Some background information on the history of the Inscription RockSo, in your fanciful universe, the stone discovered by hibbens was altered or even carved by him to look like Hebrew and thus lend support to the LDS church?
People were already aware of the inscription when New Mexico became a territory in 1850, but no one could read it back then, mainly because the old-Hebrew or Phoenician alphabet in which this rock is inscribed was mostly unknown among scholars or archaeologists at that time. (1) The site is located some few miles west of the small New Mexican town of Los Lunas, about an hour's car drive south of Albuquerque. The inscription is carved into the flat face of a large boulder resting on the north-eastern side of the so-called Hidden Mountain. Local Indians told the then landowner Franz Huning in 1871 that the monument predated their tribes coming to the area
About one century later, in 1949, Robert H. Pfeiffer of the Harvard University, made a first known translation of the strange writing. Being an authority on the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible) he concluded that the inscription was a copy of the Ten Commandments. He thought that the inscription was written in the Phoenician, the Moabite, and the Greek languages. Indeed, some local native American Indians, as a result of his work, have been refering to this rock as the Phoenician Inscription Rock. Professor Pfeiffer never stated at that time whom he thought carved the message. Many locals have been calling this site the "Ten Commandments Rock" ever since.
Indian Petroglyphs at the Los Lunas site The Decalogue inscription is located at the foot of the Hidden Mountains on the north-eastern side, at the only accessible pathway going up. However, there are other artifacts of interest, too. When James D. Tabor did his survey of the whole site in 1996 he reported the existence of some leftovers of an ancient habitation (see 8). If there was an ancient fortification, as he claims there was, it certainly is not immediately visible from the ground to the untrained eye. However, the whole site, especially the top and the north-eastern rocks and slopes, are covered with petroglyphs.So let's reacap, you base your whole objection to the stone (at least on this post) to a person who is not the first person to discover the stone.
The researcher David Deal has published a detailed analysis for one of these petroglyphs (3) . It depicts a sky-map, laid out on a flat rock, recording the positions of the planets and constellations during a solar eclipse. It coincides with the solar eclipse on September 15, 107 B.C.E., to be followed by the Jewish "Rosh Ha Shannah" on the next day. This interesting discovery was first published by David Deal back in 1984. "Rosh Ha Shanah" is the first day of the Jewish month of "Tishri". "Ethanim" was the old-Hebrew name for "Tishri" referring to the seventh lunar month of the sacred calendar of the Israelites. It was also regarded as the first month of their secular calendar, especially in an agricultural sense. Like David Deal, James D. Tabor, too, emphasizes the significance between the date of the Los Lunas solar eclipse on September 15 107 B.C.E. and the Jewish New Year. However, he thinks both events were on the same day (8).
1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.Lehi was a trader, he spoke many languages, and read and wrote in them. The children were taught all these languages too. You really should not ask questions you don't want answered.
2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.
HMmmm....
There are four of us who are ex-mormons who regularly post on these threads. The rest of those who tried to escape have been killed (at least that is what a glowing light in my bedroom told me) < grin>
There is no ooops about it, the first to document the stone was Hibben, all preceding is hearsay. If not, name the individual who told Hibben?
long before Hibben went there, there are rubbings that predate hibben's visit stored at the Smithsonian. Those rubbings are important because the bumbler Hibben actually used a wire brush and a chisel to clean the stone and sharpen the characters before he took photographs of it (what an idiot!) Luckily a comparison with the rubbbings have authenticated that he did not actually change any of the characters.
Interesting, citation for who took the rubbing? And further thank you for further confirming that Hibblen’s abilities as an archaeologist were “challenged”. Indeed, some local native American Indians, as a result of his work, have been refering to this rock as the Phoenician Inscription Rock.
I thought you stated this was suppose to be a proto Hebrew, can’t you keep your stories straight?
So, in your fanciful universe, the stone discovered by hibbens was altered or even carved by him to look like Hebrew and thus lend support to the LDS church?
Where did I explicitly state that. . . (crickets). What I did say, and your own words confirm is that he had some challenges as a archaeologist. Now until you can prove that there is a rubbing of the stone that pre-dates Hibbens, any alteration by him would be questionable.
Now let's address Nibley's remarks. The LDS Church is not interested in proving the Book of Mormon "true" by archaeological means, because then people would not need faith and would not need to ask God to testify of it to them. This would in the church's eyes be a significant loss in that people would not exercise their faith in learning of it, and therefore the people would be weaker.
First off, if the mormon church wasn’t concerned about proving the bom true, then they have been wasting a lot of money funding BYU’s support of the Maxwell Inst. AFA your people not needing faith, tell that to the tour operators who advertise excursions to the lands of Nephi, etc.
That said, all Hugh Nibely was aware of when he made those statements was Hibben's work and no scholar wants to go near him which is understandable.
That is an absolute bogus statement and you well know it. Nibley’s statement was made in 1957, Hibben’s scandal broke much later in 1971. Nibley evaluated it on its own standards, and remember, one of your website links clearly states that mormon investigators visited the site and rejected it – two rejections by mormons. Now that is just the one rock, what else is lying around out there near los lunas? Indian Petroglyphs at the Los Lunas site
Interesting, tried to find some real scientific journals and research on this subject and turned up nothing but weekend archaeologists. Even the ‘theories’ in your link were challenged by others.
From your windwalker site -
However, a simple research on Mormon Web sites reveals absolutely nothing about this rock inscription. It is not used by their church as a proof for the existence of ancient Nephites in America. For a certainty it is not written in so-called "reformed Egyptian" language.
You continue to swim against the flow of your own church DUh. Did you forget to read the memo?
Nice try, luckily, we have information going back about a hundred years, and other stones he did not find in the area with other inscriptions dating back to before Christ.
Based upon what DU – give me the evidence of quantative dating? Yes I know of the “geologist’s” estimate, but that is only a WAG and not anything I would bet my professional credential on. The hearsay evidence goes back to 1850.
Unless it's now your contention that Hibben carved those stones accurately (which it is doubtful he could have done) and then failed to report them to the new yorker along with everything else.
Building a strawman, I never made the assertion. I pointed out that his reputation was tarnished so his interpretations of the site are questionable. FWIW you yourself even said he was not careful with the stone. And why is it doubtful that he couldn’t have forged the material?
The Tel Dan interpretation
The issue goes beyond that, but since it is apparent you don’t know the specifics, I’ll let you be blissful in your ignorance.
You really should read the Book of Mormon, if you had, you'd not have asked the question.
First Nephi 1:1-2:
1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
Nephi would not have been in Jerusalem at this time
2Kings 24: 15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.
16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and the craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.
That describes Nephi and Lehi to a t-ee.
Lehi was a trader, he spoke many languages, and read and wrote in them. The children were taught all these languages too. You really should not ask questions you don't want answered.
Lehi would have been well to do as well, then consider what the Bible says about those who remained in Jerusalem at the time-
2 Kings 24: 14 “ . . . none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.”
Nephi and Lehi cannot have written 1st and 2nd Nephi because they who have never existed cannot tell the truth!
But then you want to obfuscate the issue – the words were in a mixture of Greek and Phoenician with modern ‘caret’ not known in Hebrew writings until the middle ages.
The first three verses of First Nephi make up what is known as a colophon, which is a formal introductory section found in many ancient documents. Again, this is something no 18XX's farm boy would know about...
Colophons are present in the bible and is even used in contemporary writings of the era – infact the bom starts off with one on the title page until it gets to 1 Nephi.
Next you ask why the church is not using these artifacts. Why should they?
I guess if ignorance is bliss – they want to be the most blissful people in the world.
The fact that Joseph rendered it Nahom, and there is a place pronounced Nahom in the right place inside Arabia,
They found NHM, which can be a number of things, depending on which vowels you choose to insert. The mormons who discovered the markings decided it must be N-A-H-O-M because that's what they wanted to find.
Add to Nahom the fact that it's the right distance south, and due east of Nahom happens to be the only place in Arabia that matches Nephi's description of "Bountiful". Again, to you it's all chicanery of some sort. (I could do the knock knock thing here, but why? Is anyone really impressed with schoolyard antics here?)
Several locations with names somewhat like "Nahom" are to be found in the Arabian Peninsula. Given the fact that Arabia is a Semitic-language area bordering the lands of the Bible, this should come as no surprise. The simple fact of the matter is, the bom description is general enough to be worthless. The location of Nahom is nothing more than shooting arrows, then drawing the target.
JFTR, Nephi's Bountiful is not an oasis, it is on the sea and they built the ships there to sail to the Americas.
Yawn, go look up the definition of an oasis, they are not constrained to be inland
So on the basis of some teeth, we have unimpeachable evidence of horses in bom times? Actually, they have found entire skeletons, but until recently, they just tossed them aside. we now have carbon dated skeletons of horses from before Christ in the Americas. I just offered evidence of a positive, go prove your negative if you have to (this will be funny)
Ahem, oh you who demands sources – where is your source of full skeletons and from there we can evaluate if these were modern horses or extinct horses (>10K years). You have not offered any evidence – just your say-so at this point.
Do you remember this "Hello (knock, knock), anyone home DU? " you have been insulting me the whole way, I question your relationship with reality and suddenly "that's a bad thing to do."
And now DU feigns innocence and shows thin skin.
Your argument that Keith Crandall misrepresented data because of his faith -- Before he joined the church, holds no water, it barely holds space.
No, he produced the youtube/DVD after he became a member.
Oh, so you have mormon’s able to explain the gastrobacterlogical DNA studies that show an asian origin for the native Americans?
What a load of ----... Wait actually that is what they were analyzing huh?
The Book of Mormon (if you'd finished it you'd know this) talks about others they met here, the gastrobacterlogical DNA could easily have come from them, so?
Helicobacter pylori, a chronic gastric pathogen of human beings, can be found in virtually every human population group. Variations of the bacteria can be divided into seven populations and subpopulations with distinct geographical distributions. Analysis of these bacteria within native populations worldwide reveals that the East Asian strain of Helicobacter pylori can be isolated from Native Americans, indicating that East Asians are the likely ancestor of Native Americans.( Falush D, Wirth T, Linz B, Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Kidd M, Blaser MJ, Graham DY, Vacher S, Perez-Perez GI, Yamaoka Y, Megraud F, Otto K, Reichard U, Katzowitsch E, Wang X, Achtman M, Suerbaum S. 2003. Traces of human migrations in Helicobacter pylori populations. Science 299: 1528-1529.) So that makes -
1. Y-chromosome studies
2. mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) studies
3. Polymorphic Alu insertions studies (we haven’t even begun to discuss this area)
4. Retroviral DNA elements studies (we haven’t discussed this either
5. Domesticated animals (dogs) (I’ve mentioned it, you ignored it)
This is not to mention the abundance of archaeological materials that pre-date the bom time by thousands of years and sites traced southward from Alaska to the tip of S. America. Smith said Nephi landed in Chile, which would have generated a northward pattern. All data points south, absent data points north – Occams razor time again.
Hey book of mormon guy – Laman was a son of Lehi even as Nephi was, therefore the genetics were not wiped out. This view has been carried forward to this very day by mormom missionaries to the native Americans, central and south Americans.
The Book of Mormon, if you had read it, would have told you that the genetic claims you guys keep making just are not supported by the book you claim makes the claims, ergo you look pretty foolish proving the unprovable.
The bom claims that the lamanites are known now as the native Americans. As proven by the Lemba tribe over the same period of time given by the bom, these same genetic techniques can identify these people groups. The one who looks foolish is the one trying to prove that which never existed in the first place.
Then you claim based on no evidence that I can see, that Keith Crandall was being influenced to make false statements on tape or be punished by the church.
Oh, that is first and foremost on the minds of mormon intellectuals outside of the GA. Just ask D.Michael Quinn, Historian, and Former B.Y.U. Professor.