It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2000 year old stone carving of the 10 commandments in New Mexico?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I was just wondering that, when Jesus did visit the Hopi back in the day, it could be possible that he acted on a request to give them a writing on stone as a sign for future generations that he was here and he did what the Hopi say he did. I would figure that he told them the story of Moses and the stone tablets. This whole issue has answered some of the troubling questions I had, with regards to certain texts in the Bible.

This is not as cut and dry, as some people here seem to think. As a thought, could some of you experts tell me which writing would Jesus have used as his native childhood language 2000 years ago? Does that match what is on that stone? If the answer is NO to both, that would help ease my mind. The way #10 was written is one thorn though. My mind is not at ease with the conclusion I have been led to thinking, being a fact.

If you say it is just man made, you are not open to any other options. Pantheism does not recognise Jesus as our savior and I would hate to be wrong because I went against my belief in God and Jesus. Pantheism is for the educated masses and people who take that stance will be standing beside the Pharisees and Sadducees during Earth's judgement.

Believing in God has not been a popular position to stand on, in this world.




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by win 52
I was just wondering that, when Jesus did visit the Hopi back in the day, it could be possible that he acted on a request to give them a writing on stone as a sign for future generations that he was here and he did what the Hopi say he did.

Ok, well, pretending for a moment that he did visit the hopi., why would it be in a language that he didn't know? He wouldn't know paleo-hebrew, or samaritan, he'd speak and write in Aramaic.

Then agian, if we are saying he magically flew to america and hung out with the hopi, then we might as well say he wrote in chinese too, or anything else.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
you also might want to consider that if Jesus did visit the Hopi
they weren't impressed
they have their own sacred tablets
and they don't have any middle eastern language on them
they have native american symbols
they also make no reference to a strange visitor called Jesus who came and gave them ten commandments

and why are you ripping on pantheism
from what I know about it as far as religions go its far more moral than any religion based on the fear of a genocidal god who kills people because hes annoyed they arent following his plan

the Hopi are pantheists
are you having a go at them at the same time you're trying to allude they have been affected by christianity
it is true though
american indians have been greatly affected by christianity
to date about 150 million innocent men women and american indian children have been murdered by people spreading the good news of Jesus rebirth
they don't see that as a good thing like you seem to Win 52



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Ok, well, pretending for a moment that he did visit the hopi., why would it be in a language that he didn't know? He wouldn't know paleo-hebrew, or samaritan, he'd speak and write in Aramaic.


or ancient greek
he was the son of a tradesman
the trade language of the eastern parts of the roman empire was greek
he would have learned it at an early age so he could communicate with anyone who wasn't a local that would need his services



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
yeah but like Nygdan said
if he can magic himself over to North America and keep it secret that the bible doesnt mention it then he could have written it in martian



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Thanks nydgan....I know this is off again....The Hopi were also visited by Rainbow children....back in the sixties. They also found an inscripted stone by their place of prayer. I am not sure what was on this stone. I will try to find where I read that again.

This one was found in Oregon...I think it had Egyptian inscription on it.

The other one points to Mormon origin, but why would they use these inscriptions if it wasn't a hoax. I think M was right about not being a prank. Taking that thought, why wouldn't they have used their language or English if they were on the up and up.

That takes us to who used that way of writing? Some missionary from europe, at some point in history when this language was used?



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   


Taking that thought, why wouldn't they have used their language or English if they were on the up and up

you might as well ask why the book of mormon wasn't written in english
the answer of course is because English isn't a middle eastern language
and so isn't regarded as very holy
if you are writing something of religious significance you use a language that has religious significance

as for the rainbow children
were you thinking of this ?
www.hippy.com...




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
It is quite simple.

A) The Bible has been written with a human slant on the original meanings put in it by God. That is what human nature is inclined to do. Jesus spoke in parables, because he knew that you need to be born again before you can come to understand what the message is.

B) God created us in his image, as the story goes. Why is it so hard to understand when we see human characteristics in God?

There is a reference to Jesus being gone for several weeks after he was crucified.


John 10:15-17 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.


This is when Jesus went away for a while after rising from the tomb and before he went to Heaven.

Here is the Oregon stone story


The rock itself was carved on one side with images that were themselves made up of smaller images, figures and faces, and within those smaller signs, figures, designs, until smaller than that it was hard to tell where the carving left off and the natural pattern of the rock began.


The prophesy of the Hippy??

www.welcomehome.org...

Here are some other references to Jesus as well as many others being here throughout history.


Another script on a stone discovered at Bat Creek, Tennessee, USA, was
verified by the respected scholar Dr. Cyrus Gordan as authentic
Hebrew. The latest dating for this inscription place it at
approximately 1650 B.C., raising the obvious implication that early
Hebrew voyages to the Americas had occurred well before Columbus.
Some writers have even raised the notion that the White God was Jesus
Christ, or one of his close disciples.
In her fascinating book He Walked the Americas, L. Taylor Hansen
quotes tribal legends telling of a White Prophet, perhaps an Essene,
an early follower of Jesus, who roamed through North and South America
preaching Divine Truth, healing the sick and teaching all men the arts
of peace. The Chippewas described him as bearded and pale of feature
with grey-green eyes, copper-coloured hair, arrayed in a long white
robe and wearing golden sandals. Of course, these legends could have
been modified at a later date so that the White God was transformed
into the figure of Jesus.


starfire

The google foo takes a while to learn. I hope you guys can have patience with a novice computer geek in training.

Thanks.




[edit on 20-2-2007 by win 52]

[edit on 20-2-2007 by win 52]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
www.ramtops.co.uk...

the bat creek stone was revealed some time ago as a fraud

as for Jesus
it doesnt say in the bible that he went to America
if he had the existence of America would not have been in doubt when Columbus set off to find it

so whatever you want to say on it is a faith based statement
and this isn't the forum for faith based decisions
this forum is for the discussion of real evidence




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
That was really funny....I mean they stand up on the mountains yelling out the accuracy of carbon dating when it suits their agenda.

Then they stand on the same mountain yelling that carbon dating evidence should be ignored.

What is the answer....is it trustworthy...or not to be trusted? The latter would throw a big wrench into scientifically proven.

That was a good laugh Marduk, thanks.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
i'm starting to wonder
are we looking at the same page ?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

It should go without saying that no professional archaeologist would (or at least, should) use a single radiocarbon determination as the basis for a revolutionary claim.


They do it all the time.

It is only since there is access to information, like we have today, that these assumptions of the past are put to task. We can ask questions and find information like never before in our history.

In the past, we had to take whatever garbage we were being fed in schools, etc. The average person had no way to do this, without actually going there in person.

There are other rumors of an ancient civilisation around the Grand Canyon caves. That area is off limits to the public, so any discussion is not able to be proven at this time.

It is strange as to why there are so many Egyptian names for landmarks in an area that is off limits to the public, because of dangerous caves. Or was that another Mormon thing?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   


It is strange as to why there are so many Egyptian names for landmarks in an area that is off limits to the public, because of dangerous caves. Or was that another Mormon thing?

and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that all those names were applied by people in the geographic survey office in the 1920s who were influenced by the discovery of Tutankhamen
youve been reading crystal links thats quite clear
care to provide some real evidence at some point Win 52
those names have no history prior to the 1900s
you're clutching at straws



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by win 52

It should go without saying that no professional archaeologist would (or at least, should) use a single radiocarbon determination as the basis for a revolutionary claim.


They do it all the time.

It is only since there is access to information, like we have today, that these assumptions of the past are put to task. We can ask questions and find information like never before in our history.

In the past, we had to take whatever garbage we were being fed in schools, etc. The average person had no way to do this, without actually going there in person.

There are other rumors of an ancient civilisation around the Grand Canyon caves. That area is off limits to the public, so any discussion is not able to be proven at this time.

It is strange as to why there are so many Egyptian names for landmarks in an area that is off limits to the public, because of dangerous caves. Or was that another Mormon thing?


Radiocarbon dating can only be applied to organic remains - bone, wood, hair, mummified flesh, etc that's up to 60,000 years old. To estimate the age of rocks, including carvings, fossils, inscriptions and the like, you have to check the decay of other isotopes that break down more slowly than carbon-14, along with factors such as lumeniscence.

And no, "they" don't "do it all the time". Ease up a little on the Dr. Dino websites


There is no great lost Egyptian civilization in the grand canyon. There may be some refuge or spiritual settlements made by hte local natives wedged here and there, but the whole "Egyptian" thing arises from two 1920's myths. One, that the Egyptians were supreme and godlike in their knowledge of everything, and two, that Native Americans were backwards idiots who's genetic inferiority would have prevented them from building anything more complex than a tent. Chaco Canyon's ruins were disbelieved by American archaologists for a while because of these misconceptions.

And finally, there's a lot of Egyptian place names because someone thought htey sounded cool. Just like darn near every State in the US has a "Jerusalem" somewhere in there - You're not gonna suggest htey were all founded by ancient israelite seafarers traveling with atlantean maps penned by our Grey hollow-earth overlords 6,000 years ago at the dawn of creation, are you?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I have recently learned of the Los Lunas stone and have found this thread very interesting. However, I have some doubts regarding some of the arguments provided by Marduk, and I would appreciate if he could provide some sources for the information that he provides to establish a connection between the Mormon Battalion and the Los Lunas stone.

By way of introduction, I am a Mormon and fairly well read in Mormon history.

My first question is in what source did Marduk discovere that Phoenician was considered a Holy Language and studied by early Mormons? From what I can tell, Phoenician names (or more properly, Phoenician forms of Egyptian names) were not identified in the Book of Mormon until the work of Dr. Hugh Nibley in the 1980's.
(Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, 542.)

I can find no evidence that Early Mormons ever considered Phoenician to be a language of significance. They did have an interest in Hebrew, and some church leaders made a study of this language and some writings were done in Hebrew (including a medalion worn by Joseph Smith and found on him at the time of his death in 1844) but this was Masoretic Hebrew as older forms of Hebrew were unknown at the time.

Additionally it seems that it would be unlikely that there would be many scholars of Phoenician among the early Mormons since the majority of early converts (including the 543 men of the Mormon Battalion) were overwhelmingly poor and ill-educated (much as were the earliest Christian converts and those of most faiths at the time of their inception). Few opportunities for higher learning were available to them as well. The first University in any Mormon settlement was established in Nauvoo, IL in 1841, but it existed only on paper for the remaining few years that the Mormons occupied that area. The University of Deseret (now the U. of Utah) was established in 1851 in Utah, and closed two years later due to lack of funds. It was later reopened in 1869 but didn't issue its first Bachelor's degrees until 1885. More info

Regarding the specific claim that it was members of the Mormon Battalion who carved the stone, I find it unlikely for several other reasons. Although, the Battalion passed near the stone as it traveled south along the Rio Grande, there was no lengthy encampment in that area. They left Santa Fe (reduced to only 397 men) heading south on 19 Oct 1846. They reached the present site of Truth or Consequences on 9 Nov and soon afterwards turned toward Arizona. In 21 days they covered approximately 220 - 240 miles averaging around 11 miles per day showing that they did not remain long at any stop along the way. The carvings on the stone must have been done very quickly if it was a member of the Battalion. If they could do the carvings so quickly, why did they not compose more throughout the regions in which they passed to strengthen their case?

Furthermore, shortly afterward while passing through Cook's Canyon thirteen miles north of Deming, NM, members of the Battalion excitedly reported seeing native american petroglyphs which they took as circumstantial evidence of the Book of Mormon. Why would they then have said nothing about the carvings that they had just forged which would have been much stronger evidence? Additionally, why would they have chosen to do the carvings in Phoenician/Greek when the Book of Mormon refers to the language of its composition as "Reformed Egyptian". Transcripts of the characters were made from the plates that the book was translated from and here is a link to the only surviving fragment:
Anthon Transcript
If Mormons were attempting to assert the veracity of the Book of Mormon, it seems much more likely that they would have used characters similar to these.

I have a few more comments which I will add in another post.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
tamerlane,

Let me say that was a very good post and very informative.

Marduck and Byrd are the ATS resident experts on ancient and lost civilizations and I am very eagerly awaiting their reply to your post.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
How I missed this thread when it first came out, I don't know...

This is really interesting to me. I've gone through all the posts, but not yet the links that people posted; I'll do that over the next few days.

As a Mormon who has actually read a fair amount of our own history, I have never heard of this artifact, before. Admittedly, the first thing I thought of (before reading all the posts) was that maybe it had something to do with peoples in the Book of Mormon. Whether it is an authentic artifact from that time, or any time, I have no idea.

According to the Book of Mormon, those peoples used a variant of Hebrew, but there is no mention of Phoenician at all. Also, according to that book, they would have had access to the text of the Ten Commandments since at least 600 BC. (And where this idea of Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, and all the rest having different versions of the 10 Commandments came from, I have no idea. All Christian religions get them out of the Bible, in Exodus and Deuteronomy. I don't recall the exact chapter/verse, but it was posted earlier in the thread. Beyond the slight variations in translation, they are all identical, deriving from the same source.)

Some early Mormons did, in fact, make a study of Hebrew, and some did indeed travel westward with the Mormon Battalion.


Marduk: heres a few facts for you to digest
firstly The Book of Mormon contains Phoenecian names and many early mormon scholars (i.e. the faithful) believed that Phonecian was a holy language so studied it
the area that this was found was in New Mexico. The Mormon Battalion was the only religious "unit" in American military history serving from July 1846 to July 1847 during the Mexican War. they were stationed for most of the time in Kansas and New Mexico


I don't recall them ever staying in Kansas except to pass through, but that's not relevant to this. They would have been close enough to this area, however, that some Mormon could have carved these out. Some could very well have known Hebrew, and possibly the other languages, as well. Joseph Smith was a student of languages, among other things, and often organized classes for people, including himself, to learn languages from experts. I know Hebrew and Greek were studied at various times by them. Phoenician was never considered a 'holy' language by Mormons, and not studied widely that I know of, but it is reasonable that it might have been studied for academic reasons, much as Joseph Smith learned Hebrew, Greek, German, and a few other languages, simply because he enjoyed it; it was a hobby for him.

If this had been some kind of hoax by a Mormon, I'd think that the perpetrator would have tried to draw attention to it, and if they had, I probably would have read about this before today at some point. Similarly, if early Mormons, from the Battalion, or others, had stumbled across this, they would have gotten EXTREMELY excited (assuming they could have read it, and maybe even if they couldn't) and likewise it would likely have been recorded somewhere I would have seen it, like Mormon histories, journals, and such. I can think of other, similar finds that were much less impressive that excited the early Mormons, so this would have really interested them.

I could perhaps see this as having been created by an early Mormon, not as a hoax, but as some kind of artwork or language practice or lesson or something of that nature, although it seems to involve more work than would be worth it for any of those explanations except the artwork one. However, if that were the case, it would be strange that there was no sign of anything that might identify the artist or indicate that anyone had been there around that time, because if that explanation were the correct one, no one would be trying to hide their presence. If a large number of people had been in the area for any significant amount of time, things would probably have been left behind; forgotten tools, empty food cans, that kind of thing; stuff that would date to the 19th century rather than to 2000 years ago.

Both as a Mormon and as someone with an interest in history, I really hope this isn't a hoax, but until I read up on this more (which I definitely will) I don't have enough to go on as to whether this is a genuine ancient artifact or some 19th century joker messing around.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

I hate to burst everyone's bubble!



This appears to be a Mormon carving, Ancient languages such as Hebrew where written right to left, not left to right, read link below.

Anciet Hebrew

It appears the writing on the stone is left to right which I would believe is of Mormon origin, no so no more than about 170 years! IMHO!


Which would match the dates and history of this artifact!

[edit on 3/3/07 by mel1962]


[edit on 3/3/07 by mel1962]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
My other significant point of contention with Marduk's analysis is the "Mormon Commandments" that he states where formulated in 1828 (also mentioned in another recent post).

I have never heard of any variation of the Ten Commandments specific to the LDS (Mormon) church. Indeed, the Ten Commandments are restated within the Book of Mormon in a discourse attributed to an acient prophet named Abinadi and they are delivered in exactly the same form found in Exodus. View them yourself:
Mosiah 13:11-24

I also doubt that any Mormon version of the commandments would have started with the line regarding deliverance from Egypt as we find in the Los Lunas stone. (You will also notice that deliverance from bondage in Egypt is not mentioned at the beginning of the listing of the commandments as they are found in the Book of Mormon. Actually, the writers of the Book of Mormon were much more inclined to refer to the miracle of being led out of Jerusalem to a land of promise across the sea than to the deliverance of Israel from the land of Egypt.)

If there was ever a simplified version of the commandments corresponding to those which Marduk mentioned, I am unaware of them and would very much like to know the source of that information.

Additionally, I also disagree that the assertion that the missing phrase "your neighbor's ox" indicates that the inscription must have a Mormon origin. Oxen were extremely important to early Mormons as many used ox-drawn wagons to cross the plains to the Salt Lake Valley and then to plow the lands they began to inhabit.

In considering a Mormon forger as the source of the inscription, I should also note that Brigham Young did establish Mormon Colonies throughout much of the Rocky Mountain area even into Canada and Mexico in the latter half of the 19th century. Many are now prominent towns and cities that are no longer predominantly Mormon. While a few of these were in New Mexico, these were in the far northwest of the state and none were along the Rio Grande river or near Los Lunas. See map of Mormon settlements

While this still may be a hoax of some kind, I think the chances of its source being Mormon is very remote. And whoever the forger was, he or she must indeed have had very keen foresight or a lot of luck to guess that Phoenician would later be discovered to be nearly identical to paleo-hebrew script and would therefore be the appropriate script to use for his hoax.

Based on all the evidence I've read to date, I'm inclined to think it is authentic, but I still reserve final judgement on it. I would not however be eager to use it as evidence for the Book of Mormon except to show that a semitic people had indeed visited the Americas at some point. After all, the scene of the history told in the Book of Mormon is the area around the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Central America and therefore doesn't correspond well geographically. Although, I could picture many Mormons pointing to this stone as evidence for the book if they new about it.

P.S. The Los Lunas inscription is written from right to left. If it were otherwise that would certainly end all debate on its authenticity.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The writing on the stone does not match what one would suspect. The writing at times varies in how it is read. Believe me it would be cool if it is true. I found an interesting analysis of the stone.

Mystery Stone



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join