Ariarates Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Let us agree there were no wheeled vehicles (other than toys) in Meso-America during BoM times. AgreeLet us agree the only time chariots appear in the BoM is Alma 18, 90 BC (other than Isaiah quotes) AgreeLet us agree that other than 1 Isaiah quote, wheels are never mentioned. AgreeLet us suppose the Lehites did not bring wheels with them from Jerusalem. Disagree. Why would you think that?Let us suppose the Lehites did not bring chariots with them from Jerusalem. Disagree. Why would you think that?Let us stipulate that any Lehite information about the Old World came from the Brass Plates. Disagree. The Lehites themselves may have remembered a thing or two.Now some interesting questions can be asked.1. Were there drawings of chariots and wheels in the Brass Plates? Or, how likely is it that brass plates even existed at that time?2. Were there explicit descriptions of the construction of chariots and wheels in the Brass Plates? How could we know?3. After the original colonists died off, when Lehites read about wheels and chariots, what did they picture in their minds? Were they taught to read those plates? I thought Nephi had his reservations about that (which makes you wonder why he offed his uncle in the first place).4. How did the Lehites perpetuate the knowledge of wheels and the construction of chariots? How could we know?5. When King Lamoni had his chariot built, what did he pattern it after? How could we know?6. When Mormon used the word chariot in that story, what was he describing? A llamaburger?7. Did it have wheels? Of course not, it was jet-powered and had wings.8. How do we know? Like I said...9. Why do we assume Lamoni's chariot conforms with our modern stereotype of a chariot? Because the BoM is supposed to be the most correct book on earth translated by the power of God, preserved at great expense for our day. Why be coy about the details?10. Since horses and chariots are never mentioned in Lehite warfare, why are Nephite soldiers portrayed in LDS art as chariot riders ala Cecil B. DeMille? Because, given the extreme advantages of cavalry, you'd be a fool not to use them in warfare if you had them. Since the BoM mentions them, it is only natural to assume that they were used.My answers may differ with yours:1. No.2. No.3. They had no clue.4. They didn't.5. Something else.6. Who knows?7. No.8. From the answers to questions 1-5.9. Good question.10. Makes for a good story, even though it is inaccurate.My conclusion (yours may differ):Lamoni's chariot was something other than our modern stereotype. It probably did not have wheels.The Lehites did not have wheeled vehicles.BernardHere's my take: the BoM mentions horses and chariots because it's a nineteenth-century production. How easy is that? Fits the facts and is entirely plausible, wouldn't you say so? Well, probably not. You probably think golden plates and Reformed Egyptian and seer stones in a hat are more plausible. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Ariarates:http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Here's my take: the BoM mentions horses and chariots because it's a nineteenth-century production. How easy is that? Fits the facts and is entirely plausible, wouldn't you say so? Well, probably not. You probably think golden plates and Reformed Egyptian and seer stones in a hat are more plausible.I don't think it is plausible to say what you did. It is only possible. You have not shown plausiblity. If the BoM is not claimed what it is then you must present a differnt theory that works.What is your theory? That JS wrote it by himslef? Well this one fails out of the gate as there is to much in the BoM that is true and points to antiquity that he simply did not know. So you need to explain how they ended up there. In 500+ book I can say that he might get one or 2 things right out of luck, but when multiple hits start to happen you need to explain them. Such as "He had help from some one else" If that is the case then who helped him. This should be fun to see were this goes. Were is Professor Hamblin? Link to comment
Ariarates Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I don't think it is plausible to say what you did. It is only possible. You have not shown plausiblity.Are you serious? How is it not plausible that a book published in 1830 is a 19th-century production? How would that be less plausible than the story of the golden plates?If the BoM is not claimed what it is then you must present a differnt theory that works.Shifting the burden of proof a bit there, aren't you? Well, in order to stay on topic, I offer king Lamoni's horses and chariots. Let me repeat myself one more time: THERE WERE NO ANIMAL-DRAWN WHEELED VEHICLES IN THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS.What is your theory? That JS wrote it by himslef? Well this one fails out of the gate as there is to much in the BoM that is true and points to antiquity that he simply did not know. So you need to explain how they ended up there. In 500+ book I can say that he might get one or 2 things right out of luck, but when multiple hits start to happen you need to explain them. Such as "He had help from some one else" If that is the case then who helped him. I have no theory. My only contention is that the BoM is not literal history. It contradicts everything that is currently known about the history of the Americas. You have to ignore the complete body of current scientific knowledge AND believe in ancient golden plates, Reformed Egyptian, Near-Eastern people crossing the ocean in small boats with elephants on them, seer stones, etc. in order to believe that the BoM is literal history. Link to comment
Ariarates Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Ariarates:http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtmlLooks like an impressive collection of strawmen, at least pertaining to my position which is not so much that there is no evidence for BoM historicity but that the hypothesis of BoM historicity contradicts everything that is generally known and accepted about the history of the American continent.Let's say BoM historicity is your hypothesis. You then go and try to disprove the hypothesis by finding facts that contradict it. There are libraries full of those facts. Horses and chariots are just two of them. The apologists have all but admitted as much, by claiming that BoM horses aren't really horses and BoM chariots aren't really chariots. Why do they do that? Because the facts contradict their hypothesis but they are unwilling to draw the logical and intellectually honest conclusion. Link to comment
handys003 Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I agree but that does not prove that entire societies were deprived of wheeled transportation because some people are sadists. With an equally undocumented appeal to "the historical context" I could surmise that most "masters" prefer their servants/slaves to do their jobs quickly and efficiently instead of making it extra difficult for them because it is so much fun to see them suffer.I don't dispute the existence and use of litters in societies with wheeled transportation. I dispute the existence of wheeled transportation in the pre-Columbian Americas and I dispute that their use of litters precluded them from developing wheeled transportation. These two modes of transport are nowhere near comparable or interchangeable in terms of efficiency and practical application. It's ridiculous to assume that a society, if given the choice, would prefer litters over wheeled transportation. But they didn't have a choice because they either had no wheels (as in the Andes) or no suitable draft animals (as is Mesoamerica).Thanks for the reminder. In pre-Columbian times, llamas/alpacas were domesticated in the Andes but not in Mesoamerica. The wheel was known in Mesoamerica but not in the Andes. You see the problem there?I realize that I keep repeating myself but that's the way it is, at least according to the current body of knowledge about the history of the American continent. Ammon and his buddies preparing the king's horses and chariots just doesn't square with anything we know about that time and place (whatever place you choose as the BoM setting).Okay I see where you going. I'm just giving supposition on possibilities why such carts are not prevalent. My personal opinion as I've seen with some civilizations it that some place more important emphasis in construction than in other areas.The whim of a chief can cause an entire tribe to refocus in some areas and completely ignore others. A prime example was the people of Rapa Nui. So focused was the Ali'i class on building the stone sculptures to appease the gods. particularly the great white god on a white canoe. They used practically the entire island population to construct and transport the sculptures. They practically chopped down every tree, and neglected taro and ulu, etc... for food. This eventually led to civil war and destruction of the past Ali'i and priest class. They all nearly died out. They could also no longer build canoes to go out and get the larger fish. They had to barely survive on the reef fish and nearly wiped that out. They also died from lack of vitamins from the loss of the islands natural grown food. The same can occur with the S. American people. Basically it all depends on how the ruling class thinks what is important and what is not. I also have to state IMO that vast empires such as those that build pyramids etc... had to have roads, wheels and domesticated animals, and a writing system with math also. Building an expansion of such large and advanced empires is historicaly proved time and time again. This does not matter what continent of geographical area. Link to comment
ERayR Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Shifting the burden of proof a bit there, aren't you? Well, in order to stay on topic, I offer king Lamoni's horses and chariots. Let me repeat myself one more time: THERE WERE NO ANIMAL-DRAWN WHEELED VEHICLES IN THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS.I have no theory. My only contention is that the BoM is not literal history. It contradicts everything that is currently known about the history of the Americas. You have to ignore the complete body of current scientific knowledge AND believe in ancient golden plates, Reformed Egyptian, Near-Eastern people crossing the ocean in small boats with elephants on them, seer stones, etc. in order to believe that the BoM is literal history.THERE WERE NO ANIMAL-DRAWN WHEELED VEHICLES IN THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS.You (do not)have to ignore the complete body of current scientific knowledge AND TO believe in ancient golden plates, Reformed Egyptian, Near-Eastern people crossing the ocean in small boats with elephants on them, seer stones, etc. in order to believe that the BoM is literal history. Link to comment
handys003 Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Also to note as ERayR made me aware. It is factual that there were several different immigrations to the Americas via sailing centuries before Columbus. It is substantiated by the Smithsonian. Such s Polynesians in 700 AD, Jumon Culture 2000 BCE, Vikings in 1000 AD. Chinese and the Turks as well. You should have watched the History channel detailing such events with evidence. It was just on this past Wednesday night again. You can buy the DVD or wait until it's repeated on the channel again. http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=263787&v=history&ecid=PRF-2103364&pa=PRF-2103364 Link to comment
handys003 Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 BTW IMO Columbus Day needs to die. Link to comment
ERayR Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 BTW IMO Columbus Day needs to die.Or perhaps redirected as the day the Lombards came home (as nothagoth7 has suggested). Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Ariarates:I've already demonstrated that the popular understanding of our word "chariot" has different meanings in different relevant languages. I've already demonstrated that a means of conveyance need not include draft animals, but can include everything from dogs to humans. It is you that is grasping at straws to argue against the plausibility of the Lehites. Link to comment
sunstoned Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Ariarates:I've already demonstrated that the popular understanding of our word "chariot" has different meanings in different relevant languages. I've already demonstrated that a means of conveyance need not include draft animals, but can include everything from dogs to humans. It is you that is grasping at straws to argue against the plausibility of the Lehites.You are correct that someone is grasping at straws. Ammon, horses and chariots. They are all mentioned together in the same set of verses. A horse is a draft animal. How can anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity can read in Alma that Ammon was "preparing" King Lamoni's "horses and chariots" to conduct him to the land of Nephi (Alma 18:9-12) and not come away with the picture of horses drawing chariots carrying King Lamoni. Link to comment
Bernard Gui Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Here's my take: the BoM mentions horses and chariots because it's a nineteenth-century production. How easy is that? Fits the facts and is entirely plausible, wouldn't you say so? Well, probably not. You probably think golden plates and Reformed Egyptian and seer stones in a hat are more plausible.Blblbllbrrring. Thank you for playing.Bernard Link to comment
Ariarates Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I've already demonstrated that the popular understanding of our word "chariot" has different meanings in different relevant languages.I won't go into the relevance of the languages you mentioned since the BoM is allegedly written in a language "that none other people knoweth", for which reason "he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof" (as per Mormon himself).However, assuming that all these different meanings are somehow relevant to the BoM, you now only need to explain why knowledge of several different ancient languages is required to get the meaning of even the simplest verses in the BoM. I can understand how such knowledge could enhance a person's appreciation of, say, biblical poetry, but to require such knowledge to interpret simple statements like "Ammon prepared the king's horses and chariots" to really mean something else is just plain sophistry. Link to comment
Ariarates Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Also to note as ERayR made me aware. It is factual that there were several different immigrations to the Americas via sailing centuries before Columbus. It is substantiated by the Smithsonian. Such s Polynesians in 700 AD, Jumon Culture 2000 BCE, Vikings in 1000 AD. Chinese and the Turks as well. You should have watched the History channel detailing such events with evidence. It was just on this past Wednesday night again. Anything about horse-drawn chariots in that show?You bring up a bunch of examples thousands of years and miles apart. What's your point? What's the BoM connection? And most importantly, how is any of this relevant to the discussion at hand? Were we talking about the various migrations into the Americas? Must have missed it. Link to comment
handys003 Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 It implies that just because you don't find an exact replica uncovered of a chariot doesn't mean they didn't exist back then. It was taught as fact that no other discoverers came to the Americas by sea than Columbus in the 60's when I was in school. It was then changed that Vikings did come in the 70's. However based on a relatives finding I asserted that Polynesians may have landed before any of them in class one day. I was punished for such. However now today there is even more strong proof of such connection. It's relevant to the discussion as there is evidence of wheel and even today when you go to Peru you will see Llamas and Alpacas used as draft animals pulling all shapes of carts for transport. If they were in S. America you can bet that natives further north in Meso America used the same. Like I said before. Empires were not built by man alone. Use of draft animals especially to build such large temples etc.. were a necessity of invention. An inherent fact. You don't need to find a draft horse buried with a chariot to make a sound conclusion.Stonehenge was not built by men alone. They used horse and oxen. The pyramids of Egypt were not built by men alone. They used horse, oxen, and possibly elephants just like the Hindus and the Khmer's in SE Asia such as Angor Wat. Animals have and always will be part of human expansion in civilizations. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Ariarates:The differences is in established languages. we get our term "chariot" though the Latin by way of Gaul. If there was an ancient Hebrew form of that word the Nephites probably used that modified to their own needs. As to the subject of languages; they are being modified/reformed all the time, and some get forgotten as the last of their speakers die out. Check out Link to comment
Nathair/|\ Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Ariarates:The differences is in established languages. we get our term "chariot" though the Latin by way of Gaul. If there was an ancient Hebrew form of that word the Nephites probably used that modified to their own needs. As to the subject of languages; they are being modified/reformed all the time, and some get forgotten as the last of their speakers die out. Check out There are approximately 6000 languages spoken in the world today. About half of them are expected to be extinct by 2050. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 There are approximately 6000 languages spoken in the world today. About half of them are expected to be extinct by 2050.English is already extinct in the U.S. Glenn Link to comment
ERayR Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Ariarates:The Mesoamericans obviously knew about wheels. Climate unfortunately is not good to the wooden kind. But who knows what the next excavation will turn up.Nor iron ones either. Link to comment
Ariarates Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 My personal opinion as I've seen with some civilizations it that some place more important emphasis in construction than in other areas. True, but in the longer term, the societies rejecting some advantageous technology (regardless of the reason, it could indeed be Link to comment
Ariarates Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 It implies that just because you don't find an exact replica uncovered of a chariot doesn't mean they didn't exist back then.This seems to be the BoM apologist Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 This seems to be the BoM apologist Link to comment
Ariarates Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 Until more solid evidence is found, that is all anyone has. Likelihood or plausibility is another thing that can be turned around also. The evidence does not argue against the likelihood that wheeled chariots and other wheeled vehicles did not exist before the arrival of the Europeans. However, as has been noted on other threads, the existence of horses in Mesoamerica in precolumbian times is not the emphatic no that it was once though to be.It only looks plausible if you look at things in isolation. When the Spanish conquered the Americas, mere dozens to hundreds of soldiers with steel weapons, decent armour and horses regularly defeated armies of tens of thousands of native Americans. The advantages of horses in battle are such that it is extremely unlikely that a Mesoamerican society could have had horses without coming to dominate the entire continent. There will always be people who claim things that run against conventional wisdom. Such claims are rarely substantiated and if they are, they turn conventional wisdom completely on its head. That hasn't happened re. horses in America.The existence of horses in Mesoamerica between the last ice age and Columbus is still an emphatic no.The fact alone that wheeled toys have been found in Mesoamerica demonstrates that the principle was known. What is more plausible here? That the builders of the great Mesoamerican structures knew of the wheel as applied to toys but failed to grasp its significance for construction and portage, or that they did know, but the materials that were available for the construction of larger, useful wheels deteriorated into oblivion in the hostile environment?The principle was known in Mesoamerica but couldn't be applied because of a lack of draft animals.I do not know if the evidence will be forthcoming. It will take some strong evidence to convince skeptics. But I would not bet against such evidence being found. Look how long it took archeologists to find evidence for the Etruscan and Hittite cultures. That area of the world has been pored over by archeologists much much longer than the Mesoamerican field.It's certainly possible but very unlikely - not because of "the horse" or "the wheel" per se but because of all those thousands of other things we know about the history of the Americas that would have to be revised and the accompanying evidence reinterpreted. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.