Metal Swords?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Uh huh. I would love to see you sleep on a "real sword" with a sheath. Just to try it out, but a broom handle under you right on your bed and sleep on it tonight, ok?

Cheesh!

[mfbukowski]

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."

Can't you see how that destroys your own argument???

If they had the same word, essentially for "copper" and "brass" you are saying that one word can be used for two modern metals. You know, kind of like "iron" and "steel"??

All you are proving is that words are ambiguous especially when translating from some ancient language to our modern languages, and that is precisely what everyone is telling you!

[Cobalt-70]

Can't you see how that destroys your own argument???

If they had the same word, essentially for "copper" and "brass" you are saying that one word can be used for two modern metals. You know, kind of like "iron" and "steel"??

All you are proving is that words are ambiguous especially when translating from some ancient language to our modern languages, and that is precisely what everyone is telling you!

No, I'm saying that I want to know what the Egyptian hieroglyph is, and what the Hebrew word is, for "steel" which distinguishes that metal from other metals including iron, copper, and brass/bronze.

Also, iron is not the same as steel, as Joseph Smith would have known and the Book of Mormon acknowledges by placing both of them together on a list of metals. But unless it is some completely alien metal for which there is no modern English word, then it has to be actual steel. Otherwise, Smith/God would have used the correct word. And even if the mystery hieroglyph were some strange metal unknown to the English language, Smith would have transliterated, as he did with the metal "ziff," and the nonmetallic names "curelom," "cumom," "senine," "antion," "amnor," etc.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Uh huh. I would love to see you sleep on a "real sword" with a sheath. Just to try it out, but a broom handle under you right on your bed and sleep on it tonight, ok?

Don't complain to me if that's not realistic. Complain to Joseph Smith. But at least it's a lot more realistic than sleeping on an obsidian-studded club.

[mfbukowski]

No, I'm saying that I want to know what the Egyptian hieroglyph is, and what the Hebrew word is, for "steel" which distinguishes that metal from other metals including iron, copper, and brass/bronze.

Also, iron is not the same as steel, as Joseph Smith would have known and the Book of Mormon acknowledges by placing both of them together on a list of metals. But unless it is some completely alien metal for which there is no modern English word, then it has to be actual steel. Otherwise, Smith/God would have used the correct word. And even if the mystery hieroglyph were some strange metal unknown to the English language, Smith would have transliterated, as he did with the metal "ziff," and the nonmetallic names "curelom," "cumom," "senine," "antion," "amnor," etc.

Suppose you were translating something and came across the word "orichalc".

How would you translate it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orichalcum

The point is, it would require a decision of how to represent the meaning of the word in modern English. I suppose Joseph made a decision as you would as well were you translating it.

And any way you did it, it would be wrong because no one knows what "orichalc" is. Even if you said "orichalc" as some translations of the Bible do, no one would have a clue what you were talking about without looking it up. The word does not communicate anything to the modern world, except perhaps to a few weirdos like me who are into such things- and I don't "really" know what it means anyway.

Joseph wasn't into paragraphs of footnotes on metallurgy. This is a non-issue.

I can't for the life of me

[mfbukowski]

Don't complain to me if that's not realistic. Complain to Joseph Smith. But at least it's a lot more realistic than sleeping on an obsidian-studded club.

Your literalism surpasses all understanding.

[blackstrap]

A rose by any other name would be an orichalc, but it would be made of steel, and found beside a horse in a cave full of cumoms which have had a last meal of barley. Having said that ,I now bid adieu.

[volgadon]

But at least it's a lot more realistic than sleeping on an obsidian-studded club.

In other words, cobalt isn't listening.

[Darren10]

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?

Here's what the text says:

20 And it came to pass that they fought all that day, and when the night came they slept upon their swords.

21 And on the morrow they fought even until the night came.

22 And when the night came they were ^adrunken with anger, even as a man who is drunken with wine; and they slept again upon their swords.

23 And on the morrow they fought again; and when the night came they had all fallen by the sword save it were fifty and two of the people of Coriantumr, and sixty and nine of the people of Shiz.

24 And it came to pass that they slept upon their swords that night, and on the morrow they fought again, and they contended in their might with their swords and with their shields, all that day.

(Ether 15)

It's not like they expected to draw their swords and use them right at the place they slept. It's simply to grab the sword and go do battle. And if you say, "to draw from its sheath" why not a macuahuitl from under leather skin?

Edited May 30, 2012 by Darren10

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In other words, cobalt isn't listening.

Lol yeah.

Lets put it this way. Or play Devil's advocate here. There are plenty of reasons to leave the church. This is not one of them.

[Thinking]

Uh huh. I would love to see you sleep on a "real sword" with a sheath. Just to try it out, but a broom handle under you right on your bed and sleep on it tonight, ok?

Cheesh!

Merriam Webster's Definition of ON.

a —used as a function word to indicate position in contact with and supported by the top surface of <the book is lying on the table

b —used as a function word to indicate position in or in contact with an outer surface <the fly landed on the ceiling> <I have a cut on my finger> <paint on the wall>

c —used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with <a village on the sea> <stay on your opponent>

d —used as a function word to indicate the location of something <on the left> <on the south side of the house> <on the farm>

[Cobalt-70]

Merriam Webster's Definition of ON.

a —used as a function word to indicate position in contact with and supported by the top surface of <the book is lying on the table

b —used as a function word to indicate position in or in contact with an outer surface <the fly landed on the ceiling> <I have a cut on my finger> <paint on the wall>

c —used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with <a village on the sea> <stay on your opponent>

d —used as a function word to indicate the location of something <on the left> <on the south side of the house> <on the farm>

Sense ( c ) is a geographical usage--i.e., you are "on" a place. Can you find any 19th century example of someone saying they are "on" a tool, weapon, or similar portable object, when they mean they are beside it? If so, you should call Oxford English Dictionary, because they missed something. The closest such usage of "on" would be "on the telephone" or "on the computer" (Oxford sense 3c), a usage which did not arise until about the 1880.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Here's what the text says:

(Ether 15)

It's not like they expected to draw their swords and use them right at the place they slept. It's simply to grab the sword and go do battle. And if you say, "to draw from its sheath" why not a macuahuitl from under leather skin?

This is not the only Book of Mormon reference to "sleeping on their swords." It also appears in Alma 57:9:

And it came to pass that we did camp round about the city for many nights; but we did sleep upon our swords, and keep guards, that the Lamanites could not come upon us by night and slay us, which they attempted many times; but as many times as they attempted this their blood was spilt."

[Cobalt-70]

Suppose you were translating something and came across the word "orichalc".

How would you translate it?

I would translate it "orichalc." Just like Smith translated the word "ziff." Smith was fully capable of transmitting to us seemingly-transliterated words referring to mystery metals like "ziff," mystery animals like "cureloms" and "cumoms," and other mystery words like "senine," "seon," "shum," "limnah," etc.

[rodheadlee]

This is not the only Book of Mormon reference to "sleeping on their swords." It also appears in Alma 57:9:

And it came to pass that we did camp round about the city for many nights; but we did sleep upon our swords, and keep guards, that the Lamanites could not come upon us by night and slay us, which they attempted many times; but as many times as they attempted this their blood was spilt."

It's an expression, not an exact description. I tell one of my workers to go get a box of nails and they tell me they're "On It". They are not top of the box of nails, they're on the job.

Edited May 30, 2012 by rodheadlee

[Thinking]

Sense ( c ) is a geographical usage--i.e., you are "on" a place. Can you find any 19th century example of someone saying they are "on" a tool, weapon, or similar portable object, when they mean they are beside it? If so, you should call Oxford English Dictionary, because they missed something. The closest such usage of "on" would be "on the telephone" or "on the computer" (Oxford sense 3c), a usage which did not arise until about the 1880.

Will the New Testament do?

Mark 16:19

"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."

[Darren10]

This is not the only Book of Mormon reference to "sleeping on their swords." It also appears in Alma 57:9:

And it came to pass that we did camp round about the city for many nights; but we did sleep upon our swords, and keep guards, that the Lamanites could not come upon us by night and slay us, which they attempted many times; but as many times as they attempted this their blood was spilt."

Same difference.

[Darren10]

Let's not forget that the scriputers Cobalt is citeing says that the people slept "upon" their swords, not "on". "Upon" does indicate tat they slep with their swords directly under them.

[Darren10]

Cobal #113;

That Alma passage does indicate that the swords were to be grabbed for desense onthe spot but I think we're tryingto recostruct something we really know little to nothing about. Andy indication as to *how* they spelt upon their swords? I think justl ike a sheath you mentioned during your own posting, there's nothng to show contrary of the idea tha something was used as a covering for a macauhuitl.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Seriously, this is a waste. This is a total none issue. Cobalt, would rather argue that the word "Adieu" is a strike against the BoM because the Nephites didn't speak French? Because this is about as lame as your current arguments are.

[Darren10]

Seriously, this is a waste. This is a total none issue. Cobalt, would rather argue that the word "Adieu" is a strike against the BoM because the Nephites didn't speak French? Because this is about as lame as your current arguments are.

I've come to the same conclusion.

[mfbukowski]

I would translate it "orichalc." Just like Smith translated the word "ziff." Smith was fully capable of transmitting to us seemingly-transliterated words referring to mystery metals like "ziff," mystery animals like "cureloms" and "cumoms," and other mystery words like "senine," "seon," "shum," "limnah," etc.

You really are not listening are you?

Even if you said "orichalc" as some translations of the Bible do, no one would have a clue what you were talking about without looking it up. The word does not communicate anything to the modern world, except perhaps to a few weirdos like me who are into such things- and I don't "really" know what it means anyway.

[mfbukowski]

Will the New Testament do?

Mark 16:19

"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."

Now if we take this with Cobalt's literalism, uh, I hope it wasn't too uncomfortable for God. I am sure he will not put that hand in the same place again.

[Robert F. Smith]

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."

Although the ancient Egyptians did not discover how to produce iron from its ores, they already had a word for “iron” in Predynastic times (4th millennium B.C.), which was based on their use and working of meteoric iron biЗ n pt “metal of the sky” (= Coptic benipe),* and this remained their word for “iron, steel,” throughout Egyptian history. According to Lucas & Harris, based on the Brinell hardness of actual artifacts, steel was first produced in Egypt by carburizing of iron no earlier than 1200 B.C., and by carburizing and quenching no earlier than 900 B.C., although the artifacts could have been imports from Western Asia,** where Hittites had been making steel since at least the mid-2nd millennium B.C., or earlier. There is also a nickle-steel battle-axe from Ugarit with bronze hilt decorated with gold, dated to about 1450-1350 B.C., very much like the one found dating to ca. 2000 B.C. in a grave in Hattic Alaca Höyük.⁺

There are a number of iron gifts (including steel) which were received by Egyptians at that early period, including a steel-bladed dagger presented to Amenhotep III by King Tushratta of Mitanni, etc. The spectacular steel-bladed and gold-hilted dagger found in King Tut’s 18th dynasty tomb^# is not only of the same type as the sword described for Laban (I Nephi 4:9) nearly a millennium later, but may also have been an import.

Iron smelting and iron working in Egypt came into its own during the 22nd to 26th dynasties, and was as common as bronze by the 26th dynasty (664 - 525 B.C.) – contemporary with Lehi & Nephi. And Petrie found furnaces and iron working in Palestine (Gerar) even earlier, from the 20th to 22nd dynasties (cf. I Kings 8:51).^##

Moreover, steel was being produced by the high culture and civilization in ancient South Arabia already by 1100 B.C.^■

The Hebrew word for “iron, steel” is barzel (Gen 4:22, Lev 26:19, Num 31:22, Deut 3:11, 4:20, 8:9, 28:48, Josh 17:16, Prov 27:17), and is the basis for the name or metonym of Barzillai “Iron-man/ Steel-man,” possibly due to his origin in Gilead (in Manasseh) where the best iron ores were to be found – at a time when the Philistine monopoly on iron & steel weapons was being quickly eroded (I Sam 13:19-21, 17:7, II Kings 24;14, I Chron 22:3, II Chron 2:7). Robert Coughenour even argues that Barzillai “was David’s chief metallurgist.” A steel short-sword (blade 12-16 inches long) with ivory hilt and bronze rivets was found at Philistine Ekron (Tel Miqne).^■■ The first actual steel implement known from Palestine, however, is an eleventh century B.C. pick from Upper Galilean Har Adir,§

The so-called “Iron Age” in which all this took place should, according to Robert Maddin, have been called the “Steel Age.”§§

------------------------------------

* Jaroslav Černý, Coptic Etymological Dictionary, 24-25; A. Lucas & J. R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th ed., 235-237, 242.

** Lucas & Harris, 242; James Muhly, “Metallurgy,” in K. A. Bard, ed., Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 526; cf. http://www.reshafim....ades/metals.htm .

+ Richard Cowen, “Essays on Geology, History, and People,” chapter 5, online at http://mygeologypage...115/115CH5.html ; Muhly, “Metals,” in E. M. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, IV:14.

# Lucas & Harris, 240.

## Lucas & Harris, 239-240.

^■ Gus Van Beek, Hajar Bin Humeid: Investigations at a Pre-Islamic Site in South Arabia.

^■■ Seymour Gitin, “Excavating Ekron: Major Philistine City Survived by Absorbing Other Cultures,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 31/6 (Nov-Dec 2005), 40-56. See photo on p. 44.

§ Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 360-361, photo 8.32, citing D. Davis, et al., JNES, 44 (1985), 41-52.

§§ Coughenour, “Iron,” in P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 423-424.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

CFR that I have in any way been "mischaracterizing what Owen and Mosser said." Perhaps you could quote their disagreements with what I said about their piece by citing their actual statements.

CFR that "These are some of the same people who come up with crazy mechanisms for how humans and dinosaurs coexisted prior to the Flood." Plenty of evangelicals take a very different view from some of that nonsense. That you are unaware of that indicates unfamiliarity with evangelical writings.

CFR that "these are the guys that academic Mormon apologists proudly compare themselves to these days."

I see no evidence that you have even read what Owen & Mosser wrote.

CFR that there is any "non-Mormon scholar" who denies "anyone has found any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text," who has ever actually studied the Book of Mormon. This is akin to someone talking about Biblical authenticity without ever having actually studied it. Biblical scholars would guffaw long and hard at any upstart coming into their bailiwick making silly claims based on a complete lack of elementary knowledge as well as the lack of fundamental linguistic & archeological tools necessary to understand the Bible.

CFR the identity of "Mormon pseudoarchaeologists." Who are those guys for whom you have such contempt?

CFR the psychobiographical basis for your belief "that many Mormon scholars" don't "really think that, either," i.e., that they don't believe that there is "any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text."

CFR that whatever evidence Mormon scholars mention is only "evidence of non-impossibility, not evidence of actuality."

CFR that there are these mythic "Mormon pseudoarchaeologists" who accept "the same type of evidence that" they "typically reject when the parallels are applied to 19th century sources." Could you provide examples of this blatant double standard? "vague parallels" perhaps.

I really wish that you would take seriously my suggestion that you read serious literature on these questions by disinterested third parties. You would find yourself quite surprised at how divergent from reality your claims are. In addition, a real dialogue is only possible when there is mutual respect and adherence to fundamental norms of logic and critical thinking. You might take a cue from Rob Bowman, who is always a gentleman and who can disagree without being disagreeable and disrespectful.