|
Post by blacky on Feb 1, 2010 7:20:20 GMT 10
cool move on to the next one now then lol
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Feb 1, 2010 7:47:56 GMT 10
well it did pass abit of time,lol and you never stated it was fact so all is kool
|
|
|
Post by blacky on Feb 1, 2010 8:28:03 GMT 10
we are all here for the same reasons mate to find out as much truth as we can! its good to debunk these things! in fact I may as well move this to that section lol
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Feb 1, 2010 19:17:52 GMT 10
Good find Blacky. Looking at it, it does look newer than it should but it may have been cleaned up a bit.
In 1996, Prof. James D. Tabor of the Dept. of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, interviewed the late Professor Frank Hibben (1910-2002), a retired University of New Mexico archaeologist, "who is convinced that the inscription is ancient and thus authentic. He reports that he first saw the text in 1933. At the time it was covered with lichen and patination and was hardly visible. He was taken to the site by a guide who had seen it as a boy, back in the 1880s." (Tabor 1997) At present the inscription itself is badly chalked and scrubbed up. However, Moorehouse compares the surviving weathering on the inscription to that on a nearby modern graffito dating itself to 1930. He concludes that the Decalogue inscription is clearly many times older than this graffito, and that 500 to 2000 years would not be an unreasonable estimate of its age. www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Feb 1, 2010 21:36:25 GMT 10
there is such a big difference between 500 to 2000 or 3000 years ago that it still can be used as creationist propaganda.
500 years ago could also be 200-300 years ago and then that would mean that early christians who came to america could have carved it using hebrew for authenticity. or even a hebrew immigrant. that is reasonable and plausible but has no significant religious value.
so most likely it happened as i mentioned about and then the creationist caught hold of the story and beefed up the age to boost their theories.
|
|
|
Post by blacky on Feb 1, 2010 21:36:46 GMT 10
oh jeeze wes im going have to move this again now am I lol! good bit of info there wesley!!!
|
|
|
Post by blacky on Feb 1, 2010 21:39:28 GMT 10
the thing thats putting me off about this is the site it has come from! the name of the site also! thats why I had to post this to see if anyone else could find any info on it!
|
|
|
Post by Wes on Feb 1, 2010 22:15:27 GMT 10
500 years ago could also be 200-300 years ago and then that would mean that early Christians who came to America could have carved it using Hebrew for authenticity. or even a Hebrew immigrant. that is reasonable and plausible but has no significant religious value. Yeah Drex good points.
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Feb 8, 2010 6:11:19 GMT 10
maybe these were the rocks god used as practice rocks ...to make the real 10 commandments ...... burning stuff into stone can be a little tricky ... even for the big guy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2010 13:13:27 GMT 10
Ahhhhhh, you could be onto something there Wiggy, maybe these are the original 10 commandments, the ones that included " though shall not molest little boys" untill the Catholic church rewrote them in the middle ages.
|
|