I don't accept the tapir hypothesis. A horse is a horse when it comes to translation.
Okay...thanks for putting it bluntly like that. It just seems to me that Jewish immigrants to a new place would be extremely concerned with what was Kosher and what was not. I don't know if you have kids, bcspace, but I'll bet if you do or did, you'd be on the lookout for what you as Mormons are not allowed to eat. I guess the analogy for Jews and tapirs would be something like coffee ice cream for Mormons. Sure, it's not the hot drink specifically forbidden...but it is coffee. Or coffee-flavored candy. You might forbid those things as not being "Mormon kosher" enough, in the same way that Lehi and family would see tapirs as being on the forbidden list.
Even faced with an entirely new species, Jewish immigrants, I would think, would recognize it as being fairly porcine -- "splitting the hoof and not chewing the cud" -- rather than equine ( no "splitting of the hoof"), just based on their concern with dietary laws, and the importance of what they are not allowed to touch or eat. They could utilize the animal while alive, I guess, but they would have to avoid even touching it when it died.
Still, if mine is a stupid argument, I'd appreciate someone pointing it out. I don't want to be stupid, you know. :P
I think it's a perfectly cromulent argument. When I say "a horse is a horse" I am referring to the various notions of how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. I don't think horse could come across as meaning anythig else since horses were known to Joseph Smith. I think if Joseph Smith saw a tapir and didn;t know what it was, he also would've called it a pig or a boar.
We can say that there is no evidence that the stegosaurus didn't live 10,000 years ago and that the passenger pigeon is likely extinct as we have found none of them. If we dig up 10,000 year old stegosaur bones tomorrow, we reexamine our hypothesis.
Exactly.
The subject is "Swine in the Old Testament / tapir in the New World" (if I can read at all).
There is not a word about passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) or stegosaurus (a genus of stegosaurid armoured dinosaur from the Late Jurassic period - Kimmeridgian to Early Tithonian)
What do we are talking about? Whose hypotheses about what?
TAPIR - - - - - - - - >
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
bcspace wrote:I think it's a perfectly cromulent argument.
So is that a yes or a no? "Cromulent" doesn't exactly have a positive connotation. See, it's when people start throwing around these neologisms that I get EVEN MORE confused than I already am... :P
When I say "a horse is a horse"
...then you're talking about Mister Ed! I LOVE Mister Ed!
I am referring to the various notions of how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.
Oops, NOT Mister Ed. Okay...
I don't think horse could come across as meaning anythig else since horses were known to Joseph Smith. I think if Joseph Smith saw a tapir and didn;t know what it was, he also would've called it a pig or a boar.
I thought he just read the word "horse." Are you saying he would see the image of a tapir in his mind, rather than reading a word printed on the stone or the plates or whatever the current theory is? Maybe I better ask, what is your personal opinion as to his mode of translation? Just curious.
The Nehor wrote: We can say that there is no evidence that the stegosaurus didn't live 10,000 years ago and that the passenger pigeon is likely extinct as we have found none of them. If we dig up 10,000 year old stegosaur bones tomorrow, we reexamine our hypothesis.
A set of observations can just as easily disconfirm a positive statement as a negative one. That's the problem of induction for you. My question was semi-rhetorical. We're perfectly justified in thinking, on the basis of the available evidence, that there were no horses or stegosauruses in the pre-Columbian Americas in a given time-period. "Negatives" like, "The passenger pigeon went extinct" are justifiably believed on scientific grounds just as much as "positives" like, "all life on earth contains nucleic acids."
This method is how the Book of Mormon forces me to reexamine this hypothesis. God tells me it is true. Everyone else says there is no evidence God is right. God has never been wrong when he's told me something before. What conclusion can I draw but that God is right?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:What conclusion can I draw but that God is right?
That you have a real confirmation bias problem?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
The Nehor wrote:What conclusion can I draw but that God is right?
That you have a real confirmation bias problem?
Let's look at the two cases:
1. The Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe who has tutored me since I was a child and revealed things to me including the future with perfect accuracy tells me that a certain book is correct.
2. A bunch of people talking about horses and tapirs on the Intratubes tell me I'm wrong based on archaeologists not finding something.
Who should I believe?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
1. The Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe who has tutored me since I was a child and revealed things to me including the future with perfect accuracy tells me that a certain book is correct.
2. A bunch of people talking about horses and tapirs on the Intratubes tell me I'm wrong based on archaeologists not finding something.
Who should I believe?
You conclude what you like, since it seems that this is what you are good at.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Trevor wrote:You conclude what you like, since it seems that this is what you are good at.
Thanks for the compliment. :)
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
It was my pleasure. After all, you have been there so often to chime in with substantive commentary when I post something serious.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
