Glass & Steel in the Book of Mormon, why a problem?

[Guest]

You acknowledge that there's no evidence of an iron age in pre-Columbian mesoamerica. That's right. Now follow that to its logical conclusion - it's not a historical work, since it presents an ancient American iron age.

<- and there it is - that is the historical view of the Book of Mormon that is broken. Not the Book itself.

The book itself speaks of a pre-columbian iron age in the Americas. But throughout the discussion you've run away from what the book itself says.

[_Themis]

How many people lived that Nephite colony at its peak and where was it? We can basically guess where the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations were. The colony - well, good luck with that.

At the end of the Book of Mormon they give us a number of 1/4 million in their army after they had already lost many of their people to war and defections to the Lamanites over a period of decades. Again you are not going with the text, and just want to make assumptions that the text does not support.

Look. I'm sure you want the text to state there is an iron age.

What the text says is that they had high heat technology that they used to make iron and steel. The text says they made all manner of things with iron from the beginning of the Book of Mormon throughout. Can you tell us what things archeologists would expect to find with a large group that the text says the Nephites became if they had technology to make iron tools and weapons. This is an issue you have also avioded that Runtu brought up.

It makes it easy to disprove because there is no evidence of an iron age in any archeological study outside of some highly localized uses such as an ancient iron mine in Peru.

You are not disproving anything I said, since I already know there is no evidence. This is the whole point. The text is anachronistic when it comes to iron and steel. by the way do you know what they were mining for at this ancient mine in Peru?

I find such uses indicitive of what I've been stating as well as some references in the text with indicate the swords employed by the Lamanites were not iron.

Nothing directly says their swords were made of wood. You have to make certain assumptions to get there. It is irrelevant though becuase the text clearly says the Nephites and Jaredites did use iron and steel.

I have explained why the mentioning of iron alone or selective uses does not imply iron age and that is why we do not find any evidence of one. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The problem here is not the text, but your desire to interpret it far beyond what it says. You do this becuase you are sure the Book of Mormon is true, so if iron and steel haven't been found, then it must not have been used much. This does not really accord with what the text tells us. You also have avioded what this kind of knowledge would mean for many other things like pottery that we also do not see.

[_Themis]

You acknowledge that there's no evidence of an iron age in pre-Columbian mesoamerica. That's right. Now follow that to its logical conclusion - it's not a historical work, since it presents an ancient American iron age.

<- and there it is - that is the historical view of the Book of Mormon that is broken. Not the Book itself.

The Book of Mormon fits very well with a 19th century production. Looking for anachronisms is what is done to determine the authenticity of texts claiming ancient authorship. This is why parts of Isiah are now not considered to be written by one author.

[_Runtu]

The Book of Mormon fits very well with a 19th century production. Looking for anachronisms is what is done to determine the authenticity of texts claiming ancient authorship. This is why parts of Isiah are now not considered to be written by one author.

The Book of Mormon is exactly what one would expect to come out of early 19th-century mound-builder myths specific to the Northeastern United States. I wrote about that a long time ago, and no one has contested what I said other than to say that a Mesoamerican setting works better (which is bollocks).

The mention of Isaiah is also significant, in that much of the Isaiah text cited in the Book of Mormon as being from the plates of brass was written after the Babylonian exile. In other words, the presence of texts that the pre-exilic Nephites would not have had access to is yet another glaring anachronism.

[_Drifting]

So far, to ensure the Book of Mormon can possibly be believed, the apologists have discounted:
1. The location Prophets said it took place.
2. All scientific evidence in any of the locations apologists say it took place.
3. Significant parts of the original wording.
4. All of the anthropological references within the book itself.
5. The natural laws governing the earth.

[_Tobin]

The Book of Mormon is exactly what one would expect to come out of early 19th-century mound-builder myths specific to the Northeastern United States. I wrote about that a long time ago, and no one has contested what I said other than to say that a Mesoamerican setting works better (which is bollocks).

Already demolished that little opinion of yours whether you admit it or not. See the OP Ed by Joseph Smith himself in 1842.

The mention of Isaiah is also significant, in that much of the Isaiah text cited in the Book of Mormon as being from the plates of brass was written after the Babylonian exile. In other words, the presence of texts that the pre-exilic Nephites would not have had access to is yet another glaring anachronism.

This is just another problem you have with dates is all. Isaiah pre-dates the Nephites leaving. Speculation as to when parts of Isaiah were written is just that - pure speculation.

[Guest]

This is just another problem you have with dates is all. Isaiah pre-dates the Nephites leaving. Speculation as to when parts of Isaiah were written is just that - pure speculation.

If the Church discovered a letter verified as written and signed by Joseph Smith himself declaring the Book of Mormon a big fat hoax, would you believe it?

The point I am making is that the evidences are irrelevant to you.
You don't need evidence, you believe it to be true regardless of the lack of corroboration from any avenue of investigation that doesn't rely on a tingly belly feeling.

Monson could stand at the pulpit and declare it all a nonsense and you would declare him speaking as a man.

Deutro-Isaiah is a tad more than speculation.

[_Buffalo]

The mention of Isaiah is also significant, in that much of the Isaiah text cited in the Book of Mormon as being from the plates of brass was written after the Babylonian exile. In other words, the presence of texts that the pre-exilic Nephites would not have had access to is yet another glaring anachronism.

This is just another problem you have with dates is all. Isaiah pre-dates the Nephites leaving. Speculation as to when parts of Isaiah were written is just that - pure speculation.

It's not speculation at all. You can quite easily date parts of Isaiah due to mention of current events and current political figures of the time. Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon is a major anachronism, and really is all you need to falsify it. You don't even need to go into steel or horses or anything else. Deutero-Isaiah on the brass plates is the smoking gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Is ... 80.9355.29

[_Runtu]

Already demolished that little opinion of yours whether you admit it or not. See the OP Ed by Joseph Smith himself in 1842.

You completely missed my point. The Book of Mormon fits perfectly with mound-builder mythology. That has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with local beliefs. It's like saying that Smokey and the Bandit fits perfectly with the CB/trucker craze of the mid-seventies.

Your 1842 quote indicates that Joseph Smith favored a hemispheric model, which is not a surprise to anyone. Mound-builder mythology was big in the early 19th century in the northeastern US. Ethan Smith wrote about it, Josiah Priest wrote about it, Solomon Spaulding wrote about it, and so did Joseph Smith.

This is just another problem you have with dates is all. Isaiah pre-dates the Nephites leaving. Speculation as to when parts of Isaiah were written is just that - pure speculation.

You really need to do some reading, particularly about the mound-builders and deutero-Isaiah. The work of scholars is to you speculation, but your belief that the text of the Book of Mormon doesn't support use of high-heat technologies is, what?

[_Drifting]

After seeing God, I have re-evaluated my position.

Please can you define what you mean by 'seeing'?
Thanks.

Bump for Tobin