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

[_Buffalo]

Duetero-Isaiah contains the "suffering servant" passage that Christians often use as a messianic prophesy, but the scholarly consensus is that the suffering servant is in fact Israel itself, who by that time were in captivity. It's not an odd position to take. Deutero-Isaiah is an example of pseudepigrapha. It's all over the Bible. Something like half the epistles of Paul were not authored by Paul, either. Again, this is the scholarly consensus. You'd do well to educate yourself on the matter before trying to poo poo it.

Ok, so just be clear. Jesus Christ was himself fooled and is not the son of God. He fulfilled parts of Isaiah not written by Isaiah. Your facts just disproved Christianity as well. Poor Joseph Smith. Not only is Christianity a hoax but as a result, so is Mormonism. Well, if that is what you feel you must do to disprove Mormonism, have at it.

That's not even remotely what I was saying. It doesn't disprove Jesus. Just because Jesus' followers misinterpreted a passage from Deutero-Isaiah, doesn't mean Jesus was a fraud. It only disproves the Book of Mormon. It's not a controversial position, Tobin. This is a settled matter.

But technically, millions upon millions of people who have been executed by oppressive governments fulfilled that Isaiah passage in the way early Christians came to interpret it.

[_Buffalo]

Why would Jesus care who wrote Isaiah? If it's scripture, who cares who wrote it?

Ah I see. So Jesus (the son of God supposedly) couldn't recognize what was written by Isaiah and what wasn't. He just felt the need to fulfill some unknown author's words to demonstrate he was the son of God as prophesied by Isaiah (but we know it wasn't *wink* *wink*, it was just some guy parading around as Isaiah and oh by the way that guy was NOT a prophet of God) for the fun of it? As you can see, this gets more and more absurd the further I go with it so I"ll stop here. You both have provided me a good laugh today though and I do appreciate that.

Perhaps the anonymous author of Deutero-Isaiah was also inspired of God. But he didn't write it until a generation after Lehi left Jerusalem.

[_Buffalo]

Sorry Tobin. Mormonism has some specific problems that Christianity does not. It's based on the writings of a man who existed in historical times. There is a great deal of information about him. Most of it is not very flattering.

His book (the Book of Mormon) has very serious historical problems (you have been discussing those at length on this thread).

The events of Christ's life can be questioned, but the life and works of Joseph Smith are up for serious scrutiny. The results of that scrutiny result in an unavoidable conclusion that they are not true.

Is there a historical Christ or is he a work of fiction? Now, let's suppose he was historical. What do you suppose the vast majority of Jews and Romans thought of his claims and magic tricks? My guess is they thought he was a minor revolutionary that was put to death by the Romans and they did not believe his claims of being the son of God (the Romans would have been wondering son of which God?). So no, I don't really see much difference at all between these two characters. Both JC and Joseph Smith make preposterous claims and outside of God telling you that it is true, there is no credible reason to believe either of them.

There are definite problems for Christianity, but they pale in comparison to Mormonism's historical problems.

[_Themis]

Interesting that you warm up to him after you find out he believes in God. It's to bad that you cannot see your own assumptions that you keep stating as fact, even when they are not supported by the text or other evidences.

Clearly, you still subscribe to the false idea that there is only one way to interpret ambiguous text (your way) nor do you include reason; or historical, scientific, or archeological evidence (or lack thereof) in your definition of evidences.

Clearly not. This thread was about whether steel and iron was anachronistic, which it is. You make the assumption that their use of steel and iron was to rare to ever realistically be detected by modern science. You don't get this assumption is not supported anywhere in the text. We have asked you to support it, but you have failed to do so. The text does mention it's use for both Jaredites and Nephites, and at a minimum later on Lamanites were using many precious metals. These groups were to have existed for thousands and years and numbered in the millions. The text uses words or phrases like, all manner, became rich. Even more importantly you have still ignored the most important part that in order for both groups to smelt iron, they need high heat technology. This technology would mean a number of things, and other benefits that should be easily seen in the archeological record(look them up). I suspect you have little knowledge about this and don't want to go there.

[_Runtu]

Clearly not. This thread was about whether steel and iron was anachronistic, which it is. You make the assumption that their use of steel and iron was to rare to ever realistically be detected by modern science. You don't get this assumption is not supported anywhere in the text. We have asked you to support it, but you have failed to do so. The text does mention it's use for both Jaredites and Nephites, and at a minimum later on Lamanites were using many precious metals. These groups were to have existed for thousands and years and numbered in the millions. The text uses words or phrases like, all manner, became rich. Even more importantly you have still ignored the most important part that in order for both groups to smelt iron, they need high heat technology. This technology would mean a number of things, and other benefits that should be easily seen in the archeological record(look them up). I suspect you have little knowledge about this and don't want to go there.

There is never only one way to read a text. That said, certain readings are more supportable than others. I've explained why I believe the most straightforward reading of the text is warranted. If it were just a few vague references to certain technologies, it would make sense to be more cautious about the interpretation. But that's not the case here.

[_Tobin]

Clearly not. This thread was about whether steel and iron was anachronistic, which it is. You make the assumption that their use of steel and iron was to rare to ever realistically be detected by modern science. You don't get this assumption is not supported anywhere in the text. We have asked you to support it, but you have failed to do so. The text does mention it's use for both Jaredites and Nephites, and at a minimum later on Lamanites were using many precious metals. These groups were to have existed for thousands and years and numbered in the millions. The text uses words or phrases like, all manner, became rich. Even more importantly you have still ignored the most important part that in order for both groups to smelt iron, they need high heat technology. This technology would mean a number of things, and other benefits that should be easily seen in the archeological record(look them up). I suspect you have little knowledge about this and don't want to go there.

Oh please. The Book of Mormon is a religious text, not a detailed documentary of the achievements of the Nephite or Jaredite civilizations. You've crafted a version of the Book that must mean there was an iron age. I have pointed out that is not necessarily so and your counter argument is that you whine about me ignoring the text. I have discussed ad nauseum why my position is perfectly plausible and you clearly don't agree, so we'll agree to disagree at this point.

[Guest]

There are definite problems for Christianity, but they pale in comparison to Mormonism's historical problems.

That's like saying one sandcastle is made out of sand and rocks and one is made out of sand and seashells. The point is, they are both sandcastles.

[_Themis]

There is never only one way to read a text. That said, certain readings are more supportable than others. I've explained why I believe the most straightforward reading of the text is warranted. If it were just a few vague references to certain technologies, it would make sense to be more cautious about the interpretation. But that's not the case here.

Agreed. The problem here is that some make the assumption(A) that the Book of Mormon is true. This is only a problem when this assumption will not be questioned. This mean all other assumptions have to be made with the main assumption in mind, even if the text does not support it. It's hard to dispute that evidence for iron smelting is non-existent, so that must mean for assumption A to be protected that the text must mean iron was very rare, and evidence is not likely to be forthcoming. Or as we have seen already been presented is that iron and steel tools would not have lasted till day(this one is not even questioned. If they had they would see it is incorrect), and the technology must also be lost. This ignores the other evidences missing from a civilization who had high heat technology. While this may not be impossible, it is very unlikely, and the text does not really support such a rare use of a technology that would be highly advantageous for more then just iron and steel. In the end assumption A is what is driving all other assumptions bad or good.

[Guest]

There are definite problems for Christianity, but they pale in comparison to Mormonism's historical problems.

That's like saying one sandcastle is made out of sand and rocks and one is made out of sand and seashells. The point is, they are both sandcastles.

Not really. Christianity is like a crumbling old castle on a hill. Mormonism is the sandcastle.

[_Buffalo]

Oh please. The Book of Mormon is a religious text, not a detailed documentary of the achievements of the Nephite or Jaredite civilizations. You've crafted a version of the Book that must mean there was an iron age. I have pointed out that is not necessarily so and your counter argument is that you whine about me ignoring the text. I have discussed ad nauseum why my position is perfectly plausible and you clearly don't agree, so we'll agree to disagree at this point.

And yet the achievements of the Nephites and Jaredites are documented quite clearly in the Book of Mormon. You don't seem to be too concerned what the Book of Mormon has to say for itself, which is odd from someone who is so ardently trying to defend it.