-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LDS Evidences
- Thread starter dan
- Start date
Ãanisty
Well-Known Member
I have a quick question and I admit that I haven't read past the first page. This isn't really a question that needs answering though. It's just something to think about...
Why is it so important to find and prove this evidence? Will it in any way affect your faith? What you know to be true is true to you whether you can prove it or not. I can't prove much of what I believe or what I've experienced and I'm not going to apologize for that. This is faith. You have it or you don't. People who don't have faith in the same thing you have faith in are probably never going to accept any evidence you offer. I'd like to see everyone confident enough in their faith that they don't feel like they have to prove anything to anyone else. Just my two cents...take it or leave it.
Why is it so important to find and prove this evidence? Will it in any way affect your faith? What you know to be true is true to you whether you can prove it or not. I can't prove much of what I believe or what I've experienced and I'm not going to apologize for that. This is faith. You have it or you don't. People who don't have faith in the same thing you have faith in are probably never going to accept any evidence you offer. I'd like to see everyone confident enough in their faith that they don't feel like they have to prove anything to anyone else. Just my two cents...take it or leave it.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
In my opinion, the proof does not exist within the realm of science, anthropology or literature. It exists in the truths that are contained within the book and is verifiable only by the witness of the Spirit to the individual seeking knowledge of the truth. I find the evidences that the Book of Mormon is truly an ancient document to be fascinating, but they are certainly not what my faith rests on, and I wouldn't for a minute expect them to convert anyone to Mormonism.Ðanisty said:
Jayhawker Soule said:
Interesting question. Here's an article to outline the research of my Stake President:
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Several issues face a researcher who seeks to learn the availability of books and maps to the young Joseph Smith which might possibly have influenced his views of ancient Arabia. (A) There is the broad question of the influence of such resources on frontier families in the northeastern United States in the early 19th century. It seems to me that this sort of matter is extremely difficult to measure unless a researcher has access to a wide range of personal journals and the like which note both the individuals interests in far-flung places like Arabia and the kinds of books that these people consulted. (B) A more narrow question has to do with works that might have influenced young Joseph Smith. Because within the preserved sources that deal with his youth there is precious little to indicate that works other than the Bible influenced his thinking, a researcher faces a challenging task. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]This latter task consists of answering at least two questions. (1) Was Joseph Smith inclined to be bookish? That is, was he a person who read when he had the chance to read? By his own account, he said that he was unacquainted with men and things and was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor (Joseph SmithHistory 1:8, 23). In another source, Joseph Smith wrote similarly that because it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the Family therefore we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements (D. C. Jessee, Editor, Papers of Joseph Smith [1989], vol. 1, p. 5). A second accounting comes from his mother who wrote that her son Joseph was much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children. I understand her statement to mean that Joseph was not a person who read much (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother Lucy Mack Smith, Edited by P. Nibley [1958], p. 82). Such notations from Joseph Smith and from his mother, who knew him best in his youth, point away from a view that the young Joseph was a person with an intense curiosity which he satisfied by appealing to books. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times](2) The other question concerns the ease of access to written sources in, say, a local library. A student assistant and I have gone through all of the works known to have been in the collection of the Manchester Public Library before 1830, a resource that would have been available to Joseph Smith in his teens and later. None of the works in that collection which claim to deal with the ancient Near East would have given him good information on ancient Arabia. And in our review we spotted nothing that bears a familiar ring in the narrative of First Nephi. The only other library resource that young Joseph could possibly have drawn on was that of Dartmouth College. As most are aware, the Smith family lived in Lebanon, New Hampshire, from 1811 to late in 1813, before moving back to Vermont. The home where the Smith family lived in Lebanon was just down the road from Dartmouth College. There are two problems that a researcher must surmount in determining whether Joseph Smith during these years might possibly have put his hands on works such as Robert Herons English translation of Carsten Niebuhrs description of Arabia, or Jean-Baptiste DAnvilles map titled Orbis Veteribus Notus, or even an English translation of Plinys Natural History, or Gibbons The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, all of which dealt with ancient Arabia in one way or another. (1) The first concerns the dates of the acquisition of these works by Dartmouths library, or by any other major library in the United States. In the case of Robert Herons two-volume translation of Niebuhrs work that was published in1792, the acquisition date at the Dartmouth library is 1937, more than 140 years after it appeared in print. An example from a second library leads to a similar point. The Library of Congress only acquired the 1792 two-volume set in 1951. Hence, it is clear that, in the case of Dartmouth College, this work was not available in its library when the Smith family lived in the town of Lebanon, New Hampshire. Thus, in my mind, one cannot draw conclusions about any influence of such a work on young Joseph Smith. (We also bear in mind that Joseph Smith was only 5 years old when his family moved to Lebanon, New Hampshire, and had not yet reached his eighth birthday when his family moved to Vermont.) (2) Even if hypothetically such resources were available in the Dartmouth library before 1810 or so, a researcher would have to determine when young Joseph Smith could possibly have spent enough time there to glean information about ancient Arabia. One will recall that Joseph Smith became seriously ill in Lebanon early in the year of 1813, after turning seven years old, and was unable to function normally for several months following the surgical removal of bone from his leg. In light of the above, a researcher would have to make a case for Joseph Smith actively reading and gleaning when he was the age of a typical first or second grader, while taking into account that these were the periods when, if he were well enough, his father needed him for the work on the farm that the family had leased in Lebanon. In this light, it seems impossible to sustain a hypothesis that any library resource which dealt with Arabia, and particularly with NHM, influenced the very young Joseph Smith, or was even consulted by him. That works which dealt with Arabia in one way or another may have available in libraries in the then United States is possible. But demonstrating that Joseph Smith ever visited such institutions, or even knew of libraries that owned these works, lies beyond what the modern researcher can show. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]In a similar vein, to hypothesize that Joseph Smith had access to a private library which contained works on ancient Arabia is impossible to sustain. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times](3) Another issue relates to the above. It concerns the approach or method that one adopts when dealing with similarities that appear in written materials, whether any connection is apparent or not between writings. In the case before us, if a researcher wants to argue that Joseph Smith had gained access to written materials on Arabia, such as the initial pages of chapter 50 of Edward Gibbons work on the fall of the Roman Empire, the researcher must be willing to go beyond the question of apparent, superficial similarities. In Gibbons case, he depended chiefly on Classical sources for his portrait of Arabia. Both Gibbon and his sources (e.g., Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny the Elder) are interested in certain questions that attach to their historical and cultural situations. For example, Diodorus focused on the aromatic plants that Arabians cultivated (II. 49; III.46). One of Plinys main interests was such plants (Natural History XII.24, 29-41). Following these sources, Gibbon also wrote about this subject. But the narrative of First Nephi makes no connection to this dimension of Arabia that is featured prominently by Gibbons sources. In my view, if a person wants to show connections, one also has to explain the areas of disconnection in order to make a sound case. In my reading, the dissimilarities substantially outweigh the similarities when one begins to compare First Nephi and the Classical sources which have informed studies of the modern era. [/FONT]
There were maps made by a Dane (Carston Niebuhr) and Rigobert Bonne (French) that contained the name Nehem and were produced before the publication of the Book of Mormon, but to show that they were in any way available to anyone near Joseph Smith cannot be done.
You want to show that Joseph Smith had access to some of this information and could have copied it all, but the vast majority of the verses in I Nephi represent an understanding of that part of the world unavailable to any human being on this side of the planet anytime prior to the 20th century. Please read this article to verify that:
http://www.cometozarahemla.org/lehi/lehi.html
silvermoon383
Well-Known Member
Between the years 600 BC and 421 AD, with the Book of Ether (one of the books in it) a lot earlier than that (Tower of Babel to the 400's BC)
SoyLeche
meh...
First of all, it was Joseph Smith. John Smith was Pocahontas' boyfriendroyol said:
Joseph Smith translated the book. What you are saying is akin to saying that the Bible isn't an ancient book because the KJV was written just a few centuries ago.
Granted, nobody is saying that you have to accept the story. That is was we believe though - and Dan is providing coroborating evidence.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
I'm sorry you feel that way dan, i think i did give my reasons for not finding the Nahom evidence compelling in my first posts, i stick by those comments since your responses were not, IMO, enough to counter my initial thoughts.dan said:
I am interested i this subject though and would truly relish listening to some more concrete examples of LDS evidences, after all people have frequently stated in this thread that they have very compelling evidence in favour of the BoM, i just want to hear it.
SoyLeche
meh...
I don't want to step on Dan's toes here, but since I don't personally work in any of these fields, I tend to defer to those who do. I found this article from The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies fairly interesting.
http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NTk5MjgzNDgtMTQtMi5wZGY=&type=amJtcw==
http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=NTk5MjgzNDgtMTQtMi5wZGY=&type=amJtcw==
OK, moving on.
Another piece of evidence that I find to be fascinating is the fact that the first explorers to the New World found baptism and the sacrament a regular part of tribal life in the Yucatan peninsula, the part of central America best fit to Book of Mormon geography and society.
As a note, the first argument that will always take place with this evidence is that the explorers were working for the Catholic church and happily made up stories to corroborate the universal nature of incidences in the Bible. This is usually the case with the flood stories that have been found among almost all Mesoamerican cultures. The problem with ascribing this evidence to that practice is that the Spanish immediately blamed the devil and his minions for showing the ancient Native Americans these practices. They did not feel they were legitimately Christian ordinances, nor did they come up with any other explanation except for this one (from Diego de Landa):
"The Devil has got here ahead of us and has shown false Christianity."
These men burned countless books (over 100,000 ancient Aztec books in one area alone) for this reason:
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"These people also used certain characters or letters, with which they wrote in their books about the antiquities and their sciences; with these, and with figures, and certain signs in the figures, they understood their matters, made them known, and taught them. We found a great number of books in these letters, and since they contained nothing but superstitions and falsehood of the devil we burned them all, which they took most grievously, and which gave them great pain."
I'll get to the baptism stuff shortly, but people always ask for concrete evidence of New World contact with the Old. De Landa called baptism by the Aztecs the work of the devil and then destroyed hundreds of thousands of books containing more works of the devil. We'll never know what those books contained, but let's go into what was recorded. I quote two books here.
1) Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan, Diego de Landa, 1566, published first in English in 1937 (Yucatan Before and After the Conquest), and
2) Ancient America Rediscovered, Ronda Cunningham, 2000, containing the writings of Mariano Fernandez de Echevarria y Veytia (1720-1788)
This information can be found on many different websites, but the bulk of it is found here:
http://jefflindsay.com/bme23.shtml
Before I get started, here is an interesting theory proposed by Veytia himself regarding the ancient Aztec tradition of their origin:
"[/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=-1]Some of men of Yucatan say that they have heard from their ancestors that this country was peopled by a certain race who came from the East, whom God delivered by opening for them twelve roads through the sea. If this is true, all of the inhabitants of the Indies must be of Jewish descent."
On Baptism (emphasis is always from author)-
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Baptism is not found anywhere in the Indies save here in Yucatan, and even with a word meaning to be born anew or a second time, the same as the Latin word renascer. Thus, in the language of Yucatan sihil means 'to be born anew," or a second time, but only however in composition; thus caput-sihil means to be reborn. Its origin we have been unable to learn, but it is something they have always used and for which they have had such devotion that no one fails to receive it; they had such reverence for it that those guilty of sins, or who knew they were about to sin, were obliged to confess to the priest, in order to receive it; and they had such faith in it that in no manner did they ever take it a second time.
From Veytia:
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] Other customs and rites were still found among these peoples at the time of the arrival of the Spanish, which, because of being more particular and characteristic of Christianity, prove more effectively that the person who introduced them was an apostle or disciple of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the first sacrament necessary, without which there can be no salvation, and therefore they rightly call it the door of the Catholic Church, to which no one can enter except by it; and it is evident that throughout this country a type of baptism was found to be established. Although it varied in the ceremonies according to the places, substantially they all agreed on this bath of natural water, saying upon the baptized person some forms such as honors and prayers and putting a name upon him, and this they observed as a rite of religion, preserving the memory of Quetzalcohuatl's having taught it to them. Father Remesal affirms that the first Spanish who arrived at Yucatan found that those natives used a type of baptism, to which they gave a name in their language which in our language means being born again. An expression more in agreement with that of Christ in the Gospel cannot be given. They had (he says) so much devotion and reverence for it that no one failed to receive it. They thought that in it they were receiving a pure disposition to be good and to not be harmed by the devils, and to attain the glory that they were hoping for. It was given to them from the age of three years up until twelve, and without it no one got married.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]No less remarkable is the custom that they found established of confessing to the priests, declaring to them those things that they had as sins, and accepting the penitence that the priests would impose upon them; and the obligation that the priests had, not to reveal the sins that were confessed to them, was so rigorous that if they violated this confidentiality they were severely punished even with the penalty of death.[/SIZE]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Another piece of evidence that I find to be fascinating is the fact that the first explorers to the New World found baptism and the sacrament a regular part of tribal life in the Yucatan peninsula, the part of central America best fit to Book of Mormon geography and society.
As a note, the first argument that will always take place with this evidence is that the explorers were working for the Catholic church and happily made up stories to corroborate the universal nature of incidences in the Bible. This is usually the case with the flood stories that have been found among almost all Mesoamerican cultures. The problem with ascribing this evidence to that practice is that the Spanish immediately blamed the devil and his minions for showing the ancient Native Americans these practices. They did not feel they were legitimately Christian ordinances, nor did they come up with any other explanation except for this one (from Diego de Landa):
"The Devil has got here ahead of us and has shown false Christianity."
These men burned countless books (over 100,000 ancient Aztec books in one area alone) for this reason:
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"These people also used certain characters or letters, with which they wrote in their books about the antiquities and their sciences; with these, and with figures, and certain signs in the figures, they understood their matters, made them known, and taught them. We found a great number of books in these letters, and since they contained nothing but superstitions and falsehood of the devil we burned them all, which they took most grievously, and which gave them great pain."
I'll get to the baptism stuff shortly, but people always ask for concrete evidence of New World contact with the Old. De Landa called baptism by the Aztecs the work of the devil and then destroyed hundreds of thousands of books containing more works of the devil. We'll never know what those books contained, but let's go into what was recorded. I quote two books here.
1) Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan, Diego de Landa, 1566, published first in English in 1937 (Yucatan Before and After the Conquest), and
2) Ancient America Rediscovered, Ronda Cunningham, 2000, containing the writings of Mariano Fernandez de Echevarria y Veytia (1720-1788)
This information can be found on many different websites, but the bulk of it is found here:
http://jefflindsay.com/bme23.shtml
Before I get started, here is an interesting theory proposed by Veytia himself regarding the ancient Aztec tradition of their origin:
"[/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=-1]Some of men of Yucatan say that they have heard from their ancestors that this country was peopled by a certain race who came from the East, whom God delivered by opening for them twelve roads through the sea. If this is true, all of the inhabitants of the Indies must be of Jewish descent."
On Baptism (emphasis is always from author)-
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Baptism is not found anywhere in the Indies save here in Yucatan, and even with a word meaning to be born anew or a second time, the same as the Latin word renascer. Thus, in the language of Yucatan sihil means 'to be born anew," or a second time, but only however in composition; thus caput-sihil means to be reborn. Its origin we have been unable to learn, but it is something they have always used and for which they have had such devotion that no one fails to receive it; they had such reverence for it that those guilty of sins, or who knew they were about to sin, were obliged to confess to the priest, in order to receive it; and they had such faith in it that in no manner did they ever take it a second time.
From Veytia:
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] Other customs and rites were still found among these peoples at the time of the arrival of the Spanish, which, because of being more particular and characteristic of Christianity, prove more effectively that the person who introduced them was an apostle or disciple of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the first sacrament necessary, without which there can be no salvation, and therefore they rightly call it the door of the Catholic Church, to which no one can enter except by it; and it is evident that throughout this country a type of baptism was found to be established. Although it varied in the ceremonies according to the places, substantially they all agreed on this bath of natural water, saying upon the baptized person some forms such as honors and prayers and putting a name upon him, and this they observed as a rite of religion, preserving the memory of Quetzalcohuatl's having taught it to them. Father Remesal affirms that the first Spanish who arrived at Yucatan found that those natives used a type of baptism, to which they gave a name in their language which in our language means being born again. An expression more in agreement with that of Christ in the Gospel cannot be given. They had (he says) so much devotion and reverence for it that no one failed to receive it. They thought that in it they were receiving a pure disposition to be good and to not be harmed by the devils, and to attain the glory that they were hoping for. It was given to them from the age of three years up until twelve, and without it no one got married.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]No less remarkable is the custom that they found established of confessing to the priests, declaring to them those things that they had as sins, and accepting the penitence that the priests would impose upon them; and the obligation that the priests had, not to reveal the sins that were confessed to them, was so rigorous that if they violated this confidentiality they were severely punished even with the penalty of death.[/SIZE]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Another interesting correlation from Jeff Lindsay. I'm not saying this is conclusive, but nobody has a clue how this stuff got here:
The following is an excerpt from "Two Figurines from the Belleza and Sanchez Collection" in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John Welch (Salt Lake: Deseret Book) 1992, pp. 18-19 (see also the photo on p. 20):
The following is an excerpt from "Two Figurines from the Belleza and Sanchez Collection" in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John Welch (Salt Lake: Deseret Book) 1992, pp. 18-19 (see also the photo on p. 20):
[SIZE=-1]In light of the fact that Lehi and Nephi knew Egyptian and probably had traveled to the land of the Nile, what would you think if archaeologists found ancient Egyptian figurines in Central America? At least it would show that ancient ocean crossings, like Lehi's, were possible. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]About twenty-five years ago, Gareth W. Lowe, Director of the BYU-New World Archaeological Foundation, photographed two figurines located in a display case in the Museo Nacional "David J. Guzman" in San Salvador, El Salvador, and he sent copies to John Sorenson. According to the display caption, the figurines were excavated from three meters in depth from the eastern beaches of Acajutla, Sonsonate, El Salvador, on the Pacific coast near the Guatemala-El Salvador border. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Both figurines clearly belong to a class of ancient Egyptian funerary statuettes known as ushabti. Both are incised with hieroglyphic Egyptian texts: (A) a male holding in his hands portions of the Book of the Dead that refer to the Netherworld and its obstacles, and (B) Osiris, the crowned and bearded god of death and resurrection, with a royal cartouche and then his name in a vertical column.... [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ushabtiu figurines were popular for much of Egyptian history, including the time of Lehi and Nephi (the Saitic Dynasty). Why these two examples should have shown up in El Salvador, though, is a matter for speculation. We cannot be certain where they first surfaced, since they were not examined in place by archaeologists. At least we know that such figurines, made of wood, glazed faience, stone, or metal were deposited in Egypt with the deceased in their tombs in order to perform menial labor on their behalf in the "Eleusian" Netherworld. As with the two figurines, they normally contained the names of the deceased for whom they were made. While premature enthusiasm ought to be avoided, these figurines may be very important indeed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Both figurines clearly belong to a class of ancient Egyptian funerary statuettes known as ushabti. Both are incised with hieroglyphic Egyptian texts: (A) a male holding in his hands portions of the Book of the Dead that refer to the Netherworld and its obstacles, and (B) Osiris, the crowned and bearded god of death and resurrection, with a royal cartouche and then his name in a vertical column.... [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Ushabtiu figurines were popular for much of Egyptian history, including the time of Lehi and Nephi (the Saitic Dynasty). Why these two examples should have shown up in El Salvador, though, is a matter for speculation. We cannot be certain where they first surfaced, since they were not examined in place by archaeologists. At least we know that such figurines, made of wood, glazed faience, stone, or metal were deposited in Egypt with the deceased in their tombs in order to perform menial labor on their behalf in the "Eleusian" Netherworld. As with the two figurines, they normally contained the names of the deceased for whom they were made. While premature enthusiasm ought to be avoided, these figurines may be very important indeed.[/SIZE]
Even more interesting correlations:
Is there any evidence of ancient Americans building temples? Of course there is--and it's right in the region that most LDS scholars agree is the only plausible geographical setting for the Book of Mormon, southern Mexico and Central America (Mesoamerica), as shown, for example, in John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Did they build temples in Book of Mormon times? Yes. But do the temples that we find in that region have any resemblance at all to Solomon's temple or to Jewish temple practice? The answer again is yes. Sorenson explains in a speech he gave, "The Book of Mormon in Ancient America":
Is there any evidence of ancient Americans building temples? Of course there is--and it's right in the region that most LDS scholars agree is the only plausible geographical setting for the Book of Mormon, southern Mexico and Central America (Mesoamerica), as shown, for example, in John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Did they build temples in Book of Mormon times? Yes. But do the temples that we find in that region have any resemblance at all to Solomon's temple or to Jewish temple practice? The answer again is yes. Sorenson explains in a speech he gave, "The Book of Mormon in Ancient America":
Mesoamerican temples had an entrance with two pillars standing in the front on either side of the doorway and they bore no weight. They were just standing pillars that ended in a top. That's exactly the same as for the Temple of Solomon, where there were two pillars and their names are given in the account about the construction of that temple. The form of the temple in Mesoamerica--what are thought to be temples, anyway--... is similar to descriptions of the Temple of Solomon. The emphasis at the Temple of Solomon was not on the structure, that is the enclosed space inside. Worshipers did not go inside. A priest occasionally went inside, but the large majority operated, carried on their sacrifices, did their worship outside in the court. The Mormon equivalent would be that you'd hold meetings on Temple Square but not inside a tabernacle or the temple. That is exactly the case also with the Mesoamerican temples. Sacrifices were made on altars that look very Jewish ... and those were in front of temples; those were near temples. And many of the concepts that the Spaniards reported associated with the temples ... the idea of multiple heavens, communication with heaven, sacrifice, the occasions for sacrifice, [etc.] ... is similar in Mesoamerica as in the Near East.
Many scholars have noted the parallels between Old World structures and the temples of Mesoamerica, including the emphasis on the four cardinal points, the step-like structures similar to ancient pyramids, the significance of sacrifice, etc. The pure worship of Nephi and others of his descendants was quickly perverted by the Lamanites or others in the land, and little of Nephite worship is likely to have survived the destruction of the Nephites in 400 A.D. Nevertheless, evidences for a remote link to Old World practices and the Jewish temple concept can be found in Mesoamerica, which is Book of Mormon territory.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Thanks dan .
The baptism stuff is interesting, but from my perspective less so than your subsequent post which i'll reply to in a minute.
First, i don't have a problem (as you already know) with the idea of transatlantic ancient crossings, i personally think it likely the Egyptions had contact with the Americas, and that the myth of Atlantis might even refer to an American civilisation. Thus, evidence of ushabti finds and correlations with ancient Egypt are, for me, just that - correlations with ancient Egypt not Judea.
Also, on the subject of baptism itself, literally being immersed in water. The ritual itself is very simple, and i would be more surprised not to find occurences of unrelated cultures developing similar immersion rituals. The symbology of the water washing something away, be it sin, a curse, possession by malignant spirit or any number of other reasons is pretty universal.
For example we find immersion in water as a religious ritual in ancient Babylonia, as a form of exorcism http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra_4.htm (scroll down to the baptism bit, its near the top)
We find it in ancient Egypt http://www.ancientnile.co.uk/gods.php (scroll down to the Thoth section with the reference to "Baptism of the Pharoah")
Shinto has the ritual of purification with water before worship begins.
Hindus have the ritual bathing in the Ganges.
And the Jews have the mikvah which, obviously, was the forerunner to Christian baptism.
Among others baptism is also found in Mandaenism and Sikhism.
So, from my point of view, finding a baptism ritual in the Maya does not seem too conclusive of them being taught it by the risen Christ.
As for confession, confessing to a priest your faults and seeking forgiveness from the gods does not seem too far-fetched a concept, and thus IMO seems likely to have evolved multiple times. Confession of faults to a superior is found in Buddhism for example. Plus there's this slightly dodgy looking website that mentions other religions, but i'm not sure if it can be trusted http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap25.html
The stuff about the temples is much more interesting to me, some solid evidence to sink my teeth into.
Unfortunately the evidence you have presented seems to only have two similarities with the Temple of Solomon, two pillars at the entrance apparently supporting nothing.
It also mentions an inner chamber where only the priests can go.
Well, all i can say to that is that i hope one day you will get the chance to visit Egypt. You will see a lot of pillars with nothing on top and several inner chambers, which are found in i think all temple building religions and are typically referred to as the "holy of holies", i went inside three of them when i visited Egypt, bit crampt and smelly.
Is there anything else you can tell me about any similarities between Jewish and New World architecture?
.The baptism stuff is interesting, but from my perspective less so than your subsequent post which i'll reply to in a minute.
First, i don't have a problem (as you already know) with the idea of transatlantic ancient crossings, i personally think it likely the Egyptions had contact with the Americas, and that the myth of Atlantis might even refer to an American civilisation. Thus, evidence of ushabti finds and correlations with ancient Egypt are, for me, just that - correlations with ancient Egypt not Judea.
Also, on the subject of baptism itself, literally being immersed in water. The ritual itself is very simple, and i would be more surprised not to find occurences of unrelated cultures developing similar immersion rituals. The symbology of the water washing something away, be it sin, a curse, possession by malignant spirit or any number of other reasons is pretty universal.
For example we find immersion in water as a religious ritual in ancient Babylonia, as a form of exorcism http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra_4.htm (scroll down to the baptism bit, its near the top)
We find it in ancient Egypt http://www.ancientnile.co.uk/gods.php (scroll down to the Thoth section with the reference to "Baptism of the Pharoah")
Shinto has the ritual of purification with water before worship begins.
Hindus have the ritual bathing in the Ganges.
And the Jews have the mikvah which, obviously, was the forerunner to Christian baptism.
Among others baptism is also found in Mandaenism and Sikhism.
So, from my point of view, finding a baptism ritual in the Maya does not seem too conclusive of them being taught it by the risen Christ.
As for confession, confessing to a priest your faults and seeking forgiveness from the gods does not seem too far-fetched a concept, and thus IMO seems likely to have evolved multiple times. Confession of faults to a superior is found in Buddhism for example. Plus there's this slightly dodgy looking website that mentions other religions, but i'm not sure if it can be trusted http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap25.html
The stuff about the temples is much more interesting to me, some solid evidence to sink my teeth into.
Unfortunately the evidence you have presented seems to only have two similarities with the Temple of Solomon, two pillars at the entrance apparently supporting nothing.
It also mentions an inner chamber where only the priests can go.
Well, all i can say to that is that i hope one day you will get the chance to visit Egypt. You will see a lot of pillars with nothing on top and several inner chambers, which are found in i think all temple building religions and are typically referred to as the "holy of holies", i went inside three of them when i visited Egypt, bit crampt and smelly.
Is there anything else you can tell me about any similarities between Jewish and New World architecture?