Horse-Tapir Laughable?

[Calm]

I would suppose by that time, Joseph had picked up on what each glyph ment and how it would be translated. So he could sit up nights translate and memorize one metal leaf at a time while noone was around and he didn't have to worry about someone seeing the plates. Then dictate it the next day.

Be careful, someone might think you are serious here.

[J Green]

Sounds a lot like Choice 1 given by Krose above.

Hi, Jesterss.

When Krose says that some supernatural entity feeds JS the words, he can mean one of two things, both of which are distinct from option 2. He can mean that JS is simply reading words from the stone as if he is reading a stock exchange ticker out loud, or he can mean that JS is spiritually allowed to understand the meaning of the characters for himself and he is choosing which words to read out loud. Can you see the difference between the two and what impact it has on the discussion? Can you see that these are two distinct options? And both of these are different than if JS actually sees a vision of the events unfolding and choose what words to use to describe it (option 2). Based on Krose's argument, he seemed to be making the stock ticker argument for "supernatural entity." If he did, then he has left out the other option I described. But if he is really referring to that other option, then he has left out thhe stock ticker option. Does that make sense?

Cheers

[J Green]

I don't see how that's any different from my two options.

See my reply to Jesters above.

If I am "given to understand" the meaning of a foreign character, I would either get the English word in my mind or a visual representation of what it represents. Otherwise, what do you mean by "meaning component"?

You might not get either. Meaning components are not necessarily equivalent to individual words, which is why a one-for-one translation is usually not effective. You get the meaning of something that you understand as a thing to sit on. In English it might be deliverable with a single word ("chair"), but depending on the meaning component, you may need to combine several words in another language, create a new word, or describe it with a sentence. This is why sometimes you see qualifiers added in loan-shifting. If from the perspective of the individual the single word doesn't describe what they want, they need to add some descriptors.

Edit to add:

Obviously you are referring to times when Smith would have been working from the actual plates, rather than the head-in-hat process related by witnesses.

JS mostly worked with the seer stone in the hat. That is the process to which I refer.

[altersteve]

I don't know the exact dates of BOM history on the Nephites or Mr. Mormon (not sure the correct conversational way to address him) was dated sometime in the AD time era correct? Therefore, it would logically make sense that horses did not exist for these men. What could have caused such an extinction to horses in this time period without there being any remains? American Indians were introduced to horses by the spaniards as well. They didn't know anything about them. I think the most compelling evidence for the non existence of said animals (horses), is the fact that all these cultures were amazed by them and the spaniards who introduced them... If they were of prior existence, due to their ability to survive so well with the introduction during the spanish conquest, wouldn't it logically make sense that horses would have continued to thrive in mexico or america had they existed? It just logically does not make sense to believe in the usage of horses by anyone around this time frame...

I'll give you the possibility of 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, but not after..

Edit: regarding your last sentence, Zakuska, made a quote directed by a mayan anthropologist that insists that the naming convention for introduced horses was tzimin chac, not just tzimin... therefore, recognized as a different animal.. Maybe of same structure (hoofed feet and four legged), but different, and was the first contact with them...

It's true that by the time of the Spanish conquest, horses had become extinct in the Americas, and that the Mayan people at the time had never seen horses before — but their ancestors had seen them and knew about them. There are indications that horses might have existed in ancient America during the time that the Book of Mormon says they did.

It doesn't matter what you think "just logically does not make sense," because in Joseph Smith's day there were many things in the Book of Mormon that just logically did not make sense but are now accepted as fact:

Compared with:

I recommend keeping up with what Book of Mormon scholars are saying.

[Jesterss]

This rock art dates to Nephite times:

These images don't appear for me, so I must ask what are these "rock art" made of? How is it done? Scratches on the rock? Painting?

[altersteve]

These images don't appear for me, so I must ask what are these "rock art" made of? How is it done? Scratches on the rock? Painting?

Looks to me like they're carved into the rock.

[Jesterss]

There are some among the Nez Perce that are adamant that they possessed horses before the Spanish arrived. They had a well-developed unique breed of horse when Lewis and Clark encountered them. The Nez Perce Appaloosas and others of the Pinto breeds are believed, by some, to descend from a mixture of Spanish horses and pre-Spanish indigenous herds.

There are many instances of horse fossils being discovered that appear to disprove the long-believed axiom that there were no horses in America before the Spanish arrived. Here is a fairly recent example I turned up:

http://www.nctimes.c...5c8865f14a.html

I am also personally familiar with rock art in southern Utah that portrays people with and on horses.

I am personally persuaded that many of these finds are being rejected on the basis of dogma alone, and that eventually it will become accepted that there were surviving specimens of equus from ancient times to the present day.

So, in summary, I do not accept the dogma that there were no horses in the Americas prior to Columbus and after 10,000 BCE.

That website agrees with my notion that the spanish introduced them when they first came to mexico. They were then sold to Indians or anyone else. Just because they were dated to +/- 40 years does not have anything to do with the spanish conquest of california in 1769, the earliest date of life for this unearthed horse is 1625, still puts it 100+ years after the 1519 date when Cortez was in mexico.. So suffice to say, that article just proves that after cortez came to mexico, there were horses expanding into the americas...

[california boy]

I don't believe the intent of Pedro's opening post was to argue that when the Book of Mormon says "horse" it really means "tapir." At least that's not how I interpreted it. He's merely demonstrating that the argument of loan-shifting words has merit, and he gave an indisputable example.

By the way, Pedro, I want to publicly commend you and acknowledge the fact that your written English is greatly improved since you first started posting here. Indeed, I am very impressed by how much it has improved.

Well that certainly makes me feel better about some of the logic used in this post. I was definitely confused. I thought that posters here were trying to say that horses in the BOM may have been a tapir which didn't make any sense to me given the context in the BOM. I guess I am still a bit confused why this loan sift is even being brought up to some how defend any claims in the BOM.

[altersteve]

That website agrees with my notion that the spanish introduced them when they first came to mexico. They were then sold to Indians or anyone else. Just because they were dated to +/- 40 years does not have anything to do with the spanish conquest of california in 1769, the earliest date of life for this unearthed horse is 1625, still puts it 100+ years after the 1519 date when Cortez was in mexico.. So suffice to say, that article just proves that after cortez came to mexico, there were horses expanding into the americas...

But it does not prove that horses did not exist during the time the Book of Mormon says they did.

[Jesterss]

Looks to me like they're carved into the rock.

Thank you.

So @William, if these are indeed carved into rock, those images hold no scientific value of evidence to any "dated" time period, except by subject matter alone, which can easily be skewed and swayed to fit someone's belief... soft evidence..

[Jesterss]

But it does not prove that horses did not exist during the time the Book of Mormon says they did.

Of course not, but it also does not say that it does, that's why we have to take the mayans at their understanding... And as I and Zakuska (by accident I would assume) pointed out, the horse was new to the mayans...

[Zakuska]

This rock art dates to Nephite times:

Is it just me or do the "horses" look like llamas?

[LeSellers]

The question is, to me, what is "horsiness"?

What would Nephi, Alma, and Joseph Smith been trying to convey with the word "horse" (irrespective of which language or "word" he wrote)?

Rather than "equus", I believe it was a beast n which one may ride, that can be used for carrying or pulling burdens, with single-toed hooves, and "unclean" by the Law of Moses.

There are other, legitimate, responses, but this one works as far as I can tell.

What is "a horse"?

Lehi

[altersteve]

Of course not, but it also does not say that it does, that's why we have to take the mayans at their understanding... And as I and Zakuska (by accident I would assume) pointed out, the horse was new to the mayans...

Yes, you're right, but once again, I believe that horses were NOT new to the the ancestors of the Mayan people who existed at the time of the Spanish conquest, like I said in post #104.

[LeSellers]

Is it just me or do the "horses" look like llamas?

Hard to "draw" a horse when your canvas is a rock, and your brush is a smaller stone.

The people don't "look like" people anymore than the "horses" look like horses.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

Hi, Jesterss.

When Krose says that some supernatural entity feeds JS the words, he can mean one of two things, both of which are distinct from option 2. He can mean that JS is simply reading words from the stone as if he is reading a stock exchange ticker out loud, or he can mean that JS is spiritually allowed to understand the meaning of the characters for himself and he is choosing which words to read out loud. Can you see the difference between the two and what impact it has on the discussion? Can you see that these are two distinct options? And both of these are different than if JS actually sees a vision of the events unfolding and choose what words to use to describe it (option 2). Based on Krose's argument, he seemed to be making the stock ticker argument for "supernatural entity." If he did, then he has left out the other option I described. But if he is really referring to that other option, then he has left out thhe stock ticker option. Does that make sense?

I can see what you mean, but I don't think Krose was trying to be demeaning in his understanding...

[KevinG]

What is "a horse"?

Lehi

You keep setting me up today Lehi...

[J Green]

Hi, Uncertain.

I appreciate the discussion.

Hi J Green,

Sorry for the delay in response I had another engagement last night and did not have the time to engage in fights on the internet .

"Someone is wrong on the internet . . ."

Again the text on the plate would have also have been the Nephite word for tapir.

Not necessarily. There are several complicators here, including a whole discussion about the Nephite popular language and what was used on the plates--if there is a difference--and what impact it may have on this discussion. But based on your comments further on, I think you and I both agree that there would have been a local indigenous word for tapir. If so, the Nephites would likely have been aware of that word. So if the Nephites have deliberately chosen to use the word "horse" in spite of that, what does that tell us? Is there a reason that they call an animal that is of the same family of the horse by the name of horse in spite of the fact that it may have its own name of which they are aware? What does this mean? Could there be a reason why the Nephites deliberately choose to think of it as a horse? How would a priestly family with strict dietary laws removed to a new world classify animals? Would that classification matter from a religious perspective?

From a faithful perspective I always viewed this as because there was no equivalent English word for the animals represented by curelom and cumom. Hence it would be impossible to translate them into English. This of course is not the case with tapirs there is a perfectly acceptable English word for tapirs.

Who is the reference point for this argument? God or JS? If you are saying that these animals had no known equivalency to JS, then couldn't you make the same argument with the tapir? Did he know what a tapir was? Did he even realize it was an option during translation? But if you make the argument that God helped JS with the translation and thus JS should have been provided with the meaning component of tapir and the English word tapir, then I think you need to apply the same argument to these other words. Doesn't God know what they are? Can't he tell JS what they are or were? Or the closest thing to them? Or explain them, just as many other words or concepts are explained?

How about this example. The American English term elk is actually an old world term for what we could call a moose.

This is a better example than the computer mouse analogy. So lets imagine that a priestly family that lives a strict dietary code and classifies animals a certain way in their legal code moves to the American Northwest and deliberately identifies a moose with the name elk even though they know the local name for "moose"? On further investigation, you see that their strict dietary legal code only refers to an elk and classifies and names the elk using identifiers that are also common to the moose? Would that give you a different perspective on the issue?

Good question, personally I think this this view is actually more reasonable. To me it does make more sense to use the native term for tapir instead of calling tapirs by the old world term for horse. This of course does not solve the translation issue in fact it makes it worse.

So they deliberately refer to the animal by the old world name in spite of knowing the new world name. Their dietary/priestly legal code only refers to the old world animal and classifies that animal with identifiers that are common to the new world animal. Does that give us a plausible scenario that might fit?

What the BOM makes abundantly clear is that the animal referred to as a horse was an animal cared for and managed by Nephites for hundreds of years. This does not fit very well with a wild animal like tapirs.I don't find references to to tapirs pulling plows or as pets, compelling for the same reason pictures of zebras pulling carts and trained lions in circuses are not compelling evidence zebras and lions were domesticated in Africa round about 600 b.c. Do you have any evidence in the right time and place that Mayans domesticated tapirs? We do have evidence for animals being domesticated by Mayans namely turkeys and dogs. If tapirs were also domesticated by Mayans why the lack of evidence when we can easily identify animals which were domesticated by the Mayans?

I don't see any evidence in the BoM for horses pulling plows or being used as pets. Do you? And unforunately, I'm not familiar with the pre-classic Mayan evidence (or lack thereof) for the domestication of tapirs. Are you?

Cheers

[shalamabobbi]

Is it just me or do the "horses" look like llamas?

Do you see them spitting at each other?

[cinepro]

With all due respect to Will, I think the issue of "horse" actually referring to real horses is off topic to this thread; based on the OP, we should probably stay focused on the loan-shifting/tapir issue and leave the "real horse" argument to other threads.

Especially since, if "horse" actually means "horse" in the Book of Mormon, the loan-shifting argument is nullified.

Hi, Jesterss.

When Krose says that some supernatural entity feeds JS the words, he can mean one of two things, both of which are distinct from option 2. He can mean that JS is simply reading words from the stone as if he is reading a stock exchange ticker out loud, or he can mean that JS is spiritually allowed to understand the meaning of the characters for himself and he is choosing which words to read out loud. Can you see the difference between the two and what impact it has on the discussion? Can you see that these are two distinct options? And both of these are different than if JS actually sees a vision of the events unfolding and choose what words to use to describe it (option 2). Based on Krose's argument, he seemed to be making the stock ticker argument for "supernatural entity." If he did, then he has left out the other option I described. But if he is really referring to that other option, then he has left out thhe stock ticker option. Does that make sense?

Cheers

I'm not sure why this is so confusing for some people. The translation process isn't that hard to understand.

The plates had characters that Joseph couldn't read. It would be no different than any of us trying to translate an alphabet we didn't read.

So, suppose none of us read ancient Japanese, and decide we want to translate something. Like this:

In post #51, JGreen tells us that part of the process is "studying it out" in our minds.

Ok, so let's do that. Study it out. Look at those characters for as long as you need to until you think you know what they say in English. How long would it take? If you looked at them for an hour? How about a day? A week? Keeping in mind that Joseph Smith wasn't well educated.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think I could study those characters for a year and still have no idea what they mean.

So now we introduce "the spirit". With the spirit's help, I can study them, and now as I look at them, English words (and some non-English words) come to mind.

Suppose as I study them and ponder them, I "see" (whether in my mind or in a vision as if with my eyes) that the following characters should be rendered in English:

"An accounting of the animals of Cho Hun: 6 goats, 4 sheriman, 12 chickens, 3 talrasos"

Now tell me more about the translation process. Who is the "translator"? What does the introduction of two unknown animals mean for the nature of the process? In what way are my culture and knowledge of language limiting or influencing this process?

Edited October 7, 2011 by cinepro

[Zakuska]

Hi, Uncertain.

<snip>

So they deliberately refer to the animal by the old world name in spite of knowing the new world name. Their dietary/priestly legal code only refers to the old world animal and classifies that animal with identifiers that are common to the new world animal. Does that give us a plausible scenario that might fit?

I don't see any evidence in the BoM for horses pulling plows or being used as pets. Do you? And unforunately, I'm not familiar with the pre-classic Mayan evidence (or lack thereof) for the domestication of tapirs. Are you?

Cheers

Odd-toed ungulate

Odd-toed ungulate is the common name for any of the hoofed, herbivorous, terrestrial mammals comprising the order Perissodactyla, characterized by a pulley-like groove in the proximal surface of the astragalus (a bone in the ankle joint) and an odd number of functional toes (one or three), with the axis of each limb going through the enlarged middle (third) toe. Perissodactyls include such well-known members as horses, zebras, tapirs, and rhinoceroses. Perissodactyla is one of two living orders of ungulates (hoofed mammals), the other being Artiodactyla, the even-toed ungulates, which have a double-pulley astragalus and an even number (two or four) of functional toes.

The extant odd-toed ungulates are usually large, have relatively simple stomachs, and are exclusively herbivorous. In contrast to the ruminant Artiodactyl ungulates, perissodactyls are hindgut fermenters; that is, they digest plant cellulose in their intestines rather than in the first chamber (rumen) of the stomach.

Perissodactyls play key roles ecologically, commercially, and culturally. Ecologically, they provide a function in terrestrial food chains, although the large size and speed of the adults of many species, and the bristly manes of tapirs and horns of rhinoceroses, make them difficult prey as adults for all but the largest predators. Commercially and culturally, the domestication of some species, notably the horse and donkey, has been of great importance for human mobility, warfare, and transportation. Tapirs also are a popular food source and sought for sports hunting as well, and their skins provide leather. Rhinos are harvested, illegally, for their horns and other body parts for traditional Asian medicine. With the exception of the domesticated species, most perissodactyls are threatened with extinction.

http://www.newworlde...d-toed_ungulate

So Marco Polo calling a Rhino a Unicorn isn't far off the mark, being from the same family branch. And they are hunted for food.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Do you see them spitting at each other?

The top one looks like a llama with a small head and long ears and the other looks kinda like a "Sacred German-Shepard".

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[altersteve]

You keep setting me up today Lehi...

This post is fantastic.

[Jesterss]

Yes, you're right, but once again, I believe that horses were NOT new to the the ancestors of the Mayan people who existed at the time of the Spanish conquest, like I said in post #104.

Sorry you replied quickly last time so I didn't get time to read that post... It is definitely an interesting graphic, but logically you do still have to think about it.

We're talking a gap of 1000 years that horses just seemed to disappear in time. Why would that be? Of course it's all in believing what you believe in, but don't you see the trouble with a logical viewpoint? Horses thrive in the americas, that much we know to be a fact. There are plenty of wild horses in my neck of the country to know this. We also understand that the mayans used a naming convention of an animal they know of, but gave it a descriptor to further differentiate it. If it were an animal that they anciently had, why wouldn't they just revert back to using the same name their ancestors called it?

[Zakuska]

ORDER PERISSODACTYLA

Suborder Hippomorpha

Family Equidae: horses and allies, nine species in one genus

Przewalski's Horse, Equus przewalskii

Domestic Horse, Equus caballus

Wild horse, Equus ferus

Donkey or African ***, Equus asinus

Onager or Asiatic ***, Equus hemionus

Kiang or Tibetan Wild ***, Equus kiang

Plains Zebra, Equus quagga

Cape Mountain Zebra, Equus zebra

Hartmann's Mountain Zebra, Equus hartmannae

Grevy's Zebra, Equus grevyi

Suborder Ceratomorpha

Family Tapiridae: tapirs, four species in one genus

Brazilian Tapir, Tapirus terrestris

Mountain Tapir, Tapirus pinchaque

Baird's Tapir, Tapirus bairdii

Malayan Tapir, Tapirus indicus

Family Rhinocerotidae: rhinoceroses, five species in four genera

Black Rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis

White Rhinoceros, Ceratotherium simum

Indian Rhinoceros, Rhinoceros unicornis

Javan Rhinoceros, Rhinoceros sondaicus

Sumatran Rhinoceros, Dicerorhinus sumatrensis

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Odd-toed_ungulate

Is classifying a Tapir as a Horse really all that wrong? Yes they are not Equus but they are hoofed animals.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Zakuska