Horse and Chariots--Another Apologist Red Herring

[_SteelHead]

I always just reckoned that the fictional Lamanites made their fictional swords out of a mixture of pure adamantium with a little unobtainium mixed in for good measure.

But as the description of steel swords I provided is at least in the Book of Mormon, which one of us is involved in the manufacture of fiction?

[_Tobin]

God showed Nephi how to build a ship that could cross the ocean - so please. If you are going to go down the rabbit hole, then you are in Wonderland with Alice. You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't work.

I always just reckoned that the fictional Lamanites made their fictional swords out of a mixture of pure adamantium with a little unobtainium mixed in for good measure.

But as the description of steel swords I provided is at least in the Book of Mormon, which one of us is involved in the manufacture of fiction?

[_SteelHead]

My proposition of the sword being made out of unobtanium and adamantium is fully as feasible as your claims of meso-american lamanites, and macuahuitl.

Down the rabbit hole with Alice? Buddy you are the Caterpillar with the hookah, combined with mad consumption of the shrooms.

[_Themis]

All right, fair enough, let's examine another. In the Book of Mormon, it states that swords were stained with blood (Alma 24:12-15). This not something that would have been copied from the Bible and is a very odd statement. However, this fits perfectly if you know of the Mesoamerican macuahuitl with a wooden shaft in describing the discoloration of the hafts of these blade when used to kill an enemy. Given that information, the assumption that the Book of Mormon is untrue because it mentions swords (presumably iron) is factually inaccurate and the Book of Mormon actually is supported by the finding of swords (in-use) with wood hafts that stain.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=759

Check out #3

[_Tobin]

All right, fair enough, let's examine another. In the Book of Mormon, it states that swords were stained with blood (Alma 24:12-15). This not something that would have been copied from the Bible and is a very odd statement. However, this fits perfectly if you know of the Mesoamerican macuahuitl with a wooden shaft in describing the discoloration of the hafts of these blade when used to kill an enemy. Given that information, the assumption that the Book of Mormon is untrue because it mentions swords (presumably iron) is factually inaccurate and the Book of Mormon actually is supported by the finding of swords (in-use) with wood hafts that stain.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=759
Check out #3

Neither citation is relevant and their use is highly intellectually dishonest to deflect from the real meat of what is going on here. The citation of The Passions: An Ode for Music is in old english saying "He threw his blood-stain’d sword in thunder down;" while the citation later is long after the Book of Mormon was published. The reason these citations are dishonest is there is no evidence either author used the metaphor of a stained metal blade as being cleaned and made bright as does the Book of Mormon does as being miraculous event (since that would be meaningless). After all, what is miraculous about cleaning a metal sword? The Book of Mormon isn't simply using the idea of a stained sword as a literary device, but as a metaphor about he miracles of God. The Book of Mormon mentions the lamanite sword as stained and later how they will be cleansed and made bright. This can only make sense in the sitatuion discussed above (and why it is used that way). This methaphor covers 4 versuses and actually dwells heavily on the miraculous nature of the event in fact if you care to read it.

[_Themis]

Neither citation is relevant and their use is highly intellectually dishonest to deflect from the real meat of what is going on here. The citation of The Passions: An Ode for Music is in old english saying "He threw his blood-stain’d sword in thunder down;" while the citation later is long after the Book of Mormon was published. The reason these citations are dishonest is there is no evidence either author used the metaphor of a stained metal blade as being cleaned and made bright as does the Book of Mormon does as being miraculous event (since that would be meaningless). After all, what is miraculous about cleaning a metal sword? The Book of Mormon isn't simply using the idea of a stained sword as a literary device, but as a metaphor about he miracles of God. The Book of Mormon mentions the Lamanite sword as stained and later how they will be cleansed and made bright. This can only make sense in the sitatuion discussed above (and why it is used that way). This methaphor covers 4 versuses and actually dwells heavily on the miraculous nature of the event in fact if you care to read it.

It's not dishonest. I wish people would not throw out dishonest and lying so much around here. He established that the idea of blood stained swords is not new, and could have been known to Joseph. When swords are brought up the only detail we get is that they are made with steel. Nephi says he taught he people to use and make steel. It's a bad assumption to assume laminates did not have the same technology(assuming a true story). The wooden sword only makes sense because that is what you want to believe. I do agree that a getting blood out of wood would be miraculous. To me it is not that important. Critics argue the use of sword as an anachronism due to being made of steel, which it mentions with the Jaredites(ether 7:9), and in making swords after the design of Labans sword. Wooden swords are brought up by apologists, but ignore that when the text brings up swords, the only material it ever mentions is steel.

[_LDSToronto]

Oh my, Tobin! The Lord visited you and others and chastised you?! I am astounded. Please, tell me more.

This differs from my own visitation. I was told some things that I had never before heard, new knowledge, and was given a promise that has come true to a large degree.

H.

I'll just say I was in a dark place. I was not a good person and doing things in retro-spect I should not have been doing. I was in a locked apartment up to no good with someone else when a being physically entered the room and basically let us have it. We were both in shock and shaking. Even now (and I can see it clearly in my mind), I get chills. I can see the expression on the other person's face and we were both shaken to our core.

Were you doing drugs or having sex, or both?

H.

[_SteelHead]

Tobin,
reading comprehension fail.

The presence of wooden swords here is speculative, based, it seems, on the description of blood-stained Nephite swords. Yet such a description appears elsewhere in 19th-century literature, including Dickens' Great Expectations ("blood-stain'd sword in thunder down"), which itself is a quotation from William Collins' 1746 poem, "Ode on the Passions."

Said metaphor predate the Book of Mormon by nearly 100 years.

[cacheman]

Oh, you wish to discuss things now? I thought you sided with the peanut gallery in throwing out unsupported and baseless jabs, so I was trying to appease your blood-lust by responding in kind.

You thought wrong. As I said, you have argued by assertion that your subjective experience is valid and therefore anyone who disagrees is wrong and doesn't know God. That's what is unsupported and baseless. And I have no blood-lust to appease, so stop being so melodramatic.

All right, fair enough, let's examine another. In the Book of Mormon, it states that swords were stained with blood (Alma 24:12-15). This not something that would have been copied from the Bible and is a very odd statement. However, this fits perfectly if you know of the Mesoamerican macuahuitl with a wooden shaft in describing the discoloration of the hafts of these blade when used to kill an enemy. Given that information, the assumption that the Book of Mormon is untrue because it mentions swords (presumably iron) is factually inaccurate and the Book of Mormon actually is supported by the finding of swords (in-use) with wood hafts that stain.

Arguing that a literary device (in this case an obvious metaphor) should be taken literally is not a substitute for solid argument. The Book of Mormon describes weapons and tools made of smelted metal and describes in detail how they were made. Unless a macahuitl can be made by smelting ore, this assertion is, again, just an assertion without any evidence. And of course, the macahuitl itself would be anachronistic, as it did not appear among Mesoamericans until some 500 years after the time of the Book of Mormon.

That may be true. You can certainly know that God is real without the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any magic book. But, what do we know about God? If God had the Book of Mormon or Bible or any magic book created, they must be important for some reason?

And what if God didn't have the Book of Mormon created?

Your thesis that it is completely unrelated to the existence of God doesn't seem to hold up since God (through his servants) seemed rather intent on them writing down their experiences with God.

You're assuming, of course, that the people who wrote the Book of Mormon were servants of God. Big assumption.

The answer is that the Bible and Book of Mormon are a generational memory of man's past dealings with God (as fanciful as some of the claims may be).

Again, asserting something doesn't make it so.

Their purpose is to bring each new generation into memory of their God and to instruct them to seek him and bring them into rememberance of him.

Another unsupported assertion.

Few people believe in a world-wide flood as described in the Bible, but this doesn't prevent us from using the New Testament in the Bible to help understanding of the teachings of Jesus. The same can be said of the Book of Mormon. It might not mention potatoes (and this might seem like a huge oversight), but that really doesn't matter in light of what we can gain from it in knowledge of God.

If you want to say that the Book of Mormon brings you closer to God, that's fine. Essentially, you're just bearing your testimony, and I have no problem with that. But you need to understand that your testimony is yours alone, and it is subjective and non-transferrable. I know what the facts show, and I know the answers I have had to prayer, and for me the truth is clear. But I wouldn't presume to tell you that my experience Trump's yours, but you have no problem doing otherwise.

I really don't know why you think it's a good idea to combine a testimony with insults. It's not particularly impressive.

[_SteelHead]

Tobin,
My favorite is how you provided evidence for macahuitl by referencing Nephi building a ship. Evidencing a conjucture by a reference to a historical fiction does not a good argument make.

Circular reasoning much?