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

[_Tobin]

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.

Just drop it. It is your theory and I accept that, but that is all it is. Clearly, if you don't believe in Christianity, the whole Deutero-Isaiah works for you. But as I've pointed out, you have to tear down Christianity to tear down Mormonism.

[_Tobin]

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.

And as I've said, that is not necessarily so. But this carpet is gettting very worn out by now. We'll agree to disagree at this point.

[_Themis]

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.

You have yet to use the text to support your assumptions. Why is that? Also iron age is a straw-man. The text describes two groups using high heat technology to make and use iron and steel. It does not say it was rare, but when it does use words to describe it, they use words that more support a more common use, which would be expected from two groups that became large civilizations spanning thousands of years and numbering in the millions. We don't disagree about the lack of iron being found, but about what the text says. Myself and others have used the text to show that it reads as being more common then you want it to be. I have also shown with assumption A why this is so important for you to do. Not becuase the text leads you to, but because Assumption A coupled with lack of evidence for iron has lead you to a number of different assumptions to protect A.

[_Buffalo]

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.

Just drop it. It is your theory and I accept that, but that is all it is. Clearly, if you don't believe in Christianity, the whole Deutero-Isaiah works for you. But as I've pointed out, you have to tear down Christianity to tear down Mormonism.

I'll drop nothing. It's not just a "theory." It's the scholarly consensus. Any intelligent person can verify it simply by reading Isaiah. Many devout Christians accept that Isaiah was written by multiple authors at different times. It doesn't affect their faith in Christ or truth claims in the slightest. It does, however, completely and utterly falsify the Book of Mormon, with no chance of redemption. The Book of Mormon is 100% proven to be not of ancient origin. Deutero-Isaiah is strong enough to do that, and it's only one of MANY evidences against the Book of Mormon.

[_Buffalo]

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.

And as I've said, that is not necessarily so. But this carpet is gettting very worn out by now. We'll agree to disagree at this point.

I'll agree that you don't have a leg to stand on here. All you have is whatever spiritual experience you think you had. All the evidence is against you.

[_Themis]

Oh please. The Book of Mormon is a religious text, not a detailed documentary of the achievements of the Nephite or Jaredite civilizations.

by the way I do agree with you here, but with a text that is not a documentary, and that is mentions iron use numerous times, I am not sure how this is suppose to help your assumptions. I would think if anything, it would lessen their likelihood of being accurate. :)

[_Tobin]

You have yet to use the text to support your assumptions. Why is that? Also iron age is a straw-man. The text describes two groups using high heat technology to make and use iron and steel. It does not say it was rare, but when it does use words to describe it, they use words that more support a more common use, which would be expected from two groups that became large civilizations spanning thousands of years and numbering in the millions. We don't disagree about the lack of iron being found, but about what the text says. Myself and others have used the text to show that it reads as being more common then you want it to be. I have also shown with assumption A why this is so important for you to do. Not becuase the text leads you to, but because Assumption A coupled with lack of evidence for iron has lead you to a number of different assumptions to protect A.

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

[_Buffalo]

You have yet to use the text to support your assumptions. Why is that? Also iron age is a straw-man. The text describes two groups using high heat technology to make and use iron and steel. It does not say it was rare, but when it does use words to describe it, they use words that more support a more common use, which would be expected from two groups that became large civilizations spanning thousands of years and numbering in the millions. We don't disagree about the lack of iron being found, but about what the text says. Myself and others have used the text to show that it reads as being more common then you want it to be. I have also shown with assumption A why this is so important for you to do. Not becuase the text leads you to, but because Assumption A coupled with lack of evidence for iron has lead you to a number of different assumptions to protect A.

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

Thus falsifying what the Book of Mormon claims about itself. Thanks!

[_Tobin]

I'll drop nothing. It's not just a "theory." It's the scholarly consensus. Any intelligent person can verify it simply by reading Isaiah. Many devout Christians accept that Isaiah was written by multiple authors at different times. It doesn't affect their faith in Christ or truth claims in the slightest. It does, however, completely and utterly falsify the Book of Mormon, with no chance of redemption. The Book of Mormon is 100% proven to be not of ancient origin. Deutero-Isaiah is strong enough to do that, and it's only one of MANY evidences against the Book of Mormon.

If Christians want to sacrifice the idea that Christ was the son of God and couldn't tell the difference between Isaiah and Duetro-Isaiah and that works for them, that is their problem - not mine.

[_Buffalo]

I'll drop nothing. It's not just a "theory." It's the scholarly consensus. Any intelligent person can verify it simply by reading Isaiah. Many devout Christians accept that Isaiah was written by multiple authors at different times. It doesn't affect their faith in Christ or truth claims in the slightest. It does, however, completely and utterly falsify the Book of Mormon, with no chance of redemption. The Book of Mormon is 100% proven to be not of ancient origin. Deutero-Isaiah is strong enough to do that, and it's only one of MANY evidences against the Book of Mormon.

If Christians want to sacrifice the idea that Christ was the son of God and couldn't tell the difference between Isaiah and Duetro-Isaiah and that works for them, that is their problem - not mine.

False dilemma, non sequitur. Deutero-Isaiah has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus himself never claimed a that he was fulfilling anything from Deutero-Isaiah, either. Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Since you don't have a leg to stand on in regards to evidence, you might as well come out with your seeing God experience. It's the only thing you seem to be basing your position on.