JAHS Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 7 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said: Remembering that it sounds this way because of your preconception of the relationship between horse and chariot, is there any actual evidence beyond what you impute to the text? Of course, if English were the original language of the text you would have a strong point. However, as a translation where you don't know for sure what word was translated into "horse" and "chariot," how can you be sure that this is something more than just "sounds to me?" You might look as the events and actions of "horses" in the Book of Mormon--and you will find that we can be sure that they are animals who move and eat. Past that, there is no description of even how they move, or what they eat. If you look at "chariots" you will find that in Joseph Smith's time that might even be a four wheeled wagon--so the default assumption of a military vehicle is an even more recently exclusive meaning. They knew about horses and chariots because they are mentioned in the brass plates: "Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots." (2 Nephi 12:7) Lehi and Nephi having come from the east certainly knew what a horse and chariot were and most every time they are mentioned in the Bible they are associated with transportation in warfare, as in the following Book of Mormon scriptures: " Now Lamoni said unto him: Who told thee that thy brethren were in prison? And Ammon said unto him: No one hath told me, save it be God; and he said unto me—Go and deliver thy brethren, for they are in prison in the land of Middoni. Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots. And he said unto Ammon: Come, I will go with thee down to the land of Middoni, and there I will plead with the king that he will cast thy brethren out of prison." But Ammon raised his sword, and said unto him: Behold, I will smite thee except thou wilt grant unto me that my brethren may be cast out of prison." (Alma 20) Lamoni had his horses and chariots prepared for battle to use them to go free his brethren from prison. If we don't know for sure about the translation of horse and chariot in the Book of Mormon how do we know for sure that more important words concerning issues of doctrine were translated correctly? That may be the case for the Bible but your reasoning just doesn't work for me for the Book of Mormon. I understand that there were some spelling and grammatical corrections made, but since it was translated only once by the power of God for people living in our time, it should therefore mean what it says.
ksfisher Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, JAHS said: They knew about horses and chariots because they are mentioned in the brass plates: I know about horses and chariots because they are mentioned in the bible as well. But that doesn't mean I can ride a horse or build a chariot. 2
ksfisher Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 11 minutes ago, JAHS said: Lehi and Nephi having come from the east certainly knew what a horse and chariot were and most every time they are mentioned in the Bible they are associated with transportation in warfare, as in the following Book of Mormon scriptures: " Now Lamoni said unto him: Who told thee that thy brethren were in prison? And Ammon said unto him: No one hath told me, save it be God; and he said unto me—Go and deliver thy brethren, for they are in prison in the land of Middoni. Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots. And he said unto Ammon: Come, I will go with thee down to the land of Middoni, and there I will plead with the king that he will cast thy brethren out of prison." But Ammon raised his sword, and said unto him: Behold, I will smite thee except thou wilt grant unto me that my brethren may be cast out of prison." (Alma 20) Lamoni had his horses and chariots prepared for battle to use them to go free his brethren from prison. Lamoni's purpose was not to go to battle. Lamoni says he is going to "plead" with the king. Begging, not battle.
JAHS Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: Lamoni's purpose was not to go to battle. Lamoni says he is going to "plead" with the king. Begging, not battle. But he still used them as transportation to go down to free the prisoners.
TrespassersW Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 On 2/22/2016 at 9:09 PM, Brant Gardner said: Please understand that I view the Book of Mormon in English as translation literature, and the process of translation can obscure things in the original language, particularly if the object doesn't exist in the translation language--or something perceived to be similar does even though the perceived similarity obscures essential differences (i.e. candles in the NT when they should have been oil lamps). 1) I don't think that the word chariot necessarily describes something with wheels. I think it was a conveyance. My current best guess is a litter, based on cultural uses and contextual parallels. 2) To my knowledge, the sacbeob do not show specific wear patterns. I believe they were traversed by foot, not with anything that rolled or dragged. 3) No, we shouldn't expect them to have the drag marks. That is the result of treating the English translation as though it were the original language. Brant, Thank you for your answer, and I apologize for jumping back to this. I only infrequently visit this board. I've read a good deal of your publications and I'm familiar some of your arguments (though I may sometimes be fuzzy on the details, sorry). I'm not trying to put forth any argument myself, as I don't currently consider myself educated enough to do so intelligently. Right now, I'm just trying to understand the evidence. The roads not having wear patterns is something I've not heard before, so I'm just trying to drill down a bit. If these roads were used pretty much exclusively for foot traffic, and not with anything that rolled or dragged, how do we reconcile that with Lamoni's journey in Alma 20. I think it's pretty clear that Lamoni traveled with his chariots, whatever they were. And since they met his father along the way, I assume they traveled some sort of road. So, wouldn't that suggest that the chariots were used on the roads? So, shouldn't we expect the roads to show some sort of wear pattern to that effect? Am I oversimplifying or missing something here?
ksfisher Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, JAHS said: But he still used them as transportation to go down to free the prisoners. But we're assuming that the way those terms are used in the Book of Mormon and the Old Testement are the same. Brant Gardner has pointed out on this thread as well as others that that assumption is false. If I asked someone in Utah (where I live) and someone in Sweden (where I served my mission) to bring me an elk, I would end up with two different animals. We need to put aside our assumptions. If we read about horses and chariots in the Book of Mormon, then look for a new world culture that fits out Old Testament horse and chariot expectation, we find nothing. Perhaps it was our initial assumption that was wrong. Kevin Christensen has written extensively on this site about assumptions and learning to look at things differently. Good stuff.
JAHS Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: But we're assuming that the way those terms are used in the Book of Mormon and the Old Testement are the same. Brant Gardner has pointed out on this thread as well as others that that assumption is false. If I asked someone in Utah (where I live) and someone in Sweden (where I served my mission) to bring me an elk, I would end up with two different animals. We need to put aside our assumptions. If we read about horses and chariots in the Book of Mormon, then look for a new world culture that fits out Old Testament horse and chariot expectation, we find nothing. Perhaps it was our initial assumption that was wrong. Kevin Christensen has written extensively on this site about assumptions and learning to look at things differently. Good stuff. But the Book of Mormon people came from Old Testament people so why should the terms not be the same? The chariots might have looked a little different in the American continent but according to the text were used for the same purposes. It's easier for me to just accept the fact that we haven't found any wheels or chariots or horses yet, but may sometime in the future.
ksfisher Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, JAHS said: But the Book of Mormon people came from Old Testament people so why should the terms not be the same? The chariots might have looked a little different in the American continent but according to the text were used for the same purposes. It's easier for me to just accept the fact that we haven't found any wheels or chariots or horses yet, but may sometime in the future. Like in the example I used with the elk. I have relatives in Sweden. My ancestors came from Sweden. But to me and my distant cousins in Sweden elk are two different animals. Words can have different meanings depending on where in the world they are being used. Words can be re purposed by immigrants or translators to fit a new purpose in a new world. Edited February 23, 2016 by ksfisher 2
bluebell Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 28 minutes ago, JAHS said: But the Book of Mormon people came from Old Testament people so why should the terms not be the same? The chariots might have looked a little different in the American continent but according to the text were used for the same purposes. It's easier for me to just accept the fact that we haven't found any wheels or chariots or horses yet, but may sometime in the future. I'm not saying that it's wrong to have this approach, but i do think it doesn't take into account the huge time frame that we are talking about between the Israelites and the first time chariots are mentioned in the BOM (where it wasn't quoting Isaiah). From Lehi, to the first mention of chariots it's more than 300 hundred years. Just think about the words that English speakers used 300 years ago and how many of us in this day and age would be able to understand them to get the scope of challenge. Then, check out this fun link which gives a very small example of how much the definitions of words change over time, even while they are in fairly consistent use. 3
bluebell Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 27 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Like in the example I used with the elk. I have relatives in Sweden. My ancestors came from Sweden. But to me and my distant cousins in Sweden elk are two different animals. Words can have different meanings depending on where in the world they are being used. Words can be re purposed by immigrants or translators to fit a new purpose in a new world. Like how every American calls Bison, buffalo, even though they aren't buffalo. Or how pronghorn are known as antelope by almost everyone who has ever shared space with them, even though they most definitely are NOT antelope.
JAHS Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 41 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm not saying that it's wrong to have this approach, but i do think it doesn't take into account the huge time frame that we are talking about between the Israelites and the first time chariots are mentioned in the BOM (where it wasn't quoting Isaiah). From Lehi, to the first mention of chariots it's more than 300 hundred years. Just think about the words that English speakers used 300 years ago and how many of us in this day and age would be able to understand them to get the scope of challenge. Then, check out this fun link which gives a very small example of how much the definitions of words change over time, even while they are in fairly consistent use. So what else could a chariot or horse be that were obviously used by Lamoni for transportation to go free the prisoners in Middoni? (And yes I know about tapirs) Sometimes I just think that LDS apologists over-apologize to the point of being unreasonable. Edited February 23, 2016 by JAHS
ksfisher Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 32 minutes ago, bluebell said: Like how every American calls Bison, buffalo, even though they aren't buffalo. Or how pronghorn are known as antelope by almost everyone who has ever shared space with them, even though they most definitely are NOT antelope. They taste like antelope too me <insert suitable emoticon of smiley face liking lips and saying yummy> 2
Brant Gardner Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, TrespassersW said: The roads not having wear patterns is something I've not heard before, so I'm just trying to drill down a bit. If these roads were used pretty much exclusively for foot traffic, and not with anything that rolled or dragged, how do we reconcile that with Lamoni's journey in Alma 20. I think it's pretty clear that Lamoni traveled with his chariots, whatever they were. And since they met his father along the way, I assume they traveled some sort of road. So, wouldn't that suggest that the chariots were used on the roads? So, shouldn't we expect the roads to show some sort of wear pattern to that effect? Am I oversimplifying or missing something here? There were two types of roads (at least). One was the most common--the foot trails that became the roads between locations. These were paths worn by traffic. I suspect that most of them have disappeared in such a way that they couldn't be found if they were in a site, or that they have been paved over. Probably many Spanish roads followed them. The second type are the sacbeob (plural, sacbe=singular). These are specially created roads that are know (as far as I know) only for some Maya sites. There are some that appear to connect two different cities, but the difference in function between these roads and the more normal kind is not well understood. It was thought that they were for ritual use, but they do appear to be functional. They are raised, and perhaps that means that they were all-weather. However, they are very much in the minority of ways to travel. For example, there was a lot of long distant trade in Aztec times, but it was all on foot. Porters carried the loads on their backs, usually using a tumpline that significantly increases the weight a man could carry. It is the sacbeob where we know where they are and can see that there are no wear patterns for vehicles, wheeled or dragged. 3
bluebell Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, JAHS said: So what else could a chariot or horse be that were obviously used by Lamoni for transportation to go free the prisoners in Middoni? Sometimes I just think that LDS apologists over-apologize to the point of being unreasonable. I haven't given it any thought. Some form of sedan chair perhaps, like those popular in China and other places a long time ago. Four wheels would not be good transportation in a jungle or mountainous environment, so it seems unreasonable to assume its the same kind of chariot that we are familiar with. Who knows though.
bluebell Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, ksfisher said: They taste like antelope too me <insert suitable emoticon of smiley face liking lips and saying yummy> I am not a fan of antelope meat.
ksfisher Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 33 minutes ago, bluebell said: I am not a fan of antelope meat. Why else would you live in Wyoming??? 2
volgadon Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Perhaps no contact with native populations or perhaps due to their northern European origination...there are multiple variables at play, while the Nephites and Jaradite with the new world view, merged with the existing indigenous populations rather then the old church world view of being the very foundation of their existence in the new world The Vikings did come in contact with native populations.
Gervin Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 5 hours ago, JAHS said: If we don't know for sure about the translation of horse and chariot in the Book of Mormon how do we know for sure that more important words concerning issues of doctrine were translated correctly? How, indeed?
omni Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 5 hours ago, ksfisher said: Like in the example I used with the elk. I have relatives in Sweden. My ancestors came from Sweden. But to me and my distant cousins in Sweden elk are two different animals. Words can have different meanings depending on where in the world they are being used. Words can be re purposed by immigrants or translators to fit a new purpose in a new world. The biggest problem with this theory is why on earth would the divine power providing the translation use the word "horse" when the authors were actually referring to what we know as tapirs? Why would he/it use the word "horse" when it has clearly caused so many problems?
Brant Gardner Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 9 minutes ago, omni said: The biggest problem with this theory is why on earth would the divine power providing the translation use the word "horse" when the authors were actually referring to what we know as tapirs? Of course, the biggest problem with this question is the many assumptions it makes on the nature of revelation--none of which are attested in the Judeo-Christian history. A problematic question in this case is more the result of the problems of the assumptions, not the data. As a reminder to any who might be reading this, the tapir/horse argument was a suggestion Sorenson made based on his idea of how the translation proceeded. That is not the theory I have suggested. I have no need to defend tapirs because it isn't my argument. 1
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted February 24, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 24, 2016 5 hours ago, JAHS said: So what else could a chariot or horse be that were obviously used by Lamoni for transportation to go free the prisoners in Middoni? One suggestion would be to look at a proposed geography with the attendant culture--at the expected time period. Then look for what happened when royalty from one city visited another. That would be an excellent place to look. At least that would ground the answer in human culture and history rather than theoretical questions that simply suggest that one can only see one way to understand an ancient text. 5
TrespassersW Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 24 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said: One suggestion would be to look at a proposed geography with the attendant culture--at the expected time period. Then look for what happened when royalty from one city visited another. That would be an excellent place to look. At least that would ground the answer in human culture and history rather than theoretical questions that simply suggest that one can only see one way to understand an ancient text. I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but this is an absolutely awesome answer. 2
Calm Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 9 minutes ago, TrespassersW said: I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but this is an absolutely awesome answer. Don't be a wimp. Embrace your fanboyness! Join the rest of us who dote on every word Brant speaks!
JAHS Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 35 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said: One suggestion would be to look at a proposed geography with the attendant culture--at the expected time period. Then look for what happened when royalty from one city visited another. That would be an excellent place to look. At least that would ground the answer in human culture and history rather than theoretical questions that simply suggest that one can only see one way to understand an ancient text. But like I said earlier, what bout the doctrines? Does this mean we might not be understanding correctly the ancient text describing the doctrines of the gospel in the Book of Mormon?
Brant Gardner Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 1 minute ago, JAHS said: But like I said earlier, what bout the doctrines? Does this mean we might not be understanding correctly the ancient text describing the doctrines of the gospel in the Book of Mormon? I have a hard time understanding your issue. I assume that you are willing to read any number of English translations of the Bible, understanding that they differently represent the original languages--and that "original" is a relative term related to the compilers. How do we understand any Judeo-Christian doctrine that has been transmitted through so many humans with their hands on the text, copying the text, different languages, and sometimes distance from the reported information? Answer the question of how we could understand New Testament doctrine in English, and then we can proceed to your question about the Book of Mormon. Once again, you are asking a question that demonstrates a problem with your assumptions. 2
Recommended Posts