Swine in the Old Testament / tapir in the New World.

[_The Nehor]

Thanks for the compliment. :)

It was my pleasure. After all, you have been there so often to chime in with substantive commentary when I post something serious.

When did this happen? ;)

[_Trevor]

When did this happen? ;)

Don't be so hard on yourself! :)

[_The Nehor]

When did this happen? ;)

Don't be so hard on yourself! :)

Well played. I laughed.

[_Trevor]

Well played. I laughed.

I thought you might like it. Thanks.

[_scipio337]

Which only begs the question: How many tapir species are native to upstate NY?


Does this also mean that Jews can't eat rhinoceros?


(notes that tapir live in tropical zones...)

[_The Nehor]

Incidentally, I don't buy the horses=tapir theory.

[_EAllusion]

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?

It's not just that there is no evidence. There is no evidence where we would reasonably expect to find some. No horses in pre-Columbian American during Book of Mormon times is a somewhat less certain version of no elephants in my kitchen. We have reason to believe we would have certain observations we do not if they really were there.

The beauty of the argument than an omniscient being revealed to you information that contradicts our current empirical understanding of the world is that it can Trump any view, no matter how well supported. This just as easily can be used in defense of a 6,000 year old - or flat - earth for instance. There are two problems with this, however. First, all the empirical evidence that exists for ideas that contradict what you know via divine revelation is evidence against the veracity of your revelation. If you learned that the earth is flat via revelation, all the reason we have to believe this is false is evidence against the reliablity of your revelation. Sure, if an omniscient, truthful, being revealed to you the flatness of the earth, we'd be wrong about the evidence, but you can't simply assume that is true and above question. Second, the basis for you thinking God told you it is true is almost certainly flawed. It's hard to go into any detail, since you haven't given much. Suffice to say, the reasons why people mistakenly believe they have psychic powers via prediction of the future in general tend to apply to the specific instances involving revelatory beliefs.

[_The Nehor]

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?

It's not just that there is no evidence. There is no evidence where we would reasonably expect to find some. No horses in pre-Columbian American during Book of Mormon times is a somewhat less certain version of no elephants in my kitchen. We have reason to believe we would have certain observations we do not if they really were there.

The beauty of the argument than an omniscient being revealed to you information that contradicts our current empirical understanding of the world is that it can Trump any view, no matter how well supported. This just as easily can be used in defense of a 6,000 year old - or flat - earth for instance. There are two problems with this, however. First, all the empirical evidence that exists for ideas that contradict what you know via divine revelation is evidence against the veracity of your revelation. If you learned that the earth is flat via revelation, all the reason we have to believe this is false is evidence against the reliablity of your revelation. Sure, if an omniscient, truthful, being revealed to you the flatness of the earth, we'd be wrong about the evidence, but you can't simply assume that is true and above question. Second, the basis for you thinking God told you it is true is almost certainly flawed. It's hard to go into any detail, since you haven't given much. Suffice to say, the reasons why people mistakenly believe they have psychic powers via prediction of the future in general tend to apply to the specific instances involving revelatory beliefs.

Oh, that's where you're wrong. I can not only assume it's true, I can go beyond assumption and into certainty. I agree that the argument is beautiful and it can Trump any view. The wonderful thing for you is that you can choose to believe I'm lying when I know I'm not. You could also follow a path to God and find out on your own. Agency is great, huh?

Wait, are you also saying the Earth isn't flat? Silly, silly apostates.

[_EAllusion]

The wonderful thing for you is that you can choose to believe I'm lying when I know I'm not. You could also follow a path to God and find out on your own. Agency is great, huh?

Wait, are you also saying the Earth isn't flat? Silly, silly apostates.

I don't think you are lying. I think you are convinced of some shoddy reasoning. I'm not an apostate. I have "found out on my own," so to speak. It turns out that it is extremely unlikely that you are receiving revelations from any diety, much less one that is confirming the reality of horses in the Americas in 157 BCE. Go figure.

[_Matt Amos]

While the tapir "divides the hoof," he does not "chew the cud," making him an unclean animal, similar to camels or horses, both of which also carry a prohibition that they not be eaten.

Are we sure that the tapir's "hoof" would count as divided? I thought that "divided hoof" was synonymous with "cloven hoof" (i.e. two segments with a tough/horny covering). The front foot of a tapir has four toes, while the back foot has three. There are two excellent pics of tapir feet at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapir.