It is a good thing that FARMs is not an official voice of COJCOLDS, otherwise, I might think someone were trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
?
I said there is ancient writing on metal in antiquity dating to 600 B.C. in Jerusalem. This is obviously, and I mean obviously a prime Book of Mormon theme, archaeologically discovered. Wherein have you felt deceived?! You mean now it has to be a certain size in order for it to be valid?!? How flippin subjective is that? It obviously, and I mean obviously is a record on metal preserving sacred scriptural writing. Do you seriously propose to demonstrate otherwise?
Here is the link. It's the second bullet. Actually the entire page is interesting....... This was the link that John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon Is This the Place?, Communications Company, 2007: 239-240, 285, footnote 316, led me to. He also has disscussions about the AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) in Feb 1998 by the archaeologist Stuart Fiedel said "We're in a state of turmoil. Everything we knew is now supposed to be wrong." [So much for beastie's theory that we know so much about the Maya and Meosamerica.....] (p. 226 of Lund). Anyway here is the link: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf119/sf119p10.htm
JustMe wrote:Here is the link. It's the second bullet. Actually the entire page is interesting....... This was the link that John L. Lund, Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon Is This the Place?, Communications Company, 2007: 239-240, 285, footnote 316, led me to. He also has disscussions about the AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) in Feb 1998 by the archaeologist Stuart Fiedel said "We're in a state of turmoil. Everything we knew is now supposed to be wrong." [So much for beastie's theory that we know so much about the Maya and Meosamerica.....] (p. 226 of Lund). Anyway here is the link: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf119/sf119p10.htm
Heck, that's a good reference. Here it is:
Dated 1998
D. Stanford, Smithsonian curator of archeology, opined that there were probably several waves of prehistoric immigration into the Americas across the Arctic, the Pacific Ocean (!), and possibly even the Atlantic (!!). [This is heresy no longer.] Supporting early Atlantic crossings are several dozen artifacts found in the eastern U.S. that closely resemble some found in France and Iberia. Stanford said, "We don't know yet what that means."
I think this ties in with something I saw online fairly recently. Actually, it's an LDS apologist who presents various topics online and it had to do with the Behring Strait theory being challenged which would, I suppose, be a point in favor of the Book of Mormon. I forget the source that was used, I want to say "Coe"...the same one that was being mentioned on the board previously? I'd have to go check that out.
But I will save that carrot for later since turn about is fair play.
;-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
The Brackite likes the National Geographic Society's Statement on the Book of Mormon, better than the The Smithsonian Institution's Statement on the Book of Mormon. Here are two Links to the National Geographic Society's Statement on the Book of Mormon:
The Brackite likes the National Geographic Society's Statement on the Book of Mormon, better than the The Smithsonian Institution's Statement on the Book of Mormon.
And they are also outdated. I just posted a link to the Smithsonian archaeological curator above which shows it was exactly this time that shows why the statements here are also outdated.
The Brackite likes the National Geographic Society's Statement on the Book of Mormon, better than the The Smithsonian Institution's Statement on the Book of Mormon.
And they are also outdated. I just posted a link to the Smithsonian archaeological curator above which shows it was exactly this time that shows why the statements here are also outdated.
No, they aren't outdated. One link is from 1998 (just like yours) and the second is from 2001 and more current than yours.
No brass ring for you. Wanna ride again?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
It is a good thing that FARMs is not an official voice of COJCOLDS, otherwise, I might think someone were trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
?
I said there is ancient writing on metal in antiquity dating to 600 B.C. in Jerusalem. This is obviously, and I mean obviously a prime Book of Mormon theme, archaeologically discovered. Wherein have you felt deceived?! You mean now it has to be a certain size in order for it to be valid?!? How flippin subjective is that? It obviously, and I mean obviously is a record on metal preserving sacred scriptural writing. Do you seriously propose to demonstrate otherwise?
Crikey, by your reasoning an engraved buckle would count as well. Talk about bait and switch. Engraving on metal is a far cry from keeping (large) religious or historical records on metal plates collected in book form.
And remember that the book-form (thus plates) is part of the mystique. Scrolls were commonish back then, so a scroll-type trinket would not be unusual. Go look up 'phylactery'. Book form arrived much later.
If I took a 6BCE scroll, rolled it out, then tried to claim evidence for a 6BCE book, I would be laughed out of the Indiana Jones Club.
The object is clearly some sort of amulet engraved with a scripture. Not a scriptural record as such.