Horses, Horses, Where are the Horses?

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Unfortunately, no.

Though clearly Cinepro has used this method many times and therefore knows exactly what the outcome of translation by seerstone has to be.

[Darth J]

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).

Lack of evidence is a fallacious reason for disbelieving something?

We better start working on revising our court system, then.

And the scientific method, too.

You got something on those Nephites yet?

Remember, I don't dispute the existence of Aztecs, Olmecs, Mayans, or Toltecs.

Where's this 1,000 year long (give or take) Nephite civilization?

[handys003]

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?

Yes they did exist in Mexico. I have demonstrated that other cultures and Empires do have and did build large roads instead of just he Romans. It is a fact. it does not mean as Bizbra implied that trails only be of foot path size and not wide.

You should know of the Empires right Lord Vader

[Darth J]

Though clearly Cinepro has used this method many times and therefore knows exactly what the outcome of translation by seerstone has to be.

Can you think of one single witness to the translation process who said anything other than it being a literal, word-for-word translation of what was on the plates?

I can't; I was just wondering if you can (or anyone else can).

Because there are numerous people who do, in fact, tell us what the outcome of translation be seer stone is.

Emma Smith:

Question. What of the truth of Mormonism?

Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Emma Smith (again):

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.

Martin Harris:

[handys003]

Okay when a Hawaiian uses the term "Aloha" what does it mean? When I use the word "haole" what does it mean? When you use the word "taro" what does it mean?

[Darth J]

Okay when a Hawaiian uses the term "Aloha" what does it mean? When I use the word "haole" what does it mean? When you use the word "taro" what does it mean?

This is relevant to what, exactly?

[handys003]

Using the term "horse" to describe another object

[Zakuska]

Lack of evidence is a fallacious reason for disbelieving something?

We better start working on revising our court system, then.

And the scientific method, too.

Lack of evidence only means that evidence proving a premis has not been found.

Just because the police could provide no evidence that OJ did it din't mean that he didn't really do it.

Can you or I prove I brushed my teeth this morning?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Can you think of one single witness to the translation process who said anything other than it being a literal, word-for-word translation of what was on the plates?

I can't....

I'm no expert, so I'll take your word on this.

Are you therefore suggesting that, in 'a literal, word-for-word translation of what was on the plates,' the Nephite word 'horse' should have been translated as 'horse' regardless of any extra meanings it may have picked up via semantic expansion?

[Zakuska]

Using the term "horse" to describe another object

Or using the name of another object (such as a canooe that walks on land) to describe a horse, as a means of conveance.

[Darth J]

Using the term "horse" to describe another object

1. You're using conventional translation to explain something that is claimed to have been done by the power of God. This is somewhat like discussing hydroelectric power when someone is skeptical that Moses parted the Red Sea.

2. You do remember that the Book of Mormon also talks about asses, right? Donkeys and horses are pretty similar morphologically. It would be quite a coincidence that there are two similar-looking animals getting these loan words.

3. What reason is there to assume loan words other than expediency to make the evidence fit the text so that it fits a particular theory (e.g., Sorenson)?

[Zakuska]

1. You're using conventional translation to explain something that is claimed to have been done by the power of God. This is somewhat like discussing hydroelectric power when someone is skeptical that Moses parted the Red Sea.

Yet for some reason you are claiming that Joseph was nothing more than a Divine desk jet. Unable of commiting an eror. The descriptions don't follow your definition of "having been done by the power of God" either. However to an Ancient a modern cell phone might be described as operating through the ether by the power of God.

[Darth J]

Lack of evidence only means that evidence proving a premis has not been found.

Just because the police could provide no evidence that OJ did it din't mean that he didn't really do it.

The police did provide such evidence, but the jury determined that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.

A person is presumed innocent in a criminal trial. If a trier of fact determines that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof, the defendant is not found "innocent." He or she is found "not guilty." A jury NEVER makes a finding that someone "didn't do it." So your O.J. analogy tends to plummet straight to the ground.

But you do remember that O.J. lost the wrongful death lawsuit, right?

Can you or I prove I brushed my teeth this morning?

Yes, you could. For example:

1. You say you did, and a person believes your statement or has no reason to disbelieve it (and therefore accepts it).

Or

2. Someone else corroborates your story because they saw you brush your teeth.

Or

3. We find a wet toothbrush and a tube of tooth paste by the sink soon after you leave the bathroom in the morning.

Those are some ways you could prove it. There may be other ways, also.

[Darth J]

Yet for some reason you are claiming that Joseph was nothing more than a Divine desk jet. Unable of commiting an eror.

I said that where?

Are you now saying that Joseph Smith made a mistake by repeatedly talking about horses among Book of Mormon peoples?

(Lamanites also had horses----remember Ammon's story.)

[Zakuska]

The police did provide such evidence, but the jury determined that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.

A person is presumed innocent in a criminal trial. If a trier of fact determines that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof, the defendant is not found "innocent." He or she is found "not guilty." A jury NEVER makes a finding that someone "didn't do it." So your O.J. analogy tends to plummet straight to the ground.

But you do remember that O.J. lost the wrongful death lawsuit, right?

Yes, you could. For example:

1. You say you did, and a person believes your statement or has no reason to disbelieve it (and therefore accepts it).

Or

2. Someone else corroborates your story because they saw you brush your teeth.

Or

3. We find a wet toothbrush and a tube of tooth paste by the sink soon after you leave the bathroom in the morning.

Those are some ways you could prove it. There may be other ways, also.

500 years from now can you prove it?

[Darth J]

Or using the name of another object (such as a canooe that walks on land) to describe a horse, as a means of conveance.

Or using the word "horse" to describe this object:

[Hamba Tuhan]

3. What reason is there to assume loan words other than expediency to make the evidence fit the text so that it fits a particular theory (e.g., Sorenson)?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but, as I mentioned in post #34, loanshifting/semantic expansion is a hallmark of texts produced by people who find themselves in unfamiliar environs or cross-cultural exchanges. Lack of these features (or possible incidences of these features) would definitely make the text appear less authentic. I work with sixteenth-century texts rife with similar 'anachronisms.' For me, it's not about trying to explain away such 'anachronisms' in order to make the evidence fit the text as much as it is seeing those 'anachronisms' as precisely what one would expect to find in the kind of account the Book of Mormon claims to be.

If Joseph Smith were even half as clever as many people claim he was when he 'fabricated' the Book of Mormon, he should have been writing about corn and pumpkins, whitetail deer and moose and turkeys.

[Darth J]

500 years from now can you prove it?

Prove it to whom?

And I thought you were the one trying to prove you brushed your teeth, not me.

[Zakuska]

Or using the word "horse" to describe this object:

You missed the earlier post...

The first Hawains when they saw the horses for the first time called them "cannooes that travel on land".

Horses arrived five years afterward in 1803. 19th Century historian David Malo in his Moolelo Hawaii, lists among the

[Darth J]

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but, as I mentioned in post #34, loanshifting/semantic expansion is a hallmark of texts produced by people who find themselves in unfamiliar environs or cross-cultural exchanges. Lack of these features (or possible incidences of these features) would definitely make the text appear less authentic. I work with sixteenth-century texts rife with similar 'anachronisms.' For me, it's not about trying to explain away such 'anachronisms' in order to make the evidence fit the text as much as it is seeing those 'anachronisms' as precisely what one would expect to find in the kind of account the Book of Mormon claims to be.

It's funny how Mormon and Moroni, in compiling the Book of Mormon, can think of a loan word for whatever a "horse" is, but can't come up with one for curelom or cumom. Especially given that Moroni knew that "deseret" means "honeybee."

I wonder if the "horse is a tapir/llama/spider monkey/etc." idea ever really got any traction before the current LGT came along. I'm going to bet it didn't.

If Joseph Smith were even half as clever as many people claim he was, he should have been writing about corn and pumpkins, whitetail deer and moose and turkeys.

He also should not have had Jesus talking to the Nephites about Roman law (the "go the extra mile" thing), or "raca" or "mammon," since none of these things would have been meaningful to them.

Or had Lehi repeat a change to the text of the gospel of John that had been deliberately inserted by the early church father Origen (Jesus being baptized at Bethabara; 1 Nephi 10:9, John 1:28).

So you're right. Maybe Joseph Smith's cleverness has been overstated.

[Darth J]

You missed the earlier post...

The first Hawains when they saw the horses for the first time called them "cannooes that travel on land".

http://www.bigisland...aiis-big-island

A perfect example of loan shifting right in Joseph Smith own time!

Yeah, the thing about that is we know the loan shifting from other cultures.

The Book of Mormon loan shifting is only held by those who want to make the evidence conform to the text for the LGT theory (or some version of it). Not everyone who believes in the Book of Mormon buys this theory.

[ERayR]

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).

Horses also have use for both meat and milk.

[Zakuska]

I said that where?

Are you now saying that Joseph Smith made a mistake by repeatedly talking about horses among Book of Mormon peoples?

(Lamanites also had horses----remember Ammon's story.)

You made it abundantly clear by your underlining in your Blue quote post (of the translation process) that that is your position.

Again... according to you it wasn't Joseph Smith that made the error but God... Joseph only being a divine pen in the process.

[Zakuska]

Yeah, the thing about that is we know the loan shifting from other cultures.

The Book of Mormon loan shifting is only held by those who want to make the evidence conform to the text for the LGT theory (or some version of it). Not everyone who believes in the Book of Mormon buys this theory.

Personally... I don't buy it either. But I also don't discount it out of hand as an obsurd explanation of the given evidence.

[Darth J]

Horses also have use for both meat and milk.

Right. And transportation. And pulling plows and things. Could be any of these things.

"Provisions" and "sustenance" don't necessarily mean food, either.

So the Book of Mormon doesn't really "indicate" that horses were used for food, as asserted earlier.