Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canard78

So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

Recommended Posts

Still using steel to make tools and weapons in around 300BC:

Jarom 1:8

Also find it interesting that when Jesus teaches the people three hundred years later he talks about rust as a metaphor. Presumably he'd only so that if the people were used to the effect of that (that is, unless Joseph didn't just copy the entire sermon on the mount out of the bible...)

Cool anymore references to steel swords or other weapons etc?

Edited by rodheadlee

Share this post


Link to post

Because sometimes the translation was loose and sometimes it was tight. When? Whenever it suits the apologists.

 

Or, rather, whenever the evidence seems to dictate one or the other. Think about it: If a person were working with a text which was widely believed to have been translated from a now lost original document, and their task was to parse the translation for its relationship to the original language, then what would the outcome look like? Strange names or proper nouns would be attributed to the original language and taken as moments of tighter translation, while clearly English words and phrases that don't work or are anachronisms for the original setting and language would be taken as incidences of looser translation and perhaps even, in some cases, interpolations from the translator.

 

All the "apologist" is doing is pointing out that all these same kinds of phenomena that are widely known to exist in real translations can explain everything we see in the Book of Mormon language (and pretty much all translations oscillate between tighter and looser renderings of the original language, especially if the document is really long). If we accept it as a translation, these are just evidences of tighter translation in some cases, looser in others, and perhaps even some interpolations from Joseph Smith here and there. Or course, such theories are non-falsifiable. But so are they in cases such as the one I described above (and there are such cases in real life). No one I know claims such arguments as evidence for the Book of Mormon, just that various things (like anachronisms) can be explained without abandoning faith. And some, such as myself, might argue that various positive evidences justify us in favoring such explanations over the assumption that any anachronism disproves the authenticity of the book.

Share this post


Link to post

Steel making goes back 4000 years In Asia Minor http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel#History_of_steel

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Cool anymore references to steel swords or other weapons etc?

I'm guessing you know how the search function on lds.org works right?

We need a "let me google that for you" version of LDS.org

(No, to answer your question)

Share this post


Link to post

Cool anymore references to steel swords or other weapons etc?

Then of course there's the sword of Laban that makes its way all the way to Zarahemla and is used in battle by king Benjamin.

1 Nephi 4:9

9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

1 Nephi 4:18

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

2 Nephi 5:14

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

Jacob 1:10

10 The people having loved Nephi exceedingly, he having been a great protector for them, having wielded the sword of Laban in their defence, and having labored in all his days for their welfare—

Words of Mormon 1:13

13 And it came to pass also that the armies of the Lamanites came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them; and he did fight with the strength of his own arm, with the sword of Laban.

Mosiah 1:16

16 And moreover, he also gave him charge concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass; and also the plates of Nephi; and also, the sword of Laban, and the ball or director, which led our fathers through the wilderness, which was prepared by the hand of the Lord that thereby they might be led, every one according to the heed and diligence which they gave unto him.

Any obsidian sword references? Any at all? Or just steel swords?

Share this post


Link to post

Or, rather, whenever the evidence seems to dictate one or the other. Think about it: If a person were working with a text which was widely believed to have been translated from a now lost original document, and their task was to parse the translation for its relationship to the original language, then what would the outcome look like? Strange names or proper nouns would be attributed to the original language and taken as moments of tighter translation, while clearly English words and phrases that don't work or are anachronisms for the original setting and language would be taken as incidences of looser translation and perhaps even, in some cases, interpolations from the translator.

All the "apologist" is doing is pointing out that all these same kinds of phenomena that are widely known to exist in real translations can explain everything we see in the Book of Mormon language (and pretty much all translations oscillate between tighter and looser renderings of the original language, especially if the document is really long). If we accept it as a translation, these are just evidences of tighter translation in some cases, looser in others, and perhaps even some interpolations from Joseph Smith here and there. Or course, such theories are non-falsifiable. But so are they in cases such as the one I described above (and there are such cases in real life). No one I know claims such arguments as evidence for the Book of Mormon, just that various things (like anachronisms) can be explained without abandoning faith. And some, such as myself, might argue that various positive evidences justify us in favoring such explanations over the assumption that any anachronism disproves the authenticity of the book.

So... Joseph's getting text beamed from a stone... Just has to read it out. At least that's pretty much the view of Skousen. Very tight advocate from what I can tell.

But then sometimes Joseph gets bored of that and flips to a loose approach where obsidian swords are steel, tapirs are horses or something and cocoa brand are barley.

Occasionally though even that's not worth doing and instead he just dictates verbatim from sections of the KJV bible.

You're fine with him jumping around all three approaches?

Share this post


Link to post

Any obsidian sword references? Any at all? Or just steel swords?

Was that really necessary? I'm just trying to compile a list. My testimony of the BoM does not require anomalies to be ironed out in my lifetime. Anyway it would appear that Laban's sword was a special heirloom handed down for generations, perhaps because it was the only sword like it, rather than like unto it. Thanks for the help on the list.

Share this post


Link to post

Those have been found in abundance. 

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

What you have linked to is an example of wooden clubs with blade-like obsidian flakes.  Obsidian cannot rust because it is stone.  As most apologist know, the the Book of Mormon narrative states that "the blades thereof were cankered with rust.”  This strongly suggests that the Jaredite's swords were made of iron or steel, just like old world swords.  In fact, there is no evidence at all for large scale smelting of metal in the Americas before the arrival of the Spanish.  This is puzzling as the book of Mormon makes many references to the use of metals for not only swords, but also shields, helmets, etc.  It would seem that million men armies who were armed with such items would have left some evidence.  After all the few Norse visitors to Newfoundland left evidence of their metal working.  

Share this post


Link to post

Was that really necessary? I'm just trying to compile a list. My testimony of the BoM does not require anomalies to be ironed out in my lifetime. Anyway it would appear that Laban's sword was a special heirloom handed down for generations, perhaps because it was the only sword like it, rather than like unto it. Thanks for the help on the list.

Apologies. My snark was unnecessary.

You might be right. Perhaps Nephi could make more swords but wasn't able to teach the skill to others. Perhaps they broke pretty quickly as he didn't have the skills of the original Laban sword maker. Perhaps the Nephites gave up on trying to make brittle/rusty/heavy/blunt metal swords after Nephi died and instead switched to copying the locals with their much more useful and reliable local (none metal) versions. Perhaps that's why it's noteworthy that King Benjamin gets the special sword... The one unlike anything they can make. Or perhaps "the sword of Laban" is not the actual original (by now, some 200+ years old and probably useless) and is instead a symbolic title of the king's sword... Perhaps...

Share this post


Link to post

So... Joseph's getting text beamed from a stone... Just has to read it out. At least that's pretty much the view of Skousen. Very tight advocate from what I can tell.

But then sometimes Joseph gets bored of that and flips to a loose approach where obsidian swords are steel, tapirs are horses or something and cocoa brand are barley.

Occasionally though even that's not worth doing and instead he just dictates verbatim from sections of the KJV bible.

You're fine with him jumping around all three approaches?

This is hardly the place for me to lay out my translation theory, but I'm not exactly in line with Skousen. In any case, though, you are mistaking tight control with tight translation. They are not the same thing. The text could be word-for-word from God (read from the seer stone), with a tightly controlled transmission, and yet have tight and loose translation in it. I have no reason to assume God only uses tight translation and never translates loosely, do you?

Share this post


Link to post

Does the presents of Roman artifacts prove the Roman Gods exist?

Odd question. How is that relevant?

He is probably distinguishing between the secular nature of artifacts and the sacred claims surrounding them.  Thus, even if Jerusalem and Troy actually existed, that does not suggest that the miraculous events said to take place there actually did take place there.  Even if there actually were kings such as David & Solomon, there is no secular artifact showing that they were installed by God.

 

However, that is only because we have received the Bible and Homeric Epic via secular copying down through the ages.  We have no such transmission history for the Book of Mormon.  Instead, we have angelic intervention and direct transmission, which many people find miraculous or absurd.  Thus, if any actual evidence can be found verifying that Book of Mormon (which should be impossible), then that is the best secular argument for both Bible and Book of Mormon.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post

He is probably distinguishing between the secular nature of artifacts and the sacred claims surrounding them.  Thus, even if Jerusalem and Troy actually existed, that does not suggest that the miraculous events said to take place there actually did take place there.  Even if there actually were kings such as David & Solomon, there is no secular artifact showing that they were installed by God.

 

However, that is only because we have received the Bible and Homeric Epic via secular copying down through the ages.  We have no such transmission history for the Book of Mormon.  Instead, we have angelic intervention and direct transmission, which many people find miraculous or absurd.  Thus, if any actual evidence can be found verifying that Book of Mormon (which should be impossible), then that is the best secular argument for both Bible and Book of Mormon.

Exactly.

 

We have been over this discussion so many times I am staying out of this one.

 

The entire thread is based on a misinterpretation of a nuance of a quote from Dan P, and it looks like no one knows that these arguments have been made literally hundreds of times.

Share this post


Link to post

As to the correct word, if you're arguing from the POV that the book is a divine fiction from the fevered mind of Joseph Smith, then I don't see how I can even argue over it. I am arguing from the POV that the book is a record translated from a non-English source text, and so I wonder if from that POV perhaps God could have come up with a word better than "steel"? If you have any suggestions, please enlighten us.

Why couldn't he just use the word of the actual material the sword was made of? If it was made of bronze, refer to it as a "bronze sword". Likewise if it was obsidian. Edited by omni

Share this post


Link to post

Because sometimes the translation was loose and sometimes it was tight. When? Whenever it suits the apologists.

Certainly not the conclusion I came to. I do see differing types of translation, but they fit particular situations and triggers. In my (published) opinion, it is irresponsible to assume a method based on explanatory convenience. There should be defined reasons and triggers. I believe the data indicate that those reasons and triggers exist.

Share this post


Link to post

Certainly not the conclusion I came to. I do see differing types of translation, but they fit particular situations and triggers. In my (published) opinion, it is irresponsible to assume a method based on explanatory convenience. There should be defined reasons and triggers. I believe the data indicate that those reasons and triggers exist.

I'd love to hear more, if you don't mind explaining further.

Share this post


Link to post

Apologies. My snark was unnecessary.

You might be right. Perhaps Nephi could make more swords but wasn't able to teach the skill to others. Perhaps they broke pretty quickly as he didn't have the skills of the original Laban sword maker. Perhaps the Nephites gave up on trying to make brittle/rusty/heavy/blunt metal swords after Nephi died and instead switched to copying the locals with their much more useful and reliable local (none metal) versions. Perhaps that's why it's noteworthy that King Benjamin gets the special sword... The one unlike anything they can make. Or perhaps "the sword of Laban" is not the actual original (by now, some 200+ years old and probably useless) and is instead a symbolic title of the king's sword... Perhaps...

It's all good :) 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Thinking, is that it? No more?

 

Is there a verse in the Book of Mormon that indicates that swords were ever made out of a different material?

Share this post


Link to post

Certainly not the conclusion I came to. I do see differing types of translation, but they fit particular situations and triggers. In my (published) opinion, it is irresponsible to assume a method based on explanatory convenience. There should be defined reasons and triggers. I believe the data indicate that those reasons and triggers exist.

Interesting. I was under the impression, based on what I've read, that you were more firmly in the "loose" camp. Is there anything you can refer me to where you set out the reasons and triggers for it switching sometimes to "tight" and, out of interesting, does the BoM ever break those rules and expectations?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Freedom, on 23 May 2015 - 11:40 PM, said:

snapback.png

Those have been found in abundance. 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Macuahuitl

You can't post that! There is no evidence, remember? It doesn't exist 

 
 

I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Book of Mormon that said swords were made of obsidian, but it does prove that the idea of the sword was used by the Aztecs at least.

Share this post


Link to post

I've been reading up on NHM, and I don't see any very compelling arguments against it, really. Of course there's no evidence that Lehi's party was there, but it's in the right place at the right time with the right name

Share this post


Link to post

I'm guessing you know how the search function on lds.org works right?

We need a "let me google that for you" version of LDS.org

(No, to answer your question)

Well actually I searched the BoM with the words steel + swords and I only got 2 references.

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a verse in the Book of Mormon that indicates that swords were ever made out of a different material?

Any verse that says "like unto" or "after the manner of".

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a verse in the Book of Mormon that indicates that swords were ever made out of a different material?

So are we to assume that, if the book does not mention another material, that they must have been made of steel? One of the proofs of the authenticity of a book is when the author does not explain what is normal for them. If you were to tell me that you went to New York from LA I would assume that you flew. If would be unusual for someone to drive such a distance. Using steel was not normal for the Nephites, therefore the author points out that the sword of laban was made of steel. We also need to remember that the Book of Mormon is a translation and the translator would have used words that are familiar to them. We need to look past the individual words and look at the context. For example, the swords of the People of Ani-Nephi-Lehi were stained with blood. This would not happen if the they were made of steel. These are the subtle clues that we need to look for. 

Share this post


Link to post

For example, the swords of the People of Ani-Nephi-Lehi were stained with blood. This would not happen if the they were made of steel. These are the subtle clues that we need to look for. 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that having a "sword stained with blood" is a literary device, not a literal description.  It means that your sword has blood on it because you killed someone (or something). 

 

Like this...

 

and this...

 

and this...

 

and this...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...