FAIR releases online videos

[Guest]

How does the Vikings being in Vinland before the Spanish "discovered" the New World have anything to do with the Book of Mormon being true? And that's even if they brought some Viking horses. How does the Vikings having horses up in Vinland mean anything whatsoever in terms of proving the plausibility of the Book of Mormon story?

Ah You've not been following the recent findings have you?

We know the Vikings made it as far south as Ontario and possilby Mexico. At Least According to the Mayan Language cipher Dr. David Kelly. Have you heard about the Chile Pepper that only Grows in Mexico and was found in a recent Dig In Sweden?

[_Zakuska]

An interesting wiki blurb on the author:

Van Sertima has been criticized by academics. A lengthy 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology article states Van Sertima, who is not an anthropologist or an archaeologist, has ignored the work of Central American researchers who stated they found no evidence of a Black African influence or presence in the New World. The reviewers also wrote that the Olmec heads only superficially appear to be Black African. In addition, in this critique, they accuse Van Sertina's cultural outlook of being disparaging to Native American achievements. Furthermore, in an earlier New York Times review of Van Sertima works, British scholar Glyn Daniel called Van Sertima's work rubbish and ignorant. Van Sertima has sparred with some of his critics but he declined to respond to the 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology criticism.[2]

It says that in drier areas there was ample evidence.

If human bones survived, why wouldn't the bones of horses?

In the "Dyrer areas"... Chris... however... The Book of Ether says they where in "Forests" not Deserts.

[_beastie]

Zak,

Isn't it odd that things just seem to doom the Book of Mormon as far as obtaining supporting evidence? The horses were evidently confined to the FOREST areas. No one in the DRIER areas had a horse. And it's just bad luck, all the subsequent Nephites that had horses just happened to be confined to areas in which their bones wouldn't preserve, too! Why, it's almost as if God deliberately HID the evidence for the Book of Mormon!! You know, to make you rely on FAITH.

[_Zakuska]

Why would it bother me?

When asking some one for proof of Lions in the dry land of Palestine all anyone could provide where 2 small toe bones. (Brings new meaning to the saying... "Catch a Tiger by the Toe")

Similary... until just recently there was not a single arceological proof that the huns had horses.

(RE: Acidic Soul) I guess this is just another case of LDS beleiveing the experts and Non-LDS pointing and laughing at them for doing it. :rolleyes:

[_beastie]

Zak,

Please provide evidence that NO animal remains have been found in the area apologists have designated as candidates for the Book of Mormon.

Thanks.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Why would it bother me?

When asking some one for proof of Lions in the dry land of Palestine all anyone could provide where 2 small toe bones. (Brings new meaning to the saying... "Catch a Tiger by the Toe")

Similary... until just recently there was not a single arceological proof that the huns had horses.

(RE: Acidic Soul) I guess this is just another case of LDS beleiveing the experts and Non-LDS pointing and laughing at them for doing it. :rolleyes:

Zak,

There are several reasons that lions and horses aren't comparable.

1) Lions are not domesticated, so their bones don't show up in the civic centers that archaeologists typically excavate.
2) Lions are large creatures at the top of the food chain with high energy demands. They feed on large prey and need considerable territory in which to hunt. That means their numbers are relatively sparse compared to other fauna.
3) Lions tend to get hunted by humans. Lions were completely gone from Palestine by the Middle Ages. As part of the Fertile Crescent, Palestine has always been fairly well-populated. Humans have undoubtedly long kept the lions' numbers low.

Horses, on the other hand, feed off of high-energy plant life and so can be quite numerous even in the wild. If they were hunted or domesticated by humans-- as they almost certainly would have been in Mesoamerica (and must have been, given the Book of Mormon references)-- then their bones would show up in human campsites and settlements.

As for the Huns, the traditional portrait of them as a nomadic horde of horsemen is probably greatly exaggerated. Most of the chronicles of Hunnic battles actually do not have most of them on horseback. They kept horses, that's certain, but their numbers appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Also, you're incorrect that there was no archaeological evidence that they had horses. There were no known horse bones, but there was clear evidence at Hunnic gravesites that some of the deceased had kept horses. If you have access to JSTOR, you can read all about this here.

-Chris

[_Zakuska]

Beastie,

Now your jumping to unwaranted conclusions.

No one has ever claimed that every bone that had the misfortune of falling upon Mayan dirt disoved on impact.

However... since in the humid urban centers which also housed these "Useful Animals to Man" (Ether 9) the scientists are having difficulty even locating human bones to do studies on them to try and pinpoint where they came from... what does that tell us?

Chris,

Lions not Domesticated? So you're tellin me that all those Christians Daniels being fed to Lions by the Romans and Kings of Babylon is all just a Myth?

Also... we have only excavated 9 out of an estimated 360 complexes in mesoamerica where LDS beleive the events took place. From the account in the Book of Mormon domesticated horses werent all that common. Probably limited to the rich. (eg King Lamoni) The Jaredites on the other hand... they seem to have had quite a number more.

PS... Im in the process of getting access from home to the JSTOR. I'l read it when I can. Thanks for the Mercer/Hait/et al. information.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Lions not Domesticated? So you're tellin me that all those Christians Daniels being fed to Lions by the Romans and Kings of Babylon is all just a Myth?

Actually, the book of Daniel is a Maccabean fiction. But no, the Romans feeding Christians to the wild beasts isn't a myth. I'd say, though, that it hardly counts as domestication, and was extraordinarily rare. Was that even done in Palestine? Or was it mostly restricted to Rome herself? Certainly any Babylonian den of lions wouldn't have been in Palestine.

-Chris

[_beastie]

Now your jumping to unwaranted conclusions.

No one has ever claimed that every bone that had the misfortune of falling upon Mayan dirt disoved on impact.

However... since in the humid urban centers which also housed these "Useful Animals to Man" (Ether 9) the scientists are having difficulty even locating human bones to do studies on them to try and pinpoint where they came from... what does that tell us?

Please provide citations from reliable Mesoamerican archaeologists who verify that it is extremely difficult to locate any bones in Mesoamerica. Thanks.

[_beastie]

Lions not Domesticated? So you're tellin me that all those Christians Daniels being fed to Lions by the Romans and Kings of Babylon is all just a Myth?

Do you understand what the term "domestication" means?