Metal Swords?

[Cobalt-70]

But remember this all is supposing that "steel" is an exact literal translation for the exact word in the "original" and this entire thread has already suggested several other possibilities and reasons describing why it is probably not.

The word "steel" is an English word, of course, which means that either Joseph Smith chose the word, or God chose the word. Mormon certainly didn't, because English had not yet been invented in Mormon's proposed era. The idea that God chose the word is problematic if you are proposing that "steel" doesn't actually mean modern steel, because you'd think that God would get something like that right, he being omniscient and all.

If it was Joseph Smith that chose the word, then what is the mechanism for which Smith could fail to provide a literal translation for the word? Suppose he saw a Reformed Egyptian hieroglyph in his seer stone representing some metal other than steel for which Joseph Smith did not know an English word. If he knew it was not steel, then why would he choose the word "steel" for the translation, knowing it was wrong? And if he didn't know that it was not steel, then how can we say that Joseph Smith knew anything at all about the meaning of the Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs that he was translating? And if he knew nothing about the meaning of these hieroglyphs, then it was God who made all the identification errors in the Book of Mormon, which as discussed above is problematic.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

The word "steel" is an English word, of course, which means that either Joseph Smith chose the word, or God chose the word. Mormon certainly didn't, because English had not yet been invented in Mormon's proposed era. The idea that God chose the word is problematic if you are proposing that "steel" doesn't actually mean modern steel, because you'd think that God would get something like that right, he being omniscient and all.

If it was Joseph Smith that chose the word, then what is the mechanism for which Smith could fail to provide a literal translation for the word? Suppose he saw a Reformed Egyptian hieroglyph in his seer stone representing some metal other than steel for which Joseph Smith did not know an English word. If he knew it was not steel, then why would he choose the word "steel" for the translation. And if he didn't know that it was not steel, then how can we say that Joseph Smith knew anything at all about the meaning of the Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs that he was translating? And if he knew nothing about the meaning of these hieroglyphs, then it was God who made all the identification errors in the Book of Mormon, which as discussed above is problematic.

Did Smith know the difference between steel and other metal alloys? Was he conversant in the exact definitions of these terms? Is it possible that he only had a rudimentary understanding? You seem to want a world made of black and white when it comes to LDS doctrine, history, and thought. Yet, in all other facets of your arguments you want things to be grey; why not use the same standard across the board?

It is amazing what happens when a critic begins to use the same standard on their own beliefs that they choose to use for everything with which they disagree. I think it is called shock and awe.

[Cobalt-70]

Did Smith know the difference between steel and other metal alloys? Was he conversant in the exact definitions of these terms? Is it possible that he only had a rudimentary understanding? You seem to want a world made of black and white when it comes to LDS doctrine, history, and thought. Yet, in all other facets of your arguments you want things to be grey; why not use the same standard across the board?

Even if he had only a "rudimentary understanding," how would that understanding have anything to do with the Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs he saw in the seer stone? Certainly, the hieroglyphs themselves say nothing about the amount of carbon in the referenced metal. They would say nothing about the chemical elements in the metal. How is Smith's understanding of metallurgy even relevant to translating a particular symbolic character into an English word for a metal?

It is amazing what happens when a critic begins to use the same standard on their own beliefs that they choose to use for everything with which they disagree. I think it is called shock and awe.

Please don't refer to me as a "critic." You don't have to be a critic of Mormonism to classify the Book of Mormon is a modern work rather than a translated ancient work. Ultimately, I think most Mormons will come around to that view. There is only so much "limiting" you can do to the Book of Mormon geography model before it vanishes entirely. And nowadays, apologists don't even know which continent the Book of Mormon events happened on. There is only so long that a field of study can survive on the basis of disproving impossibility. At some point, you have to start proving actuality, and if you don't, you just fade slowly into the fringes.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[volgadon]

Okay, then, so let's call them "battle saws."

Why? They weren't meant for sawing, certainly not on the battlefield.

[Stargazer]

I wasn't thinking of crossguards. But I haven't seen a picture of a Macuahuitl with a hilt. Not that they don't exist, but I think for you to call it a "hilt," I think it has to have some sort of structure specially sculpted for gripping. You don't call the end of a spear shaft a "hilt," for example, even though it is possible to grip there.

I spent several years in the Army, and when we went to sleep out in the field, we took our M16's into our sleeping bags with us. Loaded. Safed. You'd best sleep with your macuahuitl, too .

[Robert F. Smith]

Even if he had only a "rudimentary understanding," how would that understanding have anything to do with the Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs he saw in the seer stone? Certainly, the hieroglyphs themselves say nothing about the amount of carbon in the referenced metal. They would say nothing about the chemical elements in the metal. How is Smith's understanding of metallurgy even relevant to translating a particular symbolic character into an English word for a metal?

I'm not sure I understand your problem here. The Hebrew and Egyptian words for "steel" are well known and not in question. The ancient Israelite and Egyptian metal smiths certainly knew very well how to make steel long before Nephi came on the scene, the same steel known to Joseph Smith and anyone from his era in small town America. Children could see the village smithy making and working steel at will. There was and is no mystery, except that most people in our day don't see the making of steel in that local sense and therefore don't understand what it is.

Please don't refer to me as a "critic." You don't have to be a critic of Mormonism to classify the Book of Mormon is a modern work rather than a translated ancient work. Ultimately, I think most Mormons will come around to that view. There is only so much "limiting" you can do to the Book of Mormon geography model before it vanishes entirely. And nowadays, apologists don't even know which continent the Book of Mormon events happened on. There is only so long that a field of study can survive on the basis of disproving impossibility. At some point, you have to start proving actuality, and if you don't, you just fade slowly into the fringes.

Again, what you are saying here is incoherent.

It would be helpful if you were to read some factual accounts of the ancient world, beginning with good, reliable non-Mormon scholars, so that you don't feel that any special favors are being granted to one side of the debate or the other. From your comments, it is clear to me that you are unfamiliar with the basic facts at issue, and that you would not believe anything a Mormon told you -- even if he cited his sources. Perhaps you come to these issues with already formed opinions and an unwillingness to entertain (even for a moment) the possibility that you have been lied to by the anti-Mormon crowd, or for some other reason.

Owen & Mosser, a couple of evangelical scholars who took a close look at LDS apologetics a few years back, concluded that the LDS apologists had done a very creditable and successful job of defending their faith and that the evangelicals had lost the debate (even though they didn't realize it). Owen & Mosser concluded their account by urging evangelicals to stop pretending that they had won the debate, and to get busy with better arguments. This has not completely fallen on deaf ears, but it has been ignored by most evangelicals -- who probably see Owen & Mosser as traitors. What Owen & Mosser really did was to take an honest and unbiased look at what the issues were and how each side had dealt with them. Other evangelicals, such as RIchard Mouw, have reached out in kindness and fellowship to the Mormon community, fully recognizing the differences and disagreements, but not allowing that to turn the debate into one of invective and contempt. That might just be the Christlike approach we should all seek.

[rodheadlee]

There is only so much "limiting" you can do to the Book of Mormon geography model before it vanishes entirely. And nowadays, apologists don't even know which continent the Book of Mormon events happened on. There is only so long that a field of study can survive on the basis of disproving impossibility. At some point, you have to start proving actuality, and if you don't, you just fade slowly into the fringes.

It took 2700 years to have proof that Bethelehem existed in 700BC to the time of Christ's birth. I think we have plenty of time for Meso American archeology to produce some results.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/ap/top-news/ancient-bethlehem-seal-unearthed-in-jerusalem/nPCLD/

[bcuzbcuz]

Oh yeah.

My wife really loves it when she sits in the car and I go off to find some obsidian to knap into something I can make into a blade to make an atlatl and braid some grass to make a fire bow with, and then wait until I catch a squirrel to skin with my obsidian blade so we can have dinner

And if you believe that one, I have a real estate deal I might interest you in.....

Squirrels should come with a small printed disclaimer attached. "May contain nuts"

[morgan.deane]

Okay, then, so let's call them "battle saws." But in any event, not the type of weapon described as a "sword" in the Book of Mormon. For one thing, how many references are there to people "sleeping on their sword" in the Book of Mormon? Do you really think people are going to be sleeping on a macuahuitl?

The Spanish that faced them in battle very clearly thought of them of swords:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=5&num=1&id=118

[morgan.deane]

I wasn't thinking of crossguards. But I haven't seen a picture of a Macuahuitl with a hilt. Not that they don't exist, but I think for you to call it a "hilt," I think it has to have some sort of structure specially sculpted for gripping. You don't call the end of a spear shaft a "hilt," for example, even though it is possible to grip there.

Hilts are discussed here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=734

And here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=9&num=1&id=250

You don't seem to have read the basic literature on the subject.

[volgadon]

The Spanish that faced them in battle very clearly thought of them of swords:

http://maxwellinstit...=5&num=1&id=118

I also posted a link to an Osprey book.

[mfbukowski]

The word "steel" is an English word, of course, which means that either Joseph Smith chose the word, or God chose the word. Mormon certainly didn't, because English had not yet been invented in Mormon's proposed era. The idea that God chose the word is problematic if you are proposing that "steel" doesn't actually mean modern steel, because you'd think that God would get something like that right, he being omniscient and all.

If it was Joseph Smith that chose the word, then what is the mechanism for which Smith could fail to provide a literal translation for the word? Suppose he saw a Reformed Egyptian hieroglyph in his seer stone representing some metal other than steel for which Joseph Smith did not know an English word. If he knew it was not steel, then why would he choose the word "steel" for the translation, knowing it was wrong? And if he didn't know that it was not steel, then how can we say that Joseph Smith knew anything at all about the meaning of the Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs that he was translating? And if he knew nothing about the meaning of these hieroglyphs, then it was God who made all the identification errors in the Book of Mormon, which as discussed above is problematic.

I find this very literalistic and it is about as far from my philosophy as language as it is possible to get. I really don't want to discuss it with you because it will get no where. There's no point to it.

[mfbukowski]

Even if he had only a "rudimentary understanding," how would that understanding have anything to do with the Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs he saw in the seer stone? Certainly, the hieroglyphs themselves say nothing about the amount of carbon in the referenced metal. They would say nothing about the chemical elements in the metal. How is Smith's understanding of metallurgy even relevant to translating a particular symbolic character into an English word for a metal?

How could you possibly know what the hieroglyphs say or don't say? Joseph's understanding is HIGHLY relevant.

I would like to respectfully suggest that you know nothing about translating much less translating ancient languages. And that is about all I will say to you about this.

[mfbukowski]

Why? They weren't meant for sawing, certainly not on the battlefield.

Saws cut by - well, a sawing motion. Macuahuitls could lob heads and limbs clean off in a single blow- that has already been shown. I don't think he has read most of the thread.

[mfbukowski]

Squirrels should come with a small printed disclaimer attached. "May contain nuts"

Yummy. Those digestive juices just soften em up a little- there's not that much fiber in a squirrel anyway.

[mfbukowski]

I also posted a link to an Osprey book.

Not to mention that the definition of a "hilt" is "handle".

[Stargazer]

Not to mention that the definition of a "hilt" is "handle".

Well, the hilt seems, at least in modern nomenclature, to refer to the entire end of the sword by which it is grasped.

See the Wikipedia article on Hilt.

So, clearly, a macuahuitl had a hilt, and most representations seem to show it having a pommel. Since the weapon was generally not used for thrusting blows, a guard (which is the piece that on Western swords prevent the user's hand from sliding forward onto the blade)would seem to be a mostly useless feature on a macuahuitl.

[Cobalt-70]

I spent several years in the Army, and when we went to sleep out in the field, we took our M16's into our sleeping bags with us. Loaded. Safed. You'd best sleep with your macuahuitl, too .

I don't think you slept on your M16s, though, right? You could sleep on a real sword, because it has a sheath (1 Ne. 4:9), but you could not sleep on a macuahuitl without waking up with severe lacerations.

[Darren10]

I don't think you slept on your M16s, though, right? You could sleep on a real sword, because it has a sheath (1 Ne. 4:9), but you could not sleep on a macuahuitl without waking up with severe lacerations.

Who says sleeping with a macauahuitl din't cause lacerations? Also, I think some hay and/or thick leather would do fine if one slept on top of it as oppsed to having it to the side.

[Darren10]

Also, all along I've been speaking of the macauahuitl as a sword the Nephites would have used, not the Jaredites.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Darren10

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think you slept on your M16s, though, right? You could sleep on a real sword, because it has a sheath (1 Ne. 4:9), but you could not sleep on a macuahuitl without waking up with severe lacerations.

So you chose a very rigid way to interpret "slept on". I don't think they were physically sleeping on their swords. Sleep on, would mean that it was in very close proximity so that one could easily get to it in a moments notice. Having a sword or gun next to you is a lot better, were you could grab it and still be in bed vs having to get off of your sword because you were sleeping on your sword, literally.

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not sure I understand your problem here. The Hebrew and Egyptian words for "steel" are well known and not in question. The ancient Israelite and Egyptian metal smiths certainly knew very well how to make steel long before Nephi came on the scene, the same steel known to Joseph Smith and anyone from his era in small town America. Children could see the village smithy making and working steel at will. There was and is no mystery, except that most people in our day don't see the making of steel in that local sense and therefore don't understand what it is.

CFR that there is an Egyptian hieroglyph and a Hebrew word for "steel," dated sufficiently prior to 600 BC that Nephi would have been familiar with them, that are different from words for "iron," "copper," and "brass" (bronze). (2 Ne. 5:15; Jarom 1:. If you are referring to "nechushet," then that is insufficient, because that would have resulted in a double-inclusion within lists of metals that also include "copper" and "brass."

[Cobalt-70]

Who says sleeping with a macauahuitl din't cause lacerations? Also, I think some hay and/or thick leather would do fine if one slept on top of it as oppsed to having it to the side.

Why would you possibly do that? Isn't the purpose of "sleeping on your sword" that you have the sword there, and ready to draw from its sheath at a moment's notice? Why would you possibly put it under a cushion of hay and leather?

[Cobalt-70]

So you chose a very rigid way to interpret "slept on". I don't think they were physically sleeping on their swords. Sleep on, would mean that it was in very close proximity so that one could easily get to it in a moments notice. Having a sword or gun next to you is a lot better, were you could grab it and still be in bed vs having to get off of your sword because you were sleeping on your sword, literally.

They literally "slept on their swords," presumably because they had the sword sheathed and attached to their belt, so that they could jump up and fight immediately if awakened. If they had put their sheaths to the side, not on their belt, then the text would have said "slept beside their swords."

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not sure I understand your problem here. The Hebrew and Egyptian words for "steel" are well known and not in question. The ancient Israelite and Egyptian metal smiths certainly knew very well how to make steel long before Nephi came on the scene, the same steel known to Joseph Smith and anyone from his era in small town America. Children could see the village smithy making and working steel at will. There was and is no mystery, except that most people in our day don't see the making of steel in that local sense and therefore don't understand what it is.

Again, what you are saying here is incoherent.

It would be helpful if you were to read some factual accounts of the ancient world, beginning with good, reliable non-Mormon scholars, so that you don't feel that any special favors are being granted to one side of the debate or the other. From your comments, it is clear to me that you are unfamiliar with the basic facts at issue, and that you would not believe anything a Mormon told you -- even if he cited his sources. Perhaps you come to these issues with already formed opinions and an unwillingness to entertain (even for a moment) the possibility that you have been lied to by the anti-Mormon crowd, or for some other reason.

Owen & Mosser, a couple of evangelical scholars who took a close look at LDS apologetics a few years back, concluded that the LDS apologists had done a very creditable and successful job of defending their faith and that the evangelicals had lost the debate (even though they didn't realize it). Owen & Mosser concluded their account by urging evangelicals to stop pretending that they had won the debate, and to get busy with better arguments. This has not completely fallen on deaf ears, but it has been ignored by most evangelicals -- who probably see Owen & Mosser as traitors. What Owen & Mosser really did was to take an honest and unbiased look at what the issues were and how each side had dealt with them. Other evangelicals, such as RIchard Mouw, have reached out in kindness and fellowship to the Mormon community, fully recognizing the differences and disagreements, but not allowing that to turn the debate into one of invective and contempt. That might just be the Christlike approach we should all seek.

I think you are mischaracterizing what Owen and Mosser said. Being evangelicals, they obviously did not believe that there is a chance in evangelical Hades that the Book of Mormon has any connection to ancient history. They were just lamenting that evangelical "scholarship" regarding the claims of literalistic Mormonism was, by and large, crap. I could not agree more. In fact, I have even less respect than Owen and Mosser for the credibility of many evangelical "scholars." These are some of the same people who come up with crazy mechanisms for how humans and dinosaurs coexisted prior to the Flood. But if these are the guys that academic Mormon apologists proudly compare themselves to these days, then the problem is worse than I suspected.

Owen and Mosser did not identify any issues in which Mormon pseudoarchaeologists were trouncing Evangelical pseudoarchaeologists. The only thing they seemed to have respect for is the textual scholarship. I am not aware of a single non-Mormon scholar that thinks anyone has found any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. For the most part, I don't think many Mormon scholars really think that, either. All the archaeological evidence is evidence of non-impossibility, not evidence of actuality. To the extent that there is an exception to this rule, it is evidence of vague parallels, which is the same type of evidence that Mormon pseudoarchaeologists typically reject when the parallels are applied to 19th century sources.