Mythic Iron

[Sethbag]

As I have noted elsewhere, the BOM is not talking about contemporary ideas of steel.

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Stee..._of_Mormon.html

Steel in the KJV always refers to copper-based metals/alloys.

Bill, I don't see KJV reference is as being relevent to the case of the Book of Mormon at all. You see, the KJV writers produced that book in 1611 in early 17th century English, but Nephi, Jarom, and the Jaredites were writing in a different language altogether, and thousands of years earlier. The Hebrew, or Egyptian, or Jaredite, or whatever other language you might care to speculate these gentlemen would have written in, was only translated into English by God, who most certainly ought to know the difference between steel, bronze, copper, etc.

By falling back on the "KJV referred to something other than steel, and so Joseph Smith could too" argument, you seem to be admitting that Joseph Smith was simply copying from the KJV, rather than producing something, by revelation, entirely new and different.

The Book of Mormon was written in the 1820s. Was there ambiguity about the word "steel" in the United States, or more specifically, in the New York region, in the 1820s? I rather doubt it, and would challenge you to document it. If not, you can hardly support an argument that Joseph Smith would be unfamiliar with the differences between iron, steel, copper, and bronze.

Either Joseph Smith was relying on his own, 1820s American English understanding of the words "iron" and "steel", or else he relied on God to describe properly, in English, which metal was meant by what term, or else he was dependent on the 1611 Jacobean English confusion (confusion from a modern-day standpoint) of the words because he merely copied from the Bible. Which is it, and why?

Was Joseph Smith really just aping the Bible when he wrote the Book of Mormon?

[Zakuska]

All except for the fact that Joseph Smith seeing the word 'steel' used for copper/tin alloy in the KJV could very easily have used the same word for what he saw on the plates he was translating from.

(Thats assuming that the critics are write and he made it all up while culling infromation from Dart Mouth)

[Sethbag]

All except for the fact that Joseph Smith seeing the word 'steel' used for copper/tin alloy in the KJV could very easily have used the same word for what he saw on the plates he was translating from.

(Thats assuming that the critics are write and he made it all up while culling infromation from Dart Mouth)

Joseph wasn't looking at the words on the plates. He was looking at his magic rock, which was at the bottom of his hat. Or, more specifically, he was looking at the scraps of ethereal parchment which appeared to him at the bottom of his hat, upon which was written the translation of the BoM.

Aside from that, the words on the plates were supposedly written in reformed Egyptian characters used to express Hebrew, whilst the KJV was written in English. Unless the Jacobean English words were actually written on the gold plates, you'd have absolutely no point. The KJV words would have been translated from Hebrew, but Joseph Smith would have had no idea what those Hebrew words were, because he was reading the KJV in English.

Either Joseph Smith was copying from the KJV, or he was getting the translation from God. You'd probably rather not admit he was just copying from the KJV, and you'll have a very hard time justifying why God would give Joseph the wrong word, simply because the KJV translators, over two centuries before, had likewise used the wrong word.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Either Joseph Smith was copying from the KJV, or he was getting the translation from God.

Why the dichotomy here?

[Bill Hamblin]

The Greenland Vikings exerted political, cultural, and economic dominance over the Inuit and taught them metallurgy? I had no idea. Can you give me a reference? Thanks.

I think you are making my point. The Vikings exerted political and cultural dominance in Greenland, but, despite the fact, the Inuit did not adopt iron-working. (By analogy, one need not expect the existence of metal-working among the Nephites to necessarily spread to other Native American peoples.)

[Bill Hamblin]

Several people here are claiming that no one makes the argument about steel and non-existent Nephites that I say they make.

It seems to me this is the standard argument used in all anachronism-type issues critics raise against the BOM.

1- The BOM mentions X

2- There is no evidence for X in Precolumbian America.

3- Therefore: The mention of X in the BOM is an anachronism.

4- Therefore: the BOM is not an ancient book and is, instead, 19th century fiction.

5- Therefore: there were no Nephites.

As far as I can tell, all critics tacitly and implicitly make this type of argument in one way or another.

Just insert "steel" for X and you get the argument I'm discussing here.

Maybe I've misunderstood the entire anachronism issue, but I don't think so.

[William Schryver]

The article said what they were using it for. Red pigment.

This is actually my favorite part of the article, because it is such a blatant example of the phenomenon to which Charles C. Mann (1491) makes reference: the utter intransigence with which conservative modern archaeology and anthropology approach any new discovery that tends to threaten long-held conclusions. It is a phenomenon that reinforces the reputation that both these disciplines have for being "soft" sciences.

So, when it comes to an iron ore mine being discovered in Peru, the reaction of the conservative realm of archaeology and anthropology is to immediately conclude that the ore in question was only used as pigment. Now, how can such a conclusion be supported? Well, obviously it can't. It's simply an expressed opinion designed specifically to keep the discovery within the parameters of the long-held belief that pre-Columbian civilizations did not use iron; did not have any real metallurgy; etc., etc.

It takes a series of near-indisputable findings before the conservative elements of these two disciplines can be forced to abandon a long-cherished belief in favor of new realities. But it happens . . . eventually.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I don't see KJV reference is as being relevent to the case of the Book of Mormon at all. You see, the KJV writers produced that book in 1611 in early 17th century English, but Nephi, Jarom, and the Jaredites were writing in a different language altogether, and thousands of years earlier. The Hebrew, or Egyptian, or Jaredite, or whatever other language you might care to speculate these gentlemen would have written in, was only translated into English by God, who most certainly ought to know the difference between steel, bronze, copper, etc.

By falling back on the "KJV referred to something other than steel, and so Joseph Smith could too" argument, you seem to be admitting that Joseph Smith was simply copying from the KJV, rather than producing something, by revelation, entirely new and different.

The Book of Mormon was written in the 1820s. Was there ambiguity about the word "steel" in the United States, or more specifically, in the New York region, in the 1820s? I rather doubt it, and would challenge you to document it. If not, you can hardly support an argument that Joseph Smith would be unfamiliar with the differences between iron, steel, copper, and bronze.

Either Joseph Smith was relying on his own, 1820s American English understanding of the words "iron" and "steel", or else he relied on God to describe properly, in English, which metal was meant by what term, or else he was dependent on the 1611 Jacobean English confusion (confusion from a modern-day standpoint) of the words because he merely copied from the Bible. Which is it, and why?

Was Joseph Smith really just aping the Bible when he wrote the Book of Mormon?

Did you actually bother to read my article?

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Stee..._of_Mormon.html

It appears not. Maybe my argument there is wrong, but, if so, you need to engage the actual argument and push the discussion forward. (Speculating about how you think a translation by God should work is extraordinarily pointless, since it only tells us about you, not the nature of translation.)

1- By rejecting the idea that the BOM uses Jacobean language patterns and vocabulary, you are rejecting one of the few issues on which there is widespread consensus between critics and believers.

2- Why does Nephi bother to note in 1 Ne 6:18 that his bow that broke was made of steel? It is not crucial to his story. It is, in fact, an allusion to Ps. 18:34, where a steel bow is described as being broken. It is my contention that whatever weapon the BOM is describing in 1 Ne 6:18 is meant to be precisely the same type of weapon described in Ps 18:34. I believe this is true whether JS wrote the BOM, or if it is ancient. (The importance of Ps 18 for Nephi is also reflected in Nephi's Psalm (2 Ne 4.16-35) which shows too many parallels to Ps 18 to be coincidental.)

3- That JS is not using standard early 19th century metal terminology is reflected by the fact that the BOM never uses the term bronze. It instead consistently uses the Jacobean KJV term brass (note the KJV never uses the word bronze either). In JS's day, brass was a copper-zinc alloy, while bronze was a copper-tin allow. In Jacobean English, however, brass refers to the copper-tin allow. When the BOM uses the term brass, it is referring to the same metal described in the KJV Bible. I believe this is true whether JS wrote the BOM or if is a translation of an ancient book.

4- The reason for retaining Jacobean language in a divine translation is obvious. It is to allow early 19th century readers for whom the KJV was the Bible, to see linguistic allusions that would disappear if the language was modernized to contemporary 1830s English.

[Sethbag]

Did you actually bother to read my article?

Yes I did, as it happens, and, with all due respect, I find it replete with bald assertion, misdirection and obfuscation, and hand-waving exercises.

First off, you state that the Nephi and Jarom listing of copper, iron, brass, and steel form a "literary topos", as if to imply that the author(s) of those Book of Mormon passages actually meant their listing of those metals to be a mere literary device, and then suggest that it need not necessarily be understood as an actual, literal listing of four metals the people were producing. It's mind reading of the most egregious sort. You have no real evidence, from the text or otherwise, that the author(s) didn't mean exactly what they say.

1- By rejecting the idea that the BOM uses Jacobean language patterns and vocabulary, you are rejecting one of the few issues on which there is widespread consensus between critics and believers.

This is a straw man. I don't doubt that the BoM uses Jacobean language patterns and vocabulary. That's because I believe that Joseph Smith, either alone or in concert with others, made up the Book of Mormon, and aped the Bible to sound more scriptural. Where I disagree is with the Jacobean excuse offered up by BoM defenders for the word "steel" in a hypothetical context in which the Book of Mormon were actually true.

2- Why does Nephi bother to note in 1 Ne 6:18 that his bow that broke was made of steel? It is not crucial to his story. It is, in fact, an allusion to Ps. 18:34, where a steel bow is described as being broken. It is my contention that whatever weapon the BOM is describing in 1 Ne 6:18 is meant to be precisely the same type of weapon described in Ps 18:34. I believe this is true whether JS wrote the BOM, or if it is ancient. (The importance of Ps 18 for Nephi is also reflected in Nephi's Psalm (2 Ne 4.16-35) which shows too many parallels to Ps 18 to be coincidental.)

I almost exactly agree with you, with a bit of a different slant. I think Joseph Smith, or whoever wrote those BoM passages with or for Smith, saw that "bow of steel" in the Bible and thought that meant that steel bows (as in, a bow meant to shoot arrows, and made from an alloy of carbon and iron) were something that could realistically be used in the Book of Mormon story. Only, they were wrong, and included it ignorantly, not realizing that the word "steel" in the KJV was actually a mistranslation.

3- That JS is not using standard early 19th century metal terminology is reflected by the fact that the BOM never uses the term bronze. It instead consistently uses the Jacobean KJV term brass (note the KJV never uses the word bronze either). In JS's day, brass was a copper-zinc alloy, while bronze was a copper-tin allow. In Jacobean English, however, brass refers to the copper-tin allow. When the BOM uses the term brass, it is referring to the same metal described in the KJV Bible. I believe this is true whether JS wrote the BOM or if is a translation of an ancient book.

I have no trouble arguing that Joseph Smith, or whoever else penned the relevant passages in the Book of Mormon, was aping the Bible. I think this is more true than you would feel comfortable admitting, however.

By the way, brass (copper and zinc) is actually a special type of bronze, which is a term covering a family of various alloys of predominantly copper. Brass is a member of the bronze family of alloys.

I need to point out a passage from your article that you should revise.

Certainly the Book of Mormon does not refer to twenty-first century "steel," since the Bessemer steel process upon which modern steel-making is based was not invented until 1846.

This line has just got to go. The Bessemer process has nothing to do with this. The Bessemer process is just a more-modern process than what was previously used, which allowed steel to be manufactured far more quickly, and far more cheaply, than the processes that had been used previous. But steel was being manufactured before this, and it is greatly misleading to imply that the steel being thus produced was somehow different enough from "21st century steel" to warrant such a warning. Steel was being manufactured in Europe by the early 1600s by the cementation method, and by the mid 1700s via the crucible method. And the Europeans weren't the first to make steel. Amongst perhaps others, many, many centuries before, it was being made in Africa, in India, and in China.

Note that Bessemer process-made steel wasn't necessarily the best steel, it was just by far the cheapest. Crucible steel was actually, even at the time of the Bessemer process coming about, the best method of producing high-quality steel, and it still is. As far as "21st Century" steel goes, you'd have to discount the Bessemer proccess too, because nobody's using it anymore. It's been superceded by the still-more efficient, and more controllable, and higher-quality basic oxygen process.

4- The reason for retaining Jacobean language in a divine translation is obvious. It is to allow early 19th century readers for whom the KJV was the Bible, to see linguistic allusions that would disappear if the language was modernized to contemporary 1830s English.

First off, let's be clear about something. If the Book of Mormon actually came about by divine means, then the translation of the words on the plates came from God to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith didn't know Hebrew. Joseph Smith didn't know Egyptian. The only way Joseph Smith could have known what metal was described in the words on the plates, if the story is true, is because God revealed it to him. It's laughable that God would know that in fact the alloy being produced by the Nephites was an alloy of copper and some other metal (zinc, tin, whatever) and yet reveal the word "steel" to Joseph Smith, when in fact steel was and is a carbon/iron alloy that people from before Joseph Smith's time until the present would recognize as such.

Joseph Smith would have known what "steel" meant. In the 1820s the word "steel" already meant a carbon/iron alloy, the same as we know it today. People in Joseph Smith's day would rather be confused by the word "steel" used for a copper/zinc or copper/tin alloy, than expect it, their Bibles notwithstanding. The fact that the word "steel" was used for a copper alloy in the Old Testament was actually a mistranslation, or at best an oddity of early 1600s English, which was already gone from the language by the time Joseph Smith learned to read and speak it.

If Hebrew words, written in Reformed Egyptian, on the Golden Plates, were actually talking about a copper/zinc, copper/tin, or copper/arsenic, or whatever other sort of bronze or brass alloy, then God is responsible for taking that idea, and putting it through as "steel" on the scraps of ethereal parchment he had appear to Joseph Smith on the magic peepstone he had lying at the bottom of his hat. You're going to have to do better about explaining why it is that God himself would choose to use a word which was quite simply wrong already in the 1820s, and is still wrong today.

I so often hear that the Book of Mormon "was written for our day", and yet so many people want to excuse away the anachronisms by implying that it was somehow written for 1611 when the King James translators published their edition of the Bible.

[Sethbag]

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, but had intended to, that regardless whether you can find a way to get out from under the reference to "steel" in the Book of Mormon, the verses in Nephi and Jarom also refer to iron, and nobody has yet proposed a Biblical excuse for why "iron" shouldn't mean the element iron, or some form of metallic iron such as wrought iron, cast iron, or whatever.

That's apparently one of the benefits Dr. Hamblin sought in seeking refuge in the "literary topos" classification of the list of metals, ie: the reference to smelted iron could simply be ignored as a literary device only, and the Nephites were't really smelting wrought iron from iron ore, as a plain reading of the text implies. Only, there's practically no justification whatsoever for implying that the author(s) of those Book of Mormon passages wouldn't have meant exactly what they wrote. It's bald assertion on Dr. Hamblin's part. Or perhaps, more appropriately, wishful thinking.

Show me the steel. Barring that, show me the wrought iron. Zak, don't show me the ochre, the hematite, the lodestone compasses, etc. Show me the wrought iron.

[Bill Hamblin]

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.

Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.

Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.

Sethbag has such a rigid view of the nature of language that this discussion seems rather pointless. He insists on interpreting steel in a limited literal sense, ignoring a wide range of other possible meanings. This is because, of course, if he doesn't his argument against BOM historicity fails.

Language, all language, is inherently ambiguous. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. It is a logical impossibility. For example, as I noted in the article,

there is no single English term that can accurately translate Hebrew nechushah/nechosheth; furthermore, the Hebrew term covers at least three distinct categories in modern English: copper, bronze (copper and tin alloy) and brass (copper and zinc alloy).

So, imagine you're God. How would you translate nechushah?

To object that the BOM is not translated the way you want it to have been translated, only tells us about your limited understanding of the problems of translation.

On the range of meaning for "steel" in 1828, see Webster:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,steel

Yes it did mean steeled iron, but it meant more than that, as well.

Why must the BOM be describing wrought iron? As I noted,

Note, finally, that the Olmecs did, indeed, work iron. Several tons of worked iron have been discovered.

But, whatever steel meant, how does that change the fact that the steel described in Ether might be legendary steel, just as the iron weapons and objects of the Pharaohs in the Pyramid Texts or Tubal-Cain's iron are generally assumed by scholars to be legendary? Do you agree?

(I note you are here diverting the discussion from the rather limited point I was trying to make.)

[John Williams]

So, imagine you're God. How would you translate nechushah?

How do we know that the Book of Mormon is using nechushah?

[Bill Hamblin]

How do we know that the Book of Mormon is using nechushah?

I didn't say it was. This is an example--one among thousands--of the problems of translation that Sethbag doesn't seem to recognize.

On the other hand, if the BOM is historical, there is some Hebrew root idea on the plates. We then assume we can translate backward from BOM to KJV "steel bow" to Hebrew nechushah (which is the word behind the KJV steel bow in this case).

[John Larsen]

Language, all language, is inherently ambiguous. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. It is a logical impossibility.

To an extent. However, if language were perfectly ambiguous then no communication could take place, which is not the case.

Referential terms, meaning those that signify an outside object, are the least ambiguous. So there can be a perfect translation of these terms from language to language, if by perfect translation you mean with zero ambiguity.

The question here is what Joseph Smith had in mind. Ambiguity in Hebrew has no relevance, it is if Joseph Smith missunderstood the term steel. I don't believe there is a very good case that he did.

[Bill Hamblin]

To an extent. However, if language were perfectly ambiguous then no communication could take place, which is not the case.

Referential terms, meaning those that signify an outside object, are the least ambiguous. So there can be a perfect translation of these terms from language to language, if by perfect translation you mean with zero ambiguity.

This claim is, in fact, demonstrably false. So how would you translate nechushah?

I note that being ambiguous and being "perfectly ambiguous" are two completely distinct ideas. (Technically, "perfectly ambiguous" is probably an oxymoron.) All language is ambiguous. But no language is "perfectly ambiguous."

The question here is what Joseph Smith had in mind. Ambiguity in Hebrew has no relevance, it is if Joseph Smith missunderstood the term steel. I don't believe there is a very good case that he did.

A more circular argument would be difficult to find. If the BOM is a translation, then the original language is important. What JS thought is "the question" only when we assume JS is not translating. If he is translating, then it is "a question."

I am also quite dubious that we can ever know what JS "had in mind." What we can do is examine the range of meaning of terms within JS's cultural milieu, of which the KJV was certainly an important part.

[John Williams]

I didn't say it was. This is an example--one among thousands--of the problems of translation that Sethbag doesn't seem to recognize.

On the other hand, if the BOM is historical, there is some Hebrew root idea on the plates. We then assume we can translate backward from BOM to KJV "steel bow" to Hebrew nechushah (which is the word behind the KJV steel bow in this case).

Yes, I recognize the assumption, but I'm not sure it holds. Yes, the Book of Mormon uses KJV language off and on (like Viggo Mortensen's accent in Lord of the Rings), but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was translated the same way the KJV translators would have done in 1611. What Seth is saying, if I'm reading him correctly, is that a more reasonable assumption is that Joseph Smith was translating into terms that would have made sense to a 19th-century audience, in which case the presence of steel and the listing of smelted metals are anachronistic.

You seem to be working from the assumption that, since the book is indeed a translation of an ancient record, the anachronisms must not be anachronisms, so you work backward and find a 1611 translation of steel going back to nechushah and propose that this is what the text means.

[cksalmon]

Several people here are claiming that no one makes the argument about steel and non-existent Nephites that I say they make.

It seems to me this is the standard argument used in all anachronism-type issues critics raise against the BOM.

1- The BOM mentions X

2- There is no evidence for X in Precolumbian America.

3- Therefore: The mention of X in the BOM is an anachronism.

4- Therefore: the BOM is not an ancient book and is, instead, 19th century fiction.

5- Therefore: there were no Nephites.

As far as I can tell, all critics tacitly and implicitly make this type of argument in one way or another.

Just insert "steel" for X and you get the argument I'm discussing here.

Maybe I've misunderstood the entire anachronism issue, but I don't think so.

My problem with the above is that you're still positing a deductive argument.

Now, I have to believe that someone has made such a claim (though I doubt that the hypothetical argument would rely on any singular X, such as "the absence of evidence for steel"). To my mind, such argumentation would be fallacious, a point on which we're already agreed.

"all critics tacitly and implicitly make this type of argument in one way or another."

This is the fallacy of composition. I'm a critic and I don't make this type of argument. Therefore, it is false that all critics tacitly and implicitly make deductive conclusions about the falsity of BoM. Again, I don't think that's how historical analysis works. I can believe that BoM is false based on the evidence without claiming that the truth of that conclusion is propositionally entailed. If I were to start saying that BoM, deductively, has been proven false based on X, then I would be arguing fallaciously.

And, again, I don't know of anyone who has made the argument that some singular X disproves the historicity of BoM, even though it seems likely that at least some person has done so.

CKS

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes, I recognize the assumption, but I'm not sure it holds. Yes, the Book of Mormon uses KJV language off and on (like Viggo Mortensen's accent in Lord of the Rings), but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was translated the same way the KJV translators would have done in 1611. What Seth is saying, if I'm reading him correctly, is that a more reasonable assumption is that Joseph Smith was translating into terms that would have made sense to a 19th-century audience, in which case the presence of steel and the listing of smelted metals are anachronistic.

You seem to be working from the assumption that, since the book is indeed a translation of an ancient record, the anachronisms must not be anachronisms, so you work backward and find a 1611 translation of steel going back to nechushah and propose that this is what the text means.

I'm assuming nothing. I'm looking at the normal range of linguistic meanings of the terms in the time of JS. (And to claim that the average BOM reader was not familiar with the KJV is a serious mistake. It was a fundamental part of early 19C linguistic milieu.)

My argument--that authentic ancient texts can include anachronistic references to legendary archaic metal-working--is demonstrable from numerous ancient texts. Whether the BOM is ancient or modern fiction, this is demonstrably true. Many of the critics on this thread not only agree with me, but think my point is so obvious as to be trite. The argument Sethbag makes, is, in fact, fundamentally circular and based on special pleading. For his argument to be valid, one must make all sorts of unverifiable assumptions about restricting the possible range of meaning of terms, mind-reading JS, and pure speculation about how God would or would not translate. He also assumes that JS translated the text for his argument to be valid.

My basic argument, on the other hand, is valid whether the BOM is ancient or modern. The BOM could be modern fiction, and the mention of Jaredite steel would still not be a legitimate argument against BOM historicity. One can, I hope you realize, make invalid arguments for true propositions.

And, again, I don't know of anyone who has made the argument that some singular X disproves the historicity of BoM, even though it seems likely that at least some person has done so.

Sethbag is making it right here.

[John Williams]

I'm assuming nothing. I'm looking at the normal range of linguistic meanings of the terms in the time of JS. (And to claim that the average BOM reader was not familiar with the KJV is a serious mistake. It was a fundamental part of early 19C linguistic milieu.)

I certainly haven't made that claim. Where did that come from?

My argument--that authentic ancient texts can include anachronistic references to legendary archaic metal-working--is demonstrable from numerous ancient texts. Whether the BOM is ancient or modern fiction, this is demonstrably true. Many of the critics on this thread not only agree with me, but think my point is so obvious as to be trite. The argument Sethbag makes, is, in fact, fundamentally circular and based on special pleading. For his argument to be valid, one must make all sorts of unverifiable assumptions about restricting the possible range of meaning of terms, mind-reading JS, and pure speculation about how God would or would not translate. He also assumes that JS translated the text for his argument to be valid.

My basic argument, on the other hand, is valid whether the BOM is ancient or modern. The BOM could be modern fiction, and the mention of Jaredite steel would still not be a legitimate argument against BOM historicity. One can, I hope you realize, make invalid arguments for true propositions.

I'm not making the argument that the presence of a seeming anachronism is proof positive that the book is bogus (your syllogism does not apply to me, need I add). I just find the attempt to wed Book of Mormon "steel" to the KJV translators to rest on a rather large assumption.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Gen 4:22 tell us that Tubal-cain, an antediluvian descendent of Cain, "worked copper and iron." According to traditional biblical chronology, he lived before the rise of archaeologically verified iron working in the ANE. So, I have two questions:

1- For inerrantists, why do archaeologically unsubstantiated claims of metal-working in the BOM prove it is false, while similar claims in the Bible do not prove it is false. For an Evangelical to reject the historicity of the BOM because of metal-working issues seems a blatant double standard if one insists, at the same time, on the historicity of the Bible, despite its unverified claims of antediluvian metal-working.

2- From a secularist perspective, an account of ancient legendary heroes working unknown metals in the Bible [Tubal-Cain] does not prove the Israelites did not exist. So why does an ancient legendary heroes [shule the Jaredite] working unknown metals in the BOM prove that Nephites didn't exist?

It seems to me we need a consistent standard in evaluating such things, and neither the inerrantists nor the secularists are willing to apply their standards consistently.

Great Question Bill, I'll see what the CARMellians have to say.

[Bill Hamblin]

I certainly haven't made that claim. Where did that come from?

I'm not making the argument that the presence of a seeming anachronism is proof positive that the book is bogus (your syllogism does not apply to me, need I add). I just find the attempt to wed Book of Mormon "steel" to the KJV translators to rest on a rather large assumption.

Here's the basis of my claim

is that a more reasonable assumption is that Joseph Smith was translating into terms that would have made sense to a 19th-century audience, in which case the presence of steel and the listing of smelted metals are anachronistic.

The implication of this claim is that KJV English would not have made sense to a 19C audience.

I just find the attempt to wed Book of Mormon "steel" to the KJV translators to rest on a rather large assumption.

No larger than the assumption that it is not related to the KJV translation. I've provided actual evidence of clear links between steel and brass in the BOM and their KJV counterparts.

I'm not assuming anything here. I'm looking at the linguistic range of possibilities.

[cksalmon]

Sethbag is making it right here.

Where, specifically? I may have missed it, but I haven't found Sethbag making any deductive arguments against BoM.

I think you might be confusing "I have good reasons to believe BoM is false because of X, Y, and Z" or "I believe BoM to be false because of X, Y, and Z" with "X, Y, and Z conclusively prove BoM false (or, in other words, the falsity of BoM is logically entailed by X, Y, and Z."

CKS

[Bill Hamblin]

Where, specifically? I may have missed it, but I haven't found Sethbag making any deductive arguments against BoM.

I think you might be confusing "I have good reasons to believe BoM is false because of X, Y, and Z" or "I believe BoM to be false because of X, Y, and Z" with "X, Y, and Z conclusively prove BoM false (or, in other words, the falsity of BoM is logically entailed by X, Y, and Z."

CKS

See the end of post #59. Do you really think Sethbag here is allowing for the option that the BOM is historical, or that the mention of the term steel among Jaredites might have any other explanation than the one he asserts? He does not. He is being as dogmatic and close-minded on the subject as it is possible to be.

The fact that you and I see the difference doesn't mean everyone does, or even that most critics do. It is very difficult to find any nuanced thinking among traditional Evangelical anti-Mormons (such as those at CARM.)

I am still puzzled why you keep bringing this issue up. We seem to agree about the logical implications of the issue.

[cksalmon]

See the end of post #59. Do you really think Sethbag here is allowing for the option that the BOM is historical, or that the mention of the term steel among Jaredites might have any other explanation than the one he asserts? He does not. He is being as dogmatic and close-minded on the subject as it is possible to be.

The fact that you and I see the difference doesn't mean everyone does, or even that most critics do. It is very difficult to find any nuanced thinking among traditional Evangelical anti-Mormons (such as those at CARM.)

I am still puzzled why you keep bringing this issue up. We seem to agree about the logical implications of the issue.

I bring it up again simply because you stated "all critics tacitly and implicitly make this type of [deductive] argument in one way or another," which isn't true.

I acknowledged that the argument you cited was fallacious but suggested that I know of no one who makes that argument. You responded that "all critics" make that argument. I responded (and can deductively demonstrate) that that claim is false.

See the end of post #59. Do you really think Sethbag here is allowing for the option that the BOM is historical, or that the mention of the term steel among Jaredites might have any other explanation than the one he asserts?

Does he personally allow for the option that the BOM is (possibly) historical? I'd say he probably does, but I couldn't answer for him personally. Perhaps he'll answer that question.

My point is that Sethbag has not made the deductive argument you've suggested that all critics make.

I'm not particularly interested, in this case, with the evidence for or against the evidence for steel in BoM lands/times. I am particularly interested in the argument you attribute to critics, more so as I, as a critic, don't presently, wouldn't in the future, and, one hopes, haven't in the past made such an argument.

As support for your claim, I do believe I remember reading somewhere (I believe on a website advertising DNA vs. the Book of Mormon DVD that the evidence "proved" BoM false. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate that site again to confirm it. (And, honestly, I'd suspect that they were using the word "proved" in something less than a rigorous sense.)

But, still, to attribute that argument to all critics seems haphazard and, considering my case, demonstrably false.

CKS

[Bill Hamblin]

I bring it up again simply because you stated "all critics tacitly and implicitly make this type of [deductive] argument in one way or another," which isn't true.

I acknowledged that the argument you cited was fallacious but suggested that I know of no one who makes that argument. You responded that "all critics" make that argument. I responded (and can deductively demonstrate) that that claim is false.

Does he personally allow for the option that the BOM is (possibly) historical? I'd say he probably does, but I couldn't answer for him personally. Perhaps he'll answer that question.

My point is that Sethbag has not made the deductive argument you've suggested that all critics make.

I'm not particularly interested, in this case, with the evidence for or against the evidence for steel in BoM lands/times. I am particularly interested in the argument you attribute to critics, more so as I, as a critic, don't presently, wouldn't in the future, and, one hopes, haven't in the past made such an argument.

As support for your claim, I do believe I remember reading somewhere (I believe on a website advertising DNA vs. the Book of Mormon DVD that the evidence "proved" BoM false. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate that site again to confirm it. (And, honestly, I'd suspect that they were using the word "proved" in something less than a rigorous sense.)

But, still, to attribute that argument to all critics seems haphazard and, considering my case, demonstrably false.

CKS

In one form or another, the anachronism argument is probably the most common argument used by critics. Which part of this argument do you disagree with?

1

- The BOM mentions X

2- There is no evidence for X in Precolumbian America.

3- Therefore: The mention of X in the BOM is an anachronism.

4- Therefore: the BOM is not an ancient book and is, instead, 19th century fiction.

5- Therefore: there were no Nephites.