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

[_Tobin]

Do you believe the Olmecs and the Jaredites are one and the same?

I suspect so.

[_Drifting]

Do you believe the Olmecs and the Jaredites are one and the same?

I suspect so.

What consistencies exist between the two?
(Other than timeframe and location. Which for the purposes of the thread I will accept as consistent with the Book of Mormon)

[_Tobin]

What consistencies exist between the two?(other than timeframe and location)

Time frame (2500BC/1500BC up to when the Mulekites arrive ~580BC - 400BC according to archeologists), Location (Guatemala), cities were abandoned for unknown reasons and the population disappeared (the prevaling theory is some ecological disaster or plague), and an advanced civilization rivaling anything the Maya came up with including advanced art, metal working, and cultural buildings and other remnants. Also, they share many cultural attributes with many early west african cultures (such as the Numerian and early Nile cultures) in the types of carvings of large depiction - heads in this case and art that remains, and from what script we have of the Olmec (though there are few examples) is analogous to ancient Libyco-Berber writing. This type of cuneiform writing was later used to write languages such as Sumerian, Hittite, Assyrian and Akkadian.

[_Drifting]

What consistencies exist between the two?(other than timeframe and location)

Time frame (2500BC/1500BC up to when the Mulekites arrive ~580BC - 400BC according to archeologists), Location (Guatemala), cities were abandoned for unknown reasons and the population disappeared (the prevaling theory is some ecological disaster or plague), and an advanced civilization rivaling anything the Maya came up with including advanced art, metal working, and cultural buildings and other remnants. Also, they share many cultural attributes with many early west african cultures (such as the Numerian and early Nile cultures) in the types of carvings of large depiction - heads in this case and art that remains, and from what script we have of the Olmec (though there are few examples) is analogous to ancient Libyco-Berber writing. This type of cuneiform writing was later used to write languages such as Sumerian, Hittite, Assyrian and Akkadian.

My apologies Tobin I should have been clearer.

Firstly, I stated up front that we should accept the timeframe and location as consistent.

Secondly I was after references about the Jaredites from the Book of Mormon that seem consistent with what we know about the Olmecs.

Thanks.

[_SteelHead]

Tobin,
From what I have been able to find, there is only one guy out there claiming olmec writings are Lybico-berber. Said guy is viewed as a crackpot by the archeological community. You have anything to support the linguistic comnection?

[_Tobin]

Tobin,
From what I have been able to find, there is only one guy out there claiming olmec writings are Lybico-berber. Said guy is viewed as a crackpot by the archeological community. You have anything to support the linguistic comnection?

Steelhead, his claim is very suspect and it is difficult to take it at all seriously due to the limited character set we have. Ranges on the number of characters that are Olmec go from as low as 28 (on the Cascajal block characters which are unique and unlike other characters found in mesoamerica) to as high as 186 if you include various types of pottery and so forth - though clearly stating which characters are epi-Olmec/Zapotec vs purely Olmec is something else that is often debated. I just found it interesting that someone would have stated that the characters may bear a similarity to Lybico-berber by someone that is not Mormon in this field when I read about it.

[_Themis]

It isn't me putting words in your mouth. I'm just trying to understand your extreme position on when there is an iron age and when there isn't one.

At this point I have to suspect you are being dishonest. I think you know full well that I have not made any extreme positions about iron ages.

Now, what do we know about mesoamerican civilizations?

1) They did mine iron ore to a limited desgree for reasons described below.

Any mining was not done for smelting purposes.

2) They certainly had bronze - fashioned into axes, bells, etc, so it is ridiculous to believe they did not understand the concept of heat or melting and molding of metals.

It is all to late for the Book of Mormon. We are talking about high heat technology. Of course they would have had some understanding, considering they were melting softer metals(although this came later then Book of Mormon times to this area).

3) The Olmec crafted iron beads and iron ore/magnetite mirrors - so they must have had sufficient technology to melt, and press and mold this metal as well.

Not really. They did not do any smelting to get these things. Meteorite iron was a small source. Polisheing was done to get the mirrors.

4) The Olmecs made numerous ceramics for use as art, etc., so they were NOT unfamiliar with high heat.

Incorrect as usual. You don't need to use high heat to make ceramics, but you do to make better quality ones. We don't see this, which is another clue they never had it.

The problem with the New World (as many have noted) is there isn't much iron ore close the surface.

You know this how, not to mention you bring up that they were mining iron ore for other purposes.

It requires mining expertise.

Which the text brings up that they had. You also bring up the Olmec's mining it. :)

We know both the Olmecs and Maya were very sophisticated at crafting metal ores.

Crafting it, not smelting it. Big difference. Iron ore has a number uses that don't involve smelting.

Metals were used primarily as a precious commodity in jewelry and for trade however.

I don't disagree with you. One reason they were precious commodities is that they didn't know how to smelt iron.

There is no sign of an iron age.

Everyone agrees.

And as I have noted, if they had iron weapons, they would have been rare and difficult to craft.

That's not based on the text, but on assumption A which cannot be questioned.

In the case of the Jaredites, the number of weapons can be explained by simply the length of time the civilization existed.

Another assumption based on assumption A, and not on the text.

In the case of the Nephites (a much shortered lived civilization), it is clear they had few iron weapons and resorted to more commonly had materials which types of weapons that were still in use when the Spanish arrived.

Another wild assumption based on Assumption A, and not on the text.

Your position almost singularly assumes the text describes an iron age and the presence of large amounts of iron ore and large uses of high heat in the fashioning of implements, glass and so on.

You want it to be rare, due to no evidence being found, and not willing to question assumption A. I understand your agenda here. I had it as well. The text does not support this, becuase it mentions it a number of times(a text you are correct is not a documentary), and if we look at the words being used with them, it certainly is not indicating rarity. Again it's needed to protect assumption A.

nor does the text describe any such activity which is a huge hole in your assumption since this would have been essential.

You already said it the text was not a documentary, yet it still describes iron use, and words that would be more in line with it being common then rare. Deal with that.

There certainly is no evidence of iron used in construction, agriculture, glassware, and so on. The only uses of note is as a precious trading commodity and other specialized uses such as the beads and mirrors crafted by the Olmec. So the claim that they did not possess sufficient technology to deal with the material is absurd. It is only a question of the degree to which the metal was employed.

You clearly need to study this more. You still have not really dealt with high heat technology, and with what you breoguth up, it's obvious you do not understand the difference.

[_Themis]

Just for clarity. You are using the example of a civilization that pre-dates the Book of Mormon era, is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon and, according to God's promise in the Book of Mormon, should not have even been there.Okay, got it.

No we are not. The Olmecs match up well against the Jaredite timeline.

Not that well. They existed well before 2200 BC, and well after. If you look at other evidences, they don't match at all. Their eventual decline was not due to war, but environmental changes that did not allow for large groups of farmers

[_Themis]

I just found it interesting that someone would have stated that the characters may bear a similarity to Lybico-berber by someone that is not Mormon in this field when I read about it.

You may, but if you look around more, you will see this all over the place. Part of the problem is we human's like to see patterns, which causes us to see many pattern that don't really exist.

[_Themis]

In the case of the Jaredites, the number of weapons can be explained by simply the length of time the civilization existed. In the case of the Nephites (a much shortered lived civilization), it is clear they had few iron weapons and resorted to more commonly had materials which types of weapons that were still in use when the Spanish arrived.

Your problem here again is that this would easily leave some evidence, which we don't see. The Nephites were supposed to last a thousands years and in the last half century had large numbers. Again we would expect to see some evidence. We don't, and this is why the text is still anachronistic with iron and steel.