Tapirs As Horses

[cdowis]

In my experience -- I haven't yet encountered an exception to the rule -- those who cackle the loudest about the suggestion that Nephites might have called tapirs "horses" have been those who failed to fully grasp the point, which is actually pretty sophisticated and quite justifiable in terms of historical linguistics and anthropology.

OK, so I am not very sophisticated. You mention the evidence from linguistics and anthropology, but how about the real world.

Here are a few questions:

1. Can tapirs be domesticated? According to wiki, they are relative acquatic animals, similar, perhaps, to hipps. How well do they do in a domesticated enviromnet. Amon tended the king's tapris, so exactly what was he doing? Did the tapirs cooperate while he was tending them.

2. Can they actually pull a load -- a wagon, a chariot with a person. Has anyone tried it. Is there any evidence that the mayas, aztecs ever attempted it. I read that they average three feet tall.

3. Are they edible? The BOM makes it clear that horses were used for food, so how about tapirs? Have the mayans, aztecs used them for food. I read that they have a tough skin.

These are questions from this unsophisticated lout who disagrees with the tapir theory. I saw nothing in wiki that gives any answers to these questions.

Edited August 21, 2011 by cdowis

[bluebell]

I could be reading Dr. Peterson way wrong, but his statement above reads, to me, as if he's talking about the translation process which occurs when one language is translated into another, rather than the arguement for tapirs, when he talks about people who have failed to grasp the point of the tapir argument.

[Questing Beast]

You really believe that "God" would get this wrong? Horses, the really big kind coexisting with humans during our entire recorded history, are specifically known animals the world over. Joseph Smith made sure that his scribe of the moment got what he saw as text right before moving on. There is no conceivable way that "God" would allow tapirs or llamas or hippos or curloms and cumoms to be translated as HORSES. That's what translation is: turning words and concepts from one language into their equivalents in another language. You might as well assert that "king" Lamoni was really "President" Lamoni. The concepts are not the same in our language. And neither are jumped up animal substitutes for horses. Either that, or "God" has a viciously sophomoric sense of humor....

[cdowis]

You really believe that "God" would get this wrong? Horses, the really big kind coexisting with humans during our entire recorded history, are specifically known animals the world over. Joseph Smith made sure that his scribe of the moment got what he saw as text right before moving on. There is no conceivable way that "God" would allow tapirs or llamas or hippos or curloms and cumoms to be translated as HORSES.

I find the idea that Lamoni was riding to a distant village on a chariot pulled by tapirs..... I just don't see it. It is an unnecessary distraction.

Hopefully Dan will set is straight that this is indeed possible in the real world, rather than some academic, mental exercise. It's killing us, and he appears sympathetic to that theory.

Edited August 21, 2011 by cdowis

[Xander]

In my experience -- I haven't yet encountered an exception to the rule -- those who cackle the loudest about the suggestion that Nephites might have called tapirs "horses" have been those who failed to fully grasp the point, which is actually pretty sophisticated and quite justifiable in terms of historical linguistics and anthropology.

Except, as we have been reminded lately, Joseph Smith was no engaged in an academic translation. Nothing he did can be compared to "historical linguistics and anthropology."

He purported to translate Reformed Egyptian into English. Period. If the Reformed Egyptian Text mentioned tapirs, the apologetic logic goes like this: Since Joseph Smith didn't know what the English equivalent was for that animal, he used the closest thing, which in this case was horse.

But this doesn't fly, for the simple reason that the Book of Mormon includes all sorts of words that have no exact translation in English. For example, the Liahona. Why not translate it as compass, which would make better sense in English? "Liahona" has no English significance whatsoever, but he translated it exactly as it was called by the early Nephites. Likewise, if these tapirs were called "zing-zings" in their ancient tongue, then Joseph Smith would have simply translated it as zing-zing. It wouldn't really matter if English readers knew precisely what animal was being referenced.

The apologetic line of reasoning here is ad hoc, in light of so many clear anachronisms.

There is simply no reason to believe Joseph Smith wanted to come up with an English equivalent of every single word. Sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't, but that is consistent with someone who has no real system, but is making it up as he goes. It is unreasonable to insist he would use an English word like horse if the animal in question wasn't really a horse. To what purpose would that serve?

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xander

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Kevin,

]He purported to translate Reformed Egyptian into English. Period. If the Reformed Egyptian Text mentioned tapirs, the apologetic logic goes like this: ]Since Joseph Smith didn't know what the English equivalent was for that animal, he used the closest thing, which in this case was horse... There is simply no reason to believe Joseph Smith wanted to come up with an English equivalent of every single word. Sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't, but that is consistent with someone who has no real system, but is making it up as he goes. It is unreasonable to insist he would use an English word like horse if the animal in question wasn't really a horse. To what purpose would that serve?

You raise a good point, but I don't believe that your summary of "the apologetic logic" correctly reflects Dan's perspective. As I understand the logic, it's not that Joseph didn't know the English word tapir (though he probably didn't), it's that the Nephites may have used the word "horse" for tapir, etc. in the same way that the Greeks used the word "horse" for hippopotamus.

So according to the theory, the word "horse" appears in the original plate text as a reference to a variety of animal species.

[David Bokovoy]

You really believe that "God" would get this wrong? Horses, the really big kind coexisting with humans during our entire recorded history, are specifically known animals the world over. Joseph Smith made sure that his scribe of the moment got what he saw as text right before moving on. There is no conceivable way that "God" would allow tapirs or llamas or hippos or curloms and cumoms to be translated as HORSES. That's what translation is: turning words and concepts from one language into their equivalents in another language. You might as well assert that "king" Lamoni was really "President" Lamoni. The concepts are not the same in our language. And neither are jumped up animal substitutes for horses. Either that, or "God" has a viciously sophomoric sense of humor....

See my post to Kevin.

[David Bokovoy]

OK, so I am not very sophisticated. You mention the evidence from linguistics and anthropology, but how about the real world.

Here are a few questions:

1. Can tapirs be domesticated? According to wiki, they are relative acquatic animals, similar, perhaps, to hipps. How well do they do in a domesticated enviromnet. Amon tended the king's tapris, so exactly what was he doing? Did the tapirs cooperate while he was tending them.

2. Can they actually pull a load -- a wagon, a chariot with a person. Has anyone tried it. Is there any evidence that the mayas, aztecs ever attempted it. I read that they average three feet tall.

3. Are they edible? The BOM makes it clear that horses were used for food, so how about tapirs? Have the mayans, aztecs used them for food. I read that they have a tough skin.

These are questions from this unsophisticated lout who disagrees with the tapir theory. I saw nothing in wiki that gives any answers to these questions.

See Ibid.

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

It is "reformed Egyptian", it is a adjection not a noun.

Further some species of Tapirs are quite big and fully capable of supporting a riding man, or pulling a cart. I'm not saying that is what the Lehites did. I believe that Joseph had no word for the symble of whatever the animal was in reformed Egyptian. So he did the best he could.

Ps. At 600 LBS that's plenty big enough.

http://www.southwild.com/wildlife.html

Edited August 21, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Daniel Peterson]

You really believe that "God" would get this wrong?

No, I don't.

As I've said, those who laugh loudest at the idea that the Nephites might have referred to tapirs as horses have always, in my experience, been those who didn't grasp the actual argument.

As I've also said, the tapir/horse link is not mine. I didn't originate it, and I haven't gone out of my way to advocate it. The longest statement I've ever published on the topic occurs in this article, co-authored with the unspeakably evil Matt Roper (generally known, since the mass riot he and his wicked cronies deliberately caused at the Bushman/Givens seminar on Thursday, as "The Hoarse Whisperer").

[David Bokovoy]

No, I don't.

As I've said, those who laugh loudest at the idea that the Nephites might have referred to tapirs as horses have always, in my experience, been those who didn't grasp the actual argument.

As I've also said, the tapir/horse link is not mine. I didn't originate it, and I haven't gone out of my way to advocate it. The longest statement I've ever published on the topic occurs in this article, co-authored with the unspeakably evil Matt Roper (generally known, since the mass riot he and his wicked cronies deliberately caused at the Bushman/Givens seminar on Thursday, as "The Hoarse Whisperer").

Indeed, if only someone could have managed to subdue the riot, yet alas, as everyone knows, when it comes to Matt Roper, Wild Hearts Can't be Broken.

[Jeff K.]

3. Are they edible? The BOM makes it clear that horses were used for food, so how about tapirs? Have the mayans, aztecs used them for food. I read that they have a tough skin.

Hunting and mineral mining plans present new threats!

The Mountain Tapir has always been prey to food and game hunting. And now, there are plans to begin mining their mountains for minerals, further destroying the homes of Mountain Tapirs. Because Mountain Tapirs continue to vanish even today, increased measures must be taken to expand the protected area. Otherwise, they will become extinct in the very near future.

Our endangered animals list

[Xander]

You raise a good point, but I don't believe that your summary of "the apologetic logic" correctly reflects Dan's perspective. As I understand the logic, it's not that Joseph didn't know the English word tapir (though he probably didn't), it's that the Nephites may have used the word "horse" for tapir, etc. in the same way that the Greeks used the word "horse" for hippopotamus.

Well, first of all, even the Greeks distinguished between the two. One was simply a horse and the other a "river horse." So I don't think this is a good example, although it is a popular one in LDS lit. Secondly, there is no evidence that they had a generic word that referred to multiple animals and there is really no reason to think they did - assuming, for the sake of argument that a Nephite civilization actually existed. But if they did, Joseph Smith could have simply translated it "animal," but he felt the need to be specific.

It is "reformed Egyptian", it is a adjection not a noun.

So?

Further some species of Tapirs are quite big and fully capable of supporting a riding man, or pulling a cart.

But a chariot?

• Lamoni commands servants to prepare horses and chariots, Alma 18:9 (Alma 20:6).
• Ammon prepares Lamoni’s chariots, Alma 18:10, 12
• Nephites gather with horses and chariots, 3 Ne. 3:22
• the Father will destroy chariots of Gentiles, 3 Ne. 21:14 (Micah 5:10).

See, now we have to come up with some explanation as to why chariot doesn't really mean chariot. Do you see a trend here? The apologetic method is to take a reductionist approach and reduce it to the "domestication" of an animal. But that's clearly an understatement of what the Book of Mormon describes. It isn't enough to say Tapirs could be used to pull carts, therefore this must have been the animal Nephi and Alma had in mind when using a "generic" word for multiple animals which Joseph Smith for some reason chose to translate "horse." The argument is pretty convoluted if you think about it, and relies on so many "ifs" and "maybes" that it really makes the whole thing implausible

I believe that Joseph had no word for the symble of whatever the animal was in reformed Egyptian. So he did the best he could.

Why didn't he just translate it phonetically like he did Liahona and his plethora of proper nouns that didn't get an English equivalent (i.e. Joseph, Benjamin, Jacob, etc)?

[Loran Blood]

Well, first of all, even the Greeks distinguished between the two. One was simply a horse and the other a "river horse." So I don't think this is a good example, although it is a popular one in LDS lit. Secondly, there is no evidence that they had a generic word that referred to multiple animals and there is really no reason to think they did - assuming, for the sake of argument that a Nephite civilization actually existed. But if they did, Joseph Smith could have simply translated it "animal," but he felt the need to be specific.

Let's see: Kevin doesn't believe that Nephite civilization ever existed. "Reformed Egyptian," is both an unknown language and, following the first assumption, never existed. Yet, Kevin makes the claim that "there is no evidence that they (the civilization that never existed) had a generic word (in a dead and unknown language) that referred to multiple animals..." One must wonder upon what basis Kevin can claim a lack of evidence for the linguistic structure of a language that does not exist that was spoken by a people who never existed and, even if they had existed, have left us no known archeological or linguistic remains (there are a number of as yet unknown and untranslatable language systems in Mesoamerica, but whether they are remnants of "Nephite" civilization has yet to be seen)

One would think that making positive claims to knowledge about nonexistent things (Joseph claimed to have translated Nephite language through revelatory means, not to have understood the original language itself) for which there is, by definition, no positive knowledge regarding (including the dynamics and structure of an unknown language) would place such an arguer in a rather difficult position, logically and evidentially speaking.

I don't know, in other words, how there could be evidence or lack of evidence regarding the capabilities/limitations of ancient Nephite language at all. Xander's oracular insight is always welcome, of course, in these cases.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

It isn't enough to say Tapirs could be used to pull carts, therefore this must have been the animal Nephi and Alma had in mind when using a "generic" word for multiple animals which Joseph Smith for some reason chose to translate "horse." The argument is pretty convoluted if you think about it, and relies on so many "ifs" and "maybes" that it really makes the whole thing implausible

David is making a parsimonious and serious attempt at plausible conceptualizations of the animal name problem here from a faithful LDS perspective, but all you're doing is dismissing him with a wave of your hand, as is the usual case. Keep the bolded portion of your own text in mind here because you should be reminded that you have accumulated years of anti-Mormon polemic under you belt constructed primarily of inferential "ifs" and "maybes" expressed with airs of confident certainty and smarmy dismissals of your interlocutors. Indeed, the entire text critical argument against the BofA has been, despite its complexity, to a great extent a body of "ifs" and "maybes" inflated into water tight certainties.

Try approaching an argument as a scholar or philosopher, instead of a muckraking polemicist, and see if the dialog is not much more stimulating and productive. Argue from point to counterpoint to next point, instead of making wild leaps of logic and conjecture from your own assumptions, while sailing over important evidential details.

I think the ride with you in these forums would be a great deal less bumpy.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Loran Blood

[cdowis]

But a chariot?

snip

See, now we have to come up with some explanation as to why chariot doesn't really mean chariot.

Look up "chariot" in wiki. It is not a matter of apologetics, but your education. Note that ox cart is characterized as an early chariot, and that the war chariot, the "Ben Hur"style, is only one of several designs. It was also used for general transportation and not this "Ben Hur" chariot that we are so familiar from the movies.

Do you see a trend here? The apologetic method is to take a reductionist approach and reduce it to the "domestication" of an animal. But that's clearly an understatement of what the Book of Mormon describes. It isn't enough to say Tapirs could be used to pull carts, therefore this must have been the animal Nephi and Alma had in mind when using a "generic" word for multiple animals which Joseph Smith for some reason chose to translate "horse." The argument is pretty convoluted if you think about it, and relies on so many "ifs" and "maybes" that it really makes the whole thing implausible

Please do not throw all apologetics into the same bucket. There are those who may disagree with the tapir=horse. The purpose of this thread is to address practical issues with this issue.

Can a tapir be domesticated to the point that it would be practical to use it as a beast of burden, pulling a cart/chariot, for example.

Now you have brought up the translation issue. The tapir's "closest relatives are the other odd-toed ungulates, including horses and rhinoceroses(wiki)". So the translation is not so far afield, similar to elephant==mammoth in the book of Ether.

Where there is not such close relationship, such as the llama, it is left in the original language. The natives themselves used their word for tapir when they saw horses. (Of course, JS already knew that, and wanted to confuse us with his translation.

[Nathair/|\]

Since chariots were brought up:

[Xander]

OK cdowis, let's test your theory about the wiki.

The wiki provides numerous contexts in which the word chariot has been used in different periods and civilizations. The best parallel to the Book of Mormon would probably be the context for which it is used in the Bible, in which case the wiki explains: "Chariots are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, particularly by the prophets, as instruments of war or as symbols of power or glory." Given that Joseph Smith used the Bible to a significant degree when translating the Book of Mormon, there should be no doubt that it is within this context that the term is understood. They were property of the King to signify his power and authority and were also used for military purposes.

3 Nephi 3:22 uses the word chariot in the context of "defend themselves against their enemies."

Alma 18:12 says the horses and chariots were prepared for the King. I guess you want us to believe the King liked to go plow the fields?

3 Nephi 21:14 says God threatens to destroy their "strongholds" along with their "chariots." This is clearly within a military context.

You see, it isn't enough for you to say a word was sometimes used in different cultures to refer to a sled or a plowing device. This is what apologists don't understand about most of their arguments. They think if they can muster some other sense of a word that has been used during some point in time between Adam and yesterday, covering geographical areas anywhere between the North and South Poles, then this somehow provides them with a "plausible" apologetic explanation: "see that must have been what Joseph Smith meant!" But that isn't plausibility. That is barely possibility. The only reason to even entertain this possibility is apologetic necessity. Even if we assume the Nephites existed and Joseph Smith provided a translation of the most correct book on earth, there is absolutely no reason to believe he referred to chariots as anything other than what the context of his story suggests.

The same kind of subterfuge is used with the "translation" doesn't really mean "translation" argument. But within the contexts of translating documents, translation always means the same thing. The context is what we need to determine how the term should be understood.

So no, the problem isn't my education. My education is actually your problem.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

David is making a parsimonious and serious attempt at plausible conceptualizations of the animal name problem here from a faithful LDS perspective, but all you're doing is dismissing him with a wave of your hand, as is the usual case. Keep the bolded portion of your own text in mind here because you should be reminded that you have accumulated years of anti-Mormon polemic under you belt constructed primarily of inferential "ifs" and "maybes" expressed with airs of confident certainty and smarmy dismissals of your interlocutors. Indeed, the entire text critical argument against the BofA has been, despite its complexity, to a great extent a body of "ifs" and "maybes" inflated into water tight certainties.

Try approaching an argument as a scholar or philosopher, instead of a muckraking polemicist, and see if the dialog is not much more stimulating and productive. Argue from point to counterpoint to next point, instead of making wild leaps of logic and conjecture from your own assumptions, while sailing over important evidential details.

I think the ride with you in these forums would be a great deal less bumpy.

I'll leave it to David to complain if I have done anything you have just described. I'm inclined to think not. I think he knows I did far more than "hand wave" a dismissal. I provided more information with respect to the "River" Horse of ancient Greece, for example. I also pointed out that there is simply no reason aside from apologetic to even entertain these wild possibilities. Calling it "plausible" doesn't make it so, and it really doesn't matter if you're coming from a "faithful LDS perspective" or not.

Again, in order for this not to be a problem for the Book of Mormon, we have to assume a wide variety of likely premises. This in and of itself makes the apologetic position weak. But it is what it is. As cinepro recently pointed out, refuting apologetic arguments is like playing the game whack-a-mole. There is never a time when someone isn't constantly throwing up a technical possibility while referring to it as "plausible."

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

Horses have been used for food for thousands of years. It is entirely possible that in the BoM context the horses were used as food for their armies.

[Brant Gardner]

3 Nephi 3:22 uses the word chariot in the context of "defend themselves against their enemies."

Imaginative reading. It is hard not to see this as a gathering of goods/scorched earth policy. I was certainly defensive, but the chariots got out of the way rather than participate in it.

Alma 18:12 says the horses and chariots were prepared for the King. I guess you want us to believe the King liked to go plow the fields?

The evidence is that they went to see another king on a peaceful mission. No war context whatsoever.

3 Nephi 21:14 says God threatens to destroy their "strongholds" along with their "chariots." This is clearly within a military context.

Yes, but it is a quotation of Micah 5:10.

[Loran Blood]

I'll leave it to David to complain if I have done anything you have just described. I'm inclined to think not. I think he knows I did far more than "hand wave" a dismissal. I provided more information with respect to the "River" Horse of ancient Greece, for example.

The relevance of which to unknown BofM peoples who spoke an unknown language and the bulk of who's cultural traditions and psychology is unknown, is unclear.

I also pointed out that there is simply no reason aside from apologetic to even entertain these wild possibilities.

The stakes of such apologetic, which is the external plausibilities and possibilities relative to the central truth claims of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, are more than enough reason to engage in the apologetic. In any case, the claim that they are "wild" is, itself, a rather wild (and subjective) perception on your part.

Calling it "plausible" doesn't make it so,

Whether it is or not rises and falls on the merits, but hardly upon your dismissals of apologetic arguments in a few curt sentences.

and it really doesn't matter if you're coming from a "faithful LDS perspective" or not.

Oh yes it does, my friend, oh yes it does.

Again, in order for this not to be a problem for the Book of Mormon, we have to assume a wide variety of likely premises. This in and of itself makes the apologetic position weak.

No it doesn't. All it does is make the critic's job a great deal more difficult and complex than it otherwise would be if the Church really wasn't true and dismissing its claims were as easy and obvious as the anti-Mormon apologetic likes to present.

But it is what it is. As cinepro recently pointed out, refuting apologetic arguments is like playing the game whack-a-mole. There is never a time when someone isn't constantly throwing up a technical possibility while referring to it as "plausible."

Which is to say, the job of the critic in dismissing and refuting LDS arguments and evidence is much more complex than a few churlish dismissals and snorts, because the world - and history - are far more complex and vast than a few dismissals and snorts can comprehend.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Xander]

Imaginative reading.

Maybe, but there is a context to it, and it is far less imaginative than your imaginative claim that these chariots were unwheeled plowing devices that were simply being moved out of the way, to make way for some unspecified means of defense. The context describes them preparing for a military defense. It makes no sense for the verse to mention nothing of the "defense" equipment involved, but instead it mentions all of the agricultural tools they had to move out of the way. And it makes less sense to think Joseph Smith would use a word like chariot in the context of defense, when he knew perfectly well that is how the word is generally understood. If you envision a chariot as plow, why not just say plow? If you envision it as a carrying cart, why not just say cart? Chariot makes little sense.

The evidence is that they went to see another king on a peaceful mission. No war context whatsoever

Sure, it wasn't a war, but it was in the context of royalty, and as I already pointed out, chariots were understood not only as weapons of war but also symbols of power and authority. The verse says the horses and chariots were being prepared for the King. Even if it is a peaceful mission, it is likely to refer to wheeled chariots and not tapir operated plows.

Yes, but it is a quotation of Micah 5:10

Yes, which is all the more reason to view chariot in the biblical context. Now why on earth would Joseph Smith ever choose to use the word chariot to refer to a non-wheeled plowing device?

The stakes of such apologetic, which is the external plausibilities and possibilities relative to the central truth claims of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, are more than enough reason to engage in the apologetic.

True, but you haven't established plausibility. It is possible there is a cow floating in outer space. Does it make it worthwhile to defend such a claim? What evidence is there beside the simple possibility? Well, we could point out that humans have been launched into outer space for decades. Humans have been known to take cows with them on journeys. Cows are indigenous to the states/countries where launch platforms have been used to send rockets/shuttles into outer space. The space shuttle has more than enough room to accommodate a cow. In fact, there is a cow farm not five miles from Cape Kennedy where several cows have been reported missing! We also know that the shuttle is prepared and loaded at night, so that explains why no one from the news stations have been able to capture this on film.

That sure is a lot of evidence.

So have we established plausibility?

Following your logic, absolutely.

In any case, the claim that they are "wild" is, itself, a rather wild (and subjective) perception on your part.

Which is why I do far more than assert. I demonstrate. And, as usual, you avoid the responses by pretending there is no response. What you never seemed to understand is that you don't get to create plausibility via assertion. Some of these things are technically possible, sure, but all sorts of things are possible. It is possible that Joseph Smith used the wrong word, for the wrong animal, that lived on the wrong continent, providing the wrong service, etc etc... in the same way it is possible the moon is made of cheese (it is possible you know!). But the question is, what makes it "plausible"? We won't even get into probable, because you are still struggling for plausibile. Your only answer is "the faithful LDS perspective," which is correct only in the sense that you choose to perceive plausibility because it is the only way you can maintain faith. But this is anti-reason. For those who are not confined to such a theological straight-jacket, there is no need to view plausibility here. None. And you have provided no reason why we should. None. We can rely strictly on the evidence without all the needless apologetic commentary about what's technically possible. Because this isn't for the sake of finding the truth, it is all for the sake of vindicating a religious figures claims.

The simplest explanation fits quite well for critics. Joseph Smith meant what he said. Period. He said chariot and horses, and he meant chariots and horses. He said translation, and he meant translation.

There is simply nothing "parsimonious"about whichever apologetic explanation you choose to adopt (there are about four). The simplest answer fits best and there is no reason to reject it except theological.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xander

[cdowis]

OK cdowis, let's test your theory about the wiki.

The wiki provides numerous contexts in which the word chariot has been used in different periods and civilizations. The best parallel to the Book of Mormon would probably be the context for which it is used in the Bible, in which case the wiki explains: "Chariots are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, particularly by the prophets, as instruments of war or as symbols of power or glory." Given that Joseph Smith used the Bible to a significant degree when translating the Book of Mormon, there should be no doubt that it is within this context that the term is understood. They were property of the King to signify his power and authority and were also used for military purposes.

3 Nephi 3:22 uses the word chariot in the context of "defend themselves against their enemies."

Were their cattle, flocks, herds and grain also used to defend themselves? Read it again, my friend.

Alma 18:12 says the horses and chariots were prepared for the King. I guess you want us to believe the King liked to go plow the fields?

It was used for transportation, not as a Ben Hur chariot for war. This was exactly my point that chariots were for the wealthy and powerful.

Where exactly did I say that chariots were used to plow fields? If you are going to quote me, give the exact quote.

Stop the nonsense.

3 Nephi 21:14 says God threatens to destroy their "strongholds" along with their "chariots." This is clearly within a military context.

Please tell me how many Gentiles were living with the Nephites. This is a prophecy of the FUTURE regarding the future Gentiles, not a statement of the current state of affairs among the Nephites.

If you want to continue our discussion, stop the nonsense.

snip

So no, the problem isn't my education. My education is actually your problem.

I'm not your mother. I have no interest in spoon feeding you.

Edited August 21, 2011 by cdowis

[Xander]

Were their cattle, flocks, herds and grain also used to defend themselves? Read it again, my friend

I responded just as you were posting.

It was used for transportation, not as a Ben Hur chariot for war. This was exactly my point that chariots were for the wealthy and powerful.

Who said anything about Ben Hur? Joseph Smith wasn't familiar with this film, but he was perfectly aware of the fact that chariot generally refers to a wheeled, horse-driven device used for traveling and war. How on earth could chariots be used for transportation when the wheel wasn't used by the Ancient Americans?

This was exactly my point that chariots were for the wealthy and powerful.

They were symbols of authority and royalty, which means they were usually big and flamboyant in appearance. This means it is less likely a Tapir could pull one, especially without wheels.

Please tell me how many Gentiles were living with the Nephites. This is a prophecy of the FUTURE regarding the future Gentiles, not a statement of the current state of affairs among the Nephites.

You're missing the point. The fact that it quotes the Bible's usage of a chariot means they understood what the word meant. It establishes a context in which this term was understood in the Book of Mormon and at the very least the mind of the man translating (Joseph Smith). He is, after all, the one you need to be making goofy word choices. You want to take the established meaning of this word as it quotes the Bible, and turn it on its head based on technical possibilities; a number of which have to be true in order for your argument to even get off the ground. You can't just assume all these required premises are true just because they are possible. You have to establish plausibility.

This is my one and only warning if you continue with this nonsense.

Uh, consider me shivering in my socks? Is that what you want to hear? My "nonsense" is simply a direct response to your argument.

I'm not your mother. Go elsewhere if you want to be spoon fed.

Your reliance on the usual petulance is just further evidence that you cannot defend your argument otherwise. So you lose.

And by the way, I wasn't really shivering in my socks.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xander