Nephi's steel bow difficult to replicate at BYU competition

[_beastie]

I don't think historical accuracy, be it the real or LDS kind, was a big concern.

You don't know BYU. ;)

by the way, I'd bet that a few years hence, at least one or two new exmormons will pop up and say "you know, I first started to doubt when I participated in this steel bow contest at BYU..."

[_DarkHelmet]

I always thought the steel bow was just another example of how cool Nephi was. He didn't just have a regular bow, it was made of steel. How cool is that. Anyone who says there is no character development in the Book of Mormon are missing out. The steel bow helps develop Nephi's character as a super awesome, steel bow weilding hero. And then he breaks it with his massive muscles. More character development.

[_cinepro]

No kidding. None of them learned the real lesson of of the exercise. Apparently none of them have ever watched Mythbusters.

I don't think this project was planting any seeds of doubt in anyone...

For Addison Eldridge, a junior from Portland, Ore., there were additional benefits in participating.

"We didn't have to find the ore and beat it into steel," he said. "I appreciate now how much different it would be to work without prepared materials. It makes me think of how in the Bible it all worked out."

Bowden said this competition shows the benefits that come from actively thinking about the reality of the scriptures.

"If this can be implemented, then other lessons can also be useful."

[_Sethbag]

People apparently have forgotten what the Book of Mormon actually says. Nephi didn't make the steel bow - he had it when he left Jerusalem. He broke the steel bow, and had to make a wooden one to use to hunt animals for food.

What's interesting to me is that he broke his steel bow, and then in the description of him making a new wooden bow, he also had to make new arrows. What was the matter with his old arrows? Did he snap them all in frustration after breaking his bow?

I think the steel bow thing is damning of the Book of Mormon.

From 2 Samuel 22:35 in the Old Testament:

He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.

Now from 1 Nephi 16:18 in the Book of Mormon:

And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

I agree with Hamblin that it's pretty obvious that the reference to a steel bow in the Book of Mormon is borrowed from the Old Testament. Where we differ is that Hamblin will argue that the "steel bow" in the Book of Mormon was in fact really what the "bow of steel" was in the Old Testament, namely this bronze-reinforced composite (wood, sinews, etc.) bow.

I would argue that it's way more likely that the author of this passage in the Book of Mormon simply didn't know that "bow of steel" didn't really mean a bow, made from steel. He therefor lifted this "... so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms." from the Old Testament as a sort of "me too!" rip-off, to enhance how awesome Nephi was - he did the same thing referenced in the Old Testament - how awesome is that?

The KJV odd translation of bronze to steel is, I think, an artifact of the particular English scholars at that particular time, and I don't see how that oddity would have manifest itself through the Hebrew text, as revealed to Joseph Smith through the magic rock in the bottom of his hat, written on the ethereal parchment by God. That's simply asking too much.

[_Sethbag]

Not to mention, the Book of Mormon actually goes farther than just saying "bow of steel". It actually says "bow, which was made of fine steel".

I think it's a lot harder to argue that "bow, which was made of fine steel" did not really mean a bow that was actually constructed from fine steel. To argue that "bow, which was made of fine steel" actually meant "wooden composite bow, reinforced with bronze" is asking way too much. This isn't just a "loose" translation - it would be a loosy-goosy translation to top them all.

It's typical of apologia that they try to slip this one past an intelligent audience, but it's a good example of the kind of arguments to which they must stoop because of just how bad the Book of Mormon stands evidence-wise. They must play the hand they're dealt, and in this case the best they can come up with is a pair of 3s.

[Tator]

There's more to it than stealing from the Old Testament. There was a contemporary story at the time of a supposed ancient Indian burial being discovered with a broken steel bow, If I recall correctly. I'll have to look up on the reference on that, of course - hope I can dig it up.

Hey, that was easy, thanks to Unca Dale.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1894Etz1.htm

Priest says: "In Virginia, near Blacksburg, eighty miles from Marietta, there was found the half of a STEEL BOW, which when entire would have measured five or six feet." -- Priest's American Antiquities, p. 176. (Edition of 1833.)

I'm pretty sure I read that this account was in newspapers, as well. I think some senator who liked to do archaeological digs in his spare time supposedly found it. I'll try and find which book I read about it in

Heh, our own runtu already did the legwork for me:

http://runtu.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/v ... -evidence/

In 1820 Atwater reported in the Archaeologia Americana that the mound builders “had some very well manufactured swords and knives of iron, possibly of steel.” He also claimed that in Virginia “there was found about half a steel bow, which, when entire, would measure five or six feet.”

[_Manfred]

What's interesting to me is that he broke his steel bow, and then in the description of him making a new wooden bow, he also had to make new arrows. What was the matter with his old arrows? Did he snap them all in frustration after breaking his bow?

From Nephi's Bows and Arrows, by William J. Hamblin:

Why would he need to make a new arrow if his old ones were still intact?

David S. Fox, in a letter to F.A.R.M.S., suggests an answer: "An examination of Nephi's account shows that whoever wrote that account was familiar in some detail with the field of archery." Consider what happens to an arrow at the instant the string is released: the full force of the drawn string is applied to the end of the arrow, trying to accelerate it, but also tending to bend or buckle the arrow. If the bow's draw weight and the arrow's stiffness are not perfectly matched, the arrow will stray off the intended course or fall short of the mark. An arrow that is too flexible will leave the bow with a vibration that can cause the arrow to behave erratically. On the other hand, an arrow that is too stiff is probably too heavy for the bow.

Nephi's steel bow likely used heavier, stiffer arrows than his simply fashioned wooden bow could handle. Nephi was physically large (see 1 Nephi 2:16; 4:31), and he would have had little reason to use a bow made from metal if he did not have considerable strength. The arrows to match the steel bow used by such a man would undoubtedly have been quite heavy in order for them to be of adequate stiffness. One experienced archer reports, "The arrows from the steel bow when shot from the wooden bow would be like shooting telephone poles." Hence, it is accurate that Nephi should mention, in one and the same breath, the fact that he made an arrow as well as a bow. Bow wood and arrow wood from the same tree or area could be matched as well.

One doubts that such information was known to Joseph Smith or to many, if any, of his contemporaries. Archery, as a means of self-defense or as a serious method of hunting or warfare, went out of vogue among Europeans many years before the time of Joseph Smith. On the other hand, archery as a sport did not emerge until the latter half of the nineteenth century.

David Fox concludes: "Nephi's statement that he made an arrow out of a straight stick is an additional subtle but significant example of internal consistency within the Book of Mormon. Anyone unfamiliar with the field of archery would have almost certainly omitted such a statement." Another bull's-eye for the Book of Mormon.

[_The Dude]

Great points, Seth. The best they could come up with was a pair of 3's,

For Addison Eldridge, a junior from Portland, Ore., there were additional benefits in participating.

"We didn't have to find the ore and beat it into steel," he said. "I appreciate now how much different it would be to work without prepared materials. It makes me think of how in the Bible it all worked out."

but Addison Eldridge, a junior from Portland OR, is either dumb as a stump or he's got one hell of a poker face.

[_John Larsen]

From Nephi's Bows and Arrows, by William J. Hamblin:
Nephi's steel bow likely used heavier, stiffer arrows than his simply fashioned wooden bow could handle. Nephi was physically large (see 1 Nephi 2:16; 4:31), and he would have had little reason to use a bow made from metal if he did not have considerable strength. The arrows to match the steel bow used by such a man would undoubtedly have been quite heavy in order for them to be of adequate stiffness. One experienced archer reports, "The arrows from the steel bow when shot from the wooden bow would be like shooting telephone poles." Hence, it is accurate that Nephi should mention, in one and the same breath, the fact that he made an arrow as well as a bow. Bow wood and arrow wood from the same tree or area could be matched as well.

Olympic weightlifter:



Olympic archer:



Being large in stature has nothing at all to do with skilled archery.

[_beastie]

Dan Vogel shared the steel bow Atwater reference in Indian Origins. That's probably where I first read it.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/indian/indian2.htm

In 1820 Atwater reported in the Archaeologia Americana that the mound builders "had some very well manufactured swords and knives of iron, possibly of steel." He also claimed that in Virginia "there was found about half a steel bow, which, when entire, would measure five or six feet."

If one assumes that nothing in the Book of Mormon or in early LDS theology in general was original, and probably was copied from another source, one is usually making a safe assumption.