Stela 5 and Lehi's Vision of the Tree of Life
TJ
The Book of Mormon claims to be a record of a group of Israelites that
traveled to the American continent around 600 BC, as well as the record of
another group that settled there at the time of the Tower of Babel. The book
speaks of their populating and settling vast areas of the land in great
numbers. It tells of their cities, kings, monetary system, bandits, farming
habits, worship practices, and wars.
If the Book of Mormon is true, then we can reasonably expect that there
would be many artifacts uncovered that match the story told within the pages
of the book. Yet this is not the case. After scores of years of archaeology
in the New World, no artifacts have ever been found that clearly link the
Book of Mormon to the Mesoamerican people. We can't help but wonder why this
is the case. While it has often been claimed by zealous Mormon members that
there is an overwhelming amount of archaeological evidence proving the Book
of Mormon to be true, there has never been an artifact found that shows a
clear and undeniable link to the book. By contrast, evidence for the
truthfulness of the Bible is more than abundant. In many cases, even minute
details recorded in the Bible are proven correct by the artifacts
discovered. There have even been times when these finds have shown the
biblical account to be correct where some history books had claimed it was
wrong.
There was one item unearthed in Izapa, Mexico, though, which has been a
topic of discussion since its discovery in 1941. It is a large stone
monument (stela) covered with intricate carvings, dominated by the figure of
a fruit-bearing tree. Matthew W. Stirling, the archaeologist who found it,
labeled the stone "Stela 5." It was photographed and published in 1943.
Ten years later, the real discussion over this monument began when a Mormon
professor, M. Wells Jakeman - chairman of the Department of Archaeology at
Brigham Young University - concluded that the scene carved on "Stela 5 was a
depiction of Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life described in 1 Nephi 8:10-15"
from the Book of Mormon. If this were shown to be correct, then it would go
a long way in proving the Book of Mormon to be a true record. Stories about
the stone spread like wildfire through the Mormon Church, and Prof. Jakeman
was immediately in demand to speak on his interpretation of Stela 5. Jakeman
even published a small drawing of the stone with various items on it labeled
and referenced to the Book of Mormon text. Among the identified features,
Jakeman named several figures on the carving Lehi, Sariah, Laman, Lemuel,
Sam, Nephi and a figure in a white robe - claiming that these names were
easily identified by items on the carving itself. All of these people he
mentioned (assuming the figure in the white robe refers to Christ) are
significant characters in the Book of Mormon account, primarily in the
opening chapters.
In a conference message given in October of 1954, LDS Seventy Milton R.
Hunter used Jakeman's conclusions in a faith-promoting sermon regarding the
Book of Mormon's authenticity (Conference Report, October 1954, p.108). On
occasion, we still come across Latter-day Saints who use this discovery as
"proof" for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But is Dr. Jakeman's
interpretation correct?
Many scholars with the requisite technical training, knowledge, and
experience in this area have examined the stone and Dr. Jakeman's
interpretation of it. Some of these scholars are LDS and some are not. But
their conclusions are all the same: Professor Jakeman's interpretation is
not correct.
Stela 5 and the story behind it was recently featured in the Journal of Book
of Mormon Studies (v. 8, n. 1, 1999). The cover story article entitled The
History of an Idea - The Scene on Stela 5 from Izapa Mexico, as a
Representation of Lehi's Vision of the Tree of Life, noted that epigraphy
expert V. Garth Norman (who investigated Izapa monuments with BYU's New
World Archaeological Foundation) pointed out that Jakeman had made numerous
errors in his drawings of the stela, stating that "... much of his
(Jakeman's) work must be rendered invalid because of the inaccuracies in
(his) reproduction of Stela 5" (p.16). The article pointed out that Norman's
interpretation of the stone "differed significantly from Jakeman's" and
that, in his view focused on a 'road of life' theme (p. 17).
Most of the other interpretations give claim that the scene depicts pagan
worship, including self-mutilation and blood letting, which is known to have
been common among the early inhabitants of that region.
The article noted the opinions of several experts in the field, including
that of Dr. Suzanne Miles, who holds a Ph.D. in research on Mesoamerican
art. "Her interpretation of the art at Izapa did not support [Jakeman's]
proposed interpretation of Stela 5 nor the accuracy of his drawing," the
article said. Also in disagreement was Gareth W. Lowe, a BYU graduate who
was also a field director for the New World Archaeological Foundation
(NWAF). Lowe said the stone depicts a "creation myth" (p. 17) and that
"nothing he wrote" acknowledged a connection with the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps the most curious criticism of Jakeman's interpretation came from
Hugh Nibley, then a professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. He demonstrated
this extensively when the Book of Abraham (part of the LDS scripture known
as the Pearl of Great Price) was shown to be a fraud. If even Hugh Nibley
could not be convinced of Jakeman's claims, then we know there must be some
serious flaws with it.
Nibley said of Jakeman's work on Stela 5: "...the author's loving hand,
guided by a wishful eye has actually created the only evidence available to
the reader for testing the author's theories" (p. 17). He refused to accept
Jakeman's interpretation for a number of reasons. The article listed six: 1)
Jakeman never compared the carvings on Stela 5 with other Mesoamerican art,
which is standard practice for this kind of interpreting; 2) Jakeman had
also visualized evidence on the stone that no one else can see. He ignored
those items that contradicted his theory, rather than explain the reason for
them; 3) His linguistic and iconographic analysis was seriously in error; 4)
He did not submit his conclusions to peer review. Instead, Nibley said he
"published it himself with unjustified and ungraceful fanfare;" 5) His
argument was full of words such as "evidently", "probably" and
"apparently" - words that assert details as facts without solid evidence. 6)
He also did not subject his work to review by his peers - which is standard
practice, instead opting to publish it himself.
One of the most serious charges against Jakeman's work came from Dee Green,
a professional archaeologist who had even assisted Professor Jakeman in
making a latex mold of Stela 5. Green said that Jakeman had "altered the
plaster cast of Stela 5 made from their mold 'after his interpretation'" (p.
18).
Clearly, interpretation of such archaeological finds should be made by those
with the proper training and expertise in the affected field of study - in
this case, Mesoamerican artifacts and history. But as we can see, even LDS
professionals in this archaeological area do not accept Professor Jakeman's
interpretation of Stela 5.
cdo...@my-deja.com
Life dream is on very dangerous ground. There are some interesting
items in this stela relative to the BOM, but Jakeman has overreached
himself.
FARMS has an article on this, but I don't have the reference right now.
In article <su3dcqs...@corp.supernews.com>,
"TJ" <kind...@ibm.net> wrote:
> By Lane Thuet
>
> The Book of Mormon claims to be a record of a group of Israelites that
> traveled to the American continent around 600 BC, as well as the
record of
> another group that settled there at the time of the Tower of Babel.
The book
snip
> One of the most serious charges against Jakeman's work came from Dee
Green,
> a professional archaeologist who had even assisted Professor Jakeman
in
> making a latex mold of Stela 5. Green said that Jakeman had "altered
the
> plaster cast of Stela 5 made from their mold 'after his
interpretation'" (p.
> 18).
>
> Clearly, interpretation of such archaeological finds should be made
by those
> with the proper training and expertise in the affected field of
study - in
> this case, Mesoamerican artifacts and history.
Participation on ARM qualifies one as receiving training and expertise
in this field.
But as we can see, even LDS
> professionals in this archaeological area do not accept Professor
Jakeman's
> interpretation of Stela 5.
--
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
CharlesSWaters
TJ wrote:
>
> By Lane Thuet
>
> The Book of Mormon claims to be a record of a group of Israelites that
Yada, yada, yada. Hey TJ, you're using old data. Stela 5 has since
been better researched and you're arguments fall apart. The latest is
not so easy to refute, if at all. Live with it.
Why would anyone leave Mormonism to worship your Satan creating God
anyway?
--
Charles
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
[From the foolishness that denigrates the search for all truth,]
[From the assertions that the search from some truths are in vain,]
[From the religiously blinded who wish to hide some truths,]
O God of Truth, deliver us.
-- Ancient Prayer
True morality consists not in following the beaten
track, but in finding out the true path for ourselves
and fearlessly following it. -- Mohandas Gandhi
Woody Brison
TJ copied and pasted something by Lane Thuet:
<snip most of article>
Thuet may have a case that M. Wells Jakeman was overzealous
in interpreting the stela. Since this was in 1953 or
thereabouts, it might be said that this is more of historical
than immediate interest for most.
There was one statement which you should be aware is false:
> Perhaps the most curious criticism of Jakeman's interpretation came from
> Hugh Nibley, then a professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. He demonstrated
> this extensively when the Book of Abraham (part of the LDS scripture known
> as the Pearl of Great Price) was shown to be a fraud. ...
The Book of Abraham has not been shown a fraud.
Wood
Clovis Lark
> <snip most of article>
> Thuet may have a case that M. Wells Jakeman was overzealous
> in interpreting the stela. Since this was in 1953 or
> thereabouts, it might be said that this is more of historical
> than immediate interest for most.
> There was one statement which you should be aware is false:
>> Perhaps the most curious criticism of Jakeman's interpretation came from
>> Hugh Nibley, then a professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. He demonstrated
>> this extensively when the Book of Abraham (part of the LDS scripture known
>> as the Pearl of Great Price) was shown to be a fraud. ...
> The Book of Abraham has not been shown a fraud.
You mean the one with the 3 armed gawd?
> Wood
Markg91359
>
Well, its pretty controversial....
In 1968, the original papyri that the book was written on were found in the New
York Metropolitan Museum by Dr. Aziz of the University of Utah. The LDS Church
eagerly obtained copies of these papyri, hoping that they would prove the
authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Unfortunately, this didn't occur.
Egyptologists such as Klaus Baer of the University of Chicago (and quite a
number of others) who have translated the papyri all have come to the same
conclusion: The papyri are copies of funerary documents known respectively as
the "Book of Breathings" and the "Book of the Dead". They were prepared two
thousand years after Abraham died and the subject matter of the material
relates to Egypt pagan beliefs in plural gods, such as the Sun God. In fact,
the material in the books was quite common and often used in other Egyptian
burials.
Its beyond question, that portions of the papyri were used during the
translation of the Book of Abraham. Its possible to see where one of the
facsimile's was adapted, or modified to comport with Facsimile #1 in the
official publication of the Book of Abraham. Its also possible to see, through
use of Smith's Egyptian Grammer, which was obtained from Church Archives, many
of the characters that Smith copied off the papyri and match them to the
existing documents.
The only way the Church can continue to maintain the authenticity of the Book
is to claim that "somehow the real papyri are missing", that the papyri contain
a "hidden meaning" of sorts, or that Smith believed he was getting the text of
the book through translation, when in fact, he received it through revelation.
The biggest problem with all these theories is that Smith himself steadfastly
maintained that he *translated* the documents. Long references to the apparent
translation can be found in his diaries and journals. Also, he prepared his
"Egyptian Grammar" as a translation aid with the help of his scribes.
Some people deliberately choose to shut their eyes to this evidence, but its
very suspicious.
Mark
"I don't believe the Devil is a real person, but every devil I do know, is a
real person"
cdo...@my-deja.com
No, this one is not "common". It has been demonstrated to have several
unique features.
Why don't you do your homework?
>
> Its beyond question, that portions of the papyri were used during the
> translation of the Book of Abraham.
Beyond whose question?
Its possible to see where one of the
> facsimile's was adapted, or modified to comport with Facsimile #1 in
the
> official publication of the Book of Abraham. Its also possible to
see, through
> use of Smith's Egyptian Grammer, which was obtained from Church
Archives, many
> of the characters that Smith copied off the papyri and match them to
the
> existing documents.
Sigh. It was not "Smith's Egyptian Grammar".
You're just doing a cut and paste job from the antimormons. We seen
this stuff many times before, and it has been discussed many times.
BORING!
Are you familiar with Tvedtne's theory on the translation of the Book
of Abraham? I will *once again* repeat it if you are sincerely
interested. And you can have an opportunity to refute it. There is a
simple test, but each of the antis have refused to do it, and given no
reason for their refusal.
If you are open and sincere on this subject, then respond to this post
that you are interested.
>
> The only way the Church can continue to maintain the authenticity of
the Book
> is to claim that "somehow the real papyri are missing", that the
papyri contain
> a "hidden meaning" of sorts, or that Smith believed he was getting
the text of
> the book through translation, when in fact, he received it through
revelation.
Yawn. You forgot Tvedtnes. Didn't the antis tell you abt him? I
wonder why.
>
> The biggest problem with all these theories is that Smith himself
steadfastly
> maintained that he *translated* the documents. Long references to
the apparent
> translation can be found in his diaries and journals. Also, he
prepared his
> "Egyptian Grammar" as a translation aid with the help of his scribes.
Sigh. It is not the "egyptian grammar", and we have no idea what part
it played in the translation of the BOA, at least until Tvedtnes gave
us his theory.
>
> Some people deliberately choose to shut their eyes to this evidence,
but its
> very suspicious.
Are you willing to open your eyes?? We shall see.
Guy R. Briggs
> markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
<snip>
>> Egyptologists such as Klaus Baer of the University of
>> Chicago (and quite a number of others) who have translated
>> the papyri all have come to the same conclusion: The papyri
>> are copies of funerary documents known respectively as the
>> "Book of Breathings" and the "Book of the Dead".
>
Point of Order: Baer did not translate the JS Papyri. There is not
enough of it extant to actually translate. His article in the Fall '68
_Dialogue_ is entitled "A Translation of the Apparent Source of the
Book of Abraham" - emphasis on the word "apparent". He translated a
completely different document.
Also, Baer noted that the JS Papyri were different in many aspects
than the typical funerary document and "exact parallels may be hard to
find". In a letter to Nibley, 13 September 1968, he wrote: "Facs. No. 1
and 3 are by no means the usual things" and "The 1912 Egyptologists
certainly went too far in claiming that Fascimiles 1-3 in PGP were
ordinary scenes of which dozens of examples could be found"
bestRegards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE* - net...@GeoCities.com
Used cars - Land - Whiskey - Manure - Nails
Fly Swatters - Racing Forms - Bongos
Wars Fought - Tires Balanced - Assassinations Plotted
Revolutions Started - Governments Run - Uprisings Quelled
Tigers Tamed - Bars Emptied - Orgies Planned
*Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
I also program computers
Clovis Lark
> In article <20001010132815...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
>> >The Book of Abraham has not been shown a fraud.
>> >
>>
>> Well, its pretty controversial....
>>
>> In 1968, the original papyri that the book was written on were found
> in the New
>> York Metropolitan Museum by Dr. Aziz of the University of Utah. The
> LDS Church
>> eagerly obtained copies of these papyri, hoping that they would prove
> the
>> authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Unfortunately, this didn't
> occur.
>>
> quite a
>> number of others) who have translated the papyri all have come to the
> same
>> conclusion: The papyri are copies of funerary documents known
> respectively as
> prepared two
>> thousand years after Abraham died and the subject matter of the
> material
>> relates to Egypt pagan beliefs in plural gods, such as the Sun God.
> In fact,
>> the material in the books was quite common and often used in other
> Egyptian
>> burials.
> No, this one is not "common". It has been demonstrated to have several
> unique features.
Like the mighty feature of Min?
> Why don't you do your homework?
Charlie, for one who limits themselves to farming and Discovery Teevee,
you have no idea what constitutes homework. (hint, it isn't the analogy of
cottage industry).
>>
>> Its beyond question, that portions of the papyri were used during the
>> translation of the Book of Abraham.
> Beyond whose question?
It would seem the presidency of your very church...
> Its possible to see where one of the
>> facsimile's was adapted, or modified to comport with Facsimile #1 in
> the
>> official publication of the Book of Abraham. Its also possible to
> see, through
>> use of Smith's Egyptian Grammer, which was obtained from Church
> Archives, many
>> of the characters that Smith copied off the papyri and match them to
> the
>> existing documents.
> Sigh. It was not "Smith's Egyptian Grammar".
> You're just doing a cut and paste job from the antimormons. We seen
> this stuff many times before, and it has been discussed many times.
> BORING!
> Are you familiar with Tvedtne's theory on the translation of the Book
> of Abraham? I will *once again* repeat it if you are sincerely
> interested. And you can have an opportunity to refute it. There is a
> simple test, but each of the antis have refused to do it, and given no
> reason for their refusal.
Please give Tvednes academic credentials, including where he received his
degrees...
> If you are open and sincere on this subject, then respond to this post
> that you are interested.
You are on the spot Charles.
>>
>> The only way the Church can continue to maintain the authenticity of
> the Book
>> is to claim that "somehow the real papyri are missing", that the
> papyri contain
>> a "hidden meaning" of sorts, or that Smith believed he was getting
> the text of
>> the book through translation, when in fact, he received it through
> revelation.
> Yawn. You forgot Tvedtnes. Didn't the antis tell you abt him? I
> wonder why.
Tvednes credentials and degrees please...
>>
>> The biggest problem with all these theories is that Smith himself
> steadfastly
>> maintained that he *translated* the documents. Long references to
> the apparent
>> translation can be found in his diaries and journals. Also, he
> prepared his
>> "Egyptian Grammar" as a translation aid with the help of his scribes.
> Sigh. It is not the "egyptian grammar", and we have no idea what part
> it played in the translation of the BOA, at least until Tvedtnes gave
> us his theory.
Theory, how did he deal with Rhodes, Niblee, et al. and their conclusion
of an ithyphallic Min, dude...
>>
>> Some people deliberately choose to shut their eyes to this evidence,
> but its
>> very suspicious.
> Are you willing to open your eyes?? We shall see.
Sometimes opening your eyes can be damaging to blind faith...
Jim Allison
<cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8s09og$1lr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20001010132815...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> > >The Book of Abraham has not been shown a fraud.
> > >
> >
>
>
> You're just doing a cut and paste job from the antimormons. We seen
> this stuff many times before, and it has been discussed many times.
>
> BORING!
>
> Are you familiar with Tvedtne's theory on the translation of the Book
> of Abraham? I will *once again* repeat it if you are sincerely
> interested. And you can have an opportunity to refute it. There is a
> simple test, but each of the antis have refused to do it, and given no
> reason for their refusal.
>
> that you are interested.
>
>
I'm interested if you don't mind...
I heard something about Joseph Smith purchasing 6 scrolly things, and that
we've only found 2 of them, and that two of them were burned, and 2 are
missing. I do'nt remember where that came from, has anyone else heard of
this?
R. L. Measures
<alli...@home.com> wrote:
See the March 1, 1842 issue of Times and Seasons.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
cdo...@my-deja.com
cdo...@my-deja.com
news:8s09og$1lr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <20001010132815...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> > markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> > > >The Book of Abraham has not been shown a fraud.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Sigh. It was not "Smith's Egyptian Grammar".
> >
> > You're just doing a cut and paste job from the antimormons. We seen
> > this stuff many times before, and it has been discussed many times.
> >
> > BORING!
> >
> > Are you familiar with Tvedtne's theory on the translation of the
Book
> > of Abraham? I will *once again* repeat it if you are sincerely
> > interested. And you can have an opportunity to refute it. There
is a
> > simple test, but each of the antis have refused to do it, and given
no
> > reason for their refusal.
> >
> > If you are open and sincere on this subject, then respond to this
post
> > that you are interested.
> >
> >
>
> I'm interested if you don't mind...
The basic concept of mneumonics is that we use one word to substitute
for a sentence, paragraph, etc. For example, if someone were to
memorize the entire book of John, he would use a series of words to
represent an entire chapter -- "word" represents the first chapter, for
example.
To memorize the entire book of John you would think of a clever
sentence or paragraph which, taken word by word, represented the entire
book of John. Thus, the sentence/paragraph itself represents the
entire book. I could write the "entire" book of John by writing just a
paragraph. An individual would be able to recite the entire book from
just the paragraph.
Tvednes, in a series of articles, examined the "Alphabet and Grammar"
and discovered a remarkable thing --> an egyptian word was placed
juxtaposed to a section of the BOA, and the remarkable aspect was that
each word had a meaning *within* that section 100% of the time. Thus,
each section was represented by the egyptian word, and the entire "Book
of Breathings" represented the full text of the BOA.
Now, the question, as brought up by the antis, is whether this is just
a coincidence. Any two texts could be used in this manner, and they
attempt to show this by comparing, for example, Darwin with the Bible.
But as I have shown, their methodology was flawed. I won't go into the
details here, but I have designed a "fair test" where we can indeed
test this "coincidence" theory to refute Tvedtnes.
The test is really quite simple, and is based on the concept that JS
really was unable to read the egyptian text. We will try to duplicate
what JS was able to accomplish in real life -- testing whether Tvedtnes
really did figure out, how JS translated the BOA from the Book of
Breathings.
So, here is the test:
Two individuals A and B find two readily available texts here on the
internet, but initially do not reveal what those texts are. Individual
A's text is the short text, perhaps 20 - 30 words. Text B is the long
text consisting of several paragraphs or a chapter. Individual B then
divids his/her text into twenty different sections.
And the fun part. The two individuals now reveal the texts, including
the section numbers. We, the audience, then match the twenty words in
text A with the twenty sections in text B and see if the coincidence
theory holds up. Does the short text really logically match up with the
long text 100%, as occurred with Joseph Smith?
snip
Woody Brison
Jim Allison wrote:
>
> <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8s09og$1lr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > Are you familiar with Tvedtne's theory on the translation of the Book
> > of Abraham? I will *once again* repeat it if you are sincerely
> > interested. And you can have an opportunity to refute it. There is a
> > simple test, but each of the antis have refused to do it, and given no
> > reason for their refusal.
> >
> > If you are open and sincere on this subject, then respond to this post
> > that you are interested.
> >
> >
>
> I'm interested if you don't mind...
>
> I heard something about Joseph Smith purchasing 6 scrolly things, and that
> we've only found 2 of them, and that two of them were burned, and 2 are
> missing. I do'nt remember where that came from, has anyone else heard of
> this?
Perhaps you'd like to read my notes to start with
http://mail.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/rolls.htm
Wood
Markg91359
Also, do any scholars substantiate it as legitimate? I'd hope for someone
outside of BYU, but if this is all there is, I'd be happy to look at that as
well.
Mark
cdo...@my-deja.com
markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> Where is Tvednes research written up? Could I have a journal article
cite?
He wrote two articles in the early 70's for a FARMS journal. Kerry
Shirts has reproduced one of the articles, but the second article was
more detailed.
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/mnemonic.htm
I got my copy of the two articles by calling FARMS.
> Also, do any scholars substantiate it as legitimate? I'd hope for
someone
> outside of BYU, but if this is all there is, I'd be happy to look at
that as
> well.
If you have the expertise, I'm sure that John Tvedtnes would be
delighted to have you look at his work. Call him at FARMS, 1 800 327
6715. As I said, his second article goes into more specific detail.
Woody Brison
>
> Tvednes, in a series of articles, examined the "Alphabet and Grammar"
> and discovered a remarkable thing --> an egyptian word was placed
> juxtaposed to a section of the BOA, and the remarkable aspect was that
> each word had a meaning *within* that section 100% of the time. Thus,
> each section was represented by the egyptian word, and the entire "Book
> of Breathings" represented the full text of the BOA.
>
> Now, the question, as brought up by the antis, is whether this is just
> a coincidence. Any two texts could be used in this manner, and they
> attempt to show this by comparing, for example, Darwin with the Bible.
> But as I have shown, their methodology was flawed. I won't go into the
> details here, but I have designed a "fair test" where we can indeed
> test this "coincidence" theory to refute Tvedtnes.
>
> The test is really quite simple, and is based on the concept that JS
> really was unable to read the egyptian text. We will try to duplicate
> what JS was able to accomplish in real life -- testing whether Tvedtnes
> really did figure out, how JS translated the BOA from the Book of
> Breathings.
>
> So, here is the test:
>
> Two individuals A and B find two readily available texts here on the
> internet, but initially do not reveal what those texts are. Individual
> A's text is the short text, perhaps 20 - 30 words. Text B is the long
> text consisting of several paragraphs or a chapter. Individual B then
> divids his/her text into twenty different sections.
Sounds interesting, if not particularly earth shaking.
I did this most marvelous study on new iconics in college
and discovered that not a heck of a lot of people were
interested.
I volunteer to be B. I will pick a text in the next
couple of days. Wasn't there something about encoding
the texts using numbers so as to blind the test?
> And the fun part. The two individuals now reveal the texts, including
> the section numbers. We, the audience, then match the twenty words in
> text A with the twenty sections in text B and see if the coincidence
> theory holds up. Does the short text really logically match up with the
> long text 100%, as occurred with Joseph Smith?
Sounds like the two texts need to be chosen separate from
each other, and held by a trusted third party or by public
key or something similar until both texts are chosen and
locked in.
Wood
cdo...@my-deja.com
Hmmmmm.... thanks, but the point is to have an anti participate --
those who proclaim that there is not one shred of evidence for the
BOA. I have had several of them absolutely refuse to take part in the
test, and that in itself proves something, does it not.
It is truly an embarrassment to the antis for them to continue to
refuse this challange. Tvedtnes has given us a viable theory on how
the BOA was translated, and even the antis admit, those who have
studied his work, that he has a point. Their only response has been
that any two texts could match up in the same way.
I will pick a text in the next
> couple of days. Wasn't there something about encoding
> the texts using numbers so as to blind the test?
Person A tells how many words are in the short text, and person B then
divides up the long text into that number.
Yes, there would be a third person involved. A and B would communicate
their texts to him/her, who then publishes the results.
Now, is there any critic of the BOA willing to participate?? Here is
your chance.
>
> > And the fun part. The two individuals now reveal the texts,
including
> > the section numbers. We, the audience, then match the twenty words
in
> > text A with the twenty sections in text B and see if the coincidence
> > theory holds up. Does the short text really logically match up with
the
> > long text 100%, as occurred with Joseph Smith?
>
> Sounds like the two texts need to be chosen separate from
> each other, and held by a trusted third party or by public
> key or something similar until both texts are chosen and
> locked in.
>
> Wood
>
--