donald r raab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. The latest study (the top post) says that the
> translation follows ancient Hebrew. Unless
> someone can demonstrate this translation and
> interpretation is wrong that is the best evidence
> that the stone and writing are pre-Columbian.
All it demonstrates is that the carver knew ancient Hebrew, or had access to a reliable original to copy. By the 19th C books were rather common possessions.
> 2. The above does not indicate anything else
> except the stone is a true anomaly. If
> pre-Columbian a new context has to be devised to
> explain it. That the stone does not show who and
> why doesn't matter. it exists.
No, it indicates the stone was carved.
> 3. using the context you described about
> Jewishness and jewish patterns does NOT dismiss
> the stone. That context has NOTHING to do with
> the stone. This is a point I have tried to make
> for a number of years about anomalies.
That's where you run into serious trouble. Without context, all you have is a rock.
> 4. A possibility suggested that the stone while
> old is a fake based upon modern writing by UNM
> students is a possibility. If that can be proved
> then end of argument. Again THAT proof does NOT
> require Jewishness for dismissal.
Forgery should always be topmost in mind when dealing either with an anomaly or any OOP artifact.