Carving Of Precolumbian Horse At Chich

[USU78]

The Hebrew word for "chariot", Merkava, means one of these things:

And the guys who drive them are in the motorized cavalry.

USU "And caval means horse" 78

[Zakuska]

From my experience, horses are mostly pets kept by young girls. And while, yes, they are technically "transported" by their horses, horses aren't really a practical means of actually traveling anywhere.

Tell that to the Sundance Kid.

Mules are pretty good pack animals used to this day in the grand canyan. Ive heard Mountain Goats are better though.

[Bender]

Brant Gardner

You are misreading me. I am saying that the textual descriptions of actions do not provide clues to what is meant when the text says "horse" and "chariot." If the very presence of the word "chariot" required a Roman/Greek/Egyptian/Assyrian war chariot, we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

The problem is that my experience with documents from Central Mexico that deal with the interface between two cultures (native and Spanish) clearly point out that assuming something based on the word selected by a translator is not the best way to understand the culture that produced the information being translated.

For example, Dibble and Anderson are much better translators of Nahuatl than I shall ever be. Nevertheless, there are times when I have found that their translation actually obscures information in the Nahuatl that could be better represented with a different word. That doesn't mean they were wrong, it means that based on their perception of the Aztec world when they selected the English term for translation didn't include the richer context that might have required a change in the selection of English words.

I apologize if I misread you. I don't think its 100% certain that the horses and chariots is used for transportation, but it does seem the most likely given the context of the passage and that we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

[Hawkmoon]

You may want to reread some of the earlier posts I have made to catch up. I said earlier I didn't think its a big assumption that horses and chariots were being used for conveyance. It may not be 100% that they did but it is clear from the text its the most likely interpretation.

You may want to as well read some of the posts over again

This is not the first time I have seen these types of assumptions, and yes I do find many here who are very good and reserving judgement.

The only assumption I have made is in regard with horses being used for a means of conveyance, not whether they were used any other way.

Sorry, but I don't need to catch up... even in this post you admitted assuming that horses are used for "conveyance". OTOH, Brant has said nothing of the sort and, in fact, indicated that by the text we cannot know what horses were used for. You then accussed him of assuming... are you following?

[Zakuska]

I apologize if I misread you. I don't think its 100% certain that the horses and chariots is used for transportation, but it does seem the most likely given the context of the passage and that we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

Which was then edited for printing.

[Bender]

SolarPowered Posted Today, 02:34 PM

QUOTE(Bender @ Jul 22 2008, 11:39 AM) *

Horses and Chariots are very much related to transportation or conducting forth. It is very logical from the passage quoted that they were used as such. I'm sorry but I think trying to separate horses and chariots from the conducting forth part IMO amounts to trying to play games with the text.

I'm not following you...

The Hebrew word for "chariot", Merkava, means one of these things:

I don't see where a "horse" has anything to do with that.

I also don't see what horses have to do with transportation. If you wanted to travel some distance over rough roads, you'd use something like this:

A horse would just get in the way.

From my experience, horses are mostly pets kept by young girls. And while, yes, they are technically "transported" by their horses, horses aren't really a practical means of actually traveling anywhere.

I'm sure there were plenty of them around back then.

[Brant Gardner]

The only assumption I have made is in regard with horses being used for a means of conveyance, not whether they were used any other way.

Let me give you another context. Let's say that science demonstrates that there were pre-Columbian horses during Book of Mormon times, but that they were much smaller than the Old World horse (a different genetic descent from the Pleistocene horses that were assumed to have been hunted to extinction--and never domesticated). If that were the case, why would you assume that the horse would be a conveyance if it were the size of a large dog?

Again, I am not saying it was (reserving my judgment on the scientific discovery of the horse remains for the publication of the paper I understand makes that case). I am saying that your assumption is leading to conclusions that are not necessary. They are only assumptions and they have no textual support, even if the "horse" is a descendant of eohippus.

[Hawkmoon]

I apologize if I misread you. I don't think its 100% certain that the horses and chariots is used for transportation, but it does seem the most likely given the context of the passage and that we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

I don't get this argument-- are you saying if "horse" does not mean what you think it should mean then claims of BoM being inspired are rendered false?

[Brant Gardner]

. . .we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

Another assumption, not that it was inspired, but what an "inspired translation" really means. Withough examining the evidence, how do you know what an inspired translation is supposed to look like? Unfortunately, you are using the assumption of what it must be to determine the way you read it. That is not starting from the evidence, but rather from a pre-conceived idea that will tend to color the rest of the interpretation.

Mind you, I am not disagreeing that it is an inspired translation. I simply think that it is another assumption that must be settled by evidence rather than presumption.

[Zakuska]

Brant,

How do you get from the rubbing that this animal is the size of a Large Dog?

It looks to me like the man has his arms outstreched over the back of the animal as if Packing it.

My arm pits are at least 4 feet high and fit nicely over the backs of the ponies my kids road at the fair.

[Bender]

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 02:41 PM

Let me give you another context. Let's say that science demonstrates that there were pre-Columbian horses during Book of Mormon times, but that they were much smaller than the Old World horse (a different genetic descent from the Pleistocene horses that were assumed to have been hunted to extinction--and never domesticated). If that were the case, why would you assume that the horse would be a conveyance if it were the size of a large dog?

Again, I am not saying it was (reserving my judgment on the scientific discovery of the horse remains for the publication of the paper I understand makes that case). I am saying that your assumption is leading to conclusions that are not necessary. They are only assumptions and they have no textual support, even if the "horse" is a descendant of eohippus.

Like I said before I don't think it's 100%. I am open to other alternatives, but It does seem the best one so far.

Hawkmoon Posted Today, 02:44 PM

I don't get this argument-- are you saying if "horse" does not mean what you think it should mean then claims of BoM being inspired are rendered false?

Huh? Where did that come from? I have said in another thread that I don't think the horse issue (even though troublesome for the BoM right now) is not one that will prove or disprove the BoM.

[SolarPowered]

I apologize if I misread you. I don't think its 100% certain that the horses and chariots is used for transportation, but it does seem the most likely given the context of the passage and that we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

The point of my tongue-in-cheek post above is that in just the last 50 years what is thought of when you mention the word "merkava" ("chariot") has changed dramatically. Similarly, what we think of when we talk of "transportation" has also changed dramatically in just the last 100-200 years.

There really isn't any reason to think that what a Nephite writer was talking about in 300 BC or whatever has much similarity to what we might imagine somebody in a movie Western might be talking about when using the same words. There might be similarity. Or there might be as much difference as there is between Bur Hur's chariot (which is itself actually modern imagination ) and a Merkava tank, or as much difference as there is between Marshall Dillon's horse and a Range Rover.

[SolarPowered]

And the guys who drive them are in the motorized cavalry.

USU "And caval means horse" 78

Wow, you did find a "horse" connection!

[Brant Gardner]

Brant,

How do you get from the rubbing that this animal is the size of a Large Dog?

It looks to me like the man has his arms outstreched over the back of the animal as if Packing it.

My arm pits are at least 4 feet high and fit nicely over the backs of the ponies my kids road at the fair.

The problem is that we are dealing with a highly eroded source and a late artist who isn't nearly as good as the earlier Maya. In a couple of renditions, a face has been visible, but if that is where the man's face is, he is more squat than expected. One of the pictures seems to show damage, and if that is correct, then we have a taller man.

Still, the relative size is only partially reliable. It might be a reference, but the Maya didn't do perspective and didn't mind changing the size of things (which is why there is a little man riding the macaw head in Copan that makes everyone assume it is an elephant because only the elephant would be that size with repect to the man).

[Hawkmoon]

Huh? Where did that come from? I have said in another thread that I don't think the horse issue (even though troublesome for the BoM right now) is not one that will prove or disprove the BoM.

From this quote from you

...but it does seem the most likely given the context of the passage and that we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

It is not much of a stretch to surmise if one believes "dealing with an inspired translation" means that "A horse is a horse, of course, of course,â? and, therefore, if said horse isn't what is assumed a horse should be then the translation cannot be inspired.

[Bender]

SolarPowered Posted Today, 02:51 PM

The point of my tongue-in-cheek post above is that in just the last 50 years what is thought of when you mention the word "merkava" ("chariot") has changed dramatically. Similarly, what we think of when we talk of "transportation" has also changed dramatically in just the last 100-200 years.

There really isn't any reason to think that what a Nephite writer was talking about in 300 BC or whatever has much similarity to what we might imagine somebody in a movie Western might be talking about when using the same words. There might be similarity. Or there might be as much difference as there is between Bur Hur's chariot (which is itself actually modern imagination wink.gif) and a Merkava tank, or as much difference as there is between Marshall Dillon's horse and a Range Rover.

I never said what a chariot looks like or that it has to have wheels. In using horses (or horse like animal if you prefer) and chariots in connection with conveying the King to his father, its not that hard to figure that the horses and chariots are most likely being used to convey the king. I'm not sure its necessary to say I'm preparing the horses and chariots, and then I will use them to convey you to your father.

[Bender]

Hawkmoon Posted Today, 03:02 PM

From this quote from you

QUOTE

...but it does seem the most likely given the context of the passage and that we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

It is not much of a stretch to surmise if one believes "dealing with an inspired translation" means that "A horse is a horse, of course, of course,â? and, therefore, if said horse isn't what is assumed a horse should be then the translation cannot be inspired.

Actually its is a stretch and a big assumption.

[Hawkmoon]

Actually its is a stretch and a big assumption.

IOW, even though my assumption is the most likely conclusion-- it is not what the text actually says? I see.

[Bender]

Hawkmoon Posted Today, 03:16 PM

IOW, even though my assumption is the most likely conclusion-- it is not what the text actually says? I see. wink.gif

What?

[Hawkmoon]

What?

Heh-heh... now I'm beginning to feel a little too much like Wade so I shall subsist without any further comment about object lessons and the sort.

[Bender]

Hawkmoon Posted Today, 03:53 PM

Heh-heh... now I'm beginning to feel a little too much like Wade so I shall subsist without any further comment about object lessons and the sort. wink.gif

Its the "it is not what the text actually says?" that I'm not understanding. If you care to elaborate.

[Hawkmoon]

I apologize if I misread you. I don't think its 100% certain that the horses and chariots is used for transportation, but it does seem the most likely given the context of the passage and that we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

I don't get this argument-- are you saying if "horse" does not mean what you think it should mean then claims of BoM being inspired are rendered false?

Like I said before I don't think it's 100%. I am open to other alternatives, but It does seem the best one so far.

Huh? Where did that come from? I have said in another thread that I don't think the horse issue (even though troublesome for the BoM right now) is not one that will prove or disprove the BoM.

QUOTE(Bender @ Jul 22 2008, 02:49 PM) * Huh? Where did that come from? I have said in another thread that I don't think the horse issue (even though troublesome for the BoM right now) is not one that will prove or disprove the BoM.

From this quote from you

but it does seem the most likely given the context of the passage and that we are supposed to be dealing with an inspired translation.

It is not much of a stretch to surmise if one believes "dealing with an inspired translation" means that "A horse is a horse, of course, of course,â? and, therefore, if said horse isn't what is assumed a horse should be then the translation cannot be inspired.

Actually its is a stretch and a big assumption.

IOW, even though my assumption is the most likely conclusion-- it is not what the text actually says? I see.

What?

Its the "it is not what the text actually says?" that I'm not understanding. If you care to elaborate.

The text in this case refers to what you actually wrote not the BoM, and the assumptions that "seem the most likely" given context, etc. that I came to despite the fact nowhere is it stated in what you actually wrote.

[Bender]

Hawkmoon,

I might be a little dim , but I'm still not exactly sure what your trying to get at.

Maybe if I clarify my position a little that will Help. I told Brant that I didn't think it was a big assumption (the only assumption I believe that I made) to think that the horses and chariots were involved with transporting the King. I've also stated that I'm not 100% behind that interpretation, but that I do think it is the most likely. I wonder if we did a poll at church what most members would conclude (I know that doesn't make it true) or even people off the street. If you or anyone else can give me another alternative that would be great.

Also you are wrong in your response to John W. I never said that the horses must be pulling the chariot. I gave what I thought were possibilities like pulling or carrying. You seem to me to be putting words into my mouth that I haven't said.

[Hawkmoon]

Hawkmoon,

I might be a little dim , but I'm still not exactly sure what your trying to get at.

Maybe if I clarify my position a little that will Help. I told Brant that I didn't think it was a big assumption (the only assumption I believe that I made) to think that the horses and chariots were involved with transporting the King. I've also stated that I'm not 100% behind that interpretation, but that I do think it is the most likely. I wonder if we did a poll at church what most members would conclude (I know that doesn't make it true) or even people off the street. If you or anyone else can give me another alternative that would be great.

Also you are wrong in your response to John W. I never said that the horses must be pulling the chariot. I gave what I thought were possibilities like pulling or carrying. You seem to me to be putting words into my mouth that I haven't said.

*sigh*

No, â??What we've got here is failure to communicate." Fortunately, the point isn't vastly important, if at all, and can be left aside without any issue. One thing is clear it was not as personal as it seems you may be taking it. With that I bid this topic adieu.

[Bender]

Hawkmoon Posted Today, 05:20 PM

*sigh*

No, â??What we've got here is failure to communicate." Fortunately, the point isn't vastly important, if at all, and can be left aside without any issue. One thing is clear it was not as personal as it seems you may be taking it. With that I bid this topic adieu.

I admit I'm better at things like Math and Physics than English, so maybe my reading comprehension isn't up to par. I just wasn't sure what you were trying to say. I don't take what you said personally. Were just people discussing our opinions. Have a great day