Notice what Book of Mormon weapon they didn't mention...

[Not Buying It]

So someone posted this article on Facebook on archaeology and Book of Mormon weaponry:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... hite-times

Anybody notice which Nephite weapon isn't mentioned in the article because there is no archeological evidence for it, in spite of it being specifically referenced mutliple times in most of the battles described in the Book of Mormon?

[Korihor]

[Corsair]

I'm going to suggest that "swords" are curiously absent from the list of weapons. It's not like sword is a one-off mention in the Book of Mormon. Swords are mentioned 140 times in the Book of Mormon. Alma even distinguishes between "swords" and "cimeters".

I suppose that an apologist would point to a Macuahuitl as the item most likely to be a sword. This is not a good substitute since it is wielded in a very different way than a sword.

[deacon blues]

Yeah, what goes through the mind that leaves out swords? It's like Prince Humperdink telling Princess Buttercup, "Of course not those (four fastest) ships. I just watched Princess Bride the other night.

[Hagoth]

Wow, that is a mindboggling omission. They didn't even try.

Interestingly, these archaeological trends correspond well with Jarom’s mention of the Nephites fortifying their cities and making weapons of war between 400–360 BC

However, the atlatl is believed to have been introduced to the Maya around 400 AD and the bow came later, very likely after BoM times. Also, the population in the Maya region did not abruptly decline at 400 BC, but continued to grow. The Maya "collapse" came about 500 years after the BoM collapse and happened slowly and non-uniformly over a couple of centuries, mostly due to gradual migration.

The illustrations in this article are of Aztec weaponry as observed by post-contact Europeans. Notice that one of the illustrations shows a copper axe head. That was a product of the Tarascans, neighbors of the Aztecs, and came about long after BoM times and was more of an elite status possession than a weapon - it was soft, unalloyed copper which is less effective and far more expensive and difficult to produce than a stone axe. The Maya did not smelt and did not use metal, even gold, until long after Moroni's time.

What surprised me was how this article makes a bizarre and abrupt change of direction about halfway through:

The Adversary is taking full advantage of the Internet in his efforts to tempt individuals and destroy testimonies. But the Internet can also be used to strengthen and fortify one’s faith. Not only are digital editions of the scriptures fully searchable and easily available on your tablet or smartphone, there is also a wealth of online resources provided by the Church and independent faithful organizations.

I find this very telling. The purpose of the article is to convince you that there is good archaeological support for the BoM but it gives up mid-stream and instead tries to convince you that researching on the internet can be a trap set by Satan. Apparently if you have the desire to continue learning after reading this article you are giving yourself over to the Prince of Darkness.

Do you need to resort to those kinds of tactics if you really believe you're presenting substantial evidence?

[2bizE]

What about the bow of steel. Did they have steel back in Uncle Nephi's day?

[Zack Tacorin Dos]

What about the bow of steel. Did they have steel back in Uncle Nephi's day?

Yes, if by steel you mean obsidian, or some soft metal like copper, or . . .

[Hagoth]

What about the bow of steel. Did they have steel back in Uncle Nephi's day?

No.

And the Jaredites had steel swords long before Uncle Nephi's day, according to the BoM, which digs the pit even deeper because it requires us to accept that there was massive steel production in the Americas long before there was even an iron age in the Old World, and that it was forgotten and abandoned by the Native Americans and every trace of both the steel and it's production entirely vanished. Someone can choose to believe such a thing but it goes against every piece of evidence on both sides of the Atlantic.

But it gets worse. We might ask where a 19th century author would even get the idea for a steel bow in 600BC? Likely from the only scripture available to him, the King James Bible:

Job 20:24 He shall flee from the iron w ... m through.

But look how this verse has been more correctly translated in subsequent versions:

New International Version
Though he flees from an iron weapon, a bronze-tipped arrow pierces him.

New Living Translation
When they try to escape an iron weapon, a bronze-tipped arrow will pierce them.

English Standard Version
He will flee from an iron weapon; a bronze arrow will strike him through.

New American Standard Bible
"He may flee from the iron weapon, But the bronze bow will pierce him.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
If he flees from an iron weapon, an arrow from a bronze bow will pierce him.

International Standard Version
Though he dodges an iron weapon, a bronze arrow will pierce him.

NET Bible
If he flees from an iron weapon, then an arrow from a bronze bow pierces him.

It is interesting that the correct translation completely changes the meaning of this verse. It says that if you worry too much about new things it will be the old things that do you in.

The bible only mentions steel in one other place:

Jeremiah 15:12 Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?

And here again, according to all of the newer translations, "steel" is a mistranslation of bronze.

So, you can see how an ignorant farmboy would get the false impression that steel dated back to Nephi's time.