Ancient Hilted Sword Made Of Iron Lined With Steel Found In Oman

[bcuzbcuz]

If we placed all "new scholarship" on the same level as simply pointing toward a new paradigm shift, and that all paradigm shifts are equal, I suppose you'd be right -- though these are grossly naive assumptions. You seem unfamiliar with academe, where only certai types of paradigm shifts are acceptable.

 

Thanks for the mistaken rep point, which unfortunately I must take as another example of your getting things backwards.  In order for these imaginary "legitimate archeologists" (of the New World) to find anything verifiable as a link to the Mideast, they would have to be familiar with the Mideast, which they are not.  In order for the Book of Mormon to be in any way reinterpreted by New World cultures, they would have to know something about the Book of Mormon, which (again) they do not.

 

Brant Gardner has several times made the point on this Board (and elsewhere) that empty assumptions about what we should expect to find in order to verify the existence of "ancient Middle Eastern cultures, the Hebrew Language, or some evidence of Christianity existing in Pre-Colombian America," fails to take into account the likely permutations in such cultures and languages, even as it is usually completely ignorant of what such cultures and languages consist of.  In other words, nothing + nothing = nothing (in the mind of the naive inquirer).  Such a lack in ethnographical information leads to emphasis on things like the Bat Creek Stone, and to the misspelling of "Pre-Columbian," etc.  Serious scholarship never takes such an approach.

 

Moreover, in all three areas (Middle Eastern culture, Hebrew Language, and evidence of Christianity) you have assumed before the fact that no such evidence exists -- even though you know nothing about New World archeology, religion, and linguistics.  You might try reading Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, but that would only cause you the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and so you are unlikely to confuse yourself with the facts.  Paradigm shifts are simply too dangerous.  Right, omni?

By your definition valid evaluation of the Book of Mormon/Mormon original cultures in the Americas can only be made by someone:

1) familiar with the Mideast

2) familiar with the Book of Mormon

3) familiar with Mid-Eastern cultures

4) familiar with Hebrew language

5) aware of evidence of Christianity in pre-Columbian Americas

6) familiar with New World archaeology

7) familiar with New World religion

familiar with New World linguistics

9) have read, understood, and accepted Sorenson´s "Mormon´s Codex"

(did I miss anything??)

Who qualifies? Certainly Sorenson. Assumably yourself? Can you name any others? Can you name anyone non-Mormon who qualifies?

(As a side question. Can anyone non-Mormon qualify to peer review Sorenson´s work?)

[Tiki]

Robert F. Smith, on 27 Jun 2014 - 11:16 PM, said:

If we placed all "new scholarship" on the same level as simply pointing toward a new paradigm shift, and that all paradigm shifts are equal, I suppose you'd be right -- though these are grossly naive assumptions. You seem unfamiliar with academe, where only certai types of paradigm shifts are acceptable.
 

Thanks for the mistaken rep point, which unfortunately I must take as another example of your getting things backwards.  In order for these imaginary "legitimate archeologists" (of the New World) to find anything verifiable as a link to the Mideast, they would have to be familiar with the Mideast, which they are not.  In order for the Book of Mormon to be in any way reinterpreted by New World cultures, they would have to know something about the Book of Mormon, which (again) they do not.
 
Brant Gardner has several times made the point on this Board (and elsewhere) that empty assumptions about what we should expect to find in order to verify the existence of "ancient Middle Eastern cultures, the Hebrew Language, or some evidence of Christianity existing in Pre-Colombian America," fails to take into account the likely permutations in such cultures and languages, even as it is usually completely ignorant of what such cultures and languages consist of.  In other words, nothing + nothing = nothing (in the mind of the naive inquirer).  Such a lack in ethnographical information leads to emphasis on things like the Bat Creek Stone, and to the misspelling of "Pre-Columbian," etc.  Serious scholarship never takes such an approach.
 
Moreover, in all three areas (Middle Eastern culture, Hebrew Language, and evidence of Christianity) you have assumed before the fact that no such evidence exists -- even though you know nothing about New World archeology, religion, and linguistics.  You might try reading Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, but that would only cause you the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and so you are unlikely to confuse yourself with the facts.  Paradigm shifts are simply too dangerous.  Right, omni?

By your definition valid evaluation of the Book of Mormon/Mormon original cultures in the Americas can only be made by someone:
1) familiar with the Mideast
2) familiar with the Book of Mormon
3) familiar with Mid-Eastern cultures
4) familiar with Hebrew language
5) aware of evidence of Christianity in pre-Columbian Americas
6) familiar with New World archaeology
7) familiar with New World religion
familiar with New World linguistics
9) have read, understood, and accepted Sorenson´s "Mormon´s Codex"
(did I miss anything??)

Who qualifies? Certainly Sorenson. Assumably yourself? Can you name any others? Can you name anyone non-Mormon who qualifies?

(As a side question. Can anyone non-Mormon qualify to peer review Sorenson´s work?)

 

 

According to Robert F. Smith and the Author of Mormon's Codex, the Prophet Joseph Smith doesn't even qualify:

 

"What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19

 

bold for emphasis

 

 

 

Read "The Role of Amateurs in Book of Mormon Studies" http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1447&index=2

 

 

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the most important and most valuable type of scripture study—obtaining a personal witness of the truthfulness of the scriptures and an understanding of how to live one's life in accordance with the teachings of the scriptures—requires no scholarly training. Perhaps because no training is needed for that type of scripture study, some assume none is needed for any type of scripture study.

 

So when you decide to study about ancient steel swords in relation to the geography of the Book of Mormon, you need at least a masters degree if not a Doctorate:

 

When I suggested that he [a medical professional who had published books panned in reviews by F.A.R.M.S.] take a portion of the large amounts of time and energy he was currently spending on his studies and invest them in pursuing a good graduate degree from a reputable university, he didn't see the point.

 

So only educated Professionals, as Robert F. Smith alluded to above, with Doctorate or master's degrees in the required fields can know of ancient steel swords and the true location of the geography of the Book of Mormon. And after obtaining said degrees, you can then declare openly and boldly that the Prophet Joseph Smith was an amateur and a liar about the geography of the Book of Mormon.

 

Then Dr. Sorenson will have designed your brain.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Tiki

[thesometimesaint]

 

Robert F. Smith, on 27 Jun 2014 - 11:16 PM, said:

 

 

According to Robert F. Smith and the Author of Mormon's Codex, the Prophet Joseph Smith doesn't even qualify:

 

"What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19

 

bold for emphasis

 

 

 

Read "The Role of Amateurs in Book of Mormon Studies" http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1447&index=2

 

 

So when you decide to study about ancient steel swords in relation to the geography of the Book of Mormon, you need at least a masters degree if not a Doctorate:

 

 

So only educated Professionals, as Robert F. Smith alluded to above, with Doctorate or master's degrees in the required fields can know of ancient steel swords and the true location of the geography of the Book of Mormon. And after obtaining said degrees, you can then declare openly and boldly that the Prophet Joseph Smith was an amateur and a liar about the geography of the Book of Mormon.

 

Then Dr. Sorenson will have designed your brain.

 

 

To speak authoritatively of those subjects; yes. JS was an amateur. It is a stretch too far to call him a liar.

[omni]

 

 

So basically we shouldn't hold our breath waiting to find any incontrovertible evidence linking ancient Mayan civilizations with Christianity or to ancient Near East cultures.  Sounds a bit convenient, but props for not taking the "Heavenly Father is hiding the evidence to test our faith" approach.

 

 

You might try reading Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, but that would only cause you the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and so you are unlikely to confuse yourself with the facts.  Paradigm shifts are simply too dangerous.

 

 

I experienced years of cognitive dissonance and can now honestly say I'm free of it.  Can you?  

[thesometimesaint]

So basically we shouldn't hold our breath waiting to find any incontrovertible evidence linking ancient Mayan civilizations with Christianity or to ancient Near East cultures.  Sounds a bit convenient, but props for not taking the "Heavenly Father is hiding the evidence to test our faith" approach.

 

 I experienced years of cognitive dissonance and can now honestly say I'm free of it.  Can you?  

 

We don't have ANY incontrovertible evidence that Jesus existed. Let alone his Truth Claims being true. 

 

Being smug doesn't help your case. Even the Atheists haven't produced incontrovertible evidence for a great many things even today.

Edited July 1, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Robert F. Smith]

By your definition valid evaluation of the Book of Mormon/Mormon original cultures in the Americas can only be made by someone:

1) familiar with the Mideast

2) familiar with the Book of Mormon

3) familiar with Mid-Eastern cultures

4) familiar with Hebrew language

5) aware of evidence of Christianity in pre-Columbian Americas

6) familiar with New World archaeology

7) familiar with New World religion

familiar with New World linguistics

9) have read, understood, and accepted Sorenson´s "Mormon´s Codex"

(did I miss anything??)

Yeh, you created a mishmash unrelated to what I said.

I did not say that a valid evaluation of the Book of Mormon required your nine elements.

Naturally, an evaluation of the BofM would be impossible for someone unfamiliar with the book.

Simple logic should tell you, however, that finding connections or parallels between the MidEast and the New World would require being familiar with the MidEast.

Simple logic might have told you that there are other modes of evaluation of the Book of Mormon text. Grant Hardy, for example, has done a close reading of the BofM without concerning himself with the MidEast, history, or archeology. He read it for its narrative content, modes of expression, and the like, just the way scholars often approach the Bible as literature.

Others read for ethnographic, theological, and other content, each specialist bringing his own expertise to the table, but always with the proviso that the text must be read seriously before any evaluation is possible.

Yokels never seem able to bring themselves to read anything seriously, and their evaluations are typically by-gosh-and-by-golly. That is, their evaluations are worthless.  And that includes many proponents and opponents of the BofM.

 

Who qualifies? Certainly Sorenson. Assumably yourself? Can you name any others? Can you name anyone non-Mormon who qualifies?

I think that Mike Coe could qualify by reading the BofM seriously and then comparing what he actually knows about the archeology of Mesoamerica, i.e., his published knowledge. This, of course, he has not done, and will never do.

 

(As a side question. Can anyone non-Mormon qualify to peer review Sorenson´s work?)

Of course. Sorenson's book is actually an easy read. It is well organized, provides an excellent analysis of the BofM, and uses data with which all Mesoamerican specialists are familiar. On that basis alone, Mike Coe could respond intelligently, but he won't because it would destroy his enviable reputation -- if, by chance, Sorenson is convincing.   Coe won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.  Too risky.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 27 Jun 2014 - 11:16 PM, said:

 

 

According to Robert F. Smith and the Author of Mormon's Codex, the Prophet Joseph Smith doesn't even qualify:

 

"What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=19

 

bold for emphasis

That may be a shock for those who believe in the infallibility theory of prophets and prophecy, but it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on biblical theology and history, as well as upon Mormon history and theology.

 

Read "The Role of Amateurs in Book of Mormon Studies" http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1447&index=2

 

So when you decide to study about ancient steel swords in relation to the geography of the Book of Mormon, you need at least a masters degree if not a Doctorate:

This is a careless and absurd conclusion and I have not said anything like that. Nor has Hugh Nibley. One does not need a degree of any kind to read seriously and closely, as well as to be well-informed. However, it might be well to decide whether you would want some yokel, wannabee brain surgeon working on your brain next week based on his imaginary study of brain surgery.

 

So only educated Professionals, as Robert F. Smith alluded to above, with Doctorate or master's degrees in the required fields can know of ancient steel swords and the true location of the geography of the Book of Mormon. And after obtaining said degrees, you can then declare openly and boldly that the Prophet Joseph Smith was an amateur and a liar about the geography of the Book of Mormon.

 

Then Dr. Sorenson will have designed your brain.

Actual blacksmith's have commented very intelligently on BofM, ancient steel, and metallurgy. It is always helpful when the commentator actually knows something about the subject he is addressing. No degree is necessary, and this is a red herring which you have thrown out here to distract us. Smells fishy to me, and is indicative of lack of understanding of the facts, and the consequent cognitive dissonance.

[Robert F. Smith]

We don't have ANY incontrovertible evidence that Jesus existed. Let alone his Truth Claims being true. 

 

Being smug doesn't help your case. Even the Atheists haven't produced incontrovertible evidence for a great many things even today.

Historians generally accept the existence of Jesus.  "incontrovertible" evidence is not necessary in such cases as you mention here.

[Robert F. Smith]

SAXON SUPER SWORD

 

“Warrior Tech,” episode 4, Ancient Impossible, History Channel 2, broadcast July 27, 2014, online at http://www.hulu.com/watch/663335 .

 

Re the Saxon Super Sword with 72 cm blade (29"), and 85.4 cm (34") overall (with hilt), known as the Sutton Hoo Sword (buried with King Raedwald of East Anglia), with gold hilt, the blade composed of pattern welding of both hard and soft steel (composite marl steel and high carbon steel) twisted together and forged, made around 1,400 years ago (early 7th century AD) in England by a Saxon blacksmith.  The sword is on display at the British Museum in London.  See photo and description of the sword at http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/s/sword_from_sutton_hoo.aspx  .

[Stargazer]

and we all know how reliable wiki is. <tongue-cheek>

Well, some of us do.

Actually, Wikipedia is about as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Steven Blakely]

We seem to forget that making swords has always been a difficult and expensive en devour. the real work horse of the battle field has always been the spear. Im not sure that when nephi made swords for his people that he made one for every last man that could swing one. even if the swords were only like 20 to 24 inches long.

I also never liked the great lakes for nephite territory just because i thaught the winters would be to harsh for a people who were used to a different climate. just my opinion anyway.