Jump to content
clarkgoble

Bows in the Book of Mormon

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Let me say up front I'm a big believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But I think we have to frankly acknowledge places where we don't have solid evidence to answer critics. I think an important part of apologetics is acknowledging that but then pointing out places where we presume something existed but have no evidence. (Hannibal's elephants being the more popular way of explaining how evidence can disappear)

I bring all this up because in today's Book of Mormon central there's a discussion of arrows and other weapons mentioned by Jarom. The problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period. That is I think they misrepresent the time frame of bows. Typically the bow isn't seen as reaching mesoAmerica until fairly late during the late postclassic era. You can trace the movement of the bow reasonably well in archaeology as it moves from the north southward. It appears to be in what we now call Mexico by 600 AD and the Yucatan by 800 AD. That's obviously well after the pre-Christian era of the Book of Mormon narrative though.

Now there are other ways to read the discussion of the bow. But I think it's important to engage with the critics arguments rather than representing things as not a problem without explaining why they aren't a problem. When we do that and people inevitably encounter the arguments against our positions we come off as disingenuous. That then undermines the strong arguments we can make.

I know that Bill Hamblin provided in his paper, "The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon" links to various claims of pre-Christian bows. But my understanding is that most of these references are controversial and that the dating of the bow isn't seriously questioned. I think Hamblin does the best job grappling with the arguments, but it does seem a topic that perhaps needs a followup by someone trained in the actual archaeology of the region.

To be fair in a footnote the BMC articles does have the follow:

Quote

The exact timing of when the bow was introduced into Mesoamerican warfare is a matter of continued debate. However, in a recent and comprehensive assessment of Maya weaponry, especially chipped-stone weaponry, Dr. Kazuo Aoyama has noted: “Although spear or dart points were more important than the bow and arrow in Classic Maya warfare, both notched and unnotched obsidian prismatic blade points were present in the Copan Valley during the Early and Late Classic periods … . The result of high-power microwear analysis indicate that these points were main used as arrowheads. The bow and arrow was present in the Maya lowlands earlier than has been previously suggested.” Kazuo Aoyama, “Classic Maya Warfare and Weapons: Spear, Dart, and Arrow Points of Aguateca and Copan,” Ancient Mesoamerica 16, no. 2 (2005): 291–304, quote on 301, emphasis added. See also William J. Hamblin, “The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon,” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, 379–392; John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), 413–415.

What do you think?

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Let me say up front I'm a big believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But I think we have to frankly acknowledge places where we don't have solid evidence to answer critics. I think an important part of apologetics is acknowledging that but then pointing out places where we presume something existed but have no evidence. (Hannibal's elephants being the more popular way of explaining how evidence can disappear)

I bring all this up because in today's Book of Mormon central there's a discussion of arrows and other weapons mentioned by Jarom. The problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period. That is I think they misrepresent the time frame of bows. Typically the bow isn't seen as reaching mesoAmerica until fairly late during the late postclassic era. You can trace the movement of the bow reasonably well in archaeology as it moves from the north southward. It appears to be in what we now call Mexico by 600 AD and the Yucatan by 800 AD. That's obviously well after the pre-Christian era of the Book of Mormon narrative though.

Now there are other ways to read the discussion of the bow. But I think it's important to engage with the critics arguments rather than representing things as not a problem without explaining why they aren't a problem. When we do that and people inevitably encounter the arguments against our positions we come off as disingenuous. That then undermines the strong arguments we can make.

I know that Bill Hamblin provided in his paper, "The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon" links to various claims of pre-Christian bows. But my understanding is that most of these references are controversial and that the dating of the bow isn't seriously questioned. I think Hamblin does the best job grappling with the arguments, but it does seem a topic that perhaps needs a followup by someone trained in the actual archaeology of the region.

To be fair in a footnote the BMC articles does have the follow:

What do you think?

The atlal serves much the same purpose as the bow.  It all goes back to the nature of the translation and Joseph Smith's interaction with the text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The atlal serves much the same purpose as the bow.  It all goes back to the nature of the translation and Joseph Smith's interaction with the text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower

I agree but if you look at the art, they're using explicit mesoAmerican art of the bow for a period centuries earlier.

It's worth noting that atlals and bows were used side by side for some time, which surprises some people given how much easier to use the bow is. I suppose it's analogous to how bows and crossbows were both used in Europe for a period.

To the idea that atlals were translated as bows, while extremely probable we must then deal with the separate term for javelin. Although perhaps it translates javelins as bows and arrows and spears as javelins. But then you have the problematic verse of Jarom 1:8 that includes both bows and arrows as well as javelins and darts. That's the verse the BMC article is supposed to be addressing but if we make the translation move their explanation is harder to buy.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

What do you think?

I think if “the problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period,” they might be advised of that point and to dispense with or improve the art.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Let me say up front I'm a big believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But I think we have to frankly acknowledge places where we don't have solid evidence to answer critics. I think an important part of apologetics is acknowledging that but then pointing out places where we presume something existed but have no evidence. (Hannibal's elephants being the more popular way of explaining how evidence can disappear)

I bring all this up because in today's Book of Mormon central there's a discussion of arrows and other weapons mentioned by Jarom. The problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period. That is I think they misrepresent the time frame of bows. Typically the bow isn't seen as reaching mesoAmerica until fairly late during the late postclassic era. You can trace the movement of the bow reasonably well in archaeology as it moves from the north southward. It appears to be in what we now call Mexico by 600 AD and the Yucatan by 800 AD. That's obviously well after the pre-Christian era of the Book of Mormon narrative though.

Now there are other ways to read the discussion of the bow. But I think it's important to engage with the critics arguments rather than representing things as not a problem without explaining why they aren't a problem. When we do that and people inevitably encounter the arguments against our positions we come off as disingenuous. That then undermines the strong arguments we can make.

I know that Bill Hamblin provided in his paper, "The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon" links to various claims of pre-Christian bows. But my understanding is that most of these references are controversial and that the dating of the bow isn't seriously questioned. I think Hamblin does the best job grappling with the arguments, but it does seem a topic that perhaps needs a followup by someone trained in the actual archaeology of the region.

To be fair in a footnote the BMC articles does have the follow:

What do you think?

I don't agree with the Mesoamerican model at all, so it is not a concern to me really other than to be another peg in its coffin.

However, the advent of the bow and arrow in the Americas is also another peg in the coffin of the Beringian land bridge model of the settlement of the Americas. Some archaeologists such as those even at the Smithsonian are starting to wake up to this fact. I believe there are too many instances of technological advancements appearing in the Americas soon after appearing in the Old World to be mere coincidence. In other words there was obviously movement from the Old World to the New World long after the Beringian land bridge disappeared. That model is doomed - at least as a model for all the Native peoples in the Americas.

Lastly, don't the bow and arrow findings largely assume that the bow wasn't in America based on arrowhead types? In other words perhaps it was introduced earlier, but with heads which looked more like atlatl spearheads. What does archaeology say about that?

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The atlal serves much the same purpose as the bow.  It all goes back to the nature of the translation and Joseph Smith's interaction with the text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower

The problem is that an "atlal" is basically a spear (a word that was presumably familiar to Joseph Smith).

The second problem is that "bows" are almost always mentioned with "arrows."  I know we need to be creative when it comes to figuring out how to fit the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerica (or anywhere), but is it too creative to suggest that what the Book of Mormon describes as "bows and arrows" (and "quivers") was actually a spear-type object?

Two examples:

Mosiah 9:

Quote
  1. [16] And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could invent, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle.

Alma 2

Quote

 

  1. [12] Therefore the people of the Nephites were aware of the intent of the Amlicites, and therefore they did prepare to meet them; yea, they did arm themselves with swords, and with cimeters, and with bows, and with arrows, and with stones, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons of war, of every kind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The atlal serves much the same purpose as the bow.  It all goes back to the nature of the translation and Joseph Smith's interaction with the text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower

I believe the BoM covers the atlatl with its use of the term "the dart" as one of the weapons. Clearly Nephi's bow was not a dart. It was a steel bow that broke. The Nephites clearly introduced the bow to their area, although the Mulekites probably had it as well, but the atlatl pre-existed it ie was already in the Americas.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that an "atlal" is basically a spear (a word that was presumably familiar to Joseph Smith).

The second problem is that "bows" are almost always mentioned with "arrows."  I know we need to be creative when it comes to figuring out how to fit the Book of Mormon to Mesoamerica (or anywhere), but is it too creative to suggest that what the Book of Mormon describes as "bows and arrows" (and "quivers") was actually a spear-type object?

Two examples:

Mosiah 9:

Alma 2

 

I said that the atlatl "serves much the same purpose."  Both project a pointed stick at an object at a distance.  To the guy with the pointed stick sticking out of his belly it really doesn't matter whether the guy over there with the bow or the guy with the atlatl was responsible, he's still got a pointed stick stuck in him.  Both accomplish the same task from a military point of view.

The next thing I wrote was about the nature of the translation.  If you're a Skousenite you would expect that if Joseph Smith dictated bow that the traditional bow with it's accompanying arrows is what's being referred to.

If you're more of a Gardnerite then the idea of a bow being an atlatl might not sound so strange.

Other options may exist as well.  And if it turns out that all the Nephite angels dancing on the head of a pin are carrying traditional bows made of yew while wearing Greco-Romanesque armor I'll be fine with it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I believe the BoM covers the atlatl with its use of the term "the dart" as one of the weapons. Clearly Nephi's bow was not a dart. It was a steel bow that broke. The Nephites clearly introduced the bow to their area, although the Mulekites probably had it as well, but the atlatl pre-existed it ie was already in the Americas.

Nephi's bow would seem to defiantly be a bow.  Bu that is not, I believe, what them OP is asking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Let me say up front I'm a big believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. But I think we have to frankly acknowledge places where we don't have solid evidence to answer critics. I think an important part of apologetics is acknowledging that but then pointing out places where we presume something existed but have no evidence. (Hannibal's elephants being the more popular way of explaining how evidence can disappear)

I bring all this up because in today's Book of Mormon central there's a discussion of arrows and other weapons mentioned by Jarom. The problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period. That is I think they misrepresent the time frame of bows. Typically the bow isn't seen as reaching mesoAmerica until fairly late during the late postclassic era. You can trace the movement of the bow reasonably well in archaeology as it moves from the north southward. It appears to be in what we now call Mexico by 600 AD and the Yucatan by 800 AD. That's obviously well after the pre-Christian era of the Book of Mormon narrative though.

Now there are other ways to read the discussion of the bow. But I think it's important to engage with the critics arguments rather than representing things as not a problem without explaining why they aren't a problem. When we do that and people inevitably encounter the arguments against our positions we come off as disingenuous. That then undermines the strong arguments we can make.

I know that Bill Hamblin provided in his paper, "The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon" links to various claims of pre-Christian bows. But my understanding is that most of these references are controversial and that the dating of the bow isn't seriously questioned. I think Hamblin does the best job grappling with the arguments, but it does seem a topic that perhaps needs a followup by someone trained in the actual archaeology of the region.

To be fair in a footnote the BMC articles does have the follow:

What do you think?

I think that you answered your own question in the footnote you quoted from the very article you unjustly criticize herewith.  Moreover, trained anthropologists such as John Sorenson (Mormon's Codex, 413,415) and Brant Gardner have already cited non-Mormon experts who put the bow & arrow as present in Mexico already by the time of Christ.  Since the hard evidence is that early, it makes little sense to ignore the fact that the bow & arrow was already a major feature of Lehi's world -- a technology explicitly brought from ancient Israel.  In such a case, as every archeologist knows, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Why?  Because excavations are so rare and limited that we do not have a random scientific sample of the cultures.  What we have instead is an account of a small group which arrives with that technology in about 586 B.C., so that the actual evidence will be quite sparse and finds dependent on sheer luck in a very limited area.

Indeed, based on information in note 12, which you didn't quote, it is also possible that arrows were being used as early as Olmec times.  It is only that finding evidence of wooden arrow shafts or bows in that area would be virtually impossible -- given the wet, semi-tropical nature of the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

(Well I have to confess I was trying to drum up an interesting discussion and be somewhat provocative given the discussion of the state of the forum. I felt like it was hypocritical of me to complain about no threads I found interesting if I didn't start one up. But if I start it up and answer everything that's not much of a discussion.)

I think explaining why there isn't evidence is part of good apologetics. But I think the pictures do give a misleading view of the data. (This tends to be a theme with me since people seem to remember pictures but forget the details of the article) So while I didn't mention why one might not expect to find shafts you're right to point out they did mention it albeit in a footnote.

To the point about what others brought up, I checked my Gardner and I think he's just quoting the same sources as Hamblin -- in his latest book he largely refers to Hamblin. I don't have his Book of Mormon commentary so I couldn't check that although it is much older. My point was that while those seemed provocative, I've not seen much followup. The footnote I did quote though did have a link to a newer article in 2005. I haven't had a chance to look it up yet though. One problem I think apologetics has had is quoting preliminary studies but not really discussing how the research is followed up or viewed. Admittedly in archaeology that seems to happen much more slowly than in science. Still we get lots of preliminary work but very little followup with careful analysis which I think is necessary to push our understanding forward. There is after all a reason why the consensus still favors a late date for the bow in mesoAmerica.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

However, the advent of the bow and arrow in the Americas is also another peg in the coffin of the Beringian land bridge model of the settlement of the Americas. Some archaeologists such as those even at the Smithsonian are starting to wake up to this fact. I believe there are too many instances of technological advancements appearing in the Americas soon after appearing in the Old World to be mere coincidence. In other words there was obviously movement from the Old World to the New World long after the Beringian land bridge disappeared. That model is doomed - at least as a model for all the Native peoples in the Americas.

Lastly, don't the bow and arrow findings largely assume that the bow wasn't in America based on arrowhead types? In other words perhaps it was introduced earlier, but with heads which looked more like atlatl spearheads. What does archaeology say about that?

Years ago I'd read some articles that argued against bows on the basis of the type of heads. I just don't recall the details. I'll try and look it up later when I find some time. Again I just read the article whereas that tends to miss the response. So again I don't know informed consensus on that point.

My memory is that you could trace the movement of the bow more or less based upon it's introduction among the Inuit and the movement south. That seems to be one of the arguments against the early mesoAmerican bow as well since if it moved through Mexico to the Yucatan you'd expect the opposite movement to happen were the bow available. Especially if it was a decisive in battle. 

I don't see this as a problem for mesoAmerica simply because I think other tools could easily be translated as bow and arrow. I mentioned a few of the problems with this. Again I was trying to engender some discussion although my personal view is that it's not really a problem. Jarom is the most difficult passage to deal with and I suspect it could easily be dealt with by just considering variants of darts, atlals, and various types of spears. We've no idea the language/glyphs on the plates IMO, but the translation seems to adopt KJV quotes, paraphrases or similar phraseology most of the time with a few variants. So you end up having something more akin to a triple translation due to that. I suspect we're getting something functionally similar to what the Hebrews used by way of the particular phrases the KJV translators used.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

However, the advent of the bow and arrow in the Americas is also another peg in the coffin of the Beringian land bridge model of the settlement of the Americas. Some archaeologists such as those even at the Smithsonian are starting to wake up to this fact.

If you have a few moments, and it doesn't derail the topic too much, would you mind please fleshing out what you are saying here?  I am especially interested in how you see it as a peg in the coffin of the Beringian land bridge model, and which Smithsonian archaeologists are, as you say, waking up to that fact?  I would love to see any of their published papers indicating this change in current thought and understanding. I have done a quick, and brief, survey online and can't find anything.  

Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think if “the problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period,” they might be advised of that point and to dispense with or improve the art.

But that would raise another problem. As RevTestament pointed out, the Nephites knew about bows, and they probably looked a lot like those in the art work. So to improve the art you'd have to erase the honest-to-goodness bow, a weapon that Jarom would have been familiar with, and replace it with an atlatl, a weapon that Jarom was probably not familiar with. Unless we assume that the Nephites swapped their bows out for local technologies within two generations of arriving.

Just doesn't seem like something that would happen without at least someone mentioning "oh, by the way...those bows and arrows that Grandpa Jacob and Great-uncle Nephi used aren't exactly the same as the bows and arrows that we use."

Edited by Rajah Manchou

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure where the idea that a tool must be created in one place only and then spread slowly from one  geographical area to another arose. Even evolutionists have come up with the term ' convergent ' which admits that things can happen in several places at different times without contact. Heavens, even bagpipes are likely to have had more than one origin, I mean anyone who deals with sheep recognizes there are musical possibilities just waiting to emerge .

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

.................................................................... There is after all a reason why the consensus still favors a late date for the bow in mesoAmerica.

The consensus on such matters is based on the latest research, and archeologists actively working in Mesoamerica have regular gatherings at which they discuss the latest discoveries.  Papers are presented, scholars discuss their work with one another during meals.  There is not a chance that such old developments have not been fully transmitted throughout the scholarly community.  The notion that anyone still believes that the bow & arrow were introduced to Mesoamerica in the late pre-classic is laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, deli_llama said:

If you have a few moments, and it doesn't derail the topic too much, would you mind please fleshing out what you are saying here?  I am especially interested in how you see it as a peg in the coffin of the Beringian land bridge model, and which Smithsonian archaeologists are, as you say, waking up to that fact?  I would love to see any of their published papers indicating this change in current thought and understanding. I have done a quick, and brief, survey online and can't find anything.  

Thank you. 

Dennis Stanford is the director of their Paleo-indian Archaeology dept. He has been making findings in New England that do several things:

1. They seem to blow away the earlier presumed dates for the settlement of the Americas at the end of the last glacial period.

2. They seem to blow away the assumptions about stone tool technology - it doesn't match up with stone tool technology of East Asia for the time period.

3. He has also made some comments about DNA. 

I don't know if he has published any papers on these findings yet. He has co-authored at least one book which talks some about DNA findings. However, I don't agree with his assumptions, and I am not yet prepared to say why. However, he has rendered an opinion that the Americas are much more of a melting pot than is currently accepted - a notion which I completely agree with. While I don't believe he denies Natives came across the land bridge, he routinely opines that not all natives did. He is a fan of the theory that men had boats and used them far before Christopher Columbus. I believe looking for the Nephites in the Americas is somewhat akin to looking for a needle in a haystack. In other words the Nephites are not the haystack - they are just a small part of the population of the Americas imho. 

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Dennis Stanford is the director of their Paleo-indian Archaeology dept. He has been making findings in New England that do several things...

Thank your sir. I will go Do some homework now. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, PeterPear said:

16] And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could INVENT, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle.

According to the Sorensonites and the Gardnerites, the Nephites were idiots and everything had to have been brought to the New World or they never had it. INVENTIONS were beyond the knowledge of Lehi and Mulek's descendants. The Nephites were so stupid they also couldn't figure out the cardinal directions, because their narrow neck of land ran east-west, but they knew the planets orbited the sun, let alone know the difference between a horse and a tapir, a sword and a club, flat-foreheaded Maya Royalty and a Nephite King, the Popol Vuh crap and the Plates of Brass, maya glyphs and Book of Mormon characters, snow vs sand, vapor vs volcanic ash, Alma instructing his son to bridle his passions vs how to control a horse which didn't exist, the Prophet Mormon mentioning rudders of a ship vs a Maya flat-bottomed 10-man war canoe, a Temple built after the design of Solomon's vs a Maya stone pyramid its top used to sacrifice captives of war.

I would bet every time the Sorensonites and the Gardnerites pick up a copy of The Book of Mormon, they think, "these Nephites are a bunch of socially-retarded yahoos, because we have to waste countless hours of our mortal probationary period writing an unlimited number of books proving they belong in a limited geography in Mesoamerica. The stupid morons couldn't even invent a bow and an arrow."

Ad hominem much?

yes, it is easier to attack the person rather than the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But that would raise another problem. As RevTestament pointed out, the Nephites knew about bows, and they probably looked a lot like those in the art work. So to improve the art you'd have to erase the honest-to-goodness bow, a weapon that Jarom would have been familiar with, and replace it with an atlatl, a weapon that Jarom was probably not familiar with. Unless we assume that the Nephites swapped their bows out for local technologies within two generations of arriving.

Just doesn't seem like something that would happen without at least someone mentioning "oh, by the way...those bows and arrows that Grandpa Jacob and Great-uncle Nephi used aren't exactly the same as the bows and arrows that we use."

The improvement (other than eliminating it) would be to qualify it as an artist's rendition of the Book or Mormon text to avoid portraying it (or prevent a misinterpretation of the art) as scientifically accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The improvement (other than eliminating it) would be to qualify it as an artist's rendition of the Book or Mormon text to avoid portraying it (or prevent a misinterpretation of the art) as scientifically accurate.

If only we could have such a qualifier on every geographical claim made on behalf of the Book of Mormon text. 

“Wherefore, we withstood the Lamanites and swept them away out of our lands, and began to fortify our cities, or whatsoever place of our inheritance. And we [made] … weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.”
Jarom 1:7–8

Disclaimer: Although arrows, quivers, darts and javelins were known technologies in 399 BC, the location of the Book of Mormon narrative is not yet known. Any anachronism is likely due to geographer error.

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If only we could have such a qualifier on every geographical claim made on behalf of the Book of Mormon text. 

“Wherefore, we withstood the Lamanites and swept them away out of our lands, and began to fortify our cities, or whatsoever place of our inheritance. And we [made] … weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.”
Jarom 1:7–8

Disclaimer: Although arrows, quivers, darts and javelins were known technologies in 399 BC, the location of the Book of Mormon narrative is not yet known. Any anachronism is likely due to geographer error.

I don't see what the big deal is... "bow" isn't even mentioned in Jarom! LOL...

Despite the faults that might be found in the website, its content, scholarship and apologetic approach and values, I am only approaching the problem as defined in the OP. I'm not sure how or how well Book of Mormon Central would accept critical input on that or any of the other observations that have been made. I would think apologists would be careful about whether and how to depict their conclusions artistically so they do not come across as representing the scientific source of those conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The notion that anyone still believes that the bow & arrow were introduced to Mesoamerica in the late pre-classic is laughable.

Do you have some evidence that the consensus is a much earlier bow and arrow?  I confess from doing searches that's not the indication I see at all.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't see what the big deal is... "bow" isn't even mentioned in Jarom! LOL...

The issue is more whether the words have the same reference throughout the text. So it's much more about how Jarom relates to other passages.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The issue is more whether the words have the same reference throughout the text. So it's much more about how Jarom relates to other passages.

Like i said, I'm addressing the problem as presented and stated in the OP: “the problem is that the era they're talking about (roughly 400 BC - 50 BC) and the art they use to represent it aren't really of the same period...”

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×