Book Of Mormon & Archeology?

[USU78]

I'm no linguist, but finding similar words among these several languages is a long way from demonstrating Hebrew and Egyptian were either spoken or written by the Lehites. And how is it that the Aztec would preserve the language of a small group of colonists whose culture and language didn't have much impact on Mesoamerica? I believe Brant Gardner has vigorously argued that evidence of Hebrew and Egyptian are absent because the Lehites and Jaredites adopted native languages.

Are we to accept that BG is the last word on everything, even those subject outside his impressive expertise?

Moreover, it would be useful for DV to have acquired a little more familiarity with Stubbs' more recent work, which expands quite a bit on his earlier exploratory article, before declaring the subject closed.

I've got the article sitting on my desk. I've read it a couple of times, and will have to read it more to appreciate fully what appears to be going on here.

USU "English and Hittite are related, but the evidence therefor is far sparser than what Stubbs appears to have demonstrated" 78

[Markk]

Hi

I was just reading over the last few days of posts and have a question. In the case of Nihm (NHM), everything about this is taken from the BOM in a very literal sense, a grave yard or burial site is just that, a river is a river..etc, yet when the story comes from the old world to the new world things can't be taken literal, in relation to translation. Apparently North means North in the old world section, in relation to translation, yet in the new world it means East or West. The excepted reading is a very literal reason why the Jews came to the new world, yet when they get here this literal method of interpreting the BOM stops and goes into some sort of allegorical mode i.e....what would a Nephite sword look like, etc...

My point being, from a translation/literal sense stand point, you can't have it both ways, if the old world interpretation is taken as literal, then so should the new world sections? Even the name Nihm is taken a literal to sound like the BOM account, yet the real name Nihm or Nahom, or NHM, if I remember correctly, the H is hard, which would change the English translation of the name to something like â?Nachomâ? the â?châ? being a â??Kâ? sound.

Which way is it?

Mark

John 1:12

[The_Monk]

Hi

I was just reading over the last few days of posts and have a question. In the case of Nihm (NHM), everything about this is taken from the BOM in a very literal sense, a grave yard or burial site is just that, a river is a river..etc, yet when the story comes from the old world to the new world things can't be taken literal, in relation to translation. Apparently North means North in the old world section, in relation to translation, yet in the new world it means East or West. The excepted reading is a very literal reason why the Jews came to the new world, yet when they get here this literal method of interpreting the BOM stops and goes into some sort of allegorical mode i.e....what would a Nephite sword look like, etc...

My point being, from a translation/literal sense stand point, you can't have it both ways, if the old world interpretation is taken as literal, then so should the new world sections? Even the name Nihm is taken a literal to sound like the BOM account, yet the real name Nihm or Nahom, or NHM, if I remember correctly, the H is hard, which would change the English translation of the name to something like â?Nachomâ? the â?châ? being a â??Kâ? sound.

Which way is it?

Mark

John 1:12

You're confusing lexical questions (ie. what does "sword" refer to?) with literary questions (whatever "sword" refers to, is it a physical thing or just a metaphor for something else, ie. non-literal?)

When the spaniards referred to the macahuitl as a sword, were they being non-literal? Or did they view it as fitting within the semantic range of "sword"?

Second, the BoM was not written at one time by one author. You shouldn't expect the worldview or cultural conceptions to remain constant throughout. I don't think you've understood the arguments about directions from reading your summary above, but it's entirely likely that what Nephi referred to as "north" would not be what Mormon 1000 years later would refer to as "north."

[Markk]

Hi Monk,

No, I am speaking from a "translation" view. If the BOM was translated in a literal sense for the old world section, why not the new world section.?

Swords were said in the BOM to be forged of steel, they dismembered and killed people, they were is great numbers, and they were used in the classic fashion...meaning a man held one in his hand and struck a opponent with it. Whether it was a broad sword, a short sword, or a long sword doesn't really matter, what is clear is that it was a sharp piece of steel, held in the hand, and produced in massive amounts, it is not a "non literal" piece of equipment according to the BOM, it plays a major roll in the BOM, seeing that battle is a must for the BOM to be real. A sword is just one example I could have used.

Second, the BoM was not written at one time by one author. You shouldn't expect the worldview or cultural conceptions to remain constant throughout. I don't think you've understood the arguments about directions from reading your summary above, but it's entirely likely that what Nephi referred to as "north" would not be what Mormon 1000 years later would refer to as "north."

Yes it was supposed to be written by many authors, yet translated by one, and thatâ??s my point here, the translation process with regard to old world in considered literal, yet only as needed, the new world translation is all over the place. If it fits literally it is used, if it contradicts it is allegorical or misunderstood. It boils down to a isogenical approach to proving the BOM to be a real story. LDS archeology takes the BOM and forces it into what ever or where ever it may or may not fit, changing context, words, and meanings as needed to insure the survival of the text, while holding fast to any literal piece of data that may fit. Sword was just a example, as was directions. I could have gone into economy, inter structure, manufacturing etc.

You can't just pick and choose to insure the survival of the text.

Mark

john 1;12

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

From Wikipedia:

The macahuitl (sometimes also referred to by the more general term macana, which describes the general class of this weapon) was a common item in the armoury of the Aztec military forces and other cultures of central Mexico at the time of the 16th century Spanish conquest of the region, along with other implements such as the chimalli (a round shield), the tlauitolli (bow), and the atlatl (spear-thrower).[1] Although sometimes referred to as a type of wooden sword, its appearance was closer to that of a club or a paddle. It was capable of inflicting serious damage and lacerations owing to the rows of obsidian blades affixed to its perimeter.[2]

Aztec warriors as shown in the 16th century Florentine Codex (from Vol. IX). Note that each warrior is brandishing a maquahuitl.

Enlarge

Aztec warriors as shown in the 16th century Florentine Codex (from Vol. IX). Note that each warrior is brandishing a maquahuitl.

The macahuitl was â??three to four feet long, and three inches broad, with a groove along either edge, into which sharp-edged pieces of flint or obsidian were inserted, and firmly fixed with some adhesive compoundâ?.[3] The rows of obsidian blades were sometimes discontinuous, leaving gaps along the side while at other times, the rows were set close together, forming a â??continuous cutting edgeâ?.[4]

Additionally, the macahuitl existed in one-handed or two-handed grips as well as rectangular, ovoid, or pointed forms. The two-handed macahuitl was sometimes said to be â??as tall as a manâ?.[5]

Was it a sword?

[The_Monk]

Markk,

I don't see that you've made an argument that the New World section isn't translated "literally" whatever you think you mean by that. Rather, I see you arguing that "sword" must in all cases refer to something made from steel, a condition which you are imposing on the text.

Laban's sword was made of steel. I don't see anywhere (other than Eth. 7:9) that it explicily says other swords were made from steel. Some "rust" and others are made "after the manner of" Laban's sword.

Other than the steel aspect, "they dismembered and killed people, they were is great numbers, and they were used in the classic fashion...meaning a man held one in his hand and struck a opponent with it" can also apply equally to macahuitls, knives, scimitars, etc.

with regard to old world in considered literal, yet only as needed, the new world translation is all over the place. If it fits literally it is used, if it contradicts it is allegorical or misunderstood. It boils down to a isogenical approach to proving the BOM to be a real story.

Frankly, I don't understand what argument you're making here. Can you define "isogenical" for me? I'm not familiar with that word.

[Brant Gardner]

No, I am speaking from a "translation" view.

Not quite. While we still have a single translator, we have an internal translation before it ever gets to Joseph Smith. We have Old World Israelites showing up in a New Word where there are new languages - and new animals and experiences. That gives you two places where you have to figure out what word to use.

To try to make is easier, say you are making an English translation of Spanish accounts of the conquest. You encounter the word "espada." Most translators would render it sword. However, they were describing the native implement, not the image usually connoted by "sword" (or "espada"). Which is the literal translation? The one that renders the Spanish or skips the Spanish and attempts to render what the Spanish should have meant (for which we conventionally use a Nahuatl word - which would be anachronistic for the Book of Mormon times in any case).

The translation issue is much more complex than you are suggesting. The Monk is correct that changing times and contexts make big differences.

You can't just pick and choose to insure the survival of the text.

In spite of disagreeing with your argument, I do agree with this statement. Picking and choosing so that you create a pleasing hypothesis is not much of a method at all. Academic rigor ought to be applied, and applied uniformly. However, your examples are not cases of picking and choosing, but rather applying rather well known cross-cultural problems to the issues.

[Markk]

Hi Sometimes,

I'm not sure what that has to do with the BOM discription of the swords they used. The BOM says they were made of molten steel. 16 century flint laiden wood clubs used by Aztecs has nothing to do with what the BOM teaches.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people force things into a text that do not exist, or even have anything to do with what the text says.

Was it a sword? maybe, was a club?, maybe, but what we can know for certain is, it is not what is refered to a sword as discribed by BOM, not even close.

Mark

John 1:12

[USU78]

Swords were said in the BOM to be forged of steel

Were they?

If I say that obsidian is "strong as steel," do you know what I mean by that?

I have another thought, in Act III Scene 1 of Romeo + Juliet the boys are brandishing Smith & Wesson, yet refer to them as their "blades" and "swords." We all know exactly what is meant, not only because we know the story, but also because we know culturally that the function of the handgun is much the same as the sword -- one-on-one killing. In his Memoirs of the Second World War, Churchill, prior to getting pitched from office, keeps reminding Stalin about Poland's paramount importance to Britain in the post-war Europe to come, because England "Drew the sword for Poland."

It was not because swords were such a big deal in WWII that Churchill used the phrase. The existence of a shared cultural understanding between the two friends/antagonists gave the phrase great meaning. To "draw the sword" meant something, even though there was no sword to draw.

Language is far more conservative than invention.

USU "Tha com of more under misthleothum Grendel gongan godes irre baer" 78

[cdowis]

> Apparently North means North in the old world section, in relation to translation, yet in the new world it means East or West.

I think you will find that is a minority view on this discussion board. North means north, horse means horse, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

Is it.

Rifles have been refered to as long arms since they were invented. Are you suggesting that my own body literally grew Long Arms when I went to war?

[cdowis]

Thomas Stuart Ferguson wrote in 1975:

QUOTE

I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography. I, for one, would be happy if Dee were wrong. (quoted in Stan Larson, QUEST FOR THE GOLD PLATES, 26).

I find it humerous that you find this statement of any significance. Dan, is this the best you can do? A non-archeologist, who had no specific ideas on where the BOM lands were located, using the archeology of .... what year, Dan. What year is he talking about? Is this a recent statement, or some citation quoted in antimormon books which is several decades old -- thirty years old, dear fellow.

Surely, an award winning author would not use such nonsense.... would he?

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

So give me some BOM evidence, I asked this over and over, what is the single most concrete tangible eveidence that supports the BoM, and the single most excepted location of BOM site, then we canwork back words from there and see?

Hi monk

Isogesis (proper spelling eisegesis) is a term herminutics, mostly used in Biblical and constitutional interpretation. It means to start with a preconcieve agenda, ideology or opinion and then try to make it fit into a text. The proper name is eisegesis, oposite of exogesis, but isogesis is easier for me to spell, which I suck at.

A perfect example of this is the sword, the BoM never, absolutly never, says the sword is a wood club with flint in it, it does say however that swords (plural) were forged of steel, as were tools, and that they worked in all manners of steel. So exegesis demands interpitaion from the text, in this case the BOM, isogesis would be going to a outward source, in this case 16th century Aztec arceology and history, and then apply it to the BoM with out any textual grounds what so ever while ignoring the context that is clear. This is what I meant by "isogenical approach".

USU78 has also went so far as presenting a allogorical response to the clear text.

mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Sometimes,

Please explain to me in your own term what you believe the BoM people used for swords, and what they meant by making swords of molten steel, amd thatthey worked with all manners of steel? I'm just curious.

Mark

John 1:12

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

This cements the BoM as accurate.

From Jeff Lindsay:

The Use of Cement in Ancient America [index]

A long-ridiculed "anachronism" in Book of Mormon is the reference in Helaman 3:9-11 to cement work among some of the ancient inhabitants of this continent in the 1st century B.C. At this time, many Nephite people moved into the north lands (probably southern Mexico). Trees were very scarce there, apparently because of environmental irresponsibility among a previous, fallen civilization (I refer to the "Jaredites," probably correlated with the Olmecs). While taking care to protect and nurture trees for the future, the Nephites used other materials to build their cities. Buildings made from cement are specifically mentioned. For decades, this seemed like a mistake.

In 1929, Heber J. Grant (former President of the Church) told the story of a man with a doctorate who had ridiculed him for believing in the Book of Mormon. That learned man cited the mention of cement work as an obvious lie "because the people in that early age knew nothing about cement." President Grant, who was a young man at the time of that conversation, said:

"That does not affect my faith one particle. I read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and supplicated God for a testimony in my heart and soul of the divinity of it, and I have accepted it and believe it with all my heart." I also said to him, "If my children do not find cement houses, I expect that my grandchildren will." He said, "Well, what is the good of talking with a fool like that?" (April 1929 Conference Report, p. 128 ff.)

President Grant's statement was prophetic. Today, tourists to Mesoamerica can find ancient cement work in abundance at Teotihuacan (which is clearly "in the land north" according to modern models for Book of Mormon geography). Mesoamerican cement was being used at least by the first century B.C. (David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah, Horizon Publishers, Bountiful, UT, 1981, p. 121). Palmer shows a photograph of cement used to surface a temple at the Chiapa de Corzo site. Palmer also cites Monte Alban, which is south of Teotihuacan but still in the "land north," as another example of ancient cement work. Several examples of cement work use tiny volcanic stones (0.5 to 2 mm diameter) mixed with clay and lime to produce the cement. Cement was also used in the ancient city of Kaminaljuyu (modern Guatemala City).

Mesoamerican work with cement involved more than merely applying a veneer to buildings. Important structural elements were made with cement, and the use of cement in Mesoamerica dates to about the time when the Book of Mormon reports its development (46 B.C.). John Welch provides further data in his article, "A Steady Stream of Significant Recognitions" in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. D.W. Parry, D.C. Peterson, and J.W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), pp. 372-374:

No one in the nineteenth century could have known that cement, in fact, was extensively used in Mesoamerica beginning largely at this time, the middle of the first century B.C.[1]

One of the most notable uses of cement is in the temple complex at Teotihuacan, north of present-day Mexico City. According to David S. Hyman, the structural use of cement appears suddenly in the archaeological record. And yet its earliest sample "is a fully developed product." The cement floor slabs at this site "were remarkably high in structural quality." Although exposed to the elements for nearly two thousand years, they still "exceed many present-day building code requirements." [2] This is consistent with the Book of Mormon record, which treats this invention as an important new development involving great skill and becoming something of a sensation.

After this important technological breakthrough, cement was used at many sites in the Valley of Mexico and in the Maya regions of southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras, which very well may have been close to the Nephite heartlands. Cement was used in the later construction of buildings at such sites as Cerro de Texcotzingo, Tula, Palenque, Tikal, Copan, Uxmal, and Chichen Itza. Further, the use of cement is "a Maya habit, absent from non-Maya examples of corbelled vaulting from the southeastern United States to southern South America." [3]

Mesoamerican cement was almost exclusively lime cement. The limestone was purified on a "cylindrical pile of timber, which requires a vast amount of labor to cut and considerable skill to construct in such a way that combustion of the stone and wood is complete and a minimum of impurities remains in the product." [4] The fact that very little carbon is found in this cement once again "attests to the ability of these ancient peoples." [5]

John Sorenson has further noted the expert sophistication in the use of cement at El Tajin, east of Mexico City, in the centuries following Book of Mormon times. Cement roofs covered sizable areas: "Sometimes the builders filled a room with stones and mud, smoothed the surface on top to receive the concrete, then removed the interior fill when the [slab] on top had dried." [6]

Footnotes for the above passage:

1. See Matthew G. Wells and John W. Welch, "Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon," Insights (May 1991): 2.

2. David S. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970), ii, sec. 6, p. 7.

3. George Kubler, The Art and Architecture of Ancient America, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Penguin, 1975), 201, emphasis added.

4. Tatiana Proskouriakoff, An Album ofMaya Architecture (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), xv.

5. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements, sec. 6, p. 5.

6. John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon," Ensign, October 1984, 19.

A question arises about the use of wood in the production of cement. If timber was so scarce in the area where cement was made, as the Book of Mormon indicates (Helaman 3:6,7), then how could the locals make cement? I have previously suggested that making cement does not require high-quality timber suitable for making buildings, but merely material that can burn. There can be a shortage of high-quality trees yet plenty of flammable material that can support cement making. However, based on what scholars have learned about the region in southern Mexico where cement was used anciently, it appears that the deforestation problem mentioned in the Book of Mormon was at least partly caused by the high demand for wood to support the manufacture of cement. On this interesting topic, Brant Gardner has an excellent essay on Helaman chapter 3 and the issue of cement manufacture that shows some of the scholarly support for the issue of deforestation and cement making in a region that fits the Book of Mormon's description, with the suggestion that Mormon in Helaman 3 was describing the land as he knew it after 300 A.D., and not at the time when cement making was first started there.

As to the possible importance of Teotihuacan itself, consider the following tentative suggestion from Michael J. Preece (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol.3, 1991, p.38):

The Book of Mormon text often speaks of a mysterious land. It may be referred to as the "land which was northward" (Alma 63:4) or simply the "land northward" (Alma 63:5-8, 10; Helaman 3:3-4, 7, 10-11). In another place it is referred to as the "northernmost part of the land" (3 Nephi 7:12). It is possible that this land is in the same location as the "great city of Jacobugath" (3 Nephi 9:9). Dr. Allen suggests that this mysterious land might be the ancient city of Teotihuacan, built in the valley of Mexico, near where Mexico City lies today.... The ancient culture which inhabited this city had its beginnings about 150 B.C. and fell about A.D. 750. The circumstantial evidence that Teotihuacan may indeed have been the "land northward" includes the fact that between 55 B.C. and A.D. 29, the Book of Mormon mentions several migrations into this land where large bodies of water were found. This is the same period when Teotihuacan was experiencing a high growth rate. The valley of Mexico contained many lakes, and in fact Mexico City is built on a dry lake bed. The Book of Mormon speaks of the people in the land northward building houses out of cement because timber was scarce in the land (Helaman 3:7, 10-11). The archaeological site of Teotihuacan contains many buildings made of cement, and timber is indeed scarce in the valley of Mexico...."

On a related note, the Book of Mormon speaks of highways and roads (3 Nephi 6:8; 8:13). Some LDS people have pointed to the discovery of cement roads among the Incas as supporting evidence, but the Inca empire was too far south to fit into a modern understanding of Book of Mormon geography. However, lime-surfaced causeways (called sacbes) have been discovered in Central America, some dating to Book of Mormon times. Researchers at Tulane University found one from near 300 B.C. (E. Wyllys Andrews V et al., "Komchen: An Early Maya Community in Northwest Yucatan," presented at the 1981 meeting of the Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, San Cristobal, Chiapas, p. 15, as cited by J. Sorenson, Ensign, Oct. 1984, p. 18). Another in Belize was used between 50 B.C. and 150 A.D. (Andrews, "Dzibilchaltun," in Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, ed. J.A. Sabloff, vol. 1, Archaeology, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, p. 322, as cited by Sorenson, 1984, p. 23). South of Mexico City are about two miles of ancient paved roads(American Antiquity, Vol. 45, 1980, p. 623), while one roadway in Yucatan is over 50 miles long (A. Bustillos Carillo, "El Sacbe de los Mayas: Caminos Blancos de los Mayas, Base de su Vida Social y Religion," 2nd ed., B. Costa-Amic Editorial, Mexico, 1974, p. 23, as cited by Sorenson, 1984, p. 18). As we learn more about these ancient roadways and their uses, we hope to understand more about Book of Mormon peoples and their lives. In any case, the mention of cement work and roadways in the Book of Mormon appears plausible today, but was implausible to experts of the past.

By the way, the ancient adobe pueblos that existed in Mexico as well as the US Southwest could also qualify as "cement" houses. The word "adobe" was not commonly used in Joseph Smith's day, was not in the 1830 Webster's Dictionary, and did not appear in print in English until 1834 (B. Stubbs, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1996, p. 39). If Joseph did not have that word in his vocabulary, the word "cement" in the Book of Mormon could also include adobe. Perhaps the adobe builders were linked to Book of Mormon peoples.

A FARMS publication online also discusses cement in the Book of Mormon.

[The_Monk]

Hi Brant,

So give me some BOM evidence, I asked this over and over, what is the single most concrete tangible eveidence that supports the BoM, and the single most excepted location of BOM site, then we canwork back words from there and see?

Hi monk

Isogesis (proper spelling eisegesis) is a term herminutics, mostly used in Biblical and constitutional interpretation. It means to start with a preconcieve agenda, ideology or opinion and then try to make it fit into a text. The proper name is eisegesis, oposite of exogesis, but isogesis is easier for me to spell, which I suck at.

A perfect example of this is the sword, the BoM never, absolutly never, says the sword is a wood club with flint in it, it does say however that swords (plural) were forged of steel, as were tools, and that they worked in all manners of steel. So exegesis demands interpitaion from the text, in this case the BOM, isogesis would be going to a outward source, in this case 16th century Aztec arceology and history, and then apply it to the BoM with out any textual grounds what so ever while ignoring the context that is clear. This is what I meant by "isogenical approach".

USU78 has also went so far as presenting a allogorical response to the clear text.

mark

John 1:12

Ah. I'm well aware of what eisegisis is. You, however, said "isogenical" which turns out to be (mostly) a biological term, according to Google.

Eisegesis is what you're doing with steel:) Steel is mentioned 5 times in the BoM and only twice with swords, with the sword of Laban (old world) and Ether. You eisegete, or read in, "steel" with all those other sword references. You're imposing it on the text.

Mark, USU is not giving an allegorical response. He's talking semantics.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Markk]

Hi sometimes,

Given the extent of the cement that was used according to the BoM, and that it was shipped overseas in ships, and literally cities were built of this cement, where was it mined, and where was it shiped from (ports)?

If you going to ake such a claim as above, you would have to start with the inter structer to produce cities of cement. Also how did they work the cement, to make a structure out of cement you need the false work first, which is wood, to form the cement, and also cement of any kind is basically worthless without binder, what did they use as a binder?

When you drive on the 10 past Colton you can see what mining does, cement mountain used to be quite large, we would excpect to see evidence like cement mountain, where is that?

Mark

john 1:12

[The_Monk]

Markk, can you please stay on topic?

You DO know that they have discovered such cement in Mesoamerica, used to build cities? Are you saying that unless we can find the "cement mountain" that it doesn't really exist?

The BoM doesn't say it shipped cement, but trees, which enabled them to make cement.

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

We seem to be overlapping each other in our posting.

The way I see the BoM is that if the Nephites Steeled Iron. I was one a very very smalll scale. The few times that steel is mentioned in the boM it is in a Old World context. So if the technology of steeling Iron existed in the New World on a large scale I've seen little to no evidence for it in the BoM itself or in any more modern discoveries.

As we have barely scratched the surface of MesoAmerican Archeology I tend towards a wait and see attitude. I personally don't see it as going to happen. But as I've been wrong before and probably will continue to wrong on this subject, we'll just have to wait and see.

[TAK]

No one in the nineteenth century could have known that cement, in fact, was extensively used in Mesoamerica beginning largely at this time, the middle of the first century B.C.

Two questions ..

Cement has been around for at least 12 million years, why would anybody think to question the existence of cement in the 19th century?

Why does cement mean cement but steel mean something else?

[Markk]

Hi Monk,

No, the BoM says that they worked in all mannor of steel, I am only interpreting the text. I didn't write it, JS did. read Jarom 1:8 or Ether 10:21-28. My conclusions are baised on the exegesis of the text, letting the text interprt it's self.

Why do you have to ignore the context and imply swords being made of wood?

Mark

John 1:12

[The_Monk]

So "all manner of steel" must include swords, eh Mark?

BTW, you didn't respond to my last question.

[The_Monk]

Two questions ..

Cement has been around for at least 12 million years, why would anybody think to question the existence of cement in the 19th century?

Why does cement mean cement but steel mean something else?

TAK, in the KJV, why does chariot mean a chariot, but a unicorn means something else? A candle means something else?

BTW, it was a charge of the critics that there was no cement in Mesoamerica.

[thesometimesaint]

Markk:

Oyster shells are largely Calcium Carbonate the main component in cement.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-8243...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

[Markk]

Hi Sometimes,

A few areas that do not fit the BoM time lines have found a clam like cement used on floors, it is hardly the discription of the BoM which says they were highly skilled and built cities with buildings and synagogues with cement, there a bit of a difference here, remember you have to stick to the text to do a proper study, just googling cement and trying to force it into the text does not help your case.

why can't the BoM just stand on it's own merits?

Mark

john 1:12