Christopher Columbus Reports

[Zakuska]

Except that... it had to get from Joseph SMith to the scribe and then from the scribe to the paper and then from the paper to the printing press.

There's a lot of room for tampering in the process.

Now If Joseph Smith would have been at a computer with a word processor... You might have an argument.

[peeps]

Except that... it had to get from Joseph SMith to the scribe and then from the scribe to the paper and then from the paper to the printing press.

There's a lot of room for tampering in the process.

Now If Joseph Smith would have been at a computer with a word processor... You might have an argument.

So are you contending that Book of Mormon is not an accurate work, and that either one of the scribes or the publisher altered the text? Based on. . . ?

[Zakuska]

We know they did...

Based on extant manuscripts... we know they added punctuation and corrected spelling and grammer.

[peeps]

We know they did...

Based on extant manuscripts... we know they added punctuation and corrected spelling and grammer.

Oh well, then. And have those extant manuscripts also shown that words such as "steel" were added? If not, I'd suppose that this argument should be abandoned.

[Zakuska]

We don't have "all the manuscript"... so its an argument from silence either way.

However, we do know the printers etc. did make changes.

The question is... is how wound Joseph render a word off the plates into a metal name modern reraders would understand?

[cinepro]

We don't have "all the manuscript"... so its an argument from silence either way.

However, we do know the printers etc. did make changes.

The question is... is how wound Joseph render a word off the plates into a metal name modern reraders would understand?

He wasn't "rendering" the words off the plates, since he didn't read Reformed Egyptian (remember, he was an uneducated farmboy). He dictated the words, but there is no way for him to know what the Reformed Egyption actually said. Someone or something else had to be telling him what English words to use.

We also know that that person (or thing) giving the English translation to Joseph was not limited to using words in Joseph's vocabulary, since they were able to communicate "Cumom" and "Curelom" to him, as well as each proper noun.

It is also implied by those who actually saw Joseph dictating that it was a tight (word-for-word) translation process, since Joseph could define the actually spelling of words, and he could resume dictating after a break at the exact spot where he had left off.

There may be any number of reasons the word "steel" doesn't mean "steel", but translator error or misunderstanding is unlikely since the translation had to be done by a divine being.

[Zakuska]

And there I have to disagree...

Have you ever studied the printers manuscripts that we do have? There are spelling and grammer errors in them. Joseph SMith was definatley "IN THE PROCESS" as well as his scribes.

[roman]

I have never seen someone so willing to reject ANY source that does not support their beliefs. If the "Columbus Diaries" said emphatically that there were no metal weapons; you would post it here to make your case against Mormonism.

Your making a very great assumption based on nothing! And I think that this thread is a proof that Zak just donesn't get it

[John Williams]

You want evidence John...

The Mayans DID have Metal tools...

No kidding. I believe I said that already.

Hardend copper tools where excavated from a 140 foot well at Chitzan Itza! Chitzen Itza fell at 1000AD. True, 600 Years too late for the BOM. But it began just 200 years after BOM times. (700AD) But could a well used Chisel have lasted 600+ years? Sure! Ive got a 100 year old hammer from My grandpa.

Sure, they could have survived that long. The question is whether they did or not. I'm not seeing anyone who agrees with you.

This link even has pictures of the metal tools that where excavated there.

Mayan Metal tools as depicted in the Murals!

Primary source: City of the Sacred well

To quote Droopy: nothing new here.

PS... you wanted evidence of copper and bronze (tambaga) being translated as steel

Tumbaga is not bronze. Tumbaga is copper and gold; bronze is copper and tin. Big difference.

I love your persistence, Zak. Keep it up.

[Sethbag]

Don't forget the word "steel" itself doesn't have to represent what we, today, call steel.

Sorry, you haven't got your apologist license yet. You will need to justify this.

The King James Bible came out in 1611. It was around this time that the beginnings of relatively modern European steelmaking can be traced. Steel had been known before this time, obviously, as it was made elsewhere, but in small quantities, and it was expensive. We can excuse the KJV translators for using a term loosely that we now apply to something that, back then, was very rare and expensive, and not widely produced in quantity.

By the 1800s when Joseph Smith translated the BoM, however, that was no longer the case. The people of Joseph Smith's day knew exactly what steel was, steel was being manufactured by more efficient and cost effective (read: cheaper) processes than ever before, and people well knew the difference between steel, and bronze, and gold, and copper, and what have you. You need to explain why you think Joseph Smith would have been playing fast and loose with the word "steel", as if he didn't know exactly what it was he meant by that word to signify.

Secondly, look at 2 Nephi 5:15.

15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Please explain to me why this verse specifically enumerates a list of very specific metals and metal alloys, and yet the word "steel" does not mean exactly what it usually means.

Same thing in Jarom 1:8.

8 And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of warâ??yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

Ok in addition to gold and silver, two metals are mentioned by name, and then two alloys of those same two metals, brass being an alloy of copper, and steel being an alloy of iron.

Please explain to me why, in these verses, "steel" doesn't have to mean what it usually means.

Have you bought into the whole apologetic word game thing so fully, that you think that any old word can mean any old thing you want it to, if it helps your argument?

Joseph Smith wrote steel because he meant steel, and I don't think you can justify any other conclusion just by referring to the fact that the King James translators, over 200 years prior, had confused steel with something else.

[katherine the great]

I don't know about Columbus' islanders, but I'm pretty sure that the Maya peoples used Obsidian. It was plentiful and way, way sharper and stronger than any metallic items they could have manufactured. Why would they go to a less effective technology?

[Zakuska]

No kidding. I believe I said that already.

Sure, they could have survived that long. The question is whether they did or not. I'm not seeing anyone who agrees with you.

To quote Droopy: nothing new here.

Tumbaga is not bronze. Tumbaga is copper and gold; bronze is copper and tin. Big difference.

I love your persistence, Zak. Keep it up.

You forgot the % of tin content in the Mayan tools Columbus stold form the Mayan trading bardge and shipped them back to Spain and had them melted down.

From Columbus's Diary:

“There arrived at that time a canoe long as a galley and 8 feet wide, made of a single tree trunk like the other Indian canoes; it was freighted with merchandise from the western regions around New Spain [Mexico]. Amidships it had a palm-leaf awning like that which the Venetian gondolas carry; this gave complete protection against the rain and waves. Under this awning were the children and women and all the baggage and merchandise, cotton mantles and sleeveless shirts embroidered and painted in different designs and colors, hatchets resembling the stone hatches used by the other Indians but made of good copper, crucibles for smelting ore, wine made from maize that tastes like English beer, and cacao beans as currency. There were twenty-five paddlers aboard but they offered no resistance (Keen 1959:231-232, emphasis added).

http://www.newworldexplorersinc.org/PrhstNWE.pdf

Also this...

Peter Martyr in his De Orbe Nova gives positive evidence that the natives of Nueva

Espana had alloyed bronze cutting tools when he indicated they used well sharpened axes,

then stated they had alloyed [i.e., bronze] hatchets [axes] used by the natives to cut down trees

(Martyr 1970:194,216). And Bernal Diaz noted these alloyed metal tools when he reported that

in the native market there are for sale axes of brass and copper and tin (Diaz del Castillo

1956:217). Columbus reported the large Maya canoe in the Bay of Honduras contained hatchets

made of good copper [i.e., bronze] and hawk s bells of copper (a soft copper bell will not ring,

but a bronze bell will) and crucibles to smelt it (Keen 1959: 232). Yet current archaeologists are

reluctant to accept historical evidence of bronze tools because none have been found in

archaeological investigations and steadfastly insist that the Maya had no metal tools (Sharer

1994:39,641-642).

http://www.newworldexplorersinc.org/MayaSeafarers.pdf

[Zakuska]

I don't know about Columbus' islanders, but I'm pretty sure that the Maya peoples used Obsidian. It was plentiful and way, way sharper and stronger than any metallic items they could have manufactured. Why would they go to a less effective technology?

Eye witnesses say they had them. Columbus "confiscated" a hole boat load of Mayan bronze tools and sent them to Spain to be melted down.

Even though no archaeological finds have confirmed that the Maya had bronze tools, it is

rather inconceivable that for the many centuries the precocious Maya smelted copper in their

crucibles, they would not have discovered that adding a small amount of tin would produce

hard bronze for their tools. Although the cited evidence indicates that the Maya had the

capability and did produce bronze, it is also evident that the production of bronze was on a small

scale and limited to woodworking or limestone cutting tools and not available in the large

quantity required for weapons of war as in European bronze age societies. The foregoing

evidence supplied by the first Spanish explorers, who reported on prehistoric Maya metallurgy

and use of metal tools, refutes the current consensus that the Maya had no bronze cutting tools

and were limited to stone cutting tools. Instead, the evidence indicates the Chontal Maya had

both the expertise and ample bronze tools to construct their large offshore trading vessels.

The current consensus of most historians, anthropologists and archaeologists is that the

Maya canoe routes and travels were limited to the coasts and inland rivers of Mexico and Central

America and long overseas voyages to the islands of the Caribbean and to Florida were neither

feasible nor conducted. Yet the foregoing evidence suggests that the Tainos in the northern

Caribbean and the Calusa in Florida had knowledge of the Yucatan and its people. The question

remains of how this knowledge was obtained.

http://www.newworldexplorersinc.org/MayaSeafarers.pdf

Apparently... the Mayan boat even had sails.

Navigation.--Sailing vessels were known to the Peruvians and the Central Americans. Columbus met, in 1502, at an island near Honduras, a party of the Mayas in a large vessel, equipped with sails, and loaded with a variety of textile fabrics of divers colors.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ataw/ataw302.htm

[Zakuska]

Here is a summary of all the Spanish Explorers who saw Mayans with Metal tools.

In a pragmatic direct historical research approach to the subject; there are five primary independent and reliable early Spanish chroniclers that provided positive evidence the Maya were capable of smelting alloyed metals and produced and used sharp cutting tools in the prehistoric period before Spanish conquest. These five chroniclers and a summary of their reported evidence are listed below:

(1) The first is Columbus who reported the large Maya canoe in the Bay of Honduras contained â??hatchets made of good copperâ? [i.e. alloyed copper] and crucibles to smelt itâ? (Keen 1959:232, emphasis added)

(2) Peter Martyr in his De Orbe Nova documented positive evidence that the natives of Nueva Espana produced sharp and efficient alloyed metal cutting tools when he indicated they used â??well sharpened axes,â? then stated â??they had alloyed [i.e. bronze] hatchets [axes] used by the natives to cut down treesâ? (McNuttt 1970:194, emphasis added).

(3) Las Casas in his account of Cordobaâ??s 1517 voyage to the Yucatan noted that â?? the Indians [Maya] of Campeche had certain metal axes [rozar] which they must use in clearing the ground and in their farmsâ? (Wagner 1942:79, emphasis added). The Spanish word rozar does not specifically refer to â??axes,â? but is a generic term for a cutting tool used in clearing scrub land. The modern steel machete, called Machetes de Rozar and in use throughout Mexico, is probably similar in design and descended from the â??metal axesâ? seen by Cordoba.

(4) Bernal Diaz with Cortes in 1519 noted â??alloyedâ? metal tools when he reported that in the native market â??there are for sale axes of brass and copper and tinâ? (Diaz del Castillo 1933:217, emphasis added).

(5) Bernardino de Sahagun, a Spanish friar who lived among the Mixtec in the early sixteenth century and wrote of their early pre-conquest history, pictured their typical cutting tools in his Florentine Codex (Sahagun 1963), and metal tools and evidence of the use of metal impact drills are pictured in Lienzo de Tlaxcalaâ??s Antiquedades Mexicanos (Tlaxcala 1892).

[Sethbag]

Zak, as has been asked before, how does the possibility that people may have had some bronze tools in 1492 vindicate the Nephites as having had smelted iron and steel 1000-1600 years before?

Bronze is more expensive to produce than iron, and therefor once peoples discover how to smelt iron (which is more difficult, requiring higher temperatures that are more difficult to produce), they typically switch from focusing on bronze for whatever implements they need, to using iron instead. The primary reason for this is that good, high-quality iron ore is far more abundant in the Earth's crust than is copper ore, and especially for more abundant than tin, which is required for bronze. Tin is actually fairly rare.

So evidence that a people traffic in bronze implements will probably be taken as evidence that they do not know how to produce iron. All this testimony you keep linking to, and quoting, talking about native Americans in 1492 trading in bronze hatchets and whatnot merely helps demonstrate that these same people were incapable of producing metallic iron, much less steel. You need to explain how this helps the case of the Book of Mormon.

[Zakuska]

You actually think the Mayan produced all that intricate carved rock work with stone tools?

The Olmecs had advanced carved stone work as well.

And don't forget the 2000 year old Iron ore mine. Iron rusts and breaks down quite easily. To my Knowledge. Bronze does not. Thats why its used in Plumbing. Instead of Galvinized steel.

[John Williams]

You actually think the Mayan produced all that intricate carved rock work with stone tools?

The Olmecs had advanced carved stone work as well.

Believe it or not, you can carve stone with stone tools. The use of stone tools (including obsidian, as katherine mentioned) among the Maya is well-documented. The best that can be said for metal tools is "hey, Columbus said something about bronze tools, so maybe the earlier ones disappeared." As the source you quoted said, there simply is no evidence of metal tools in Nephite times. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Just a few mentions from the Spanish 1000 years too late, when everyone agrees the Maya had metal tools.

And don't forget the 2000 year old Iron ore mine. Iron rusts and breaks down quite easily. To my Knowledge. Bronze does not. Thats why its used in Plumbing. Instead of Galvinized steel.

And we know what that mine was used for: coloring, not steel or metallurgy.

[Zakuska]

Hmmm... is that like the experts naming the 800BC mines in Peru as the starting point of American Metalurgy even though there isn't a single metal artifact in the region ? This iron ore mine pushes that to 1BC.

Absence of evidence isn't the evidence of abscence.

[John Williams]

Hmmm... is that like the experts naming the 800BC mines in Peru as the starting point of American Metalurgy even though there isn't a single metal artifact in the region ? This iron ore mine pushes that to 1BC.

Absence of evidence isn't the evidence of abscence.

Uh, you just posted the other day about the copper bead in Peru that was considered the starting point of American metallurgy. Last I checked, a bead was an artifact.

I have never argued that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but I strongly object to your argument that absence of evidence is evidence of presence. You can speculate all you want, but in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, all you're doing is speculating.

[katherine the great]

You actually think the Mayan produced all that intricate carved rock work with stone tools?

Heck yeah! Have you seen how sharp and strong some of those "stone age" tools were? I don't doubt that some ancient Americans had some kind of metallurgic technology, but the Maya did build those monuments with stone and glass blades which were razor sharp and stronger than most metals.

[Zakuska]

These may be folded or broken, defaced to let spirit out? High status burials will have more, by definition. What is tumbaga? It is a gold-copper alloy sometimes with silver, harder than copper, which can look like pure gold. They also had arsenical bronze, metal ingots that are called axe-money, piles of flat plates we will see more of later. Metallurgy could have been a family labor operation, as even kids can extract copper prills or drops from slag. In the north Andes very small objects were cast by lost wax. In La Tolita culture they even had platinum 1000 years before Europe. South American metal artifacts were usually not tools or weapons but social items until later. With the Inca there were utilitarian items and ceremonial versions of these items. Often the metal objects were buried with the dead and not even seen.

http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/saa/saa_mod05.html

[Sethbag]

Zak, for the zillionth time, where's the smelted iron? All you ever come up with is mention of bronze or copper stuff, and a mine where iron ore was mined to be used as strong pigment. Where's the iron Zak? Where's the steel?

[Zakuska]

Heres a Picture of the mine... It seems it was used mainly from 100BC to 1BC but was used as lat as 600BC.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1...67/posts?page=5

Heres a picture of various types of Iron-Ore. Ochre isn't necesarily RED.

http://images.google.com/images?q=iron+ore...es&ct=title

[Zakuska]

As you can see... Hematite isn't... necesarrily red...

Hematite is commonly seen as a silvery, shiny opaque stone that almost looks like metal. Hematite also occurs naturally in red to reddish-brown earthy masses, known as red ochre or ruddle, and in steel-gray to black crystalline forms, known as specular hematite. Hematite is heavy and a relatively hard oxide mineral because of its high iron content (about 70 percent). The most important sources of hematite come from sedimentary deposits in the Lake Superior and Birmingham district in North America. Other important locations include Minas Gerais (Brazil), Cerro Bolivar (Venezuela), Labrador, and Quebec.

http://www.mamasminerals.com/latestissue.html

[Zakuska]

Heres a 62 Poung cast Iron Bar that was excavated in 1963:

http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/mallbar.htm

Heres a 42 pound bar of cast iron:

http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/keelbar.htm