Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Horses, Horses, Where are the Horses?


jskains

Recommended Posts

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

Ditto that sentiment. But it does drive the point home that for 20 year old Joseph eating of horses was out of place . English tended to rever the horse too much for that fate.

Link to comment

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

http://www.englishla...ve-sentence.asp

The declarative sentence or declaration, is the most important type. You can, and often will write entire essays or reports using only declarative sentences, and you should always use them far more often than the other four types of sentences (declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory). A declarative sentence simply states a fact or argument, states an idea, without requiring either an answer or action from the reader, it does not give a command or request, nor does it ask a question. You punctuate your declarative sentences with a simple period.

Or, to use ERayR's reasoning:

His name is John.

Nowhere in that statement is that person's name limited to John.

Link to comment

Ditto that sentiment. But it does drive the point home that for 20 year old Joseph eating of horses was out of place . English tended to rever the horse too much for that fate.

That would mean something if you had established that Joseph actually said the Nephites ate horses. Although that is one permissible reading, it is not the necessary reading.

Link to comment
The declarative sentence or declaration, is the most important type. You can, and often will write entire essays or reports using only declarative sentences, and you should always use them far more often than the other four types of sentences (declarative [1], interrogative [2], imperative [3], and exclamatory [4]). A declarative sentence simply states a fact or argument, states an idea, without requiring either an answer or action from the reader, it does not give a command or request, nor does it ask a question. You punctuate your declarative sentences with a simple period. [Emphases and count added.]

Why should I trust anyone who can't count?

Lehi

Link to comment

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."

No offence, mate, but it's only 'funny' to a person who hasn't spent much (any?) time at all working firsthand with historical texts written by those in 'contact zones.' I have on my hard drive more than 2,000 pages of transcribed 16th-century documents of this very sort along with my own translations in parallel, and they all similarly contain a bewildering mishmash of pure loanshifts where no attention is drawn to the fact that loanshifting is occuring, loanshifts which suggest in some way that loanshifting is occurring, descriptions without names, local words which are then defined, and, finally, local words used without any accompanying explanation or description whatsoever. In other words, what you've just described as a seeming inconsistency in the Book of Mormon is exactly reproduced in the historical documents with which I work.

I find it interesting when people launch an attack by asserting how things 'should be' without grounding that assertion in any kind of practical reality.

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.

I'm genuinely befuddled. What in your mind is the connection between seeing possible loanshifting in the Book of Mormon and attempts to let the internal geography of the book determine its range??? It's not like claiming horses in the Americas makes more sense if one assumes the narrative covers the entire hemisphere.

Link to comment

Just wanted to add this... I found an Online source of the Encylopedia Britanica reference on Cuvieronius and 200-400 AD.

In the suborder Mastodontoidea, the family Gomphotheriidae comprises 15 genera, including the earliest members of the order, Phiomia and <A name=459UN>Palaeomastodon. The former were the size of donkeys, but the latter were as large as a modern Asian cow elephant. In this family the skull and neck are elongated, and the teeth low crowned. The second incisors are enlarged; the upper ones are compressed and vertical, and they retain a band of enamel. In the later evolved genera, the lower pair are bent forward, depressed, and expanded into shovellike structures that do not meet the upper tusks. The canines are absent. Among this family are Cordillerion of North America and Cuvieronius of South America. The latter became extinct as recently as AD 200 to 400.

http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5003_92_272.html

Link to comment

No offence, mate, but it's only 'funny' to a person who hasn't spent much (any?) time at all working firsthand with historical texts written by those in 'contact zones.' I have on my hard drive more than 2,000 pages of transcribed 16th-century documents of this very sort along with my own translations in parallel, and they all similarly contain a bewildering mishmash of pure loanshifts where no attention is drawn to the fact that loanshifting is occuring, loanshifts which suggest in some way that loanshifting is occurring, descriptions without names, local words which are then defined, and, finally local words used without any accompanying explanation or description whatsoever. In other words, what you've just described as a seeming inconsistency in the Book of Mormon is exactly reproduced in the historical documents with which I work.

I find it interesting when people launch an attack by asserting how things 'should be' without grounding that assertion in any kind of practical reality.

I'm genuinely befuddled. What in your mind is the connection between seeing possible loanshifting in the Book of Mormon and attempts to let the internal geography of the book determine its range??? It's not like claiming horses in the Americas makes more sense if one assumes the narrative covers the entire hemisphere.

Heres another example... on my mission I spent 15 month on a certian train line that fed into the capiton city. Later I was transfered into the middle of the country... where I spent 4 months. It took me several days to be able to understand anything anyone said because the farmers used very different terms to refer to the same things. For example in the city they called socks by one word and in the country they called socks "Mittens for feet".

Link to comment

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.

Hi, Darth.

Most of these quotes don't actually force us into the paradigm you are trying to impose on them. The fact that there were no other manuscripts in the room doesn't do it, neither does the fact that the interpreters helped him to read the characters. The statement that he could see the text refers also to characters from the source text (the plates). And initially he would copy characters from the plates then use the interpreters to read the characters and provide a translation. According to some of the statements he could also see the English translation he provided in the stone. All this could either mean that he is being provided the words in English without any participation on his part (a "mechanical" process) or that he is making decisions himself, the text of which is then reflected in the stones (a "translator-controlled" process). Royal apparently leans toward your interpretation, but Bushman doesn't commit even though he considers the same quotes you have provided. Stephen Ricks (and our own Brant Gardner) consider the same evidence and see JS as being involved in the process.

A portion of Stephen Ricks' argument can be found in "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon":

1. D&C 9:7-8 records the translation process as requiring studying in the mind by the translator and a confirmation by the Holy Ghost.

2. JS made numerous changes to the target text in 1837. If it was all dictated to him without his control (e.g., proper name spelling), why did he feel he could change it? If he had input into the process (see one above), he would naturally make changes without too much concern.

3. A contemporary account (as per your request) by Reverend Diedrich Willers:

...by using these spectacles, he (Smith) would be in a position to read these ancient languages, which he had never studied and that the Holy Ghost would reveal to him the translation in the English language.

Quinn reads this as evidence for the translation process as laid out in D&C 9--one that involves the translator understanding the language and, with the help of the Holy Ghost, transferring the meaning components into English.

On another note, you linked the loan-shifting concept to LGT, which puzzles me. I don't recall them being linked. What exactly is that link?

Regards

Link to comment

2. JS made numerous changes to the target text in 1837. If it was all dictated to him without his control (e.g., proper name spelling), why did he feel he could change it? If he had input into the process (see one above), he would naturally make changes without too much concern.

And what kind of changes were made.

I think you will find most of them are punctuation, and grammatical (indicating, perhaps, that the original language was not English). Also, some were a matter of clarification, not corrections.

Your argument is based on an incorrect premise.

Link to comment

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

Nemesis

Wha....t......He is......shocker!!!!

Link to comment

Tell you what Scotie.

Do a search on Gomphotheris, or Probcidians the Elephantine world is in an uproar at the moment and they are franticly renaming and reclasifying them..

PS. Try this Google Search. There are 95 references to 400 AD and Cuvieronius.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cuvieronius+400AD&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DMUS_en

Zak, just in case you missed it on MDB

Here's what I suggest, Zak. Go back to the source you scanned and see if the author gives a reference for the 400 AD claim. That means see if the author referred to the actual dig report that contained this 400 AD bone. So far, as the poster who previously dealt with this on MAD noted, we have a date without a single primary reference, which would mean a reference to the actual finding and dating of the bones. Given the bulk of material citing a 9,000 BC extinction, without a reference to the actual find it's difficult to view this as anything more than a possible mistake.

I suspect that sdrencure is correct, and the dating was (sloppily) assumed because of dating of pottery found in the same dig. The problem is that ancient people, just like modern people, often treasured rare or unusual items and kept them as possessions. This is a known trait in Mesoamerica - if, like people today, they found fossilized or unusual bones or teeth, they'd keep them with them in their homes. That doesn't mean the bone or teeth date to the same period as the rest of the items in the house. If I buy a fossilized dinosaur bone and keep it in my house, and future archaeologists discover the bone among my home possessions, they can't assume the date of the bone is the same as the date of the other household items found with it. That's what I suspect happened in this case, which is why I would like to see the primary source - meaning the actual dig and dating.

This reminds me of the Sorenson metallurgy reference I debunked ages ago. Sorenson made the (erroneous) claim, and then multitudes of others simply repeated his claim without bothering to go to the original source. So just finding the claim repeated elsewhere does not mean it's valid. It may just mean no one's bothered to check the original source.

Link to comment

Zak, just in case you missed it on MDB

9000 BCE?

I found several sources online that listed 7000 BP . . . seems the date keeps getting closer and closer. During my lifetime the extinction date for the elephant cousins in the Americas has gone from 50,000 years BCE to the 1700s CE on Wrangel Island [pigmy mammoths] and 5000 BCE in Mexico.

Link to comment

9000 BCE?

I found several sources online that listed 7000 BP . . . seems the date keeps getting closer and closer. During my lifetime the extinction date for the elephant cousins in the Americas has gone from 50,000 years BCE to the 1700s CE on Wrangel Island [pigmy mammoths] and 5000 BCE in Mexico.

I've never seen 7000 BP. I've seen 7000 BC and 9000 BP.

Either way, it's a far cry from 400AD.

Link to comment

Zak, just in case you missed it on MDB

Scottie, I did see the post... and it's the same old recycled response that Beastie and others have been giving for ages RE: Horses and Elephants.While some of the points she brings up do have merit, they aren't the only explanaitions... Nor do they take all data into account. For example... there are several Mastadon finds that arn't so easily explained. Complete Mastadon skeletons being exacavated and a paved road and aqua ducts being found underneith them. Clearly showing human beast interaction as contemperary, and not some old bones being carried to some ones house as an "curiosity".

Link to comment

Scottie, I did see the post... and it's the same old recycled response that Beastie and others have been giving for ages RE: Horses and Elephants.While some of the points she brings up do have merit, they aren't the only explanaitions... Nor do they take all data into account.

I have to admit, Zak, that using a children's picture book to prove your point when there are SO many contradicting sources that claim an approx 8000-10000BC extinction seems a bit strained. And I think she has a point as well asking where the primary source got the information when it is at odds with all contemporary knowledge of the extinction of elephants. I don't think it's fair for you to ask us to believe this one book just because it got published, do you? There is no citation to verify the 400AD date. I'm sure this guy didn't actually do the field work, right? So without a reference to back up his claim, I can't really accept the claim when it it swimming against the Pleistocene extinction.

For example... there are several Mastadon finds that arn't so easily explained. Complete Mastadon skeletons being exacavated and a paved road and aqua ducts being found underneith them. Clearly showing human beast interaction as contemperary, and not some old bones being carried to some ones house as an "curiosity".

Interesting. Do you have a reference for these? I'd love to read the accounts.

Link to comment

I have to admit, Zak, that using a children's picture book to prove your point when there are SO many contradicting sources that claim an approx 8000-10000BC extinction seems a bit strained. And I think she has a point as well asking where the primary source got the information when it is at odds with all contemporary knowledge of the extinction of elephants. I don't think it's fair for you to ask us to believe this one book just because it got published, do you? There is no citation to verify the 400AD date. I'm sure this guy didn't actually do the field work, right? So without a reference to back up his claim, I can't really accept the claim when it it swimming against the Pleistocene extinction.

Interesting. Do you have a reference for these? I'd love to read the accounts.

One book?

I've given you 2 sources. A "childrens" picture book and the Encyclopedia britanica. Glad to know the British Museum of Natural history is in the business of spreading mis-information.

Link to comment

I've never seen 7000 BP. I've seen 7000 BC and 9000 BP.

Either way, it's a far cry from 400AD.

Which is only a problem if you are a young earth and a ca. 2200 BCE believer for the Jaredite exodus . . .

Link to comment

Which is only a problem if you are a young earth and a ca. 2200 BCE believer for the Jaredite exodus . . .

This is where the debate is.... there are several unpublished Mastadon/elephant finds that carbon date to well within BOM finds. Because these data points don't follow the "group think" norm the establishment discards them as errors. And thus the material is never published.

Try this one on for size...

29% (14/48) of mammoth sites radiocarbon dating under 15000 BP had human interaction evidence.

Larry D. Agenbroad,

Link to comment

One book?

I've given you 2 sources. A "childrens" picture book and the Encyclopedia britanica. Glad to know the British Museum of Natural history is in the business of spreading mis-information.

You're right. I forgot about EB. However, two books among dozens still doesn't make a compelling case.

EB needs to provide a reference for the primary source as well. For all we know, they got it from the same source that the children's book did... which could be completely wrong.

Link to comment

This is where the debate is.... there are several unpublished Mastadon/elephant finds that carbon date to well within BOM finds. Because these data points don't follow the "group think" norm the establishment discards them as errors. And thus the material is never published.

Try this one on for size...

29% (14/48) of mammoth sites radiocarbon dating under 15000 BP had human interaction evidence.

Why is human interaction a problem for a 8000bc-10000bc extinction? Humans lived back then.

Link to comment

Why is human interaction a problem for a 8000bc-10000bc extinction? Humans lived back then.

Yes they did. But the establisment thought at the time was a single event wiped them all out at 10000bc. Since that time we find human interaction with the beasts and each new find creeps the date forward.

Did you know that 6% of all United state probicidean finds that have been carbon dated (96% havent even been carbon dated) date before 8000 bc and show human contemporaries. The establishment still rejects these as error because they don't follow the group think norm of 10000 bc.

Link to comment

Yes they did. But the establisment thought at the time was a single event wiped them all out at 10000bc. Since that time we find human interaction with the beasts and each new find creeps the date forward.

Did you know that 6% of all United state probicidean finds that have been carbon dated (96% havent even been carbon dated) date before 8000 bc and show human contemporaries. The establishment still rejects these as error because they don't follow the group think norm of 10000 bc.

Yes, I read somewhere that there are some new theories stating that the extinction of the large animals may have been caused by over-hunting rather than a cataclysmic geological event.

Still doesn't help the 400AD case.

Link to comment

Yes, I read somewhere that there are some new theories stating that the extinction of the large animals may have been caused by over-hunting rather than a cataclysmic geological event.

Still doesn't help the 400AD case.

Not directly... however they do show that the modern thoery that America was under a mile high sheet of ice during this time is wrong as well since some of the finds and locales date to the time that America was supposedly covered by ice.

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...