Hugh Nibley was a fool, come watch

[_beastie]

And, by the way, I dealt with the fact that even a mistranslation must be coherent with the contextual reading of the Book of Mormon in my essay I've already linked on this thread.

I am absolutely certain you read none of it.

[_beastie]

In case I wasn't clear enough, yes, I want you to post the pix.

[_beastie]

Here's more elephants from the same site about Book of Mormon evidences.

Here's the main site (for coggins who thought I wasn't playing fair)

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html

notice the close up drawing of "elephants" on this linked page

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/elephants.jpg

Now look at a real photograph of Stela B at copan:

http://mayaruins.com/copan/a1_1118.html

[_beastie]

The same site,

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html

provides a picture of horses on the "ica stones" (which chapman also uses in his FARMs essay as "proof".

Once again, believers are so eager to find evidence supporting these claims they don't exercise even minor caution. The Ica Stones are a very well known hoax.

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

Of course, not everyone accepts that they are a hoax. Young earth creationists claim otherwise.

[_Mister Scratch]

In case I wasn't clear enough, yes, I want you to post the pix.

I can't wait to see this....

[_beastie]

Well, I'm helping coggins out by posting some of the pix. I'm sure those he finds will be much, much better.

More from amazing Book of Mormon evidences for the elephant:

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photos-page3.html

check out the "elephant figures" on the chichen itza ruin.

Close up view of the elephant figures:

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/eleph ... n-itza.jpg

What are the "elephants"? They are representation of the "big nosed" god, Chac.

http://www.culturefocus.com/maya-6.htm

Note the identification on the very same pix:

Image of the rain god chac at Uxmal, Mexico (I think the Book of Mormon answer man got his sites a bit mixed up, the chac god is also represented at chichen itza, but in a slightly different way, from what I've seen).

You want to know more about chac, the big nosed god?

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/maya ... deity=CHAC


(here's a photo of chac at chichen itza, very similar, but slightly different. Based on comparison of the photos, I'm fairly certain the Book of Mormon man misattributed his photo)

http://archaeology.about.com/od/archaeo ... glesia.htm

[_Blixa]

Oh my. Thanks, beastie for reminding me of that website. Its chock-full, or perhaps Chac-full, of fun!

[_beastie]

Durn, Blixa, that was too good. I wish I had thought of it.

I seem to have found one of "The Book of Mormon" man's primary sources: an 1885 text by H. C. Mercer. It's all online:

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/lstone_a.html

THE LENAPE STONE

OR

THE INDIAN AND THE MAMMOTH

BY

H. C. MERCER

NEW YORK & LONDON

G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS

The Knickerbocker Press

1885

The Lenape stone:

http://www.answers.com/topic/lenape-stone


Yet more evidences that the vast majority of scholars view as hoaxes (like the Ica Stones)

There is much evidence against the authenticity of the Lenape Stone. Mercer, in a rare act of not playing dumb to the facts that many archaeologists do in cases like this, even noted some of this evidence in his book. The stone is unique in the fact that there are no other carvings found depicting mammoths in North America. When the stone was found, there was no “scientific observer” around to verify the find. The only person present at the discovery was Barnard Hansall. This was true for both pieces of the stone. After it was found, the stone was cleaned multiple times making geological tests virtually impossible. Around the time when this stone was found, there were many cases of fraudulent artifacts popping up. The carvings do not appear to cross the break in the stone suggesting that they were made after the stone was separated. This would show that the stone was in fact a forgery, or that the two pieces of the stone were not related. The depiction of the mammoth coinciding with these Native Americans goes against all other evidence so far found. The type of gorget found is known to have been popular no earlier that 1000 B.C.E. which was thousands of years after the mammoths had been extinct. There were other artifacts found on the Hansell farm after the Lenape Stone. Three of them in particular had engravings very similar to the Lenape Stone and all of them were also found by Barnard Hansell. These artifacts were able to be dated and were found to be from a time period not contemporary with the mammoth.

How odd that so much of the evidence for the Book of Mormon seems to originate from sources widely viewed as fraudulent by mainstream scholars.

I suppose it's just because of their prejudice against religion.

[_Blixa]

1885, huh? Damn, I should go a huntin' through Google Books Search for early takes on native american history. You can't believe the amount of public domain downloadable .pdf's are just waiting for pillaging!

[_beastie]

Yay, baby. And if you want evidence of elephants in ancient America, look specifically for Jean-Frederic Maximilien de Waldeck, who is probably the original source of the misidentification of the god chac as an elephant. He was quite enthusiastic in his beliefs.

Mesoamerican scholars today view this as an interesting side bar in the history of their science, an example of a very misguided, but sincere, individual, but I'm suspecting Book of Mormon believers may find it a veritable gold mine.