Horses, Horses, Where are the Horses?

[Zakuska]

Horses also have use for both meat and milk.

Don't forget that their hair from their tails and manes are weeved into clothing.

[Zakuska]

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.

Depends... It could or it couldn't depending on how you hold it.

[Darth J]

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.

No, if "horse" meant "horse," then the Book of Mormon says exactly what the author intended.

But as far as "my position" as to the translation process, please feel free to share a statement by any of Joseph Smith's contemporaries who said anything other than it being a word-for-word translation.

Since that's merely "my position."

[handys003]

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)?

It still a fact whether modern or ancient. If I'm a Spaniard coming off the ship and see a llama I have no name, but I call it horse until academics or a king decides what to call it. Then it sticks. Labels are labels until society changes the definition. Bad is good good is bad now. The BoM labels animals but makes no specific distinction but in generality.

Aloha in Hawaiian was changed to accommodate Europeans which cannot understand the concept that Hawaiians had no such meaning of hello and goodbye. hawaiians had no senses of either. Aloha meant "to be with breath" or in other words alive. Europeans just changed it to satisfy it as hello and goodbye to which to ease translation the Hawaiians were willing to accommodate. Aloha is a term used in geralality in books so now it is accepted as those terms, but in reality it is not.

[Darth J]

Depends... It could or it couldn't depending on how you hold it.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and that's why the earlier assertion that the Book of Mormon "indicates" the use of horses for food---to which this whole dictionary thing is addressed---is an erroneous assertion.

[Zakuska]

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."

Or perhaps its because there were no modern words in English for curelom or cumom to be translated into. So they were left phonetically how they read on the plates. Have you ever heard the theory that they were animals similar to the rhino?

[Zakuska]

That's exactly what I'm saying, and that's why the earlier assertion that the Book of Mormon "indicates" the use of horses for food---to which this whole dictionary thing is addressed---is an erroneous assertion.

If you want to split hairs. It never explictly claims they were ridden either. Pulling carts possibly.

[ERayR]

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.

Are you naturally this obtuse or do you have to put in great effort to be so? Nobody claimed they were limited to being used as food. You must really try to work on your reading comprehension. Heck I would settle for your just working on any kind of comprehension.

[handys003]

No, if "horse" meant "horse," then the Book of Mormon says exactly what the author intended.

But as far as "my position" as to the translation process, please feel free to share a statement by any of Joseph Smith's contemporaries who said anything other than it being a word-for-word translation.

Since that's merely "my position."

No it doesn't as I explained above. The word "adieu" was used also. What the author intended was just to translate the exact word and not it's description of meaning.

[Zakuska]

It still a fact whether modern or ancient. If I'm a Spaniard coming off the ship and see a llama I have no name, but I call it horse until academics or a king decides what to call it. Then it sticks. Labels are labels until society changes the definition. Bad is good good is bad now. The BoM labels animals but makes no specific distinction but in generality.

Aloha in Hawaiian was changed to accommodate Europeans which cannot understand the concept that Hawaiians had no such meaning of hello and goodbye. hawaiians had no senses of either. Aloha meant "to be with breath" or in other words alive. Europeans just changed it to satisfy it as hello and goodbye to which to ease translation the Hawaiians were willing to accommodate. Aloha is a term used in geralality in books so now it is accepted as those terms, but in reality it is not.

Example: "Gay" doesn't mean what it used too.

In Portuguese they call them Deers or female-Bugs. That doesn't make them any less Human in Nature.

[Darth J]

It still a fact whether modern or ancient. If I'm a Spaniard coming off the ship and see a llama I have no name, but I call it horse until academics or a king decides what to call it. Then it sticks. Labels are labels until society changes the definition. Bad is good good is bad now. The BoM labels animals but makes no specific distinction but in generality.

Aloha in Hawaiian was changed to accommodate Europeans which cannot understand the concept that Hawaiians had no such meaning of hello and goodbye. hawaiians had no senses of either. Aloha meant "to be with breath" or in other words alive. Europeans just changed it to satisfy it as hello and goodbye to which to ease translation the Hawaiians were willing to accommodate. Aloha is a term used in geralality in books so now it is accepted as those terms, but in reality it is not.

Why would there need to be a loan shift for an animal that existed in both areas?

Like, say, deer, which live on every continent except Anarctica, and a person from the Middle East would have seen before?

Or are you back to horses and chariots means a tapir pulling a sled?

[ERayR]

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.

Nobody is seriously trying to prove anything to you. Nobody is as blind as one who WON"T see.

[handys003]

I'll give you another example darth. When I'm translating from Japanese to english to Hawaiian at the same time. I don't transpire intent only the exact copy of that word going through my mind with no distinction of what they mean. Only the person of that language they understand can only interpret intent.

[handys003]

deleted as double post

[handys003]

make that triple post

[ERayR]

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.

No I don't think you are naive. And that doesn't leave too many other choices.

[Darth J]

Are you naturally this obtuse or do you have to put in great effort to be so? Nobody claimed they were limited to being used as food. You must really try to work on your reading comprehension. Heck I would settle for your just working on any kind of comprehension.

cdowis, post #55:

"What may be mildly surprising is that the BOM indicates that horses were used for food, which does not seem to fit 19th century NY cousine."

[Darth J]

No I don't think you are naive. And that doesn't leave too many other choices.

You got those Nephites to show me yet?

[Darth J]

Nobody is seriously trying to prove anything to you. Nobody is as blind as one who WON"T see.

Ditto.

[Darth J]

Example: "Gay" doesn't mean what it used too.

In Portuguese they call them Deers or female-Bugs. That doesn't make them any less Human in Nature.

I see. Both English speakers and Portuguese speakers must never have seen homosexuals before, so they used loan words.

Unless it's something else, and not related to the loan word thing in the Book of Mormon.

[handys003]

No I don't think you are naive. And that doesn't leave too many other choices.

Never call a Sith lord naive?

[ERayR]

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.

While you are working on reading also work on your vocabulary. "Provisions" and "sustenance" mean precisly food.

[Nemesis]

Everyone Darth J is playing for the crowd at MDB. Why are you enabling him?

Nemesis

[ERayR]

cdowis, post #55:

"What may be mildly surprising is that the BOM indicates that horses were used for food, which does not seem to fit 19th century NY cousine."

Nowhere in that statement does it limit their use to food. Reading comprenshion skills can be learned.

[Zakuska]

Everyone Darth J is playing for the crowd at MDB. Why are you enabling him?

Nemesis

I just noticed that when I went over and read the thread at the sty.

Peace out.