Proof that the Book of Mormon is a fraud!!!

[A New Dawn]

Like so many Mormons, you seem to have made the mistake of not realizing that the so-called Decalogue stone is a late-date forgery. Even if it were for real, it (and the so-called "Bat Creek stone," also a forgery) cannot have been a product of Lehi's group of immigrants since the Hebrew script used on both of these stones originated in Judah after 600 B.C. when Lehi's family departed for the New World. The Declaogue is written in Square Hebrew, which developed in Judah post-500 B.C. It's also got some Greek letters mixed in there. The Bat Creek Stone is in a Paleo-Hebrew script that showed up around the time of Christ.

The Decalogue stone was "found" by David Wyrick, who also "found" four other Hebrew inscriptions in Ohio between 1860 and 1867.

-CK

To beat a dead horse, I have been reading up a bit on this issue, and one thing maybe you don't realize (or maybe by now you do), is that there is two decalogue stones. The one David Wyrick found in Ohio, and the one in New Mexico (which is the one I was interested in discussing). David Wyrick did not find the one in New Mexico, and he only found two stones, both in Ohio near his home. Oh, and after David Wyrick died, two other stones with Hebrew inscriptions, one a coffin-shaped stone, were discovered lending credence to the two stones that Wyrick found, and the thought now is that they are not a hoax. (Those are not counting the two stones that John H. Nichols fabricated and planted and admitted to.)

The other decalogue stone in New Mexico was not found by David Wyrick, as suggested in another post by CK, and has nothing to do with the controversy. That is the stone I was interested in discussing. Now that we have cleared up the misunderstanding, care to discuss what was meant to be discussed?

And the Bat Creek Stone was found, not by David Wyrick (as was also suggested), but by the Smithsonian's Mound Survey project.

 

[CaliforniaKid]

I'm pretty sure I never said that Wyrick found the Bat Creek stone. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Bat Creek stone is a hoax. You're right, though, I was confused about the decalogue stones. I had no idea there were two. I'm pretty sure it's the New Mexico inscription that I criticized earlier in this thread for its mistakes and its use of the caret, though. You can go back and read that if you're still interested.

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm pretty sure I never said that Wyrick found the Bat Creek stone. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Bat Creek stone is a hoax. You're right, though, I was confused about the decalogue stones. I had no idea there were two. I'm pretty sure it's the New Mexico inscription that I criticized earlier in this thread for its mistakes and its use of the caret, though. You can go back and read that if you're still interested.

Yes, you did remark correctly about the inscription (from your POV), I just wanted to clarify that the controversy surrounding the other decalogue stone was getting confusingly jumbled up with this one. And the Bat Creek stone which you mentioned had nothing to do with the discussion except that you felt it fell into the same category.