Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Horses, Horses, Where are the Horses?


jskains

Recommended Posts

From the website referenced:

Reference for 1: Palmer, D., ed (1999). The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions. pp. 239-242. ISBN 1-84028-152-9.

Same reference as your earlier post...

Interesting... when I click on the link for Cuvieronius, it sent me to this page...

http://www.worldling.../en/Cuvieronius

Where in the world did they get 400AD and then 11,000 BP??

I beleive the 11,000 BP possibly comes from tradition so they don't seem "out there" and the 400AD comes from the remains and pictographs of these animals being found contemporanious with humans dating to 400AD.

Link to comment

For 1,

Archeologists/anatomist/paleobotonists for years trying to make a name for themselves, trying to come up with a "NEW" species to catch everyones ear. and secure funding.

Modern DNA analysis seems to be helping and they are declasifying many "subspecies" in the order. For example the "Pygmy" mammoths seems to be smaller merely because of Habitat not because of DNA differences. Kind of like fish in the open ocean growing larger than their siblings kept in a tank. They where Mammoths, they where just smaller because of a limited food supply and being isolation on an island. Some one finally realized that size of bones does not necessarilly mean different species. Different bread possibly.

Excellent!

If only the Church teaching a worldwide flood that killed everything that was not on Noah's ark didn't conflict with modern DNA analysis. Then we'd really have something, huh?

Link to comment

Where is it that is says that again? I keep forgetting.

Oh, by the way, here's a blog from "Ranching mom with kids, cows and horses." http://greenranchingmom.blogspot.com/

Since she lists one animal (cows) that is commonly used as a food source with other things, a "careful reading" will help us understand that this woman clearly uses children, cows, and horses as food sources.

Here's something from the Florida Department of Agriculture discussing cattle and horses in the same article: http://www.florida-a...cker_cattle.htm

A "careful reading" of this article will help us understand that because cattle and horses are discussed together, horse is a common food source in Florida.

And here's someone talking about their family farm, where they raise cows and horses: http://www.evelandfa...nimals/cows.php

Since cows and horses are discussed together in the context of agriculture, we must naturally conclude that this family is raising horses as a food source.

Hew I ate horse on my Mission as well as cow brains. Whats so hard about horses being raised for food?

Link to comment

Hew I ate horse on my Mission as well as cow brains. Whats so hard about that?

I also ate horse on my mission. However, this has no relevance to the Book of Mormon.

Does anyone have a place for me from the Book of Mormon that says horses were a food source for the Nephite, or are we just talking about horses being listed with flocks and cattle and so on, and an apologist theory that because horses were listed with other animals, the Nephites must have eaten horses?

I mean, never mind that cattle have uses other than eating the animal (milk), as do flocks (wool).

Link to comment

Does anyone have a place for me from the Book of Mormon that says horses were a food source for the Nephite, or are we just talking about horses being listed with flocks and cattle and so on, and an apologist theory that because horses were listed with other animals, the Nephites must have eaten horses?

I don't see apologists claiming that eating them was their primary use.

Hmmm....

I mean, never mind that cattle have uses other than eating the animal (milk), as do flocks (wool).

Exactly and when these animals are done providing these other resources were do they usually end up?

As Sabastian the crab would say: "Guess who gon-be on day plate?!"

Now days dead cows end up at the dog food plant and horses at the glue factory. Live cows on the other hand go to the slaughter houses.

Its a construct of Modern man's worship on the Thoroughbred animals that has came to the stigma that horses should never be eaten.

Link to comment

Where is it that is says that again? I keep forgetting.

3 Ne 4:4 "having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years"

also 3 Ne 6:1

Link to comment

3 Ne 4:4 "having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years"

also 3 Ne 6:1

Great verse... :P

Websters 1828 Dictionary:

subsist

SUBSIST', v.i. [L. subsisto; sub and sisto, to stand, to be fixed.]

1. To be; to have existence; applicable to matter or spirit.

2. To continue; to retain the present state.

Firm we subsist, but possible to swerve.

3. To live; to be maintained with food and clothing. How many of the human race subsist on the labors of others! How many armies have subsisted on plunder!

4. To inhere; to have existence by means of something else; as qualities that subsist in substances.

SUBSIST', v.t. To feed; to maintain; to support with provisions. The king subsisted his troops on provisions plundered from the enemy.

http://1828.mshaffer...ch/word,subsist

Link to comment

If only we could find those Jaredite and Nephite civilizations that used them.

Instead of, say, finding Olmecs and Mayans and Aztecs and just assuming that relics of these civlizations were related to Jaredites and Nephites, even though there is no evidence of interaction between Olmecs, Mayans, Aztecs, or any other known civilization and Jaredites or Nephites.

Olmec and Mayan are artifical names, made up by the archeologists. These people did not use these names. It is reasonable to assume, for example, that Nephite artifacts and cities have been found, just a matter of identification.

Link to comment

I don't see apologists claiming that eating them was their primary use.

Exactly and when these animals are done providing these other resources were do they usually end up?

As Sabastian the crab would say: "Guess who gon-be on day plate?!"

Now days dead cows end up at the dog food plant and horses at the glue factory. Live cows on the other hand go to the slaughter houses.

Its a construct of Modern man's worship on the Thoroughbred animals that has came to the stigma that horses should never be eaten.

Yeah, that really has nothing whatsoever to do with the Book of Mormon.

Have you found that verse that says horses were a Nephite food source yet?

Link to comment

Horses and elephants aren't the only animals accused of be in the Book of Mormon. There are pigs, sheep, goats, wild goats, and the ox. But for some reason, horses and elephants get the most attention. FARMS and FAIR come up with a lot of explanations. Here is an article in which a FAIR member tries to hit every anaochronism in the book one by one.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_Science_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

This article leaves room for more questions, but that's the nature of apologetics. Richard Bushman refers to the work to defend the Book of Mormon as an uphill battle.

You are right. We read in the Book:

And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

One could argue, as apologists have, that Nephi and crew brought horses and then turned them into a food product harvesting them to extinction. However, one is left to deal with the fact that the cows, asses, horses, goats and wild goats that were there before the Nephites got there all disappeared without a trace.

Link to comment

3 Ne 4:4 "having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years"

also 3 Ne 6:1

Provisions: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provisions

1 a : the act or process of providing b : the fact or state of being prepared beforehand c : a measure taken beforehand to deal with a need or contingency : preparation <made provision for replacements>

2 : a stock of needed materials or supplies; especially : a stock of food

Link to comment

I also ate horse on my mission. However, this has no relevance to the Book of Mormon.

Does anyone have a place for me from the Book of Mormon that says horses were a food source for the Nephite, or are we just talking about horses being listed with flocks and cattle and so on, and an apologist theory that because horses were listed with other animals, the Nephites must have eaten horses?

I mean, never mind that cattle have uses other than eating the animal (milk), as do flocks (wool).

I have heard before that King Lamoni said to Ammon to "prepare his horses". As in, prepare them for eating.

Link to comment

Cdowis found a verse saying they were used for "subsitance" in the last 7 years. subsistance is defined as food in the 1828 dictionary.

Here, I'll help you with that 1828 dictionary thing:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/string,subsistence

1. Competent provisions; means of supporting life.

His viceroy could only propose to himself a comfortable subsistence out of the plunder of his province.2. That which supplies the means of living; as money, pay or wages.3. Inherence in something else, as the subsistence of qualities in bodies.

One of the definitions is "means of living; as money, pay or wages." Is that limited to food?

But how about "provision"?

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/string,provisions

1. The act of providing or making previous preparation.2. Things provided; preparation; measures taken beforehand, either for security, defense or attack, or for the supply of wants. We make provision to defend ourselves form enemies; we make provision for war; we make provision for a voyage or for erecting a building; we make provision for the support of the poor. Government makes provision for its friends.3. Stores provided; stock; as provision of victuals; provision of materials.4. Victuals; food; provender; all manner of eatables for man and beast; as provisions for the table or for the family; provisions for an army.5. Previous stipulation; terms or agreement made, or measures taken for a future exigency.

Nope, still looks like we're not limited to food.

Link to comment

Neither "provisions" nor "subsist" is limited to food. You're just repeating the apologist theory that if horses are listed with other possible food sources, horses must be food.

And yet you are following the critical party line that no way under any circumstances are horses ever to be aloud to be used for anything other than transportation.

When a horse died do you think that starving Nephites in a walled city would bury it and eat there dead brothers instead?

When Scientists shot down the 14000BC continental extinction of Megafuana theory, with the New theory that Humans hunted horses to extinction on this continent, Thats when LDS started seeing horses among grocery lists and the critics responded as you are by asking for an explict Nephite recipe for Mr Ed stew.

You have to shoot down the theory at any cost to maintain your scepticism. I understand that... and it's ok.

Apologists on the other hand don't exclude food as a possible "use" for the horse among a list of other possible uses such as transportation.

Geeez.... And its mormons who are accused of a closed mind! :P

Link to comment

Even if Nephi saw a pseudo-horse and called it the same word as "horse" in his native language, the entity doing the reformed-egyptian/ hebrew -> english translation shouldn't have maintained the use of the English word "horse" if that isn't what it was.

I addressed this issue in post #34 in case you missed it....

I find it interesting that you continue to insist that you know the one true and correct way to create a translation. As someone who has translated literally thousands of pages of early-modern historical texts, some of these translations having now been published, I can assure you that there are many, many correct ways to translate old texts depending on what one's goal is.

In pre-Christian England, the word heofonum simply meant 'sky.' Through loanshifting, it came also to mean in Christian times 'the place where God and the angels dwell.' If you were translating a tenth-century English text and encountered the word heofonum, would you translate it as 'sky,' would you translate it as 'the place where God dwells,' or would you simply write 'heaven,' allowing your translation to carry the full weight of meanings which that word had acquired?

Link to comment

And yet you are following the critical party line that no way under any circumstances are horses ever to be aloud to be used for anything other than transportation.

When Scientists shot down the 14000BC continental extinction of Megafuana theory, with the New e theory that Humans hunted horses to extinction on this continent. Thats when LDS started seeing horses among grocery lists and the critics responded as you are by asking for an explict Nephite recipe for Mr Ed stew.

You have to shoot down the theory at any cost to maintain your scepticism. I understand that... and it's ok.

When did I ever say that "no way under any circumstances are horses ever to be aloud to be used for anything other than transportation"?

Where, in one place, did I say that?

The assertion to which I'm responding is that "the Book of Mormon indicates that horses were used for food." The Book of Mormon does not indicate that.

Since you're so sure about my supposed need to maintain my skepticism at any cost, perhaps you'd like to share with me the status of skepticism and how I arrived there.

You aren't seriously claiming that if pre-Columbian horses were found in the right time frame that it would prove the Book of Mormon to be historically true, are you?

Still need to find those civilizations that are supposed to have used them, you know.

Link to comment

Olmec and Mayan are artifical names, made up by the archeologists. These people did not use these names. It is reasonable to assume, for example, that Nephite artifacts and cities have been found, just a matter of identification.

No, arguing from ignorance is not a reasonable assumption.

Nor is attributing known historical cultures to Nephites and Jaredites.

The cities that have been discovered already have been identified. And none of them, and nothing in or near them, has been identified as Nephite or Jaredite. Clearly, this is attributable to the worldwide conspiracy among archaeologists, anthropologists, and geneticists who all know that the Book of Mormon is really true but have to suppress the evidence to justify their skepticism.

I already know, though: the complete absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

So it's reasonable to assume that the Terrestrial Reptoid Hypothesis is also true. http://reptoids.com/introduction.htm

Nobody has proven it false, you know!

(Maybe someone would like to start a thread about burden of proof.)

Link to comment

You aren't seriously claiming that if pre-Columbian horses were found in the right time frame that it would prove the Book of Mormon to be historically true, are you?

Not in the least.

Still need to find those civilizations that are supposed to have used them, you know.

Exactly... but we are still dealing with the Naive critics who are operating under the premis that the Spanish brought all the horses Myth.

Once its established that horses were here under the correct time frame . Then we can begin discussing which of the American cultures may have used them and for what. And if the American cultures caused there extinction. THAT is were the scientific debate is on the subject. Exactly when and for what reasons did these animals go extinct. Theres no doubt they were here. There bones prove that.

There bones also prove that native americans did hunt them. As well as the elephants.

Link to comment

BIZ: From Wiki: Transportation

The main contribution of the Aztec rule was a system of communications between the conquered cities. In Mesoamerica, without draft animals for transport (nor, as a result, wheeled vehicles), the roads were designed for travel on foot. Usually these roads were maintained through tribute, and travelers had places to rest and eat and even latrines to use at regular intervals, roughly every 10 or 15 km. Couriers (paynani) were constantly traveling along those ways, keeping the Aztecs informed of events, and helping to monitor the integrity of the roads.

A road designed for foot travel is not "big and wide".

Not true Biz: Not all trails were such size. The Kings trail in Hawaii on the Big island goes back to 700 AD. It was narrow in some places due to many geographic conditions. Other places it is by today gone due to lava flow or jungle growth and housing development. In it's heyday it circled the entire island of Hawaii and some places you can walk on it. It's as wide as a two lane highway and paved with lava stones. When you travel Mamalahoa hwy between the 12 and 27 mile marker you can see parts parallel to the modern hwy, and on saddle road which bi-secs the island ,but most now covered by lava flows from Mauna Loa. This all done by Hawaiians who Aztecs are related. Come tomorrow I should go take pics and post. Oh by the way if you were not royalty you were killed for walking on it. Many of Hawaii's roads that tourist travel on are from ancient trails. Some were also very wide almost 12 feet in width. designed to place tree logs as rollers to haul koa wood down from up mauka (upslope) to bring koa down for building voyaging and regular canoes.

When you go to Tiahaunaco you will see ancient roads that are very wide. The link below will give you clear indication of maps at Teotihuacan, and how well the roads were built just like the old Roman. Civilization no matter Old World and New had wide and thorough built roads for transport. All great and large cities had them including not just America and Europe, but Egypt, Middle East, China, Japan, India,and Thailand. Just most now have modern roads built on them. Many in Central/S. America are the same. Some you can't see like the Kings Trail in Hawaii are covered by lava or jungle. There are entire cities not even uncovered by Archaeologists. They are just covered head to toe with jungle. Only locals know of such existence.

Wikipedia is not an authority for such supposition of foot wide trails only as base of travel.

Here is excellent pics of Teotihuacan with a nice paved road going down the middle and sides of the plaza. The maps of such roads are located in the middle. They don't just lead to nowhere. Develpoment from Mexico city and jungle has taken over the rest as were the canals that were used in the past have been remodernized as flood control projects. You know like how New York does. How about Dallas where they took every little stream that turns into flooding rivers during storms and made water culverts out of them. My swimming old swimming hole is gone.

http://www.crystalin...esoamerica.html

To everyones trollish assertion of no major roads in Ancient America figure it out. It's just a fact that they had such just asl the old world. It does not have to be BoM related. It's a cultural norm of any major Empire. That's how they become Empires!

Link to comment

I addressed this issue in post #34 in case you missed it....

I find it interesting that you continue to insist that you know the one true and correct way to create a translation. As someone who has translated literally thousands of pages of early-modern historical texts, some of these translations having now been published, I can assure you that there are many, many correct ways to translate old texts depending on what one's goal is.

In pre-Christian England, the word heofonum simply meant 'sky.' Through loanshifting, it came also to mean in Christian times 'the place where God and the angels dwell.' If you were translating a tenth-century English text and encountered the word heofonum, would you translate it as 'sky,' would you translate it as 'the place where God dwells,' or would you simply write 'heaven,' allowing your translation to carry the full weight of meanings which that word had acquired?

Did you translate any of those texts through a seer stone or Urim and Thummim where the power of God made you understand what the characters meant?

You know, for your example to be relevant to the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment

Not in the least.

Exactly... but we are still dealing with the Naive critics who are operating under the premis that the Spanish brought all the horses Myth.

Once its established that horses were here under the correct time frame . Then we can begin discussing which of the American cultures may have used them and for what. And if the American cultures caused there extinction. THAT is were the scientific debate is on tghe subject. Exactly when and for what reasons did these animals go extinct. Theres no doubt they were here. There bones prove that.

Oh, that's right. I'm naive. Nobody could knowingly disbelieve the Book of Mormon.

Why does the discussion have to proceed in that order, by the way? I'll even concede, for the purposes of argument, that horses existed in the Western Hemisphere between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.

Where are those Nephites?

EDIT: As to my naivete, as only naive people are skeptical about the Book of Mormon, I sort of had the idea that the existence of horses in the Western Hemisphere circa the Pleistocene was both undisputed and irrelevant to Book of Mormon claims.

Link to comment

Not true Biz: Not all trails were such size. The Kings trail in Hawaii on the Big island goes back to 700 AD. It was narrow in some places due to many geographic conditions. Other places it is by today gone due to lava flow or jungle growth and housing development. In it's heyday it circled the entire island of Hawaii and some places you can walk on it. It's as wide as a four lane highway and paved with lava stones. When you travel Mamalahoa hwy between the 12 and 27 mile marker you can see parts parallel to the modern hwy, and on saddle road which bi-secs the island ,but most now covered by lava flows from Mauna Loa. This all done by Hawaiians who Aztecs are related. Come tomorrow I should go take pics and post. Oh by the way if you were not royalty you were killed for walking on it. Many of Hawaii's roads that tourist travel on are from ancient trails. Some were also very wide almost 12 feet in width. designed to place tree logs as rollers to haul koa wood down from up mauka (upslope) to bring koa down for building voyaging and regular canoes.

When you go to Tiahaunaco you will see ancient roads that are very wide. The link below will give you clear indication of maps at Teotihuacan, and how well the roads were built just like the old Roman. Civilization no matter Old World and New had wide and thorough built roads for transport. All great and large cities had them including not just America nad Europe, but Egypt, Middle East, China, Japan, India,and Thailand. Just most now have modern roads built on them. Many in Central/S. America are the same. Some you can't see like the Kings Trail in Hawaii are covered by lava or jungle. There are entire cities not even uncovered by Archaeologists. They are just covered head to toe with jungle. Only locals know of such existence.

Wikipedia is not an authority for such supposition of foot wide trails only as base of travel.

Here is excellent pics of Teotihuacan with a nice paved road going down the middle and sides of the plaza. The maps of such roads are located in the middle. They don't just lead to nowhere. Develpoment from Mexico city and jungle has taken over the rest as were the canals that were used in the past have been remodernized as flood control projects. You know like how New York does. How about Dallas where they took every little stream that turns into flooding rivers during storms and made water culverts out of them. My swimming old swimming hole is gone.

http://www.crystalin...esoamerica.html

To everyones trollish assertion of no major roads in Ancient America figure it out. It's just a fact that they had such just asl the old world. It does not have to be BoM related. It's a cultural norm of any major Empire. That's how they become Empires!

Good work!

You have indisputably proven that the Aztec Empire existed in what is now Mexico.

Therefore, the Book of Mormon is true.

Would you mind supplying that middle term that I'm missing?

Link to comment

Oh, that's right. I'm naive.

Who ever said that?

Nobody could knowingly disbelieve the Book of Mormon.

Again... who claimed that?

Why does the discussion have to proceed in that order, by the way? I'll even concede, for the purposes of argument, that horses existed in the Western Hemisphere between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.

Where are those Nephites?

I could give you many reasons for disbeleiving it, non of which would stem from an apparent lack of evidence. (Which by the way is a fallacious argument from the get go).

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...