- NEW!
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 5th, 2010
Help answer this question below.
Here are the passages from the Book of Mormon book that describe glass items two millennia before glass-making had been discovered:
Ether 3: 1
1 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the amount, which they called the mount bShelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount...
2 Nephi 13
16 Moreover, the Lord saith: Because the daughters of Zion are ahaughty, and bwalk with stretched-forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet—
17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a ascab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will bdiscover their secret parts.
18 In that aday the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon;
19 The chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers;
20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings;
21 The rings, and nose jewels;
22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins;
23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils.
by laie_techie on February 5th, 2010
2 Nephi 13 is quoting Isaiah 3. In it, the Lord says he will chasten the daughters of Zion because of their pride. Nowhere does it say that glass did not exist previously, just that the daughters of Zion were vain because of their many accessories, including some made of glass.
Ether was compiled by Moroni (lived abt 400 A.D) from the plates of Ether. The first few chapters include the story of Jared and his brother who lived at the time of the Tower of Babel. In verse 1, Moroni states that the rocks the brother of Jared made from molten stone were clear and transparent like glass; it does not say the rocks were glass, but even if they were it doesn't contradict 2 Nephi 13.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 11th, 2010
Lyndon Lamborn:
"The account of the Jaredite submarines presents a horde of extreme difficulties. I shall single out one. The discussion of glass windows which could be "dashed to pieces" ignores the fact that the Romans would not invent glass-making for another 2000 years. The phrase "The thought make reason stare" comes to mind."
source = http://www.mormonthink.com/lamborn.htm
NOTE:
The 'glass windows which could be "dashed to pieces"' reference that Mr. Lamborn glosses on from the Book of Mormon is as follows:
Ether 2:
22 And he cried again unto the Lord saying: O Lord, behold I have done even as thou hast commanded me; and I have prepared the vessels for my people, and behold there is no light in them. Behold, O Lord, wilt thou suffer that we shall cross this great water in darkness?
23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.
Why is the Salt Lake City Police force acting like the Churches personal security?
by Kyleabram on January 7th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
If all the misinformation, hype and lies about the MORMON faith can be explained, vindicated and justified - would you believe ?
by MORE GOOD on November 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
There are many religions all claiming to be true,but i feel the Mormon religion is correct and true..could this be because i grew up mormon?
by MORE GOOD on November 20th, 2011
| 5 people like this
How do Mormons prove they are Mormons and can go inside a temple? Do they have a secret handshake? Password?
by Mister_Bromide on January 15th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Do Mormons believe in the prexistense of the human soul?
by Doc on November 7th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading MORMONS: How could the Book of Mormon Jaredites and Nephites have glass items when the first glass-making came 2000 years later?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
OK let's go with that. The passage from Isaiah says:
Isaiah 3 (KJV)
16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:
17Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
21The rings, and nose jewels,
22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
And, as you know, I don't think much of the King James Version for quite a few reasons - including the use of sloppy anachronistic translating that's not supported by the source manuscripts.
This is case in point a more modern translation based on the best manuscripts translates it this way reads:
Isaiah 3 (English Standard Version)
16The LORD said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty
and walk with outstretched necks,
glancing wantonly with their eyes,
mincing along as they go,
tinkling with their feet,
17therefore the Lord will strike with a scab
the heads of the daughters of Zion,
and the LORD will lay bare their secret parts.
18In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; 19the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; 20the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; 21the signet rings and nose rings; 22the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; 23the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.
And, of course, mirrors weren't uncommon in Isaiah's day - they were typically highly polished brass, silver, or another metal.
(see http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventions/a/glass_2.htm)
And the Hebrew word is "gillayown" which means, "table, tablet, mirror, flat shiny ornament"
So the question here is: Why does the Book of Mormon use the sloppy anachronistic word "glasses" that the manuscripts do NOT support rather than the more correct word, "mirrors" that they do?
In other words, why does the Book of Mormon appear to be a 19th Century work rather than the ancient work that it claims to be.
So NOW we don't have ONE anachronism, we have TWO.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 5th, 2010
The original, first anachronism is of course this one:
"The Roman connection (100AD)
The Romans also did much to spread glassmaking technology. With its conquests, trade relations, road building, and effective political and economical administration, the Roman Empire created the conditions for the flourishing of glassworks across western Europe and the Mediterranean. During the reign of the emperor Augustus, glass objects began to appear throughout Italy, in France, Germany and Switzerland. Roman glass has even been found as far afield as China, shipped there along the silk routes.
It was the Romans who began to use glass for architectural purposes, with the discovery of clear glass (through the introduction of manganese oxide) in Alexandria around AD 100. Cast glass windows, albeit with poor optical qualities, thus began to appear in the most important buildings in Rome and the most luxurious villas of Herculaneum and Pompeii.
With the geographical division of the empires, glass craftsmen began to migrate less, and eastern and western glassware gradually acquired more distinct characteristics. Alexandria remained the most important glassmaking area in the East, producing luxury glass items mainly for export. The world famous Portland Vase is perhaps the finest known example of Alexandrian skills. In Rome's Western empire, the city of Köln in the Rhineland developed as the hub of the glassmaking industry, adopting, however, mainly eastern techniques. Then, the decline of the Roman Empire and culture slowed progress in the field of glassmaking techniques, particularly through the 5th century. Germanic glassware became less ornate, with craftsmen abandoning or not developing the decorating skills they had acquired."
http://www.glassonline.com/infoserv/history.html
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 5th, 2010
Lehi and has family left Jerusalem 600 years before Jesus' birth. They brought with them the Brass Plates which contained the writings of Prophets up to that time - similar to the Old Testament up through Isaiah (Lehi lived at the same time as Jeremiah, so Jeremiah's words hadn't yet been added). Isaiah died about 100 years prior. Could the writings of Isaiah been altered or corrupted during that time period? When translating, could Joseph have chosen words more familiar to him (such as sometimes using the Greek-derived Christ instead of the Hebrew based Messiah)? Why did Joseph include the word adieu?
by laie_techie on February 6th, 2010
>Could the writings of Isaiah been altered or corrupted during that time period?<
They could have but the manuscript record - including and especially the Dead Sea Scrolls - proves that the possibility of such corrupt is quite low.
>When translating, could Joseph have chosen words more familiar to him (such as sometimes using the Greek-derived Christ instead of the Hebrew based Messiah)?<
If you read the accounts of the "translation" process no word choices were involved at all - he claimed to be dictating whatever he saw via the seer stone. In fact "channeling" is actually a more precise word for what transpired.
So one must wonder if the Book of Mormon is divine in origin:
a) Why weren't the anachronistic translation errors of the King James translators FIXED in this "restored" translation of Isaiah 3.
b) Why does the BoM passage match the same King James version of Isaiah 3 word-for-word, letter-for-letter, point-for-point? One could easily conclude that it was, you know, plagiarized from the King James Bible.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 6th, 2010
I think that Lewis Carroll's book "Through the Looking Glass" is substantial evidence that the use of glass to mean mirror was still quite alive in the days of Joseph Smith.
The act of translating the Book of Mormon was not a mere "channeling" words given by the spirit. We see this exact supposition dispelled when Oliver tried his hand at translating:
"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right" Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-8
We therefore see that the translation process was not a kin to looking through a magic decoding lens which turned reformed Egyptian into English.
But rather it took actual effort and concentration, and we might expect that things would be said in the way Joseph would say them. Being changed only when the way Joseph would say them would make the account untrue.
In the case of the quoted Isaiah passage, it is not fundamental to the meaning of the scripture whether the mirror was made of glass or shiny metal. The point is the Lord is taking away the tools of vanity from the haughty daughters of Zion.
by John Cox on August 11th, 2010
Thank you for your comment but you didn't really address my two final points to Laie:
"So one must wonder if the Book of Mormon is divine in origin:
a) Why weren't the anachronistic translation errors of the King James translators FIXED in this "restored" translation of Isaiah 3.
b) Why does the BoM passage match the same King James version of Isaiah 3 word-for-word, letter-for-letter, point-for-point? One could easily conclude that it was, you know, plagiarized from the King James Bible."
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on August 11th, 2010
a) Because they are of no consequence, the meaning remains the same, it is not pertinent to the story or the moral whether they are glass mirrors, metal mirrors or a platinum screen t.v.
-
b)if you were on wheel of fortune and the puzzle on the board was a scripture you knew. Would you keep guessing letters? Of course not you would say I'd like to solve the puzzle.
The same principle applies here Joseph is translating he recognizes a scripture from Isaiah, he asks the Lord if that's what this Book of Mormon scripture is saying, and he receives an affirmative answer. Because as I said earlier the use of glass instead of mirror is not pertinent to the story or it's moral.
Now lets say instead Joseph Smith is translating 2 Nephi 7, he recognizes another chapter from Isaiah Chapter 50. He asks the Lord if that's what this Book of Mormon scripture is saying. Well it is a quote of Isaiah 50 but he would have been sent back to translate it long hand because there are significant differences.
by John Cox on August 11th, 2010
Well I must say that's about as "interesting" a speculative spin as one can hope for.
Personally I'm sticking with the Ockham's Razor conclusion: The 19th Century author of the Book of Mormon plagiarized from the 19th Century King James Bible - typos and all.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on August 12th, 2010