Book of Mormon "Horses"

[Confidential Informant]

This is as strange as having to accept that Nephi actually knew how to smelt, mine, manufacture things like “steel” bows, and knew the advantages that gave people (from his Old World experience), and never bothered to teach the Native American pre-existing others how to do it. Or that he did, but they never bothered to use the technology enough to leave a significant or even recognizable remnant.

This is, if I am reading Brant's position correctly, a complete fabrication of his position. It occurs to me, Beastie, that you want to talk about smelting of iron, etc. But in Brant's original artical, as I recall, he speculates that the Nephites metal workings would have been done using precious metals of the "soft" variety such as Gold and Silver which would have been used to then make jewelry and adornments which then became status symbols. I don't think this would have required "smelting" as you are presenting it since soft metals such as gold and silver have very low melting points and are also easily malleable and ductible. That is the type of metalworking that would have been done in this time period. Moreover, we already konw that the Incas in Peru were doing this exact thing during the time period and as I recall, there is documentable contact between the two regions.

As to the "metal bow" argument, that's a complete ruse. Nephi had his metal bow in the old world. When it broke, he was unable to create a new one and instead was force to return to the use of a wooden bow.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Brant, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I am.

C.I.

[beastie]

As I said, I will provide some references and sources in a day or two. In the meantime, I have two quick questions -

1) Have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? I can't tell from your comments.

2) Amazon/Linne- I don't think you have the right book in mind for the reference. The one for 22$ is for digs from 34-35. Wrong dates. I have the name of the book that actually contains this reference at home, I'll look it up later and share it with you. I would love to find the book as a paperback or at a reasonable price, or live close enough to a university to locate it.

CI - the BoM refers to advanced metallurgy - although it does not use the word "smelting", it certainly is implied. JS saw a metal breastplate, for example, with the gold plates. I've haven't heard of anything of that nature being produced in Mesoamerica, which worked with outcrops of metal that did not require advanced metallurgy, making small mirrors, for example.

Just one example of many citations referring to the fact that horses and steel had a significant impact in the Spanish Conquest, more to come later -

The most cogent argument is that the conquest of the Incas was made possible by the technical superiority of the European weaponry employed by the Spanish: "Metal against stone, steel swords against flint-tipped spears, metal armour against cotton-quilted tunics, arquebuses and cannons against bows and arrows and, above all, calavry against infantry." (Watchel 1977: 24) The Spanish advantage in technological terms was responsible for some of their stunning victories over their Andean foes. In this view, Pizarro realized their superiority was overwhelming and him and his men took measures to utilise this to a degree that has not been fully appreciated; the vulnerability of the Incas to the capture and execution of their emperor being a prime case in point. Thus the shock of military contact across such a vast technological and cultural gap proved to be so great that, before the Andeans could fully adjust, their ultimate sealed (Adorno & Andrien 1991: 50).

http://www.antiquityofman.com/Inca_conquest.html

I'll provide some more complete citations later, but I will quickly point out that part of the victory in war comes from spying on the enemy, and being able to intercept the enemy's spies before they can relay accurate information back to their camp. It doesn't take many horses to have enabled the Spaniards to utilize speed of relaying and obtaining information to their advantage, nor to intercept natives they felt were going to relay important information back to their camp.

If the horses were as inconsequential as you seem to want to portray, why were they so highly valued by the Spaniards and, later, the natives?

[Confidential Informant]

Personally, I'm unsure why you are so concerned about the Linnes reference anyway. If it says exactly what has been purported, you intend to reject it anyway. The only way you intend to incorporate it into your paradigm is if it has been misrepresented in someway, in which case you will harp on it like a democratic senator on a Bush judicial nomination. Beyond that, you plan to ignore it by simply citing the fact that Coe., et al., have ignored it.

C.I.

[USU78]

beastie saith thus:

In my opinion, the fact that no current mesoamerican scholar that I have read accepts a BoM time period dating for smelting is refutation enough.

You know, beastie, it's quite possible that both Sorenson's and Coe's views are quite compatible with one another. Sorenson claims Linne found smelting evidence in the right place at the right stratum for it to be consistent with BoM claims of [probably limited] smelting. By its very nature, such evidence must be anomalous. We would be surprised if the evidence of smelting were pervasive enough to impress conservatives like Coe. The BoM never claims otherwise, does it?

But as for this:

And, ironically, somehow this has become my burden of proof, and apologists are excused for not having read an article they so often cite.

I can see now why you claim illogic. I have not explained myself well.

Here's how it works: I have the burden of persuasion on the Resurrection [and all that that entails] and the Restoration [and all that that entails]. I make a prima facie case by asserting the BoM and Moroni's promise therein. "Ah," says the antiapologist, "but the BoM says there's smelting going on in there, and since we don't have archaeological evidence, neither the Resurrection nor the Restoration are possible," thus switching the burden of persuasion back to me. Then, lo and behold, Sorenson finds a reference for right place/right time smelting [possibly anomalous], and my burden of persuasion on Resurrection and Restoration are fulfilled, since I can now counter the assertion that lack of evidence of smelting debunks my assertion of the BoM and Moroni's promise as evidence thereof. This switches the burden back to the antiapologist again to debunk the BoM as evidence.

You cannot claim the Linne/Sorenson footnote evidence to be worthless unless you actually examine and cross-examine it. Whether I personally have read it is irrelevant. ILL can get you the primary source. It is available for you perusal and, if you can, crossexamination and debunking.

If you refuse to examine it, you must also refuse to insist on its worthlessness as a counter to the [alleged] debunking of the BoM via lack of evidence.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? I can't tell from your comments.

Yes. I have a copy currently on my desk.

Amazon/Linne- I don't think you have the right book in mind for the reference. The one for 22$ is for digs from 34-35. Wrong dates. I have the name of the book that actually contains this reference at home, I'll look it up later and share it with you. I would love to find the book as a paperback or at a reasonable price, or live close enough to a university to locate it.

They appear to have reprinted the entire set. I found both volumes which mention this available for under $50.00 each.

JS saw a metal breastplate, for example, with the gold plates. I've haven't heard of anything of that nature being produced in Mesoamerica, which worked with outcrops of metal that did not require advanced metallurgy, making small mirrors, for example.

Would you refresh our memories ... what did the breastplate look like?

Just one example of many citations referring to the fact that horses and steel had a significant impact in the Spanish Conquest, more to come later -

Did you read it?

The major effect of the arms and horses was psychological.

(I did get a chuckle out of "calavry".)

If the horses were as inconsequential as you seem to want to portray, why were they so highly valued by the Spaniards and, later, the natives?

Psychological reasons perhaps? You still haven't answered my questions.

Ben

[beastie]

Later tonight (depending on what time I have to pick up my kids) I may have time to address some specific questions, but for now, I'm simply offering some references.

Here's the first installment. I apologize for the length of these quotes, but I think it's necessary to demonstrate support for my comments. These were the easier ones to find, there will be more later. I may jump around a bit in addressing questions, because I started out copying quotes that I could locate immediately. Others to come later will require more searching and, as I stated, I may need a day or two.

To introduce these two authors - Michael Coe is one of the most respecded experts on Mesoamerica and the Mayan, and Jared Diamond is also extremely well respected, and received a Pultizer Prize for his book Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Of course the weapons and horses were not the sole advantages that the Europeans had, but they were definitely advantages that had an affect.

From Michael Coe, Mexico, p 199.

How as it that a tiny force of about 400 men had been able to overthrow a powerful empire of at least 11 million people?  First of all, there is little question that the weaponry of these men of the Renaissance was superior to the essentially Stone Age armaments of the Aztecs.  Thundering canons, steel swords wielded by mounted horsemen, steel armor, crossbows, and mastiff-like war dogs previously trained in the Antilles to savor the flesh of the Indians

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

It has certainly been popular to assume that the superiority of the Spaniards was the reason for their victory. See the incident of the death of Magellan to see why that is a fallacy. For Cortez, see the incident where his men where chased out of Tenochtitlan and barely escaped with their lives. Had the Aztecs cared to pursue them they would have finished them off. Their guns, swords, and horses didn't save them. Running like mad did.

[beastie]

Responding to an earlier issue, breastplates:

Metal Breastplates

As I said, I am in the process of going through old Z archives and saving information from threads I find valuable. Am I allowed to link old Z threads here? I will if allowed to do so. Z doesn

[beastie]

What I am doing right now is to continue to provide support for my assertion that horses and steel weaponry were a significant factor in the Spanish Conquest. Of couse they were not the only factors, and of course there were times when the natives still bested them, but none of that changes the fact that horses and steel weaponry had a huge impact on this war, as they did throughout human history.

For their part, the Spaniards and their horses suffered from the rugged geography and climatic extremes; even the Inca roads, designed for the passage of humans, were hard on the horses

[beastie]

Although I'm not certain as to its importance, Ben asked for evidence that human overkill may have contributed to the extinction or America's horses. This page provides pros and cons for this theory. I really am uncertain as to why Ben thinks this is a significant point, but it does provide interesting information.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2000fall/geol01.../Lecture38.html

Regarding the Gospel of Barnabas translation issue:

Ben, I actually agree with how you are approaching the text. I do not think that a text should be approached as if it were a proven historical document - in the manner that absolves anachronisms via translation errors and absolves historical errors on the basis of ethnocentricity - before a high level of certainty has already been reached regarding its dating. Otherwise, the danger is that the text becomes unfalsifiable, since hoaxes and forgeries are detected through some of these very issues - anachronisms and historical errors. So when you challenge me to sort out the early material from the later material, that makes sense in establishing a fraudulent document. But that's not how the BoM is approached. Later material, that clearly had its roots in the nineteenth century, cannot discount the text due to the possibility of translation artifacts. So why should I bother doing this with the Gospel of Barnabas, given the fact that if the text is actually authentic it went through several stages of translation?

Your response seems to be to assert that the linguists of each text adequately resolve the issue, despite the controversies within BoM apologetics itself regarding tight versus loose translation, and to assert that since a significant number of Muslim scholars reject the Gospel of Abraham, and a lesser number reject the BoM, that closes the case. But the problems in these assertions are apparent. The case is not closed regarding linguistic evidence, even within the BoM apologetic community. Moreover, if the Book of Mormon were a secondary text, totally unrelated to the foundations of the faith, then certainly many more scholars would feel free to reject its authenticity. Even as it is, there are LDS scholars who do reject the authenticity of the BoM, at least in terms of historical origins, as you are well aware. The equivalent would be asking how many Muslim scholars reject the Koran.

I'm trying to demonstrate what has always bothered me about Brant's approach. He feels comfortable using this approach with the BoM because of the long list of evidences he offers, yet the strength of those specific evidences also seems based in the very assertion that is being questioned.

I do not think it is a straw man argument to request for evidence of other cultures, within the framed period of human evolution, that had similar traits in regards to the use of horses. Ie, used mainly for eating, reserved for elites although not linked to transportation for the elites, never evolving into utilizing horses for transportation or as beasts of burden despite having those horses for over a millenia. (even longer, as we have to assume that the horse was already present in Mesoamerica prior to the BoM time period). In addition, the horse would not spread to other areas where it could be used more effectively despite long standing trade and communications over an entire geographically diverse region. This is not a straw man argument due to the persuasive evidence that human beings tend to use certain technology in predictable ways that affect their group evolution. (horses, steel weapons, bows and arrows, to name just three)

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie,

I don't think this (the discussion on the horse) is going anywhere. So, I think that I probably will not continue unless something interesting comes up.

This is largely because there are two discussion. One is about the horse - would impact would it have had in ancient mesoamerica (and in the larger western hemisphere), and the plausibility that they ever existed during the appropriate time frame. This question I have little or no interest in pursuing. Although, it is clear that this is the question that you are most interested in.

The second discussion is over how and why the term "horse" may have been appropriated to refer to something else. This is the discussion which I am interested in, but which you clearly are not.

You wrote:

But that's not how the BoM is approached.

I disagree with you. This is the way that the Book of Mormon is approached (at least by some).

I'm trying to demonstrate what has always bothered me about Brant's approach. He feels comfortable using this approach with the BoM because of the long list of evidences he offers, yet the strength of those specific evidences also seems based in the very assertion that is being questioned.

But you seem to be missing his methodology. Whenever you take a text and place it within a context, there will be evidences for that context and evidences against that context (this is true of both the notion of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text and of the Book of Mormon as a modern text). The question is which model of understanding of the origins of a text deals most adequately with the evidence against it.

Take Dan Vogel's reading of the text. His approach falls to this same criticism. He has a "long list of evidences he offers, yet the strength of those specific evidences also seems based in the very assertion that is being questioned." Or, as you yourself put it just a bit ago - "Later material, that clearly had its roots in the nineteenth century ..." The challenge is that the "later material" only has it roots in the nineteenth century if it is interpreted in a specific fashion. And you are more than willing (using your recent comments in this thread as an example) to limit the text by pre-supposing that your own semantic and lexical foundation is essentially the same as that of the author of the text. In any case, I don't see this discussion going anywhere either.

When you write:

So when you challenge me to sort out the early material from the later material, that makes sense in establishing a fraudulent document.

This doesn't make any sense to me. I made some comments about how the Jubilee in GoB doesn't resemble at all the practice which existed at the time that the document alleges to be from. You responded by suggesting that it was a translation layer (you did this of course to defend the document). My questions in this regard deal with how you are defending the document. Take the "horse" in the Book of Mormon, for example. I offer an explanation as to how "horse" can plausibly be a reference to something else. Not only did I offer an explanation, I also offered a known example of this very thing occuring in a known and datable text. So, while I recognize the possible anachronism, I also have (what I feel is) a reasonable explanation as to how and why such an anachronism might occur. (The same explanation by the way is also probably likely for the other creatures listed in the 1 Nephi text). So, the question now is how you manage to suggest that the hundred year Jubilee in the text is merely an artifact of translation - an how you determine what is original text and what is the artifact of translation. In other words, I amnot dealing with the issue of the text as a fraudulent document. I am asking you to be more precise in your defense of the notion that the reference to the jubilee was an artifact of translation.

In other words, I see you using a lot of generalities - and no specifics - and in doing so, you are not only not making a reasonable argument (in my opinion of course) but you are consistently misrepresenting my position and Brant's position.

Ben

[USU78]

beastie saith thus:

In my opinion, the fact that no current mesoamerican scholar that I have read accepts a BoM time period dating for smelting is refutation enough.

You know, beastie, it's quite possible that both Sorenson's and Coe's views are quite compatible with one another. Sorenson claims Linne found smelting evidence in the right place at the right stratum for it to be consistent with BoM claims of [probably limited] smelting. By its very nature, such evidence must be anomalous. We would be surprised if the evidence of smelting were pervasive enough to impress conservatives like Coe. The BoM never claims otherwise, does it?

But as for this:

And, ironically, somehow this has become my burden of proof, and apologists are excused for not having read an article they so often cite.

I can see now why you claim illogic. I have not explained myself well.

Here's how it works: I have the burden of persuasion on the Resurrection [and all that that entails] and the Restoration [and all that that entails]. I make a prima facie case by asserting the BoM and Moroni's promise therein. "Ah," says the antiapologist, "but the BoM says there's smelting going on in there, and since we don't have archaeological evidence, neither the Resurrection nor the Restoration are possible," thus switching the burden of persuasion back to me. Then, lo and behold, Sorenson finds a reference for right place/right time smelting [possibly anomalous], and my burden of persuasion on Resurrection and Restoration are fulfilled, since I can now counter the assertion that lack of evidence of smelting debunks my assertion of the BoM and Moroni's promise as evidence thereof. This switches the burden back to the antiapologist again to debunk the BoM as evidence.

You cannot claim the Linne/Sorenson footnote evidence to be worthless unless you actually examine and cross-examine it. Whether I personally have read it is irrelevant. ILL can get you the primary source. It is available for you perusal and, if you can, crossexamination and debunking.

If you refuse to examine it, you must also refuse to insist on its worthlessness as a counter to the [alleged] debunking of the BoM via lack of evidence.

bump

[beastie]

USU-

I have adequately explained my problem with accepting a source when it's offered by people who have not read it, and are only relying on someone else's interpretation of that evidence. I'm not "refusing" to read it, I can't find it. I think Scott is correct in that one of the books is on amazon (it was the date of the finds that confused me), but I can't find the Zapotecan source. Perhaps Scott will be kind enough to provide a link to where he found it for a reasonable price. I have ordered the first text, and will return and report when I get/read it.

I really do not view your complaint with high regard, given the fact that you have no problem with people here using a source they've never read to prove something that contradicts what current experts accept. I've offered the example of Jeff Lindsay's site offering a misleading reference to a dig, and I know of another equally misleading one on his site on the same topic (unless he has corrected it within the past year, if I have time later tonight, I will reference this). If people are content with these references without doing a little background work themselves, they will be misled. Is he being "dishonest"? I have no idea.

Ben -

This is largely because there are two discussion. One is about the horse - would impact would it have had in ancient mesoamerica (and in the larger western hemisphere), and the plausibility that they ever existed during the appropriate time frame. This question I have little or no interest in pursuing. Although, it is clear that this is the question that you are most interested in.

You are mistaken. I'm not the most interested in this question, it's just the next one quickly becomes a complete dead end. (see below) I am just as interested in this point as the following, because they are both equally pertinent to BoM apologetics, depending upon one's tactic.

The second discussion is over how and why the term "horse" may have been appropriated to refer to something else. This is the discussion which I am interested in, but which you clearly are not.

Oh, I'm interested - the problem is that it's a dead end, because neither you nor any other apologist here will seriously offer animal X as the "something else". You stated you don't know enough about mesoamerican history to even make a guess. Ok, why not learn? Why are you so disinterested in something that is so crucial to your point? You have made the valid point about the Gospel of Barnabas that the vocabulary alteration due to translation problems must still be coherent with the underlying text - well, all I'm asking is that you apply that standard to the BoM. If you do so, you will see it is very important to identify animal X, or offer serious possibilities. If there is no animal X, then the "translation" error is not coherent with the text. IOW, if there's no animal X that can make sense within the context of the BoM (and you may have figured out by now that a bison won't cut it), then, by the methodology you are using to falsify the Gospel of Barnabas, the BoM is falsified as well. This is crucial to your point. I'd like to see you, or someone, develop it.

QUOTE

[beastie]

for USU - here are two examples of why it is unwise to accept the assertions people make about what sources do and do not claim.

First, the error I referred to earlier on Lindsay's site.

http://jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

New Evidence for Pre-Columbian Smelting of Metals!

See the MIT Web page on the MIT El Manchon Archaeological Excavation in Mexico. While critics have long ridiculed Book of Mormon references to ancient metal working in the Americas, interesting evidence is accumulating. Here is an excerpt:

In November 2000, a team of archaeologists led by Professor Dorothy Hosler from the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, began excavation of a pre-Columbian site in the remote mountains of northern Guerrero, Mexico.

This site is possibly the first pre-Columbian metal smelting site ever found in Mesoamerica. Therefore it is of distinct interest to Prof. Hosler . . . who studies ancient technologies and how civilizations of the past have been affected by them. In particular interest is metallurgy, a technology rare enough to only have been invented two or three times in human history (once in the Americas).

We anxiously await further information about this new discovery. The smelting site in Guerrero is in southern Mexico (see the location on a map). Also note the recent discovery in Peru proving use of metals before 1000 B.C. (or see the article at ABCnews.com. This discovery pushes the date of metal use in the Americas as far back as 1400 B.C.

Wow! Sounds intriguing! I first read this last year, and thought, hmmm, 2000? Perhaps there is some results available? Sure enough, a quick search on famsi.org revealed the following report by Hosler.

http://www.famsi.org/reports/01058/section02.htm

It is a great find. Clear evidence of smelting

[Zeitgeist]

August 12, 2002

Smart People Believe Weird Things

Rarely does anyone weigh facts before deciding what to believe

By Michael Shermer

In April 1999, when I was on a lecture tour for my book Why People Believe Weird Things, the psychologist Robert Sternberg attended my presentation at Yale University. His response to the lecture was both enlightening and troubling. It is certainly entertaining to hear about other people's weird beliefs, Sternberg reflected, because we are confident that we would never be so foolish. But why do smart people fall for such things? Sternberg's challenge led to a second edition of my book, with a new chapter expounding on my answer to his question: Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.

Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not.

This phenomenon, called the confirmation bias, helps to explain the findings published in the National Science Foundation's biennial report (April 2002) on the state of science understanding: 30 percent of adult Americans believe that UFOs are space vehicles from other civilizations; 60 percent believe in ESP; 40 percent think that astrology is scientific; 32 percent believe in lucky numbers; 70 percent accept magnetic therapy as scientific; and 88 percent accept alternative medicine.

Education by itself is no paranormal prophylactic. Although belief in ESP decreased from 65 percent among high school graduates to 60 percent among college graduates, and belief in magnetic therapy dropped from 71 percent among high school graduates to 55 percent among college graduates, that still leaves more than half fully endorsing such claims! And for embracing alternative medicine, the percentages actually increase, from 89 percent for high school grads to 92 percent for college grads.

We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70 percent of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined in the study as comprehending probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing. One solution is more and better science education, as indicated by the fact that 53 percent of Americans with a high level of science education (nine or more high school and college science/math courses) understand the scientific process, compared with 38 percent of those with a middle-level science education (six to eight such courses) and 17 percent with a low level (five or fewer courses).

The key here is teaching how science works, not just what science has discovered. We recently published an article in Skeptic (Vol. 9, No. 3) revealing the results of a study that found no correlation between science knowledge (facts about the world) and paranormal beliefs. The authors, W. Richard Walker, Steven J. Hoekstra and Rodney J. Vogl, concluded: "Students that scored well on these [science knowledge] tests were no more or less skeptical of pseudoscientific claims than students that scored very poorly. Apparently, the students were not able to apply their scientific knowledge to evaluate these pseudoscientific claims. We suggest that this inability stems in part from the way that science is traditionally presented to students: Students are taught what to think but not how to think."

To attenuate these paranormal belief statistics, we need to teach that science is not a database of unconnected factoids but a set of methods designed to describe and interpret phenomena, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.

For those lacking a fundamental comprehension of how science works, the siren song of pseudoscience becomes too alluring to resist, no matter how smart you are.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

Oh, I'm interested - the problem is that it's a dead end, because neither you nor any other apologist here will seriously offer animal X as the "something else". You stated you don't know enough about mesoamerican history to even make a guess. Ok, why not learn?

I have other interests.

Other apologists have in fact made concrete suggestions. The reason why I believe that you aren't going to carry on a reasonable discussion is that you are unwilling to address those issues. Deer? Tapirs? These things have been discussed in literature, so there is no need for me to raise these issues or defend them. Have you addressed these issues which have already been raised?

If you do so, you will see it is very important to identify animal X, or offer serious possibilities. If there is no animal X, then the "translation" error is not coherent with the text.

But, at the same time, we can make that assumption based on the facts (that you keep repeating) that the horse in the Book of Mormon is not used in the fashion that we would expect a horse to be used (and certainly not the way we would expect it to be described in a 19th century text). This then provides the impetus for us to look at alternatives. This is also the reason why almost everything you discuss has nothing to do with the text. Why not start with the text?

IOW, if there's no animal X that can make sense within the context of the BoM (and you may have figured out by now that a bison won't cut it), then, by the methodology you are using to falsify the Gospel of Barnabas, the BoM is falsified as well. This is crucial to your point. I'd like to see you, or someone, develop it.

And this is a completely ignorant statement Beastie. Because they aren't the same. The jubilee in the Gospel of Barnabas is described in a specific way which is central to the rhetorical message of the text. The "horse" is not. My changing the conceptual and semantic model of the horse from the one we use today to something else doesn't damage the text. This is not true for the notion of the jubilee in the Gospel of Barnabas. It is the simple fact that you cannot tell the difference that leads me to conclude that these discussions are not only not going to get anywhere, but also that you will continue to misunderstand Brant's methdology.

No, Ben, it not the way you are approaching it, otherwise you would be making a serious effort to identify animal X, since that is so crucial to the process, as you have demonstrated with the Gospel of Barnabas.

You know Beastie, I know an awful lot more than you do about Israelite traditions, beliefs, the Hebrew language, etc. All of these things are relevant to the Gospel of Barnabas. I don't know a lot about Mesoamerica - but I do know that Brant knows an awful lot more than you do about the subject. I recognize the limitations of my knowledge base. My objective here was not to discuss what actually happened - others have done that, and continue to do that. My objective was to discuss the process and the reasonableness of that process. But you are not interested in the process. You have to date completely ignored everything about the process of lexical shifts within languages. My determining a specific animal X is not crucial to the process. Just as my identifying a specific jubilee format wasn't crucial to the process of realizing that the jubilee in the Gospel of Barnabas could not reflect a 1st century AD belief set. Just as not having an exact knowledge of X would not have prevented us from realizing that Marco Polo had not seen a "unicorn". You are demanding something that I am neither equipped to deliver, nor am I prepared to chase after just to meet your demands. Why not first deal with the arguments raised by others?

Well, the devil is in those details, isn't it? When Brant offers his Gadianton Robbers as the strongest piece of evidence in his pool - I think there is a problem. I know this is a dead end conversation with you and Brant, but I invite others to investigate the similarities between the anti masonic rhetoric of JS' time period and area, and then read Brant's essay.

This isn't a valid argument. Do you want to rehash the old argument (I have increased the number of sources which are at my disposal, as well as narrowed the time frame in which this alleged technical usage of the term "secret combination" would have to have begun and ended). I certainly don't mind going over it again with you (although a new thread would be better). I just finished not too long ago the same discussion with Dan Vogel.

Which, of course, brings us full circle to the topic of this thread. Are you going to seriously present a deer, tapir or bison as animal X? I'm betting not.

Others have done so already. So it isn't a matter of someone being unwilling to present them as such. It just isn't going to be me. I don't have anything invested in these arguments. (By the way, the first post in this thread - if you've taken the time to read the first dozen pages in this thread - linked to articles discussing these theories.

Now, back to one unresolved issue that I really would like you to respond to. Explain to me how the notion of the jubilee in the Gospel of Barnabas is merely an artifact of translation.

Ben

[Dale]

Hi,

What's wrong with the idea these were bad translations for animals foreign to Joseph Smith's culture.

Sincerely,

Dale

[USU78]

beastie:

There is no updating on Lindsay

[USU78]

beastie's excellent cite:

What may be the oldest piece of metal from Mesoamerica (from the site of Cuicuilco in the Valley of Mexico) noted by Sorenson may date as early as about the first century BC (1985, 278). However, I know of no confirmation of a date that early. In fact its has been suggested by Emil Haury, one of the project archaeologists although not the one who excavated the piece, that the metal was from an Aztec period reuse of a Preclassic mound (1975, 1999). Additionally there is no evidence that the artifact singled out by Sorenson was produced in Mesoamerica. Even if this piece should prove to have been produced in the proper time (Late Preclassic period) and place, we would still be left with 2,900 years of Nephite and Jaredite metallurgy unaccounted for in the archeological record.

Neither "may" nor "suggested" is very impressive, is it?

Let's not lose sight of the ball, shall we? The antiapologist claims absense of evidence of smelting as proof the BoM is a XIXth Century production and, thus, JSJr. is no prophet, and, thus, the Master is no Messiah. All "may" gets the apologist is plausibility, which to him is as good as a win. "Suggested" gets nobody nothing at all, since it does not provide a debunking of Sorenson's source at all, but rather provides evidence of implausibility.

Resulting in stalemate, not checkmate.

Or am I missing something? Do you hold "suggested" does more than this?

[beastie]

I'll first respond to this point:

And this is a completely ignorant statement Beastie. Because they aren't the same. The jubilee in the Gospel of Barnabas is described in a specific way which is central to the rhetorical message of the text. The "horse" is not. My changing the conceptual and semantic model of the horse from the one we use today to something else doesn't damage the text. This is not true for the notion of the jubilee in the Gospel of Barnabas. It is the simple fact that you cannot tell the difference that leads me to conclude that these discussions are not only not going to get anywhere, but also that you will continue to misunderstand Brant's methdology.

The horse is a significant background detail, a cultural, environmental detail. Since, if it is actually ancient, the BoM is a text recorded by an ethnocentric, very small group that was not part of the dominant religion and apparently left no other written records or trace, the background detail is extremely important in ascertaining how likely it is to be an historical document.

Look at the comments about the jubilee.

http://www.barnabas.net/barnabasP83.html

Whilst the woman was talking with Jesus came his disciples, and marvelled that Jesus was speaking so with a woman. Yet no one said to him: "Why speak you thus with a Samaritan woman;?" Whereupon, when the woman was departed, they said: "Master, come and eat." Jesus answered: "I must eat other food."

Then said the disciples one to another: "Perhaps some wayfarer has spoken with Jesus and has gone to find him food." And they questioned him who writes this ;- , saying: "Has there been any one here, O Barnabas, who might have brought food to the master?" Then answered he who writes: "There has not been here any other than the woman whom you saw, who brought this empty vessel to fill it with water." Then the disciples stood amazed, awaiting the issue of the words of Jesus. Whereupon Jesus said: "You know not that the true food is to do the will of God; because it is not bread that sustains man and gives him life, but rather the word of God, by his will. And so for this reason the holy angels eat not, but live nourished only by the will of God. And thus we, Moses and Elijah and yet another, have been forty days and forty nights; without any food."

And lifting up his eyes, Jesus said: "How far off is the harvest;?" The disciples answered: "Three months." Jesus said: "Look now, how the mountain is white with corn; truly I say to you, that today there is a great harvest ;to be reaped." And then he pointed to the multitude who had come to see him. For the woman having entered into the city had moved all the city, saying: "O men, come and see a new prophet sent of God to the House of Israel"; and she recounted to them all that she had heard from Jesus. When they were come thither they besought Jesus to abide with them; and he entered into the city and abode there two days, healing all the sick, and teaching concerning the kingdom of God;. *Then said the citizens to the woman: "We believe more in his words and miracles than we do in what you said; for he is indeed a holy one of God, a prophet sent for the salvation of those that shall believe on him."

After the prayer of midnight; the disciples came near to Jesus, and he said to them: "This night shall be in the time of the Messiah, Messenger of God, the jubilee every year that now comes every hundred years. Therefore I will not that we sleep, but let us make prayer, bowing our head a hundred times, doing reverence to our God, mighty and merciful, who is blessed for evermore, and therefore each time let us say: "I confess thee our God alone, that hast not had beginning, nor shalt ever have end; for by thy mercy gavest thou to all things their beginning, and by thy justice thou shalt give to all an end; that hast no likeness among men, because in thine infinite goodness thou art not subject to motion nor to any accident. Have mercy on us, for thou hast created us, and we are the works of thy hand."'

The apologist comments:

It is not clear to which event the yearly Jubilee is being referred to by Prophet Jesus. Looking at the annual Islamic events, it could be any of the following:

The annual pilgrimage (The Hajj) to Makkah in which millions of Muslims gather to glorify God and send salutations especially to Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), prophet Ibrahim, Hajar (Hagar) and prophet Ismael.

[beastie]

The first problem with animal X being a deer is that Nephi would have already known what a deer was. This alone seems sufficient to eliminate it as a serious candidate. However, there are other reasons it must be eliminated. See below.

So we are left with a tapir. As with the deer, there are reasons it must also be eliminated, in order to preserve the coherency of the underlying text.

Let

[Brant Gardner]

Here is a quick summary of this long discussion:

beastie: A horse would have had a certain cultural impact that we don't see, ergo there wasn't a horse. No other animal is like a horse so there isn't another animal that could be a horse.

apologists: No textual evidence requires any animal that appears to be like a horse and known linguistic processes often produce a label that uses a familiar animal for an unfamiliar. Therefore it might not mean a horse.

Does anybody notice that both are arguing that there probably wasn't a horse? - or at the very least a horse acting like horses act?

beastie:

The first problem with animal X being a deer is that Nephi would have already known what a deer was.

I wonder why you think this is so certain. I find the English word "deer" one time in the entire Bible - and one of the translations notes that that identifications of some of the animals are uncertain. It gave that note right after "deer." I don't know Hebrew so I can't comment, but it doesn't appear that the deer was all that common. It is listed as an animal to be eaten in Deuteronomy, but we don't seem to see it again.

So, I wouldn't mind something that supported your assertion that Nephi must have known what a deer was.

Also we should distinguish between an animal being a pet and an animal being domesticated.

Please tell me why the animal called a horse in the Book of Mormon shows evidence of domestication. We know that it was kept, but lots of animals are kept without becoming domesticated. Zoos are full of them.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

The horse is a significant background detail, a cultural, environmental detail.

No it isn't. As I said, my changing the conceptual and semantic model of the horse doesn't affect the text. It only affects your reading of the text. The horse plays an insignificant role within the text. It is never fully described. At best, the most significant role that it plays is in the sources used by the text (most specifically Deuteronomy 17) where the horse is linked to the righteousness/wickedness of the king - a discussion by extension which is only implied in the text.

But, apart from this last issue (which I am not sure you even recognize), there is no difficulty substituting deer or tapir for horse within the text. There is no change in the meaning of the text. There is simply a shift in the conceptual and semantic model with which you read it.

Since, if it is actually ancient, the BoM is a text recorded by an ethnocentric, very small group that was not part of the dominant religion and apparently left no other written records or trace, the background detail is extremely important in ascertaining how likely it is to be an historical document.

But you are missing the point. The horse, by everyone's account, doesn't fit the model which we would expect.

Muslims who accept the Gospel of Barnabas seem quite content to accept that the terminology is likely an error*, because the text has gone through so many translations and changes. The rhetorical meaning is that the celebratory attitude now seen in a periodic celebration will be seen daily. How does the time frame so fundamentally change that meaning that the coherency of the text is lost?

The major issue is that apparently you don't have the foggiest idea what the jubilee was at the time of Christ.

Essentially, the jubilee occured every 49/50 years. We follow a solar calendar of 365 days, with the difference made up on leap years (although this still allows for a variation of about 10 minutes a year). The Jubilee calendar only had 364 days - which was a nice feature since it guarateed that the holy days would all fall on exactly the same day of every year. But, this leaves a discrepancy of about one and a quarter days a year. So, during the Jubilee, this gap was corrected in a short year (this is necessary to avoid a drift of the agricultural season which is connected to the holidays among other things). The current lunar calendar uses a 354 day year and adjusts by adding an extra month approximately every three years (seven out of every nineteen years). There was an extensive debate going on in Palestine in the centuries before and after the birth of Christ. This is evidenced in rabbinic text and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The sectarian community responsible for the scrolls used a Jubilee calendar as opposed to the lunar calendar used by the Pharisees. Because of this, they accepted as significant scripture texts like Jubilees and Enoch - both of which adopted a Jubilee calendar. These texts were rejected by mainstream Judaism most specifically for the calendar they endorsed.

The notion of a Jubilee found in the Gospel of Barnabas is fundamentally different. What is the purpose of an annual Jubilee? What is the state of the earth at the time of the coming of the Messiah? Is the coming of the Messiah the end of the world? Obviously, having an annual Jubilee - with its ban on agriculture - would cause problems if it was viewed with first century C.E. beliefs. The whole notion of an annual Jubilee is completely foreign to such thought - and it clashes with the whole notion of the calendar as understood by Jews and Christians in the first century. The text then contains two substantial errors - one relating to the notion of a hundred year Jubilee (which in and of itself is an error which could be corrected by a simple number change), but the other - the notion of an annual Jubilee presents such a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of a Jubilee that it could not have occured in a first century text. And so it has to be added completely to the existing material.

Obviously the apologetic material which you provide is useless - since it doesn't reflect beliefs found in the first century CE either:

The annual pilgrimage (The Hajj) to Makkah in which millions of Muslims gather to glorify God and send salutations especially to Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), prophet Ibrahim, Hajar (Hagar) and prophet Ismael.  The event commemorates the trials in which Hajar and her son Ismael were put in, and the trial when God asked Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, Ismael.

Eidul-Fitr, which comes at the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.

Lailatul-Qadr (The Night of Power), in which worship to God is worth one thousand months of worship.

So we get back to my question - which you haven't answered yet:

Explain to me how the notion of the jubilee in the Gospel of Barnabas is merely an artifact of translation.

[USU78]

beastie's cite:

What may be the oldest piece of metal from Mesoamerica (from the site of Cuicuilco in the Valley of Mexico) noted by Sorenson may date as early as about the first century BC (1985, 278). However, I know of no confirmation of a date that early.

So . . . Linne's work hasn't been followed up on by anybody else. That's what "confirmation" means, isn't it? Didn't I acknowledge earlier in the thread that smelting activities in BoM times would likely be seen as anomalous, given the text's lack of claims of widespread use of metals?

So . . . Linne finds something he dates to BoM times, according to Sorenson. Nobody else has found much of anything in the right place/right time . . . yet.

Stalemate.

And, BTW, this:

btw, USU, due to your inability or unwillingness to understand what I actually SAY - as in I can't find sorenson's sources versus your wish for me to say something else, ie, I refuse to look for sorenson's sources renders conversation pointlessly frustrating

and this:

You are also apparently missing background knowledge on the subject.

are unbecoming of you. I haven't attacked you personally, only pressed you on the issues of burden of persuasion and your now admitted refusal to look at Linne's work.

Please read my posts with more care and knock of the personalization, already.

[dacook]

There was a thread that wouldn't die

Horses horses my oh my

We just don't know

let's stop the row

And call the argument a tie.