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

[_Tobin]

They also had a profusion of breastplates made of brass.

Now where did they all disappear to?

Oh ya, the disintegrator ray. pew! Pew! Pew!

If you can tell me where the breast plate Limhi's expedition found is, we'll go dig it up. Or the battelfield. Remember there was a very large earthquake and it could be in the ocean now.

[_Tobin]

12 Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren.

 13 Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords aagain they can no more be bwashed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.

 14 And the great God has had mercy on us, and made these things known unto us that we might not perish; yea, and he has made these things known unto us beforehand, because he loveth our asouls as well as he loveth our children; therefore, in his mercy he doth visit us by his angels, that the bplan of salvation might be made known unto us as well as unto future generations.

Can't see wood mentioned in the scripture you referenced, can you?

Oh, I know you can't. It takes a little bit of knowledge to understand the Book of Mormon sometimes.

[_Drifting]

Remember there was a very large earthquake and it could be in the ocean now.

Somebody better tell Sorenson and Meldrum...

[_subgenius]

Metal swords are rare in the Book of Mormon, and so likely to be rare in the archaeological record.

Few weapons of any kind have been found by archaeologists in Mesoamerica- its challenging environment leaves no surprise that metallic weapons have yet to be found there.
The critics' argument is from silence on this topic - the old "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" claim that they love to wave around (selectively).

Swords clearly existed in Mesoamerica, and they were so labeled by Spanish conquistadors.

Some descriptions of Nephite/Lamanite swords make more sense if a non-metallic sword such as a macahuitl is indicated by the text. Metal swords are easily cleaned and do not stain with blood, but the wooden handles of a macuahuitl or other sword-like weapon could absorb blood and become stained.

and once again...the gnat strainers appear....don't they realize what happens at the end of that fable???

[_Quasimodo]

Few weapons of any kind have been found by archaeologists in Mesoamerica- its challenging environment leaves no surprise that metallic weapons have yet to be found there.

Just a small point of correction. You could fill a dance hall with all the archaic weapons found in Mesoamerica. They are one of the most common artifacts found. All neolithic stone implements, of course.

[_Themis]

Metal swords are rare in the Book of Mormon, and so likely to be rare in the archaeological record.

CFR We shouldn't use poor apologia to assert things the text never says. The text say the made all manner of things of iron.

Few weapons of any kind have been found by archaeologists in Mesoamerica- its challenging environment leaves no surprise that metallic weapons have yet to be found there.

Actually they have found plenty. Also it's another bad apologia that metal would all rust away. Someone already pointed out iron or steel in a peat bog is protected for thousands of years without much disintegration. This area has many types of environments that metal would easily be protected. You also forget that technology that can create metal tools and weapons from smelting would leave many traces. We see none of this. Runtu has already been over this. He has a lot of patience for people who will not open their minds

The critics' argument is from silence on this topic - the old "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" claim that they love to wave around (selectively).

If you understood it, you would realize that yes in many cases it is just that. For example horse. We see a lack of evidence. Your one example was easily refuted and all you could do is attack the scientists as though they are the ones with an agenda. Self reflection would be good for you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Swords clearly existed in Mesoamerica, and they were so labeled by Spanish conquistadors.

Call them what you like. It means nothing either way for the Book of Mormon except that they are not made of metal.

Some descriptions of Nephite/Lamanite swords make more sense if a non-metallic sword such as a macahuitl is indicated by the text.

Metal swords can be cleaned, and wooden swords would certainly not, but metal swords do stain, which has been shown that this phase existed in Joseph's day. by the way Runtu has already brought up that the macuahuitl does not show up until about 500 years after Moroni.

[_Runtu]

Metal swords can be cleaned, and wooden swords would certainly not, but metal swords do stain, which has been shown that this phase existed in Joseph's day. by the way Runtu has already brought up that the macuahuitl does not show up until about 500 years after Moroni.

I think you have more patience than I do at this point.

[_Tobin]

Metal swords can be cleaned, and wooden swords would certainly not, but metal swords do stain, which has been shown that this phase existed in Joseph's day. by the way Runtu has already brought up that the macuahuitl does not show up until about 500 years after Moroni.

I think you have more patience than I do at this point.

It's a baseless assertion. We have no idea when the macuahuitl was invented since none exist today. The only thing we have are depictions of them (one of which is dated to 870 AD). The assertion it was definitively invented 500 years after Moroni based on ONE depiction is laughable. Also, there are depictions of weapons on Stela dating all the way back to 600 BC. These wood/obsidian type weapons have been in development and use for a very long time in Meso-America.

[_Runtu]

It's a baseless assertion. We have no idea when the macuahuitl was invented since none exist today. The only thing we have are depictions of them (one of which is dated to 870 AD). The assertion it was definitively invented 500 years after Moroni based on ONE depiction is laughable. Also, there are depictions of weapons on Stela dating all the way back to 600 BC. These wood/obsidian weapons have been in use for a very long time in Meso-America.

Macahuitls are irrelevant to the Book of Mormon. The text is clear about the weapons and tools they had and how they were made. Macahuitls, even if they were introduced 500 years earlier, do not match the text.

[_Tobin]

It's a baseless assertion. We have no idea when the macuahuitl was invented since none exist today. The only thing we have are depictions of them (one of which is dated to 870 AD). The assertion it was definitively invented 500 years after Moroni based on ONE depiction is laughable. Also, there are depictions of weapons on Stela dating all the way back to 600 BC. These wood/obsidian weapons have been in use for a very long time in Meso-America.

Macahuitls are irrelevant to the Book of Mormon. The text is clear about the weapons and tools they had and how they were made. Macahuitls, even if they were introduced 500 years earlier, do not match the text.

As has been explained to you many times, iron weapons were rare. The predominant weapons were made of more commonly found materials such as wood, bone, etc. You are just hung up on the concept that there was an iron age in the Nephite civilizaion. The way you justify this to yourself is you note that steel crafting was known to Nephi and this, according to you, triggered an iron age in the civilization that arose from his small colony (even amoung the Lamanite, who had no knowledge of this craft). You just careen from bad assumption to bad assumption based on a very selective and distorted reading of the Book of Mormon and that is all.