Book of Mormon Evidence: Laban's Steel Sword
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 авг 2021
- Archaeological discoveries of ancient weapons with blades of steel, hilts of gold, and sheaths are comparable to Nephi’s description of the Sword of Laban.
evidencecentral.org/evidence/...
![mgk - Sun to Me (Zach Bryan Cover) [Live from Cheshire Cottage]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_ZnbTEs4O6U/mqdefault.jpg)
Aristotle makes mention in his work, Nicomachean Ethics, which What is written 225 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. There is also an abundance of evidence that iron was used many centuries before Lehi day and steel is a derivative of iron. Likewise second Samuel chapter 22 verse 35 mentions a bow of steel 1000 before Christ furthermore one and a half of all the meteorites that have struck the earth and been recovered are pure iron and nickel. Eskimos, Aztecs, and others have been known to melt the rocks for their celestial mineral benefits. I like the additional research you all did. - Chad James
Guy in red and white shirt on bench sounds like Stephen Smoot. 💛😊
Had to wait for this, the kinds of testing wasn't available, nor were the swords etc found until relatively lately.
Time validates the prophets.
Agreed - Chad James
@ Cool Cache - I believe it’s the other way around. Time is NOT a friend of Joseph.
The advancement of the sciences, and the increased quality of historical research, has given us more insight today than in Joseph’s time. We now know DNA of natives … we now know how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs … we now have better technologies that help us find artifacts … we now have more information about ancient civilizations , habitats, etc.
All of these are starting to reveal the fraud and deceit of the church. Please don’t allow the clever apologetic arguments that spin facts to promote faith detract you from actual factual evidence.
There are also metal swords found by the mound builder native Americans of North America. We always think Meso American for Book of Mormon sites, but I'm compelled by some of the points for the Mound Builders.
YES Joseph saw it, was the sword stored horizontal or stored verticle in the stone box? so where is it? so how long can we go on with the artifacts NOT found around the hill? the Plates Not found, The LIAHONA NOT found, here another carrot for the seekers, where is anything NOT produced, JOSEPH really did have a disappearing spirit as was his treasure hunting. now everyone associated with mormonism has the spirit he has.
Help me understand... did Nephi cut Laban's head off before or after he removed his clothing? Because the text says he removed Laban's clothing AFTER he cut off his head. Zoram wouldn't have seen the image of Laban walking in to collect the brass plates, but a bloody mess!
I think Laban's clothes would have to have been a darker color to pull this off.
@@revelationnow2344 imagine the smell tho
@@jazun33 I guess we have Hollywood to thank for creating the impression that the human body always responds to fatal injuries like that of Laban in the same gory way. My presumption was always that Nephi would have only taken Laban's outer garment--his "coat"--especially if it was chilly weather. If there were blood stains or even if the garment was damage, using it to serve Nephi's purposes seems not to be a complicated thing.
hahahaha that was hard to watch
@@mikkifrompreston4396the Book of Mormon is so painfully accurate, I’m sure that’s hard for some. I love learning about this kind of stuff, helping to physically prove what my spiritual testimony proved to me over 22 years ago. 😊
Unfortunately no steel swords sheilds coins etc have been found in America dating back to the book of mormon wars
We have many articles about swords, and money at evidencecentral.org/recency
Here is one specifically about metal money: evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/metal-money
The real question is where is the sword of laban now.
Looking at some of the archives might give you a better answer on that one, theirs a couple places it can be located according to eye witnesses, but the items location may have also been moved:)
@@Herosoulstone what?
No one knows for sure but like with many treasures they come lost over time -Chad James
Answer... your mom has it. LoL
There is no Laban's sword. Laban has never lived.
Where does it say that the sheath was also made of gold?
I had the same question, hope this helps!
Though I couldn’t find a verse that explicitly stated the material of the sheath, re-listening to the video it seems to be a misinterpretation to say that they claimed the sheath was made of gold: the younger asked about the sheath and the elder replied that “it’s not known exactly what Laban’s sword looked like,” perhaps implying that we don’t actually know what material its sheath was constructed of; after this the elder went on to propose the possibility that the sheath could have been made out of gold.
@@TJKing-pu7iu There is no claim in the Book of Mormon that the hilt is made of gold. The video simply shows that something as valuable as a gold sword is shown historically to sometimes be associated with an (equally valuable?) and perhaps "complimentary" gold sheath, as if both elements are part of the same tool/weapon.
@@revelationnow2344 1st Nephi 4:9 does say that the hilt is made of pure gold. Or did you mean to say sheath?
The Vered Jericho sword is iron only, noted by the Israel Museum. This video should be updated so as to not misinform.
it is as the video said, carburized iron. It is still a type of steel, but it is not a smelted steel like more modern steels. Instead it is done by forging the iron to shape, and over the process, the carbon from the forge is slowly added to the surface. It is a more crude steel, but it is still steel. but academics will still refer to it as Iron, since 99% of the material, is just that, iron. even modern steels are 95%+ - 99% iron.
@@cybernoid001 Ah, you are correct. It would be nice if academics would just call it a steel sword. It seems this might’ve been intentional carburization, but I’m not entirely convinced. Going to dig more.
Awesome
Di
Loved it
The sword of Laban may be an anachronism, but then so are the chariot wheels and steel bows mentioned in the Old Testament. Why single-out the Book of Mormon without calling out the Bible?
Besides, the Vered Jericho Sword excavated in 1982, lends credibility to Nephi's account. At the very least, Nephi's words are no more or less creditable, than those in the Holy Bible.
Besides, if Joseph Smith had the brains to invent the Book of Mormon, wouldn't he have had the brains not to insert a rather obvious anachronism?
@@gordianknot9595 My last statement was speaking of the steel sword of Laban and the discovery of the Jericho steel sword. I wasn't speaking about other anachronisms or theories of how the Book of Mormon was written etc, only that the "sword of Laban" must no longer be considered an anachronism.
So I'll say it again...if Joseph had the brains to invent the Book of Mormon, why would he intentionally place anachronisms in his book. And the discovery of a few mammoth bones, does not justify the introduction of other anachronistic animals.
But you seem to like a particular creation theory for the Book of Mormon, even though eye-witnesses tell a different story.
Why is that? Why reject eye-witnesses in favor of a supposition?
You're both mincing words...iron is a naturally occuring metal, whereas steel is a manmade alloy, primarily of iron and carbon.
But "carbonized iron," no matter how you make it, is still called steel. No, it's not modern steel made by any Bessemer process, but carbonized iron is a form of steel and that's what the Jericho sword is.
@@gordianknot9595 Martin Harris is only one of 11 official witnesses. There are also a few unofficial accounts. Oliver Cowdery was the principle scribe to the Book of Mormon. Taken as a whole, they present a fairly creditable narrative.
Why do you choose to disregard what they had to say in favor of your theories?
Joseph Smith was only 22 years old at the time. His wife would later say that he could only read and write with great difficulty at that age.
@@gordianknot9595 The Book of Mormon was translated by and for people living in the 19th Century and in 19th Century grammer and syntax. The actual translation was more about reading lines which were appearing before Joseph. No actual translation was ever accomplished by Joseph Smith (in any kind scientific way.) It even says this in the preface. In fact the phrase "translated by" was the publisher's idea.
Even though Joseph worked hard at his translating skills, no one in the 19th Century was able to scientifically translate ancient writings, (especially any form of Egyptian Hieroglyphics.)
All of the problems associated with the witnesses, are well known and thoroughly documented, including their many affirmations and even death-bed statements.
In fact, problems associated with the witnesses, actually reinforces their testimonies (why would they not want to expose Joseph as a fraud because of their disagreements with him?)
BTW,.. I'm not trying to persuade you or anybody else, just explaining another point of view. There's are reasons why there are millions of "Mormons" around the world and it's not because we're all blind.
@@gordianknot9595 Science is just another name for the religion of today. And are we really so naive as to think that our science has all the answers, while the science of the past, was nothing but questionable?
So I choose to believe in a 19th Century book and in the atoning blood of Jesus, while the best medical science of the late 18th Century, bled George Washington to death.
What part of history are you accusing me of ignoring?
I've told you why I'm commenting here. So what's your reason? Why do you care how or what I choose to believe in.
Last I heard, freedom of religion was still part of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Or the steel could be from a meteorite. Just saying. That steel has some chromium and other metals.
SMH.... The fact that the mormon higherarchy has to keep changing it's statements, and has to continue to make changes to the BOM to fit the narrative demonstrates the lie.
Still seems like an anachronism to me.
Then . . . what's the point of research, definitions . . . or even language?
Aristotle makes mention in his work, Nicomachean Ethics, which What is written 225 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. There is also an abundance of evidence that iron was used many centuries before Lehi day and steel is a derivative of iron. Likewise second Samuel chapter 22 verse 35 mentions a bow of steel 1000 before Christ furthermore one and a half of all the meteorites that have struck the earth and been recovered are pure iron and nickel. Eskimos, Aztecs, and others have been known to melt the rocks for their celestial mineral benefits. - Chad James
How? It is no longer an anachronism. It’s now in the “leaning true/plausible” or “proven” and removed from the list. 80% confirmed previously thought anachronisms, those are pretty good guesses or inspirations eh?
I'm sure the Myans don't appreciate the Mormon church using Myan structures in this video. Because there is no evidence connecting Mayan culture to anything Mormon.
I shall let the Mayans know that your doing this.
There is too. Your just not looking hard enough.
@Jeffrey Smith
The fact that you are not showing me the evidence yourself, means that the Mormon church doesn't have any.
Why are you following the words of *one man* Joseph Smith and trusting him with your eternity (heaven or hell).
My advice for you is to throw away the Book of Mormon, find a good Bible base church and read the Bible instead. If you do this, God promises this to you:
JOHN 8 :32
And you shall KNOW the truth, and the truth shall make you free..."
@@AlbertJLouie To me the proof lies in the fact that there are many dozens of examples in which the BoM contradicts the science of it's own time and that the nay sayers scorned the BoM for it and then later science catches up with the BoM and proves the historical claims to be true. Just to name a few examples.
1. the use of cement.
2. fortifications
3. a large network of roads connecting cities
4. temples
5. towers
6. garden towers
7. thrones
8. the valley of Lemuel
9. a non seasonal river that flows into the red sea
10. the old world Bountiful being exactly due east of Nahom
11. Bees in the Arabian Peninsula.
12. a place that Lehi and his family called Nahom that just happens to date back to the perfect timeline and exact geographic location.
13. Stone boxes
14. Steel swords in Israel dating back to Lehi's time.
15. swords with golden tilts.
16. A civilization that built large cities with surrounding walls.
17. An older civilization that had a fully developed writing system that lies just north of the other specifically on the east coast.
18. Writings in the old world on metal plates.
19. The common usage of the phrase AND IT CAME TO PASS. Both in ancient Israel and in Mayan writings.
20. A civilization made up of Kings magistrates and lawyers.
Every one of these things was mocked by our critics because they were just too ridiculous to except for the time. But they all turned out to be correct. I would agree that non of these things I listed by itself proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the BoM is true. But than again no one piece of archeological evidence in the old world proves the bible to be true either. However, if the book really was written by an uneducated conman making up a bunch of random crap. I don't thing he could have gotten so lucky on so many things that would be challenged by people far more educated than he was and yet the less educated man would be the one proven right.
Also in answer to your question why will I not throw away the BoM and just believe in the bible. The answer is simple. Because if I were to judge the bible by the same standard that evangelicals want me to judge the BOM off of, than I would have to declare that the bible is false also. As I have yet to see any real evidence that Christian apologist and scholars have been able to provide for the bible that can not be matched by LDS scripture.
But, if I am wrong than I would challenge you to provide me with your top 3 best evidences of proof for the bible being true.
@Jeffrey Smith
Noo...I will not playan your "little man's" game of you ask all the question, while you avoid answering mine.
I answer one you answer one of mine.
Besides, the Bible the oldest revelations, tests the Book of Mormon.
I John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world..."
There is no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Despite the fact that the Book of Mormon talks about vast civilizations and culture, some thirty-eight cities are cataloged in the Book of Mormon. National Geographic had a TV series that lasted for 5 seasons on a new radar scanning called LiDar. National Geographic using LiDar scanned over 800 Sq. Miles of South America jungle and discover newly found Myan structures.
But NOTHING was mentioned any ancient Mormon civilizations. Which doesn't look good for the Book of Mormon. And the Mormon church is running out of jungle to prove any archeological evidence for Mormonism.
This is just rubbish but I understand how people who are not familiar with the details of the literature would gasp in awe
What is rubbish the fact that there is proof of steel being used? There is too much evidence to call that rubbish how can we help?
@BlueMeanie so you're calling archeological proof rubbish and your reasoning is others aren't "familiar with the literature"? Sorry I'm just a bit confused could you please explain
@@braydencaldwell7310 I would point out few things. First iron implements are not made of steel. Steel is an alloy of several metals. Second I would encourage you to research the abundant weight of research that stands in opposition to these claims. Third, the video presents no evidence or information about what the claims are based on. We are to simply take the information as given even if it flies in the face of current understanding.
@@HoratioIsHere Thank you so much for responding to me I'm glad you explained what you meant. I'm going to take you up on the offer to research this more because I don't have a full understanding. but I want to point out that normal Steel is not an alloy of several metals but instead it's made of carbon and iron. You can add other metals but it is not a requirement for making steel. Also, we don't have to just take the information we can do our own research for example research Anatolia (Kaman-Kalehoyuk) you'll be surprised to find out steel actually dates back way further than was thought. or look into Jerusalem’s Israel Museum and you'll find they have on display a steel sword dated back to around 650 BC. It's cool to see how the Book of Mormon wasn't based on what was known to be true during Joseph Smith's time but on what was actually true during the time of the Book of Mormon. Obrigado por sua ajudar e tempo, amigo
@@braydencaldwell7310 Brayden is correct. Steel is not "an alloy of several metals." The base element is still iron. The difference between iron and steel is just a matter of technological processing.
To this day, the Mormon church hasn't provided any kind of archeological evidence to support anything in the Book of Mormon.
According to the Book of Mormon indicates a tremendous spread of the culture of races, there are some thirty-eight cities cataloged in the Book of Mormon, Jarom 1:8, 2 Nephi 5:15, Ether 9:17-19, Heleman 3:14, Alma 16:13, Mormon 6:10-15. Evidence that these were indeed mighty civilizations which should, by all the laws of archeological research into the culture of antiquity, have left vast amounts of "finds" to be evaluated. But such is not the case as we shall show. The Mormons have yet to explain the fact that leading archeological researchers not only have repudiated the claims of the Book of Mormon as to the existence of these civilizations, but have adduced considerable evidence to show the impossibility of the accounts given in the Book of Mormon.
The Smithsonian Institution of Washington has added its voice against the archeological claims of the Book of Mormon and I quote:
"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologist see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
Most recently, National Geographic had a TV series that lasted for 5 seasons on a new radar scanning called "LiDar" that made major breakthrough in archeology worldwide. Using LiDar National Geographic scanned over 800 sq.miles of South America jungle and discover newly discovered Myan structures. National Geographic archeologist went to these newly found structures.
And NOTHING was mentioned pertaining to any Mormon civilizations. Which doesn't look good for the Book of Mormon archeological claims.
And your running out of jungle to prove any archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.
BoM wasn't in South America
@The Truth
Well,. you seem to know a lot about Mormonism.
Then, show me the archeological evidence where it actually is located.
@@AlbertJLouie Look at the Mound Builders throughout the Ohio River area. Believe what you want. I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just was pointing out that the early leaders of the church made it clear that the BoM happened on the North American continent
@The Truth
Mound builders? I've seen the archeology information on that and no on in the academic world of Archeology says that the Mounds are Mormon.
Also, you are required by God to answer any questions put to you.
Hear what God Himself says about this in:
I PETER 3:15
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear..."
Now, going back to my earlier question.
Where us the archeological evidence that is stated in the Book of Mormon?
@@AlbertJLouie lmao 🤣 I am not required to do anything for you