Why Did Greeks Call Hippopotamuses "Horses"?

[Zakuska]

I disagree with you. The reason why I disagree with you is that Nephi uses it in two different ways (assuming, of course, that this is what is going on here). He uses it to describe whatever it is he is describing, and he uses it when he quotes Isaiah. Either he recognizes something in the New World as a horse (which could be a horse), or he deliberately uses the word horse to describe something that he is not entirely (or not at all) familiar with. But in either case, he understands the word horse to refer not to one or the other, but to both.

No.

Yes, I believe that it would be incorrect.

Ben

Which brings us back to my Mouse analogy.

One word two very different things.

Heres a more apt. example:

We use the word Mustang alot.

It can mean:

1) a harry, four legged animal that we race and bet on (ie Equis )

2) a make of a Ford automobile.

Thus Nephi Writting "horse" for two very different things isn't wrong. Joseph Just wrote what he saw. on the plates

Edited September 2, 2011 by Zakuska

[Uncertain]

I disagree with you. The reason why I disagree with you is that Nephi uses it in two different ways (assuming, of course, that this is what is going on here). He uses it to describe whatever it is he is describing, and he uses it when he quotes Isaiah. Either he recognizes something in the New World as a horse (which could be a horse), or he deliberately uses the word horse to describe something that he is not entirely (or not at all) familiar with. But in either case, he understands the word horse to refer not to one or the other, but to both.

Yes and the old world explorers who first used the old world term "elk" to refer to a new world animal also used the term "elk" refer to two different animals. So again exactly analogous.

I agree Nephi may have been using the same word to refer to two different animals. I don't see why this means it is correct to always translate that word to refer to only one of those animals. For example suppose JS instead of always translating whatever word the Nephi used as "horse" instead he always translated that word as "tapir" which is the other meaning of the word. So the quotations from Isaiah would look something like this.

2 Nephi 15:28

"Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their tapir's’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion."

This is straightforwardly a translation mistake. Always translating a word with two meanings into only one of its meanings regardless of context is a translation error. Even if Nephi expanded the word "horse" to also mean "tapir" always translating the word as horse when in some contexts it does not mean horse but tapir is a translation mistake. A correct translation of a word with two meanings is to translate that word into either of it's meanings based on context. This problem is compounded when we look hundreds of years after Nephi and still see mentions of horses. At this point in Nephite society the word horse may still mean both the old world horse and the new world tapir but the dominant meaning would have to be tapir. No Nephite would be at all familiar with the old world horse they would only know them from scriptural references. On the other hand they would be intimately familiar with tapirs the fact the Nephite word for tapir could also refer to an obscure old world animal would likely have been a minor footnote. To argue JS was correct to translate the Nephite word for tapir as horse hundreds of years after Nephi when the dominate meaning of the word was tapir is a very strained argument.

Yes, I believe that it would be incorrect.

Then why is it okay to incorrectly translate the Nephite word for tapir as horse? I understand the Nephites may have used the same word for both so what? It is still incorrect to translate the Nephite word for tapir as horse when context clearly indicates what animal is being referred to. As I have pointed out the English word for elk also refers to two different animals. Translating the American English usage of elk as "moose" would be a translation error even though in some contexts the English word elk can legitimately refer to the animal known as a moose.

But no worries there is still the horses were present we just can't find them apologetic .

Best,

Uncertain

Edited September 2, 2011 by Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Which brings us back to my Mouse analogy.

One word two very different things.

Heres a more apt. example:

We use the word Mustang alot.

It can mean:

1) a harry, four legged animal that we race and bet on (ie Equis )

2) a make of a Ford automobile.

Thus Nephi Writting "horse" for two very different things isn't wrong. Joseph Just wrote what he saw. on the plates

It is wrong when translating into a language that has distinctly different words for each of the different meanings. Take your mouse example yes the English word "mouse" can refer to a small furry rodent or an electronic device. Suppose I am translating from English into a foreign language that has two different words for the different meanings of mouse. I am translating the sentence "I used my mouse to click on the CNN link" into this foreign language. The correct translation into the foreign language would be the word in that language that means a electronic device used with computers. An incorrect translation would be to use the word in the foreign language that means a small furry rodent. Yes in English the same word "mouse" can mean both things and we use context to determine the correct meaning. But if the foreign language has two different words to refer to the two different meanings of mouse then using the word that means small foreign rodent to translate the example English sentence would be a translation error.

Similarly the Nephites may have had a single word that means two different animals "horse" and "tapir" but English has two distinct words for each animal. When translating Nephite into English a correct English translation would use either "horse" or "tapir" depending on what animal the Nephites referenced. The translator would know which animal is being referenced by context the same way we English speakers know what meaning of "mouse" is being used. If the Nephite word is being used in the context of the new world it is clearly a tapir if it is used in the context of the old world it is clearly referring to a horse.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited September 2, 2011 by Uncertain

[Zakuska]

It is wrong when translating into a language that has distinctly different words for each of the different meanings. Take your mouse example yes the English word "mouse" can refer to a small furry rodent or an electronic device. Suppose I am translating from English into a foreign language that has two different words for the different meanings of mouse. I am translating the sentence "I used my mouse to click on the CNN link" into this foreign language. The correct translation into the foreign language would be the word in that language that means a electronic device used with computers. An incorrect translation would be to use the word in the foreign language that means a small furry rodent. Yes in English the same word "mouse" can mean both things and we use context to determine the correct meaning. But if the foreign language has two different words to refer to the two different meanings of mouse then using the word that means small foreign rodent to translate the example English sentence would be a translation error.

Similarly the Nephites may have had a single word that means two different animals "horse" and "tapir" but English has two distinct words for each animal. When translating Nephite into English a correct English translation would use either "horse" or "tapir" depending on what animal the Nephites referenced. The translator would know which animal is being referenced by context the same way we English speakers know what meaning of "mouse" is being used. If the Nephite word is being used in the context of the new world it is clearly a tapir if it is used in the context of the old world it is clearly referring to a horse.

Best,

Uncertain

But theres the problem. Joseph Smith saw the word horse on the plates and had no context what so ever which would indicate wether it was an Equus or a Tapir. All hes got is a list of animals the nephites wrote down. Now unless you are arguing that all Joseph was, was a omnisicent divine typewriter and could see into the mind of Moroni as he wrote it down... there is no way for Jospeh to know the exact Genus being referenced. Does Moroni Give us a detailed description of what a Nephite horse looks like? Is it all white and furry and fluffy with a single spiralled horn on its forhead ? Or is it a little shorter with an elastic nose? No so there is no way for Joseph to Know.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Zakuska

[Uncertain]

But theres the problem. Joseph Smith saw the word horse on the plates and had no context what so ever which would indicate wether it was an Equus or a Tapir. All hes got is a list of animals the nephites wrote down. Now unless you are arguing that all Joseph was, was a omnisicent divine typewriter and could see into the mind of Moroni as he wrote it down... there is no way for Jospeh to know the exact Genus being referenced. Does Moroni Give us a detailed description of what a Nephite horse looks like? Is it all white and furry and fluffy with a single spiralled horn on its forhead ? Or is it a little shorter with an elastic nose? No so there is no way for Joseph to Know.

JS did not in fact see any words on the plates he saw a collection of symbols that had no meaning to him since JS did not speak or understand Nephite. The translation of those symbols would have to be provided by a supernatural translator. It is certainly possible this supernatural translator did not know the Nephite word for horse also meant tapir depending on context but it seems unlikely plus exceedingly ad hoc. What is so special about this particular Nephite word that the supernatural translator could not translate it properly? In any case this still does not change the fact translating the Nephite word for tapir as horse is a translation error. In fact it does not require a supernatural translator to get the translation correct. I already provided one way to easily tell by context what animal is being referred to. If it is in the new world it's a tapir if it's in the old world it's a horse simple and I have no supernatural knowledge or power. I imagine a supernatural translator with all that implies could do much better than me. Also keep in mind there are a number of anachronistic animals mentioned in the BOM it seems something of a stretch to claim the supernatural translator missed the boat on all of them. Frankly I think your better off claiming there are mountains of horse, cattle, sheep etc. bones lurking in the jungles of Central America just waiting to be found .

Best,

Uncertain

[Zakuska]

JS did not in fact see any words on the plates he saw a collection of symbols that had no meaning to him since JS did not speak or understand Nephite.

My bad... I misspoke there.

The translation of those symbols would have to be provided by a supernatural translator. It is certainly possible this supernatural translator did not know the Nephite word for horse also meant tapir depending on context but it seems unlikely plus exceedingly ad hoc. What is so special about this particular Nephite word that the supernatural translator could not translate it properly? In any case this still does not change the fact translating the Nephite word for tapir as horse is a translation error. In fact it does not require a supernatural translator to get the translation correct. I already provided one way to easily tell by context what animal is being referred to. If it is in the new world it's a tapir if it's in the old world it's a horse simple and I have no supernatural knowledge or power. I imagine a supernatural translator with all that implies could do much better than me. Also keep in mind there are a number of anachronistic animals mentioned in the BOM it seems something of a stretch to claim the supernatural translator missed the boat on all of them. Frankly I think your better off claiming there are mountains of horse, cattle, sheep etc. bones lurking in the jungles of Central America just waiting to be found .

Best,

Uncertain

Which brings us back full circle to the translation process vs a divine typwriter.

If I write in my Journal that "among my possesions that I took with me when I moved to Idaho was a prized mustang and my dogs."

And you were going to translate that into spanish.how are you going to Know if I am speaking about my 1967 Mustang sitting in my driveway. Or wether I actually rode Hi-Ho SIlver there? All you have is the word Mustang with no way of knowing wether im talking about an Horse or a car.

You are missing the disconnect in your argument. Because Horse in modern parlance means a very specific animal. And Tapir the same thing. But since the nephites used the same term for 2 different animals and that particular word translates as horse when rendered into english then a divine being translating it can do one of two things, give a faithful translation of the nephite word which translates into english as horse even though the Nephite had in his mind a tapir when he said it. Or peer into Nephite mind when writing it and make the correction.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Zakuska

[Arkholt]

Here's the real question as I see it (and perhaps what Zakuska is trying to get at): How good of a conduit, or even what kind of a conduit was Joseph Smith for the information that was being given him? What exactly was Joseph shown in the Urim and Thummim, and was Joseph able to perfectly understand and dictate every minute detail of what was being shown to him to his scribe? I don't know if I can answer that. I'd like to say yes, because he was given many spiritual gifts as Prophet and conduit of the translation of the Book of Mormon. However, despite those gifts, he was flawed and had a finite, mortal mind. Moroni said it well at the end of his writings when he said that if there were any faults, they were the faults of men. I think there are faults that Moroni and others made, because they're only human, and Joseph may have made faults as well.

However, is the translation we have good enough for God to teach us what he wants to? Yes. Therefore, is the animal being referred to as a horse the same animal we think of when we hear that word, or is it some other animal? It could be either, because although the gift and power of God was used in the entire process of the coming forth of this book, from the Nephites until Joseph Smith, human beings have been the instruments of it coming forth, and they are flawed instruments. But is the word "horse" good enough for us to understand what was going on in the book, that there was some animal that we might be able to identify with so we can move on to the more important points of doctrine? Yes.

[cinepro]

My bad... I misspoke there.

Which brings us back full circle to the translation process vs a divine typwriter.

If I write in my Journal that "among my possesions that I took with me when I moved to Idaho was a prized mustang and my dogs."

And you were going to translate that into spanish.how are you going to Know if I am speaking about my 1967 Mustang sitting in my driveway. Or wether I actually rode Hi-Ho SIlver there? All you have is the word Mustang with no way of knowing wether im talking about an equs or a Tapir.

You are missing the disconnect in your argument. Because Horse in modern Parlag means a very specific animal. And Tapir the same thing. But since the nephites used the same term for 2 different animals and that particular word translates as horse when rendered into english then a devine being making a correction is turning into a divine tywriter.editor instead of a tanslator.

Excellent analogy.

Suppose you write "among my possesions that I took with me when I moved to Idaho was a prized mustang and my dogs" in your journal (just like that, in English).

1,000 years from now, a 23 year old Chinese Christian man named Po finds your journal. Sadly, Po doesn't speak or read a word of English, nor does anyone he knows (he can't even recognize what language it is).

But it turns out that in addition to the story of your move to Idaho, there are some other things in your journal that God thinks the boy's village might benefit from, so he sends the Holy Ghost to help the man translate the journal. The man's best friend takes his dictation, and the Holy Ghost tells the man what to say in Chinese.

When he gets to the part about you moving to Idaho, the Holy Ghost inspires the man to say (in Chinese)"among my possessions that I took with me when I moved to Idaho was a prized sports automobile called a 'Ford Mustang' and my dogs".

Based on this process, should future apologists argue that you may have meant "mustang horse", and that either one is possible?

For example, suppose anthropologists 1,000 years from now have mis-dated the invention of the automobile by 200 years and suddenly a sports car in 2011 seems like an embarrassing anachronism. Based on that, does it become more tenable to argue that you probably meant a "mustang horse", even though the Holy Ghost told Po to say "sports automobile"?

Edited September 2, 2011 by cinepro

[Zakuska]

Here's the real question as I see it (and perhaps what Zakuska is trying to get at): How good of a conduit, or even what kind of a conduit was Joseph Smith for the information that was being given him? What exactly was Joseph shown in the Urim and Thummim, and was Joseph able to perfectly understand and dictate every minute detail of what was being shown to him to his scribe? I don't know if I can answer that. I'd like to say yes, because he was given many spiritual gifts as Prophet and conduit of the translation of the Book of Mormon. However, despite those gifts, he was flawed and had a finite, mortal mind. Moroni said it well at the end of his writings when he said that if there were any faults, they were the faults of men. I think there are faults that Moroni and others made, because they're only human, and Joseph may have made faults as well.

However, is the translation we have good enough for God to teach us what he wants to? Yes. Therefore, is the animal being referred to as a horse the same animal we think of when we hear that word, or is it some other animal? It could be either, because although the gift and power of God was used in the entire process of the coming forth of this book, from the Nephites until Joseph Smith, human beings have been the instruments of it coming forth, and they are flawed instruments. But is the word "horse" good enough for us to understand what was going on in the book, that there was some animal that we might be able to identify with so we can move on to the more important points of doctrine? Yes.

Its not a matter of Joseph as a flawed conduit.

Joseph saw a symbol, he then saw the english words... according to Sydneys account. So Joseph wrote the english words that he saw. The Supernaturtal translator faithfully translated the Symbol the Nephite scribe drew.

The disconnect people are having with this (And Ill admit my head is hurting right now)... is this.

Here is an Zakuskian symbol that translates into English as horse.

@ = Horse

But to me:

@ = Animal1: Horse and Animal 2: Tapir

Because I use both of these animals as a means of conveyance... they are my ride... my car.

So the ambiguity is actually in the double mind of the Zakuskian.

What I see people trying to do is a 1 to 1 translation. But since the original meaning could mean 2 different and I call both animals the same thing.

Man Im getting my head tied in knots!

Edited September 2, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jigglysaint]

I'll admit when I see these kinds of arguments based on language, I can't help but think that people are just "splitting horses" for the sake of trying to prove or disprove something. In fact these kinds of arguments kind of reminds me of this(it's horse related)

I'm totally fine that Joseph Smith called it a horse even though it might not be. I expect the scriptures to be full of errors, perhaps even continuity errors, but out of it I also expect that it contains a lot of personal experiences. Besides, would more people believe in the credibility of the Book of Mormon if it did mention tapirs and stuff like that? No, people would just go on and find some other place to discredit it.

[Uncertain]

My bad... I misspoke there.

Which brings us back full circle to the translation process vs a divine typwriter.

If I write in my Journal that "among my possesions that I took with me when I moved to Idaho was a prized mustang and my dogs."

And you were going to translate that into spanish.how are you going to Know if I am speaking about my 1967 Mustang sitting in my driveway. Or wether I actually rode Hi-Ho SIlver there? All you have is the word Mustang with no way of knowing wether im talking about an Horse or a car.

Yes it would be difficult to know what you are referring to in your example. Luckily we don't have this problem with the BOM. As I have repeated ad nauseum it is trivially easy to determine which animal is being referred to. Again if the Nephite word for tapir was being used in an new world context it is a tapir if it is being used in an old world context it is a horse. If I a lowly mortal can figure out the correct translation of the Nephite word for tapir just think what a supernatural translator could do! There is simply no ambiguity as to what animal is being referenced hence your above example does not apply. Also keep in mind as I stated above it is not JS who is rending the meaning of the Nephite text into English as he did not understand Nephite. It is the supernatural translator who is rendering the Nephite language into English and this supernatural translator could very well have read the original Nephite authors minds. Luckily the supernatural translator would not have had to since there is little ambiguity as to what animal is being referenced as I have pointed out repeatedly. Also keep in mind the BOM was written by Nephites in part for other Nephites to read this is a strong argument that it was written such that a fluent Nephite speaker would know what animal is being referenced. Hence any fluent Nephite speaker such as the supernatural translator responsible for the BOM should easily be able to tell what animal is being referred to.

You are missing the disconnect in your argument. Because Horse in modern parlance means a very specific animal. And Tapir the same thing. But since the nephites used the same term for 2 different animals and that particular word translates as horse when rendered into english then a divine being translating it can do one of two things, give a faithful translation of the nephite word which translates into english as horse even though the Nephite had in his mind a tapir when he said it. Or peer into Nephite mind when writing it and make the correction.

Well one of us here has a disconnect in their argument I am not sure it's me . Again for the hundredth time simply because a word has two meanings does not make it correct to always translate that word into only one of it's meanings. In fact this is obviously and clearly incorrect as I have pointed out repeatedly can you show me why my argument here is incorrect? Simply asserting over and over again it is correct to always translate a word with two meanings into only one of it's meanings is not a counter argument especially when that position is so obviously not supportable.

Tell me would this be a correct translation of Isaiah written in Nephite?

2 Nephi 15:28

"Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their tapir's hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion."

Best,

Uncertain

Edited September 3, 2011 by Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Here's the real question as I see it (and perhaps what Zakuska is trying to get at): How good of a conduit, or even what kind of a conduit was Joseph Smith for the information that was being given him? What exactly was Joseph shown in the Urim and Thummim, and was Joseph able to perfectly understand and dictate every minute detail of what was being shown to him to his scribe? I don't know if I can answer that. I'd like to say yes, because he was given many spiritual gifts as Prophet and conduit of the translation of the Book of Mormon. However, despite those gifts, he was flawed and had a finite, mortal mind. Moroni said it well at the end of his writings when he said that if there were any faults, they were the faults of men. I think there are faults that Moroni and others made, because they're only human, and Joseph may have made faults as well.

However, is the translation we have good enough for God to teach us what he wants to? Yes. Therefore, is the animal being referred to as a horse the same animal we think of when we hear that word, or is it some other animal? It could be either, because although the gift and power of God was used in the entire process of the coming forth of this book, from the Nephites until Joseph Smith, human beings have been the instruments of it coming forth, and they are flawed instruments. But is the word "horse" good enough for us to understand what was going on in the book, that there was some animal that we might be able to identify with so we can move on to the more important points of doctrine? Yes.

Hi Arkholt,

Welcome to the board! I appreciate your testimony that the BOM is ancient. I don't however see how this is relevant to the larger question under debate. Or to put it more preciously you don't appear to disagree with my point that translating the Nephite word for tapir as horse is a translation error. Hopefully you can appreciate that to someone not already convinced of the BOM's authenticity the mention of anachronistic animals is potentially problematic. I am simply pointing out why I find a popular apologetic argument addressing this issue to be unconvincing.

Best,

Uncertain

[cinepro]

Joseph saw a symbol, he then saw the english words... according to Sydneys account. So Joseph wrote the english words that he saw. The Supernaturtal translator faithfully translated the Symbol the Nephite scribe drew.

The disconnect people are having with this (And Ill admit my head is hurting right now)... is this.

Here is an Zakuskian symbol that translates into English as horse.

@ = Horse

But to me:

@ = Animal1: Horse and Animal 2: Tapir

Because I use both of these animals as a means of conveyance... they are my ride... my car.

So the ambiguity is actually in the double mind of the Zakuskian.

What I see people trying to do is a 1 to 1 translation. But since the original meaning could mean 2 different and I call both animals the same thing.

So, this theory rests on the idea that the Holy Ghost didn't know that Nephi had called a tapir a @?

Ultimately, that's the problem. Loan-shifting may happen on the part of writers, but it is always accounted for in translation. Unless the translator is ignorant and doesn't know about the loan shifting.

In order for the loan shifting argument to work, we must theorize that the Holy Ghost (by whose gift and power the translation was carried out) was ignorant. We may eliminate an anachronism in the Book of Mormon, but we had to insult the Holy Ghost to do it.

[Zakuska]

So, this theory rests on the idea that the Holy Ghost didn't know that Nephi had called a tapir a @?

Ultimately, that's the problem. Loan-shifting may happen on the part of writers, but it is always accounted for in translation. Unless the translator is ignorant and doesn't know about the loan shifting.

In order for the loan shifting argument to work, we must theorize that the Holy Ghost (by whose gift and power the translation was carried out) was ignorant. We may eliminate an anachronism in the Book of Mormon, but we had to insult the Holy Ghost to do it.

Not in the least.

Lets track this back:

1) We have in the book of mormon the word horse which was written down by Joseph's scribe and then put on the printing press.

2) We have Joseph Smith seeing the word horse in a stone in a hat

3) We have a glif in the stone that Joseph saw that ment horse.

So far everything is Good. The Divine translator, the human reader and the scribe all agree and nothing is wrong. Its a faithfull translation without error. Joseph has written with devine help and with the aid of his scribe exactly what the Nephite scribe wrote.

The part of the equation that everyone is getting hung up on is that in the mind of the Nephite the animal we call a Tapir, he called a horse. as well as him calling a horse a horse.

Now. the question is... if the divine translator saw the glyph for horse but wrote the word Tapir. Everyone would be crying thatt he translation was wrong because the divine translator looked down through time and wrote what was in the Scribes mind, correcting him, rather than what the scribe actually wrote.

What was it that Nephi said...

3 Nephi 5:18

18 And I know the record which I make to be a just and a true record; nevertheless there are many things which, according to our language, we are not able to write.

Because of the limitation in their language... they weren't able to write them.

What everyone seems to try to be desrcibing is Joseph Smith as a dictationist. He wasn't.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Zakuska