Translation Process for Documents

[_Drifting]

GR33N

A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse

Meaning

One of Shakespeare's best known lines. The quotation is sometimes now repeated ironically when someone is is need of some unimportant item.

Like supporting facts, for instance...

[_GR33N]

In your comment above (which I've bolded), I hope you can clarify...

Are you saying that horses, using the term 'horse' to refer to the species equus ferus caballus, were present in North, Central or South America during the period of time from 2000 BC to 400 AD?

I am saying this.

My understanding is that it has been clearly documented that there are no physical remains, cultural references or other anecdotal forms of evidence to suggest that horses lived in the western hemisphere after their extinction some 8-10k years ago, and that no indigenous human culture ever used or domesticated horses prior to their arrival with the Spaniards in the fifteenth century. I would count this as a fact. The fact of the complete absence of evidence. The only source for such a counterclaim seems to be the Book of Mormon. And those of MI and FAIR who defend the Book of Mormon clearly agree with this sentiment, knowing the facts as they do. They attempt to bridge the resulting gap by asserting that when Joseph Smith/Mormon/Moroni wrote the word 'Horse', the animal actually referred to was 'tapir'.

There is not a complete absence of evidence and therefore it is not fact.

Those of MI and FAIR are entitled to their opinion, I don't agree that the term 'horse' in the Book of Mormon referenced a tapir. The LORD intended for it say horse. There were horses.

Did Native Americans Really Have the Horse Before Columbus?

Last thing: why do you put the word 'scholar' in scare quotes? Those who say no horses existed here during Book of Mormon times... are they not scholars? Or is it that you believe the are scholars, but because of Satan's grand plan to defeat the restoration of the gospel, they purposefully hide horse bones and destroy Mayan horse glyphs which might prove otherwise? How do facts get established? By the meticulous efforts of thousands upon thousands of researchers, archeologists and scientists, spanning numerous decades, cultures, religions and nations, or by a single, naked assertion in a 19th Century scripture with zero provenance?

Being considered a "scholar" (yes scare quotes again) does not mean that I take their opinion as truth. A scholar is someone who is continually learning. A scholar can not say for certain that something is or isn't a certain way without all the facts. If they are still learning then they don't have all the facts. Once someone (including themselves) considers them to be a scholar then their findings or discoveries somehow can not be challenged?

Why do the opinions of scholars matter so little to you? The scholar (Thorlief) seems to have claimed that strange tenses in Hebrew translations are normal, thus providing an apologist a means of defending the Book of Mormon. You accept this scholar and his conclusions. James Barr, another scholar, says that Thorlief got it wrong. Suddenly, Barr is now a 'scholar' (in scare quotes)? And now you don't care what 'scholars' say?

I don't discount a scholar just because he claims scholarship. I study the facts on both sides of the argument and continue to keep my mind open so I can continue to learn. Sifting for truth.

Isn't your physician a scholar? I have to bet that he or she could not have earned a degree in medicine without a substantial amount of scholarship. It rather seems that the only scholars you distrust are the ones who's work might refute your religious beliefs.

It seems you have jumped to a false conclusion here. I question anyone offering me an opinion whether they be a "scholar" or not. That includes doctors, lawyers, and religious leaders. It's up to me to find the truth and understand it for myself. I would hope that you do not take the opinions of others as fact without questions just because of a claim to scholarship.

What I find more interesting is the fact that you present Abinidi's "Telling Blunder" as undisputed fact that the Book of Mormon is a "clear fraud" and when I present a differing opinion that shoots a hole in your view of Abinidi's story you turn to questioning my opinion of "scholars". Instead I would encourage you to open your mind to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is true.

[_beefcalf]

GR33N:

I took a look at your link Did Native Americans Really Have the Horse Before Columbus?, and have a few comments:

I was unable to ascertain what degrees Mr. Yuri Kuchinsky holds, at which institutions he studied, nor what research on the subject matter of horses he has been involved with. His sole presence in the world appears to be this page.

Yes, Michael Ash, grasping at the same tenuous straw that you are grasping at, referenced Mr. Kuchinsky's page in his FAIR horse article. I have found Kuchinsky's arguments and presentation to lack a certain level of... persuasiveness.

Yet, in the spirit of secular ecumenism, and the high standards set by Michael Ash, may I present proof that Cain yet walks the Earth (as bigfoot)?

Or that the prophet, seer, and revelator Joseph Fielding Smith was exactly right about man's misguided and prideful attempt to escape this earthly sphere and walk on the moon?

Or that the Book of Mormon concept of skin color relating to a people's Godliness is well supported?

These websites would be unable to post the things they post if they weren't fully and carefully vetted by the Internet Truth Service, which, as you well know, prevents people from posting complete and total garbage on the internet.

It seems I must concede. But, hey! That's what we scientists do when presented with overwhelming evidence.

[_Drifting]

GR33N:

I took a look at your link Did Native Americans Really Have the Horse Before Columbus?, and have a few comments:

I was unable to ascertain what degrees Mr. Yuri Kuchinsky holds, at which institutions he studied, nor what research on the subject matter of horses he has been involved with. His sole presence in the world appears to be this page.

Yes, Michael Ash, grasping at the same tenuous straw that you are grasping at, referenced Mr. Kuchinsky's page in his FAIR horse article. I have found Kuchinsky's arguments and presentation to lack a certain level of... persuasiveness.

Yet, in the spirit of secular ecumenism, and the high standards set by Michael Ash, may I present proof that Cain yet walks the Earth (as bigfoot)?

Or that the prophet, seer, and revelator Joseph Fielding Smith was exactly right about man's misguided and prideful attempt to escape this earthly sphere and walk on the moon?

Or that the Book of Mormon concept of skin color relating to a people's Godliness is well supported?

These websites would be unable to post the things they post if they weren't fully and carefully vetted by the Internet Truth Service, which, as you well know, prevents people from posting complete and total garbage on the internet.

It seems I must concede. But, hey! That's what we scientists do when presented with overwhelming evidence.

Hmmm...

It seems GR33N is using the Spencer lake find as part of his empiracal evidence.

This report comes from a different source.

In 1935 a horse skull was found in a Wisconsin mound. In 1936 a college student found out about the skull. He confessed that when he was in his teens he and a friend had buried that skull in the mound. Like teens today, they laughed what someone would think if they found it two hundred years later but as an adult he wanted to make things right. The confession did not get reported right away. In 1962 the former student was now a professor and he wrote a statement of his teen mischief. Another professor identified the skull as a western mustang and noted that rodents had gnawed it, meaning it had been above ground for some time before it was buried in the mound. This backed up the confession.

The Spencer Lake horse hoax was finally exposed in 1964 in the Wisconsin Archaeologist

So GR33N,

Do you think the Spencer Lake find supports your stance, or perhaps not?

[_beefcalf]

Drifting:

The Kuchinsky page GR33N links to makes reference to the Wisconsin horse skull. Kuchinsky's argument, perhaps echoing a person named 'Hu McCulloch' who posted on this topic on the sci.archeology usenet newsgroup some fourteen-plus years ago, is that the skull which 'Mr. P' admits to planting in a mound during his youth is actually a separate skull from the one found by Mr. McKern. He goes on to give what he believes to be the key differences between the two skulls and concludes that Mr. P's prank confession is insufficient cause to dismiss the reports of a pre-Columbian horse skull.

We all thought there was one horse skull and one Cumorah... turns out there was two of each! The Book of Mormon is saved!

I haven't delved very deep into this rabbit hole, but the few searches I have done have led me back here, to MDB, discussing the very same topic, five years ago.

[_Drifting]

Drifting:

The Kuchinsky page GR33N links to makes reference to the Wisconsin horse skull. Kuchinsky's argument, perhaps echoing a person named 'Hu McCulloch' who posted on this topic on the sci.archeology usenet newsgroup some fourteen-plus years ago, is that the skull which 'Mr. P' admits to planting in a mound during his youth is actually a separate skull from the one found by Mr. McKern. He goes on to give what he believes to be the key differences between the two skulls and concludes that Mr. P's prank confession is insufficient cause to dismiss the reports of a pre-Columbian horse skull.

We all thought there was one horse skull and one Cumorah... turns out there was two of each! The Book of Mormon is saved!

I haven't delved very deep into this rabbit hole, but the few searches I have done have led me back here, to MDB, discussing the very same topic, five years ago.

That Satan is a crafty fellow. Knowing a real Book of Mormon horse skull was going to be found he inspired someone else to plant a fake one in the exact same spot, not mention it for decades and then declare an admission of guilt of the prank when the 'real' Book of Mormon horse skull was uncovered, as was predestined to happen.

On the other hand, the actual skull has been subjected to testing it seems...

In fact, Daniel C. Peterson seems to be alluding to the Spencer Lake skull when he says in a recent FAIR video that horse bones "found in the upper Midwest" "have been radiocarbon dated to about the time of Christ." Presumably in his reference to radiocarbon dating he is thinking of the Late Woodland date of the mound, which was obtained by carbon dating some charcoal found therein. Peterson suggests that archaeologists' late dating of this and other horse finds are simply "assumed, on the basis of ideology and preconceived opinion."

Peterson couldn't be more wrong. In 2002 BYU professor Stephen Jones (a physicist whose research interest include cold fusion, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and Book of Mormon horses) contacted Barker and offered to fund AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) dating of the horse skull itself. Samples were sent to two separate radiocarbon labs, both of which returned post-conquest dates (averaging about 150 years ago). This study has finally settled the controversy surrounding the Spencer Lake horse skull. The skull is a hoax, and provides no evidentiary support for the Book of Mormon.

Works Cited:

Barker, Alex W. "Stewardship, Collections Integrity, and Long-Term Research Value," in Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship, ed. S. Terry Childs (Washington, D. C.: Society for American Archaeology, 2004) 25-41.

*mild-mannered musings Feb 2008*