD 1000 was militarism supposed to have played a role in Mesoamerican history.
In the 1950s and 1960s a few voices - Armilles, Rands, Palerm - urged that this picture must be revised, but nobody listened. The big shift came with the 1970 work by Tulane University at Becan in the Yucatan Peninsula. The center of the site is surrounded by a ditch almost two kilometers in circumference and averaging 16 meters across. The makers had piled the earth to form a ridge on the inner side of the ditch. David Webster described the military effect of this fortification:
"To throw 'uphill' from the outside is almost impossible. Defenders, possibly screened by a palisade, could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies using spearthrowers and slings."18 Now behold, the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security by any other way save by the entrance, because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about, save it were by the entrance.
19 And thus were the Nephites prepared to destroy all such as should attempt to climb up to enter the fort by any other way, by casting over stones and arrows at them.
20 Thus they were prepared, yea, a body of their strongest men, with their swords and their slings, to smite down all who should attempt to come into their place of security by the place of entrance; and thus were they Prepared to defend themselves against the Lamanites.
GZ And I see that the Smithsonian and National Geo Society are jumping all over the place to use it – NOT. They specifically state the opposite. Shoot an arrow, draw circle, repeat as often as necessary to keep the sheeple in line.
Just like they have been jumping all over to start using the Bible as an accurate historical reference...
You know, you keep promoting this methodology of shoot arrows and draw targets to match, and it makes me wonder if you have not had success with this method you are promoting...
DU Anti Mormons keep asking me "where are the cities?, where are the artifacts? Where's the beef? Well, here is a patty of ground chuck, deny all you want, it does not matter it's still true whether or not you believe, deny at your eternal peril.
GZ LOL, I’m not too impressed by your high priestly tone of voice DU. An advanced civilization in the middle of an existing well-developed civilization (if we assume LGT) and no mention of each other, nada, zero, zilch. No, I think that deliberately ignoring ground truth in favor of a subjective experience endangers you more than me. No evidence of any influence of a pre-colombian Christian culture - period. Well, if that's what you are determined to find, and you illegitimately dismiss all evidence to the contrary, then that is what you will conclude and I think you have demonstrated that methodology here very well.
DU As to the statement about the Book of Mormon by the Smithsonian, I guess were in Good company... The Bible—‘it’s not historical’ contains these quotes: ‘The Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah’s flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions: . . . . They also make the statement that the bible is a religious and not a historical document
GZ Lurkers, in Part 1 I told you to expect this. DU goes to plan B and attempts to attack the authenticity of the Bible – hey I thought you said mormons didn’t do that kind of thing LOL. LOL! what a Prophet you are when the document is in your hands, you can predict what it says further down after reading it! LOL!
Tell me, did the Smithsonian's rejection of the Bible as a "historical document" remove one iota of your faith in it? It should not have, it didn't for me. Neither should the Smithsonian's rejection of the Book of Mormon on the same grounds bother me in the slightest. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are religious documents, the Smithsonian can't and are smart not to try to take sides, it's not their job. they don't try to support or destroy religions, they just study archeology.
I do find it interesting how such a pronouncement by the Smithsonian (about the Book of Mormon) was first crowed about (as if it was entirely their idea to make the statement) But when the similar statement is on record about the Bible, it's my fault they said it and I'm a bad guy for looking it up, LOL!
GZ As usual your scholarship is shoddy and the whole letter can be found here.
Now, let's talk about the intellectual dishonesty inherent in your editing of your response:
In Post #397 which this is a response to, I said:
As to the statement about the Book of Mormon by the Smithsonian, I guess were in Good company... The Bible—‘it’s not historical’ contains these quotes:You cut my link when you quote me, then you act as if you had to go and find the article "As usual your scholarship is shoddy and the whole letter can be found here." Of course it can be found there I linked you to it!‘The Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah’s flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions:They also make the statement that the bible is a religious and not a historical document
‘ … Many people ask if the Biblical flood actually took place, i.e. a flood which literally covered the entire earth and wiped out all living things except those which managed to board the ark?
‘The occurrence of a flood story in both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in other folk traditions, does hint that there may have been enormous flooding of river valleys in a far distant time. However, thus far, after literally hundreds of archeological excavations at different times in the Near East, no all-encompassing flood stratum has ever been found.’
You edit posts you drop links and you then act like you "Found" incriminating evidence that I didn't do the research from the very links I provide and "call me on it" and then to top it all off, you want to start invoking "if this were a court of law" if it were, you'd be doing time for contempt for this!
As to your quoting from the letter, have you looked at the entire letter about the Book of Mormon? Did you give a link? LOL!
DU OK, Let's take apart your broadside of weaponry terms: . . . native weapon espada, "sword." The Aztec name was macuahuitl (pronounced "mah-kwah-weetl") or macana.
GZ The Spanish had no other word they could come up with at the time, the Aztec made theirs clear. Did Nephi have the same in Israel – NO. That metal craft was allegedly brought to the new world. A stick with obsidian chips does not equal the description from the bom, no matter how you spin it. Same goes for Symitars.
First, it's Scimitar, there's no "Y", second, that's nice logic, if it held water you'd have something ...
Second, again you edit my response to you, and respond to your "edited" version of what I said (another thirty days Counsellor! <Bang!>)
What I Actually said Was:
OK, Let's take apart your broadside of weaponry terms:Some metal working is not all metal working. You are claiming steel working by asking for evidence of Smelting and it is never claimed in the Book of Mormon, they do say they used the sword of Laban to make more like it (that can mean copies made of anything, even copper like I said)
- 1. Swords: who said the swords were made of metal, or that if they were that they were going to be of "stainless steel"?
FromSwords and "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon
When the Spanish conquistadors faced Mesoamerican armies in the early sixteenth century, without hesitation they called the most fearsome type of native weapon espada, "sword." The Aztec name was macuahuitl (pronounced "mah-kwah-weetl") or macana. When the indomitable Bernal DÃaz, one of Cortez's companions in his conquest of central Mexico, saw the macuahuitl at work in the hands of the enemy, he reported that "their swords, which were as long as broadswords, were made of flint which cut worse [i.e., more sharply] than a knife, and the blades were so set that one could neither break them nor pull them out."
DU armor: as anyone who has played Dungeons and dragons will tell you not all armor is plate mail. That said, Ancient American Antiquities And Artifacts Mound builders buried with their mounds have been found people buried in Copper plate mail, complete with copper helmets. This most certainly counts as "armor". (BTW, they also found copper axeheads, arrow heads, etc...
GZ Copper was easy, it has been shown they took native copper from the great lakes region. AFA AAAAA, it places a great deal of other emphasis on Burrows cave – a long running fraud. It makes the interpretation of the other data highly suspect. What is it with you and Guilt by Association? So, they talk about other things, are you denying that they have found this Guy clad in copper armor? No you instead try to impeach them by other cases they have testified in, you are the one who wants to act like this is a trial, do you understand that such behavior in a court would get me a mistrial and you likely disbarred?
I am not trying to limit myself to the Smithsonian, I am not trying to disprove every objection to Mormonism that you can bring up, I don't have to, you were going to show us proof that the DNA in American Indians "proved the Book of Mormon Wrong" and instead you want to now add Burrows Cave into the mix? If this were a court of law I would be objecting to the court on the grounds of relevance and unless you could prove DNA was found in Burrows cave my objection would be upheld!
DU Chariots: get real, there is little to no chance of finding the remains a wooden chariot after centuries. (it took hundreds of years of looking to prove they were in Israel, and we knew where to look!)
GZ There would be images of them – any found – no.
B YES! Again, relevance your honor? Must a Chariot have wheels? Chariots in ancient days also were what we now call litters a platform carried by men. as For wheeled chariots, Miniatures made of clay have been found the full sized ones made of wood rotted too fast to be found in modern times.
GZ Chariots require roads, not foot paths present.
There are tons of roads, and judging by the state of the road in front of my house, they don't last long, but in South and central America there are tons of roads...
GZ No horses either – not sure the tapirs would make a good pull for a chariot either.
Did you go to my links and see the images of horses? The Carvings? No? I guess that's why you dropped that as a requirement for horses... LOL!
DU Steel Bows: Nephi's steel bow was from Jerusalem, remember? The Bible also refers to Steel bows from the same era Bible and Book of Mormon Steel.(has references to the Bible steel bows)
GZ Which is a flawed translation of the Hebrew word ne(chuwshahin the KJV which properly translated is bronze, not steel. Its that properly translated thing.. There is no room in the bom for a similar translation issue
Since you have just established that Steel in The Hebrew woild have meant Bronze at that age, obviously the other references to "steel" could also mean bronze, and since you pointed out that the use of copper in America was already proven, and since we have a full set of Copper armor, well, are swords out of the question? If there were no swords, why would he wear the armor? (you should stick to rocks, you are dying here)
DU You can't trust either of us, but you can trust God. Put the Book of Mormon to The test to know for sure, then you can just ignore us, or join in for the fun of it.
GZ You are drowning again, having to inflate your testimony. My testimony is filled with as lot more than hot air, and it never deflates, but springs up as an eternal source of joy in my life.
DU The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- does -- not -- say -- the -- party -- that -- came -- over -- with -- Lehi -- were -- here -- alone.
GZ The bom NEVER mentions pre-colombian amerindian cultures in existance.
What, with your taxonomy? Of course not! The Book of Mormon does talk about the Jaridites and others that they met here.
GZ Historical teaching reinforces the empty story: "The Lord took every precaution to see that nothing might interfere with this posterity of Joseph in working out their God-given destiny and the destiny of America. He provided, and so told Lehi at the very beginning of his settlement, that: . . it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations ; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8.) The Lord so kept the land for a thousand years after Lehi landed. He so kept it in His wisdom for another thousand years after the Nephites were destroyed, perhaps to give the Lamanitish branch another chance." - Apostle J. Reuben Clark, "Prophecies, Penalties, and Blessings," Improvement Era, 1940, v. xliii., July 1940. no. 7
Yep, the lord kept leading small groups of Righteous people here, while "nations" didn't know about it. The funny thing is you keep trying to say this is all spin, I learned a song when I was a little kid called Book of Mormon stories, that talks about them meeting others while in America. It's not a dodge, it's what we have always believed, your quote mining not withstanding and it's what the Book of Mormon says.
GZ It is the simple fact that the Hemispheric Geographists have held to an empty america theory.
Really, then they are wrong for the Jaradites clearly were here when they arrived.
GZ So which of the 4 theories I’m aware of is true DU,
Perhaps you should reavisit the meaning of the word Theory...
It's possible that none of them are "true", so?
GZ then we can evaluate further if it was empty or not.
You may try to decide between theories if you wish, but the Jaridites who came to the americas at the time of the Tower of Babel, clearly predate the people of Lehi.
GZ Otherwise you need to explain why there is no record, nada, zero, zilch evidence in pre-Colombian cultures present in the Central America region. OH, and smith said they landed in Chile, they would have had to encounter lots of others enroute to their postage stamp sized land.
I know you are having fun saying Nothing, but I have no idea what you are looking for, and Joseph smith did not say Chile..
DU The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- says -- they -- met -- people -- who -- outnumbered -- them -- and -- they -- joined -- with -- them.
GZ The bom says these same people came from Jerusalem – hint middle eastern genetics.
The Book of Momron give the Genetic history of some, and then there are slaves who marry in at the beginning and then there are those who come and join them later and we are not told where their genetics come from. I know you would ldove for the Book of Momron to say they all came from Jerusalem, but it just does not, and that my dear Godzilla is only one reason why you can't prove the Book of Momron wrong with DNA.
DU The -- Book -- of -- Mormon -- does -- not -- say -- where -- these -- other -- people -- came -- from.
GZ It is the old repeat a lie often enough. I have shown you, from the bom, where the peoples you’ve listed reportedly came from. In all cases it is a middle east source. It's the old accuse others of what you are doing... LOL! any one who reads the Book of Momron will know what I am saying is correct and that you have no idea what is in there. You only quote the parts where they do tell you Genealogy, and leave out the slaves and other people in the group.
You have shown me that you make the following assumptions:
- Slaves have the same genes as their masters
- When a group comes over and the Leader has a specific genetic line all the people coming with him have the same genetic line.
- When a people joins the group, and we are not told their geneology, they are from jerusalem.
- no-one joined the group without being talked about
Let's just ignore these problems with a DNA annlysis for just a second, and go back to something more fundamental.
Jacob had two wives, Rachel an Leah. Jacob wanted to marry Rachel, Jacob's Father in law tricked him into marrying Leah becasue she was older. The age of the daughters would only matter if they were from diffrent Mothers, and inheritance to one side or the other was at stake. By marrying Jacob first, Leah's son would be the "firstborn of the first wife and would inherit if he didn't mess up. So, since this was important, some scholars believe these sisters were half sisters. If that is true, and it's an if, then Joseph (the ancestor of the Lehi Group, and Judah Were son's of step sisters (so they had Diffrent mtDNA), They married diffrent wives (which kind of makes the mothers being step sisters less important, because these Wives would have had Diffrent mtDNA to pass on), and then they became tribes who according to Hebrew tradition the tribe of a child was detirmined by the mother's line, Patriarchal blessings came though the father's line, thus there will be no mtDNA "match" between descendents of Joseph and Judah.
So much for tha mtDNA argument (again).
Slaves do not generally have the same DNA as their masters unless there has been hanky panky going on. So if you have a Slave marry in right at the beginning, who's ancestry is not given, you introduce an uncertanty into the results that no competent scientist would ignore. Then you top that with the Jaridites, Mulekites and people of Zarahemla, and the casual way the book of Mormon talks about how individuals "come among the people" and you have to ask, OK, the People of Zarahemla, they talked about them because that was the first group and it was larger than them. The Jaridites were mostly killed off, and had records and the Urum and Thummim so that's why they were mentioned, The Mulekites came with fulfillment of the prophecy of the desctruction of Jerusalem, who else didn't they mention... (Another point no competent scientist would ignore) Then when you realize that for those groups all you know about thtem is the Geneology of their leaders, well no one interested in the truth wiould ignore that. Then you have Moroni making a point of saying he was a pure descendent of Lehi, and you have a genetic tower of babel on your hands. Then as the cherry on the top of this genetic nightmare sunday, you take the Nephites who's records these are, and you kill them off, leaving the Lamanites as the genetic survivors and we don't even know how many groups or where they came from joined them. Now, just to make sure there is no way to trace things, you add in the modern genetic promiscuity and then mass die off when white people come to the Americas and what do you have? you have an impossible genetic trail that cannot prove anything in the negative, because you have a depleted, corrupted and insufficient sample.
DU Therefore, who cares about the gastrointestinal parasites of petrified poo? Capisce?
GZ Lurkers will note that DU is a one note johnny, cannot assimulate other sources of scientific investigation that shows the amerindians are asian, not hebrews.Lurkers will note that Godzilla has never even admitted the possiblity that the DNA might not be pure even though the Book of Mormon clearly indicates it. LOL!
(I'll refute and argument when it becomes relavent, right now your "proof" is based on faulty assumptions and you refuse to address them.
GZ It is evident from the comment here that DU didn’t even bother to read the information presented.
Your article Begs the question of whether or not the DNA is pure enough to obtian a significant result. You seem to be frustrated that I won't fall for your bait, Sorry, not going to discuss results until we have the data nailed down, it's a Cart before the horse thing. Tell me truly Godzilla, if I started debating the merits of methodologies would you ever want to go back andf examine the Source of the DNA? (be honest, this is for posterity...)
GZ See, it would take him off his script – since FARMS and other apologists cannot provide rebuttals.
Of course not! That is what Begging the Question is all about, by asking a question (like when did you stop beating your wife) the questioner assumes the point being debated (that you beat you rwife) and by even addressing the question there can be no rebuttal, however, I keep inisting that there is insufficient DNA for such evidence shown in the book of Momron (I never beat my wife) and Godzilla just want me to answer the "question" and stop being off his "script", LOL! I guess he's frustrated that I just won't cooperate with his assassination of my religion, ROTFLOL! This is pathetic, but funny from my perspective!
DU No, I addressed it. Even if the DNA study says exactly what you say it does about the origin of the bacteria in the poo, since the Book of Mormon does not say they were the only ones here, unless you found a sign saying "Nephi's personal outhouse" with a date of 600BC on it, then it does not matter, because it's not proof. (although such a sign would be proof I'd love to see for many reasons, chuckle.)
GZ For starters, if you weren’t so lazy you would have read that the bacteria is within the stomach, not the poo.
READ MY LIPS, I DON'T CARE WHERE THE BACTERIA CAME FROM IN THE BODY. The DNA of Gastrointestinal DNA suffers from the same problems of evidence as DNA. It's not relevant unles and until you can establish that there was a "pure" sample according to the Book of Mormon (and that's not what it says).
Again, I'm going to cut out your attempt to move on to results before establishing Data Purity because results are not relavent unless you start with a valid sample. <--Snip--> GZ Gut is different from poo.
Poo comes from your Gut, you say potatoe... (apologies to Dan Quayle)
GZ This is a different study, further supports the migration from Siberia – not Israel. But then don’t let the facts confuse you, you have a testimony.
Don't worry, I'll start paying attention to facts when you present some.
Let me make it simple for you, even if you come up with a test that saya the Indians migrated from Mars (which explains why no one is there now) and it's iron clad becasue you found tha spaceship, and translated the Martian records, it won't prove the Book of Momron wrong because the Book of Mormon says there were people here when they got here and people continued to arrive and join them once they were here. It literally does not matter what evidence you come up with at that point becasue the Book of mormon doies not claim Jwerusalem was the only source for people on the contenent, it never has.
DU as I said, all such DNA studies rely on erroneous assumptions of a pure sample and genetic conservatism, neither of which are in the Book of Mormon.
GZ So some how these middle easterners swapped out their stomach bacteria for strains only found in asia.
DU OK, so some dogs migrated here with some people who came from Siberia. I have no problem with that, maybe those were the people of Zarahemla... (now do you see your problem with proving this false?)
GZ Who came from Jerusalem, so not proven false
Except they don't tell you about everyone in the party, they include slaves who could be from anywhere, so proven false.
DU You know this is already turning into an opus nobody but you and I and loyal fans will read, so I'm going to tell a story.
GZ You’ve been telling one all along, a very bad piece of fiction at that.
You cut out my story, and I liked that Story!
Well, like everything on the internet, it's not dead! I'll just go get it! and insert it back in here!
When I was on my mission (in Taiwan) I had an elder who was convinced that if I would just let him "off the leash" that he could logically prove the church was true to the Chinese people.
Finally, we were visiting an old man who IMHO was never going to join, but he liked to have Americans come visit.(I'm going to use the word "you" in an all inclusive sense for all anti Mormons and everyone who opposes a religion)
It was a rainy day, we had a three hours before our next appointment, which was in the neighborhood... I turned to the elderly gentleman and said in Taiwanese (which my companion did not speak) My companion thinks he can explain religion with logic, would you mind teaching him? He responded that he would be honored.
So I looked over at my companion, and said "OK, convince him, I'll even help with vocabulary when you need it."
My companion launched into a complex and lengthy "logical" explanation designed to let him follow his bread crumbs back back after he got the person to agree with him on a "Logical" question.
Failing time and again to get the response he wanted, he got down to "Two plus two equals four, right?" And the Chinese guy said "most of the time", my companion went "What?" and the Chinese guy said "Well so far it has, but you never know about next time"...
At which point my companion looked at me and said "You Knew! I spent all this time and you Knew!"
I dropped finally into English and said to him "Chinese people believe that conflicting truths can all be true, because we humans will never have all the data."
Back in Chinese, I told him he apparently had to learn for himself, and the Chinese guy said, "All such truths must be learned for your self".
You see, you can argue that my faith is wrong all you want, but you can never win, it's my faith, not yours. when it comes to religion, either only one is right, or all are wrong, but most people come to a more Chinese philosophy, as long as you are doing good by my book...
You will always look bad, just like American missionaries of every denomination looked bad to the Chinese people while trying to "prove" Christianity true. The only real conversion comes from the inside, not the outside, don't you understand that? You will never win this "fight" because it's about what I believe. You lost before you began.
Gz End Part 2 of 3