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

[_Tobin]

I have it on good authority that Isaiah was a strictly beer and nachoes guy. Deutero-Isaiah was into energy drinks and ginseng.

Ah beer and nachos. I love those. Good thing I'm a recovering Mormon and sometimes indulge in life's luxuries from time-to-time. Mormons have no idea on some of the things they miss out on because, I don't know, they go a little overboard on the WoW, but that is for another discussion thread (like we haven't hijacked this one and are off road already).

[_Tobin]

Clip Clop
Clip Clop
Clip Clop
Clip Clop
Clip Clop
Tobin retreats from the debate...

It's not that I"m retreating. I just don't have anything more to say about it and I don't take the Deutro-Isaiah theory at all seriously.

[_Drifting]

Clip Clop
Clip Clop
Clip Clop
Clip Clop
Clip Clop
Tobin retreats from the debate...

It's not that I"m retreating. I just don't have anything more to say about it and I don't take the Deutro-Isaiah theory at all seriously.

Oh come on, I worked hard on the receding clip clop's.

Is it worth a seperate thread for Deutro?
I know Buff is into discussing it and I too find it interesting.

U game?

[_Tobin]

Oh come on, I worked hard on the receding clip clop's.

Is it worth a seperate thread for Deutro?
I know Buff is into discussing it and I too fid it interesting.

U game?

Go for it. Maybe we'll get others to contribute. 10 against 1 is fun, but I can't be the only person on this forum that doesn't buy the Deutro-Isaiah theory.

[_Themis]

It's not that I"m retreating. I just don't have anything more to say about it and I don't take the Deutro-Isaiah theory at all seriously.

Of course not, assumption A Trump's everything. I know, I did the same for many years.

[_Themis]

I don't think you have understood a word I said. I am telling you that we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. I know you desperately want me to agree with you. I do not.

You can believe what ever you want. I just don't think on a discussion forum I should have to keep quite if I disagree.

The text speaks of iron use in select instances: the Nephite colony for example or to fashion swords over a long period of time for the Jaredites.

It speaks of it a many areas over a long period of time. I notice you want to keep calling it a colony when the text clearly indicates it was much more then a small group after centuries of time.

There are also places in the text which clearly indicate weapons fashioned out of other material: the Lamanites weapons pre-merger.

So what. Weapons have been made out of many materials in cultures that used many iron weapons. The text uses swords for all three groups, and never states once that it was made of wood, but at least once says they were made of steel, and another patterned after the steel sword of laban. You have to make assumptions based on other inferences that are not that strong.

It is perfect plausible to state that these uses and non-uses were like elsewhere in the world where due to both limited supplies of ore and specialized craftsmen and no iron age as well.

Iron age really is about having technology to smelt it, which the text says they did. As to supplies being limited, the text makes no such indication, and does indicate that it probably was not that rare. They mine it even today in central America.

And it is just as plausible to state that other more commonly had materials were used for the vast majority of weapons (of which we find they were still in use when the Spanish arrived). So, let me say it again, there is no evidence of an iron age because there was no iron age. Your wishes to the contrary.

This whole thread , and you still haven't figured out that I agree with you here. That is the point of the text being anachronistic.

[_Themis]

I have many annoying habits like that such as making well-reasoned arguments for one and analyzing my assumptions for flaws is another one.

Heh, that I haven't seen so far. ;-)

How deluded we can be sometimes. I guess he forgot about his assumption A. :)

[_Tobin]

Iron age really is about having technology to smelt it, which the text says they did. As to supplies being limited, the text makes no such indication, and does indicate that it probably was not that rare. They mine it even today in central America.

Then according to you, the iron age started elsewhere in the world 2000 BC? I don't think you'll find many people that will agree with that statement. See, this is your problem. You take things and wildly inflate and generalize them when there is no reason to do so.

[_Runtu]

Of course not, assumption A Trump's everything. I know, I did the same for many years.

So did I. The worst is when you finally realize what you were doing all that time.

[_Themis]

Then according to you, the iron age started elsewhere in the world 2000 BC? I don't think you'll find many people that will agree with that statement.

Could you show where I made that statement. Your problem again is assumption A. I no longer make that assumption, so I can look at the text, and what we see from evidence outside of the text for clues to see whether the text is likely to be from an ancient source or from the 19th century. It really does fit the 19th century. When I look at other issues, there really was no other conclusion to make.