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

[_Hally McIlrath]

Are we sure that the tapir's "hoof" would count as divided?

Ummmmm -- good question. I THINK so...but...that's just ME, thinking. And you know what kind of trouble you get into, when you let girls think. ;)

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.

Yeah, I believe they are synonymous myself. I don't know that "cloven" only means "no less than, no more than" two, however. Maybe it means a multitude. Regardless, the tapir is still not Kosher, since it does not "chew the cud," the other stipulation. I read that it only had one stomach, while the ruminants, like cows, have multiple stomachs, which is why they are able to re-chew their food.

[_Matt Amos]

Agreed, Hally. I bring it up because I suspect that an apologist somewhere might try to argue that tapirs have been known to eat their own feces, thereby qualifying as "chewing their cud" (I have seen a similar approach used for rabbits by defenders of the Bible). Here are two articles from Wikipedia that discuss cloven hooves and Jewish dietary law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloven_hoof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher

[_The Nehor]

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.

I should clarify. I've never had a revelation about horses in the Americas. I did have several regarding the Book of Mormon. I don't care enough about horses to bring this up and ask him to lead me to a place where I can dig up horse bones to amaze the world.

[_guy sajer]

Agreed, Hally. I bring it up because I suspect that an apologist somewhere might try to argue that tapirs have been known to eat their own feces, thereby qualifying as "chewing their cud"

Mmmmm . . . feces!

[_Hally McIlrath]

Agreed, Hally. I bring it up because I suspect that an apologist somewhere might try to argue that tapirs have been known to eat their own feces, thereby qualifying as "chewing their cud" (I have seen a similar approach used for rabbits by defenders of the Bible).

I hadn't considered that angle. Thanks for bringing it up.

Here are two articles from Wikipedia that discuss cloven hooves and Jewish dietary law:

Those were great articles. Thank you.

I have some Ultra Orthodox Jewish friends, and I've seen just how meticulous they have to be with regard to food -- even to use an egg, they have to crack it into a bowl, and wait several minutes to make sure there is no blood in or around the yolk; if there is, the egg must be thrown away, and the dish it sat in is no longer Kosher. So with them in mind, I've long wondered how the Hebrews coped in the New World (assuming there were any Hebrews in the New World). It would seem to me, if they were Jewish at all, they'd have been quite concerned with classifying everything into the categories of what was allowed or not allowed, under the rules of the Torah.

[_Danna]

I have some Ultra Orthodox Jewish friends, and I've seen just how meticulous they have to be with regard to food -- even to use an egg, they have to crack it into a bowl, and wait several minutes to make sure there is no blood in or around the yolk; if there is, the egg must be thrown away, and the dish it sat in is no longer Kosher. So with them in mind, I've long wondered how the Hebrews coped in the New World (assuming there were any Hebrews in the New World). It would seem to me, if they were Jewish at all, they'd have been quite concerned with classifying everything into the categories of what was allowed or not allowed, under the rules of the Torah.

I spent some time looking into Tapirs as possible horses (the answer was no- they are nocturnal, have UV sensitive eyes and skin, and delicate feet), which resulted in my first post here:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 51&start=0

They have such cute feet! but as with you, the clean/unclean issue came up, followed by a dive into Leviticus, then the thought that if this is so obviously important, where is the parallel information in the Book of Mormon??

Initially I thought that given the amount of trivia we find in the Book of Mormon, that a list of unclean and clean animals would be expected in the Nephite record to clarify the position of animals like the tapir, similar to the rules we find in Leviticus. Kosher/WOW eating is very important to the deity after all! (for example Daniel in Babylon in roughly the same time frame, the revelation to Peter etc, and the WoW today). But no.

BUT, on reflection, some mopologist would just say that it would not have been considered an issue for the future, and Mormon or Moroni edited it out of the record (or maybe it was in the 116 pages?). Then we would be into arguing over subjective assessments of what one would consider important in the record. Frankly I do think that this and the near total lack of mention of the myriad daily applications of mosaic law (has anyone found a mezzuzah in a mesoamerican dig?) is a big strike against the Book of Mormon being what it purports to be. References to mosaic law would have been woven through the narrative as they are in the Bible, and those would have escaped editing out.

When something could vaguely refer to mosaic law, if you look at it sideways and squint, like King Benjamin's address, it is the subject of in-depth essays with copious notes referring to other in-depth essays by other apologists down the hall. The fact that the mosaic instances are so 'special' as to require such fanfare just confirms that living mosaic law day-in, day-out is not a big part of the record. In depth reading of the Old Testament usually involves looking up some obscure (to us) mosaic ritual or practise every couple of chapters or so. No so the Book of Mormon.

[_Matt Amos]

BUT, on reflection, some mopologist would just say that it would not have been considered an issue for the future, and Mormon or Moroni edited it out of the record (or maybe it was in the 116 pages?). Then we would be into arguing over subjective assessments of what one would consider important in the record. Frankly I do think that this and the near total lack of mention of the myriad daily applications of mosaic law (has anyone found a mezzuzah in a mesoamerican dig?) is a big strike against the Book of Mormon being what it purports to be. References to mosaic law would have been woven through the narrative as they are in the Bible, and those would have escaped editing out.

When something could vaguely refer to mosaic law, if you look at it sideways and squint, like King Benjamin's address, it is the subject of in-depth essays with copious notes referring to other in-depth essays by other apologists down the hall. The fact that the mosaic instances are so 'special' as to require such fanfare just confirms that living mosaic law day-in, day-out is not a big part of the record. In depth reading of the Old Testament usually involves looking up some obscure (to us) mosaic ritual or practise every couple of chapters or so. No so the Book of Mormon.

Good points, Danna. However, I think the application of Mosaic law to Book of Mormon apologetics can go even deeper. Consider the following from Sorenson (taken from http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/Enos/Enos1.htm):

The term flocks could have included such smaller animals much used by native peoples in Mesoamerica as hares, rabbits, and the paca and agouti (both rodents the size of small pigs).

Dogs are mentioned at five places in the Book of Mormon, but nothing is said of their use. Two types (perhaps two species) were common in Mesoamerica. The large, white, humped mastiff (Nahuatl itzcuintepotzotli) was the creature whose noisy descendants plague Mexican villages today. A smaller, hairless sort (Nahuatl xoloitzcuintli) was fattened and eaten as a delicacy. The Spaniards relished the flesh of these animals at the time of the conquest, although they would have been offended, as most of us would be, at being offered the flesh of the bigger dog. Perhaps Nephite "flocks" included fattened dogs." (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. FARMS, 1985. P. 292-3).

Hares, rabbits, two types of rodents (paca and agouti), and dogs. Doesn't that make 5 of 5 unclean animals that the Law-of-Moses-honoring Nephites would NOT have used for food?

[_bcspace]

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

I am using it with the same connotation as found in the Simpsons episode "Lisa the Iconoclast".....

When schoolteacher Edna Krabappel hears the Springfield town motto, "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man," she comments that she never heard the word "embiggens" until she moved to Springfield. Miss Hoover, another teacher, replies, "I don’t know why; it’s a perfectly cromulent word." Later in the episode, while talking about Homer’s audition for the role of town crier, Principal Skinner states, "He's embiggened that role with his cromulent performance."

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?

If he saw the animal, it was what we would call a horse. If he saw a word, it was a word describing what we would call a horse and therefore was translated as "horse".

Maybe I better ask, what is your personal opinion as to his mode of translation? Just curious.

Don't have one.

[_moksha]

You guys would argue about dragons and unicorns if the books were switched. It is still the useful symbolic truths that one gains from the stories that is important. The tapirs, horses, unicorns and dragons are of secondary consideration.

[_Danna]

Agreed, Hally. I bring it up because I suspect that an apologist somewhere might try to argue that tapirs have been known to eat their own feces, thereby qualifying as "chewing their cud" (I have seen a similar approach used for rabbits by defenders of the Bible).

I hadn't considered that angle. Thanks for bringing it up.

:-)