Creation Story similarities

[yaddoe]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

You're seeing what you want to see in modernized/westernized versions of the stories and the "Hebrew writing" is a hoax.

The Dine (Navajo) creation story is so different from the Biblical one that it's almost silly that you bring it up. The others are also extremely dissimilar to the Bible.

wa:do

I have heard that the hebrew writing thing is a hoax, but I am still unconvinced.
Did you watch the video clip? if it is a hoax it is a pretty darn elaborate one. I find what it said about the Bat Creek stone, the Smithsonian, the part about divine election and the book Sacred Fire quite fascinating.

I only brought up the Navajo story because I thought it was so interesting how it had so much emphasis on the breath of life.

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by yaddoe

I have heard that the hebrew writing thing is a hoax, but I am still unconvinced.
Did you watch the video clip? if it is a hoax it is a pretty darn elaborate one. I find what it said about the Bat Creek stone, the Smithsonian, the part about divine election and the book Sacred Fire quite fascinating.

The stories around it are quite elaborate.
Sadly none of the "evidence" is. It's not paleo-hebrew and nothing like it was found in any of the other local mounds dug up ether in the 19th century or one hundred years later. It was however just like other 19th century hoaxes.

Don't you find it slightly odd that only that one little sad stone was found? A stone that could easily be transported in a pocket. Supposedly representing a culture known for building massive stone temples and buildings....

I only brought up the Navajo story because I thought it was so interesting how it had so much emphasis on the breath of life.

Frankly the "breath of life" is pretty basic.... if you breathe you are alive, if you don't you are dead. Therefore breath = life.
It's like being surprised that people who live next to major river systems have flood stories.

Like I said, you are seeing what you want to see while ignoring the rest.
You pluck a single phrase out of a very long and complex story, completely taking it out of it's context within the story and within the culture the story comes from.

It's rather like that stone....

wa:do

[yaddoe]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

The stories around it are quite elaborate.
Sadly none of the "evidence" is. It's not paleo-hebrew and nothing like it was found in any of the other local mounds dug up ether in the 19th century or one hundred years later. It was however just like other 19th century hoaxes.

Don't you find it slightly odd that only that one little sad stone was found? A stone that could easily be transported in a pocket. Supposedly representing a culture known for building massive stone temples and buildings....


Frankly the "breath of life" is pretty basic.... if you breathe you are alive, if you don't you are dead. Therefore breath = life.
It's like being surprised that people who live next to major river systems have flood stories.

Like I said, you are seeing what you want to see while ignoring the rest.
You pluck a single phrase out of a very long and complex story, completely taking it out of it's context within the story and within the culture the story comes from.

It's rather like that stone....

wa:do

I think the matter is still quite up for debate, it wasn't like the guy just picked it up and said hey this is Hebrew, especially after it had been tucked away in the Smithsonian for a long time thinking it was Cherokee, then an educated someone sees it "Oh it is upside down. Its Hebrew!"
I would think if it was a hoax the guy who discovered it would at least stick around to get some credit for it.

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by yaddoe

I think the matter is still quite up for debate, it wasn't like the guy just picked it up and said hey this is Hebrew, especially after it had been tucked away in the Smithsonian for a long time thinking it was Cherokee, then an educated someone sees it "Oh it is upside down. Its Hebrew!"

Except it's not Hebrew... at least not paleo-Hebrew... so unless your Jews were time travelers?
Again, where is all the other evidence? These were very sneaky guys if the only evidence they left is one little rock in a mass grave site. Why didn't any of the others have such items? Why are there no other writings present?

I would think if it was a hoax the guy who discovered it would at least stick around to get some credit for it.

And risk getting caught? Especially, if you are trying to cause a ruckus and damage a mans reputation by planting frauds at his dig. Or trying to provide "evidence" of a debunked idea.

It hardly does any good to blab and get caught... indeed it ruins the whole thing.

The BatCreek Stone
Bat Creek Stone

wa:do

[fishy]

Originally Posted by yaddoe

Yah I was about to say something about the pyramids.
So what do you think about the Hebrew inscriptions found in Ohio?
Another coincidence?


Native Americans Wrote in Ancient Hebrew - YouTube

You know I am really curious about the Hindu similarities in origin stories, I'm going to have to go do some research over in that direction to find out more.

Hang on, I've never seen anyone quote Glenn Beck as an authoritative source. Now that's funny.

[yaddoe]

Originally Posted by fishy

Hang on, I've never seen anyone quote Glenn Beck as an authoritative source. Now that's funny.

I felt he made some good points, and I found it interesting that these points were good enough to make Fox News.

[fishy]

Originally Posted by yaddoe

I felt he made some good points, and I found it interesting that these points were good enough to make Fox News.

I think it's spelled Faux News

[yaddoe]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Except it's not Hebrew... at least not paleo-Hebrew... so unless your Jews were time travelers?
Again, where is all the other evidence? These were very sneaky guys if the only evidence they left is one little rock in a mass grave site. Why didn't any of the others have such items? Why are there no other writings present?



And risk getting caught? Especially, if you are trying to cause a ruckus and damage a mans reputation by planting frauds at his dig. Or trying to provide "evidence" of a debunked idea.

It hardly does any good to blab and get caught... indeed it ruins the whole thing.

The BatCreek Stone
Bat Creek Stone

wa:do

I just read the Read the article, it was an interesting theory and a nice story, but it lacked citations and references. It doesn't prove anything.

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by yaddoe

I just read the Read the article, it was an interesting theory and a nice story, but it lacked citations and references. It doesn't prove anything.

How about these ones then....
THE BAT CREEK FRAUD: A FINAL STATEMENT
THE BAT CREEK STONE: JUDEANS IN TENNESSEE?

and another critique
Glenn Beck’s Excellent Pseudohistorical Adventure Continues | Past in the Present

wa:do

[fishy]

Is it true that when translated from Hebrew, the inscription reads "Open Other End"?