[Godzilla]

The scandal surrounding Hibben – the official ‘discover’ of the LLS Nice try, but Hibben didn't get there until the 1930's but the rock was discovered in the 1850's (oops)

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.

[Tennessee Nana]

(8) Evidence of Mexican Indians anciently in contact with “Egyptian Hieroglyphics:” (View of the Hebrews on Authority of Humbolt)
“On the northwest coast between Nootka and Cook river- - -the natives display a decided taste for hieroglyphical paintings A harp (says Humbolt) represented in the hieroglyphical paintings of the northwest coast of America, is an object at least as remarkable, as the famous harp on the tombs of the kings of Thebes.” Humbolt is cited as giving it as his opinion “that these more improved tribes in New Mexico came from the north west coast and left some of their half civilized brethren there. Among the hieroglyphical paintings of the latter, it seems, the harp was found. Was not this a noted Israelitish musical instrument? How should the American Indians be led to paint the Jewish harp? The Jews in Babylon “hung their harps upon willows.” And it is as natural an event that their brethren, in the wilds of America should place them in their silent hieroglyphical paintings.
Whence could have been derived the knowledge of the accurate hieroglyphical paintings, which this most learned author (meaning Humbolt) exhibits as found among some of the Indians unless they had learned them from people to whom the knowledge of hieroglyphics had been transmitted from Egypt, its original source.” (View of the Hebrews pp 184-5)

Was this sufficient to suggest the strange manner of writing the Book of Mormon in the “learning of the Jews, and the language of the Egyptian? But in an altered Egyptian. See Mormon cited above, left.

(Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, 1823-25)

8) Characters in Which Book of Mormon was Engraved on Gold Plates:
“These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of Gold- - -they were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. - - -The characters on the unsealed part were small and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving.” (Jos. Smith Wentworth Letter, Church History Vol. 4 p. 537)
The first Nephi speaking of the record he was making of events of his times says: “Yea, I make a record in the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. 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.” (6th Cent. B.C. I Nephi, ch. 1)

This strange manner of making record continued through the whole Nephite period: for Mormon in the 4th Century A.D. says: And now behold we have written this record [meaning the whole abridgment of the Book of Mormon] according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us according to our manner of speech.

(Joseph Smith, Book of Mormom, 1830)

From “Studies of the Book of Mormon” by Brigham H Roberts)

[DelphiUser]

GZ: 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?

Indians say it was here before them, and you think Hibben forged it....

This is funny. So if you walk down the street and publicize a traffic meter you find there, and you are a shady character, then no-one has to admit the traffic meter exists?

The Rock exists, it's not the only one to have Hebrew on it, it goes back at least hundreds of years before Hibben got there, so what if he got there.

Please drop the "Guilt by association fallacy".

Let's find out exactly what your problem with this artifact is.

Did the rock exist before Hibben went to see it?

Did the rock have some writing on it before Hibben went to see it?

Did Hibben erase the rock and rewrite it?

Did Hibben alter the writing on the rock?

What exactly is it you are asserting except that Hibben went there and he is not a reliable archaeologist?

If Hibben had discovered a tomb in Egypt, or the pyramids wold you claim they didn't exist?

Please explain you specific objections to the Decalogue stone, and why it's related to Hibben being there.

As to the "Straw man" assertion, no, there are collateral carvings, including a carving over what is probably an alter that have the Tetragrammaton carved over it. There is no evidence that Hibben even knew that was there (it's also in Paleo Hebrew).

There are the ancient fortifications on top of the mesa that appear to date from the same period. (You keep saying there aren't any, so I thought I'd point this out)

GZ: 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.

LOL! The old "I know something you don't know" debate tactic, I remember that... from third grade...

GZ: Where did I explicitly state that. . . (crickets).

That is the problem, you blabber all over and don't explicitly say what your objections are, except for Guilt by association. As for might, I might have built a time machine and gone back in time and altered the stone myself. The stone exists, it is of ancient manufacture, it has the Ten commandments on it, and there are unaltered inscriptions of paleo Hebrew nearby. Disbelieve all you want, but the "no evidence" claim just died.

GZ: 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.

Who said Mormons don't need faith? Reading comprehension problems?

The church also has a Center in Jerusalem, has tours over there and spends money on research there, is it your contention that we do that to prove the Bible true?

I will state that we already know the Book of Mormon is God's word. (God tells us so) So what we are doing is learning, about both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Luckily for us, we can partner with other Christian groups and benefit from the money they spend on research in the Bible, hen it comes to the Book of Mormon, we are on our own, so we shoulder the whole burden.

GZ: 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.

Actually, I read an article somewhere that said He only had photographs in which the wire brush marks were clearly visible. I can't seem to find that article again though :-( That memory is what my statement was based on, it was not a lie.

BTW, I love how anti's throw around the accusation of intentional bending of the truth, I wonder why they think every one lies...

Yes I know of the “geologist’s” estimate, but that is only a WAG and not anything I would bet my professional credential on.

Why not? You go out on slimmer limbs here...

GZ: Nephi and Lehi cannot have written 1st and 2nd Nephi because they who have never existed cannot tell the truth!

DU: The fact that Joseph rendered it Nahom, and there is a place pronounced Nahom in the right place inside Arabia,

GZ: They found NHM, which can be a number of things, depending on which vowels you choose to insert.

Did you or did you not hear the native talking about Nahom? Now he does not pronounce it quite the way I do, but it would have had the same vowels. If you did not get this, go listen again.

GZ: The mormons who discovered the markings decided it must be N-A-H-O-M because that's what they wanted to find. Le's see, the markings on the Decalogue stone are if translated as Hebrew the Ten Commandments Naholm exists where it's supposed to be, Bountiful exists where it's supposed to be there is evidence of Horses in the ancient Americas. The evidence supporting the Book of Mormon just keeps mounting, and anti Mormons find them selves shouting hoarsely from an ever shrinking platform. Th worst part for them is we (the LDS church) are not even trying to "prove" anything, just studying what we know to be true... Book of Mormon, being confirmed? is a good example of this.

GZ: And now DU feigns innocence and shows thin skin.

So you whine about my response while calling me thin skinned? SLAM away FLAME away, it won't bother me at all, I'll just consider the source, and I WILL point out how you are treating me, your constant insults do not bother me personally in the least (I'm autistic, remember?) Your posting of pictures of Kitties, and trying to make a humorous point are actually laughed at by me because they show the absolute logical bankruptcy of your position of insisting for example that descendants of two brothers are not descendants of their father, LOL! Still chuckling over your understanding of Genetics in light of that one!

Godzilla, feel free to within the confines of forum rules flame, slam and insult. Please do not get yourself kicked off the forum you make such a good foil for my points that I would miss you sorely!

DU: Your argument that Keith Crandall misrepresented data because of his faith -- Before he joined the church, holds no water, it barely holds space.

GZ: No, he produced the youtube/DVD after he became a member.

Yerp, the Video was produced I think a couple of years after he joined the church. The paper detailing the flaws in Dr. Simmons attacks on the Book of Mormon was written before he joined the church. And that paper is part of what he is commenting on in the video.

Thus your argument that Keith misrepresented the data, must include the report he wrote before he Joined the church. Keith's position is consistent, does not support your interpretation of the same data, his credentials are impeccable, you got the genetics of two brothers confused. Keith joined the church after looking at the same data you say invalidates the church. You are trying to invalidate a book you have admitted you have not read beyond the first few pages. Keith crawled through the whole book making notes on genetics, and was impressed to join the church later.

Is it now your contention that Joseph Smith in the 1830's wrote a book with the express purpose of fooling a geneticist in the future when it's extremely doubtful Joseph Smith even knew what Genetics would be. Joseph to "not be a prophet" would have had to have guessed correctly about so many things, like Nahom in The Book of Mormon, Hebraisms and The Book of Mormon, Nephi's Bountiful in Arabia, Horses and The Book of Mormon (they do exist), And last in this list from a Document called "Is the Book of Mormon really an ancient book?"

Book of Mormon anticipates modern Mesoamerican archeology.

(From 'The Ensign' magazine, September, 1984, pg. 33)

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.

Mayan leaders were supposed to have spent their time peacefully contemplating and worshipping 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."

(From the Book of Mormon, Alma 49:18-20)

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.

Now you had a long list of "Problems" and it boils down to time. I like to put links to videos because I have two monitors on my computer and work takes precedence, but I can have a video going on the second monitor, listen and start and stop it as needed to keep working. You want to give me large documents to read, and that's fine, I like to read, but I can't do that and even pretend to work >:-0.

For your Problems, Bacteria from ancient poop? How low can you go? (Just had to have fun with it.) But so? The book of Mormon not only allows for, but demands that others had to come to the Americas from elsewhere because it talks of it. and who knows what they were packing in their poop? This does not interest me because A) It's poop and B) even if true, it has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. kind of like who discovered an artifact that could not have been forged, does not matter to me nearly as much as the artifact.

You mentioned dogs, sorry, missed that, so? I like dogs is that a problem?

When it comes to genetics, your just doing it wrong, and that's not Occam's razor...

GZ: 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.

The Book of Mormon talks about people who were here before them, really you need to read the Book of Mormon before you cut yourself again on that Occam's razor you keep swinging about. Maybe you should stick to using an electric razor...

GZ: 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.

Um, again with the colossal ignorance about genetics thing? Descendant does not mean pure genetics. One of my ancestors was a pirate, he had a Maori wife. I look like I am of European descent, I doubt that you could prove my connection to her with a genetic study. I also have an Indian Squaw back there in the 1700's So? I can't get free government stuff because it's not enough of my genetic makeup, again you probably couldn't prove it with the genetics, the point is, you need a pure genetic sample that has been preserved down through the years with conservative genetic behavior (marrying inside the group) to prove anything.

I'll say it again "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Genetics is a dry hole for anti Mormons, please keep digging your hole deeper! LOL!

DU 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 is making the claims, ergo you look pretty foolish proving the unprovable.

GZ: 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.

As proven by Keith Crandall, Et Al. He then investigated the claims of the Book of Mormon and was happy to pronounce Dr. Simmons a quack, and then join the church!

You just can't quote them and escape the fact that Keith Crandall was on the case and he has joined the church, why if it was such an egregious, obvious, amateurish faux pas of genetic bumbling did he do that? Maybe, just maybe, Keith knows a bit more than you do about genetics (in fact, I'd bet good money on that) and he thinks your objections are unfounded. By all means keep bringing him up as you claim we have no leg to stand on on the genetics, PLEASE! (Dis be fun)

DU: 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.

GZ: 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.

You mean this guy?

At the time, his work concerned church involvement with plural marriage after the 1890 Manifesto, in which the practice was officially renounced.
...
Despite his excommunication and his open acknowledgment of his homosexual orientation, Quinn believes in the Latter Day Saint movement, although he is in disagreement with certain policies and doctrines.

So a Gay Professor at the university got hung up on polygamy in the early church and got himself canned and excommunicated for writing salacious materials and identifying himself as a professor at a church owned collage, How dare they! LOL!

He sounds like a typical anti Mormon doing his target practice, LOL!

Now, can we get back to the focus of this thread, there is no way to disprove the Book of Mormon with DNA...