Metal Swords?

[Cobalt-70]

CFR.

Here (noting the experimental work done by the fine people at SpikeTV). See also this article, which argues that the weapon cannot be classified as a sword.

[CASteinman]

See also this article, which argues that the weapon cannot be classified as a sword.

So as noted in the article, everyone else who saw it up to this fellow named it a sword, but suddenly this guy says its not and he's right?

Even if so, it would not have been wrong for it to be translated "sword" in the Book of Mormon before this fellow gave us the "true" situation.

[Cobalt-70]

Michael Coe, just like Sorenson, Clark, and other anthropology professionals write and publish popular books and articles, just as they publish more technical pieces. You are basically faulting Coe for his popular works, which are not prepared in the fashion of excavation reports nor presented in regular academic journals. Your comments are reckless and inappropriate. When a substantive review is called for you substitute a special animosity for the Mormons and give the non-Mormons a pass.

The difference is that Coe's popular articles are not, for example, trying to link artifacts to the lost city of Atlantis, or to pinpoint the location of ancient astronauts, etc. The popular work is just to explain the scholarly work to a broader audience.

[Cobalt-70]

Exactly. And when you think about that, the macuahuitl actually has a series of curved blades each of which function like the curved blade of scimitar. It works like numerous little scimitars instead of using a straight blade, and has more cutting edge in contact with the object being cut than a straight blade would.

So which is it? Is the macuahuitl the Book of Mormon "sword," or the Book of Mormon "scimitar"?

[CASteinman]

So which is it? Is the macuahuitl the Book of Mormon "sword," or the Book of Mormon "scimitar"?

Your question may not be quite so much the challenge. A scimitar is a type of sword. (The macuahuitl may not be either one).

[volgadon]

Here (noting the experimental work done by the fine people at SpikeTV). See also this article, which argues that the weapon cannot be classified as a sword.

Kind of a silly episode, to be honest. Anyway, as for the wikipedia quote, "It was most effective when it was swung and then dragged backwards, creating a sawing motion," Any edged blade is most effective when swung and then dragged backwards. If you want to classify all blades as saws, be my guest. As I understand it, a sawing motion goes back and forth. Also, your article is idiosyncratic, but it does claim that macuahuitls aren't clubs.

[volgadon]

So which is it? Is the macuahuitl the Book of Mormon "sword," or the Book of Mormon "scimitar"?

He is saying that the multiple blades function similarly to a classic scimitar, which is a kind of sword.

[blackstrap]

I might own a nice composite bow with carbon fiber arrows with razor tips. If I find myself on a wilderness trip without it , I might be able to fashion one" like unto it" out of an decent springy wood,and some straight stiff branches. The string would be a bit of a problem but after a few days I might have a passable weapon.It would still be a set of bow and arrows.Some would argue that my wilderness makeshift weapon was not a "real " bow and arrows. I suggest that those people stand in front of me when I take aim.

[mfbukowski]

Here (noting the experimental work done by the fine people at SpikeTV). See also this article, which argues that the weapon cannot be classified as a sword.

This is totally disingenuous! Unbelievable! Did you read your article?

It says this:

Most researchers characterise this weapon as a sword or 'macana\ by making a

cultural comparison, just as the Europeans did when they first saw this artefact,

and for that reason most modem studies have been wrong in their interpretation.

I propose to call it none of the above, since, if we are strict about its morphology

and function, we will see that the macuahuitl cannot be called a club since it

did not fulfil a bruising function and it cannot be called a sword since a sword's

characteristic functions are to pierce and to cut. The Aztec macuahuitl does not

fulfil these criteria. I consider that it has no western equivalent and as such the

macuahuitl is a totally Mesoamerican weapon.

Note that first line, that "most researchers" DO in fact characterize it as a "sword"- he just is differing with them in his opinion.

Instead of providing evidence in your favor, you have actually provided evidence against your case.

[Robert F. Smith]

The difference is that Coe's popular articles are not, for example, trying to link artifacts to the lost city of Atlantis, or to pinpoint the location of ancient astronauts, etc. The popular work is just to explain the scholarly work to a broader audience.

Which is exactly what Sorenson, Clark, and others have done. No one complains (not even you) when biblical scholars explain the ancient Near Eastern context, even if you believe that the Exodus didn't actually happen, nor that Moses received tablets from God on Sinai, nor that Elijah was taken up into the sky by chariot. Why the double standard?

You are prejudiced even in simple matters, as for example in condemning serious scholarship on Plato's description of Atlantis, which top flight scholars have popularized for the general public, in that the Aegean Island of Thera-Santorini is seriously considered to be the remnant of the once and fabulous land of Atlantis. Why? Because so many of the descriptors used by Plato fit that once great island, where wonderful artifacts and frescoes have been uncovered.

The same applies to another locus of the Hellenic heroic age, Ilium (Troy), which was excavated by Schliemann. What was considered to be only a legend spun by Homer turns out to have had some basis in fact. Indeed, Homer described the Hellenes of the heroic age to be literate. No one believed it. That is until Linear B was deciphered and the great Myceanean civilization was uncovered.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

UPDATE

Based on Bill Hamblin's notes on a recent scholarly conference in Dublin, it turns out that three iron swords have been found as an offering in a holy shrine at Khirbet Qeiyafa in Israel, near the Philistine area of occupation. This site existed for only a very short time in the Davidic period in ancient Israel, which means that the swords are quite early. The site is judged to be Israelite based on an inscription found there, the absence of pig bones (always present in Philistine sites), and other characteristics.

The excavator is Yosef Garfinkel (who presented preliminary findings at the Dublin conference), and we will await his excavation report with great interest.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

Maybe a little off topic but check out the stone work a Panchu Paunchu in Peru, Maybe its' Panku Panku I can't remember the spelling. They did some serious masonry there I'm not arguing either way but regardless the ancients did stuff we can't even do today.

There were two Geman engineers who took these two pins depicting "sharks" built them on a larger scale and added a propeller to it and they flew!

I'm not going to argue over historocity because I have my doubts. There is alot of evidence however that the ancients had tons of knowledge in thier time as well as pan- continental exploration and trading.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

To the OP you'll never find sufficient secular documentation and/or archeaological evidence to totally maybe not even close to proving the Book of Mormon as a fully historical document. The only way to judge a faith is to judge it against your own personal faith and spritual contemplation.

I'm not practicing and probably never wil be a practicing Mormon however when I do read the Book of Mormon it appeals to a spritual side of me. As for believing it as a historical purely academic book I just couldn't believe believe it at face value. My rational mind and temporal knowledge tells me no way. Is it possible not likely with what we know today? Probably not but the fact that it's astronomically imposible in many ways is ingnored when combined with the feeling of faith I feel when I read it. There's also that small atom of faith that says to me however small it is possible.

Just my two cents.

[Robert F. Smith]

To the OP you'll never find sufficient secular documentation and/or archeaological evidence to totally maybe not even close to proving the Book of Mormon as a fully historical document. The only way to judge a faith is to judge it against your own personal faith and spritual contemplation.

I'm not practicing and probably never wil be a practicing Mormon however when I do read the Book of Mormon it appeals to a spritual side of me. As for believing it as a historical purely academic book I just couldn't believe believe it at face value. My rational mind and temporal knowledge tells me no way. Is it possible not likely with what we know today? Probably not but the fact that it's astronomically imposible in many ways is ingnored when combined with the feeling of faith I feel when I read it. There's also that small atom of faith that says to me however small it is possible.

Just my two cents.

Hi Jack,

You are quite right: You don't have to be a scholar to understand the Book of Mormon at the most fundamental level. Indeed, book learning can get in the way for those who have the kind of faith you have.

However, next time you pull out the Book of Mormon, take a gander at Alma 32, and contemplate the unlimited possibilities. Then pray for the strength to make it work. You can't do it on your own. And when you work up the nerve (with help from the Holy Spirit), sidle into a sacrament meeting sometime and sit in the back. Especially on fast sunday. Some of those testimonies can make you cry, but they also give added strength. Then slip out as soon as its over. Just like going to the gym regularly, you'll expand in faith and power. As Lee Ann Womack sings, "give faith a chance." You'll never regret it.

[ANACO]

Hi Jack,

You are quite right: You don't have to be a scholar to understand the Book of Mormon at the most fundamental level.

Which part of the Book of Mormon is non-fundamental? The portions which the Holy Ghost won't testify of it truthfulness?

You know, the Secondary, Unimportant, Non-essential, Extra Subsidiary and Superfluous portions? To discover these non-fundamental levels, one has to be a scholar?

And then we can believe swords were of wood, etc? D&C 17:6

[volgadon]

Which part of the Book of Mormon is non-fundamental? The portions which the Holy Ghost won't testify of it truthfulness?

You know, the Secondary, Unimportant, Non-essential, Extra Subsidiary and Superfluous portions? To discover these non-fundamental levels, one has to be a scholar?

And then we can believe swords were of wood, etc? D&C 17:6

Which part is non-fundamental? Anything going beyond the purposes stated in the title page. Swords do not have to be metal for them to be swords.

[ANACO]

So the ancient prophets got it correct regarding the fundamental levels. But they lied about swords.

Is this because the Holy Ghost testified of it? Or the testimony of archaeological discoveries?

[volgadon]

So the ancient prophets got it correct regarding the fundamental levels. But they lied about swords.

Is this because the Holy Ghost testified of it? Or the testimony of archaeological discoveries?

Maybe I should start using Hebrew, since you don't seem to be listening even when I use English. Swords do not have to be of metal, so whence the lie?

[ANACO]

The lie that's being perpetuated is the Holy Ghost will only testify of the "fundamental levels" of the Book of Mormon.

The Rod of Iron is now a Rod of Wood. The Nephites never knew of iron. That goes beyond the purpose of the title page.

So it takes scholars -fluent in Hebrew-and mesoamerica archaeology- to reveal that the swords were made of wood - because it all occurred in Mesoamerica based on a narrow neck of land there -which narrow neck of land is beyond the purpose of the title page. I love the circular reasoning - though only an arc of it was expressed.

Did you read D&C 17:6? Or does that limit the possibilities?

[volgadon]

So it takes scholars -fluent in Hebrew-and mesoamerica archaeology- to reveal that the swords were made of wood

Nah, anyone who has read the Penguin paperback of Bernal Diaz would know.

Did you read D&C 17:6? Or does that limit the possibilities?

Do you speak another language?

[ANACO]

Nah, anyone who has read the Penguin paperback of Bernal Diaz would know.

Do you speak another language?

Are you implying Joseph Smith's knowledge of one language, forced translation errors in the Book of Mormon?

Are you equating the translation process that Joseph Smith used, "by the gift and power of God," is the same as man's?

[mfbukowski]

The lie that's being perpetuated is the Holy Ghost will only testify of the "fundamental levels" of the Book of Mormon.

You are just not getting this at all.

Do you understand symbolism at all? Have you ever been inspired by the Holy Ghost to understand a parable, or do you really think Jesus was talking about how to grow wheat and making sure it was weeded properly?

And your understanding of the temple?

[ANACO]

You are just not getting this at all.

Do you understand symbolism at all? Have you ever been inspired by the Holy Ghost to understand a parable, or do you really think Jesus was talking about how to grow wheat and making sure it was weeded properly?

And your understanding of the temple?

Sure I'm getting it.

Metal is a non-fundamental level of the Book of Mormon. But when it comes to defending metal as wood, we should equate it to the parables of the Savior.

[mfbukowski]

Are you implying Joseph Smith's knowledge of one language, forced translation errors in the Book of Mormon?

Are you equating the translation process that Joseph Smith used, "by the gift and power of God," is the same as man's?

I don't quite think that's the point.

Of course, though, angels are always appearing with gold plates which people translate with a seer stone. I don't know about you, but it happens all the time to most people who translate things.

I think they do that in the UN in fact.

[ANACO]

Has the Book of Mormon been translated into Hebrew? I'm not certain.

If it hasn't yet, maybe scholars could suggest removing all the non-fundamental levels.

After all, even Moroni said he didn't have plates "sufficiently large" for Hebrew. lol