DCP Puts Odd Parameters on Evidence for Book of Mormon

[_Scottie]

Just curious why you feel this need to post from a private message board where you are not invited?

Hi, Scottie. Your post is totally off-topic. Since you're a moderator, would you mind splitting this off, or else deleting it? Thanks in advance.

Actually, it's not.

Care to answer the actual question though?

[_stemelbow]

It really is fascinating that apologists claim all the troublesome questions have been answered.

They most certainly HAVE NOT been answered. They may have been addresses (quite poorly, in my opinion), but not answered.

As I said over there, "we just haven't found the horse bones yet" doesn't hold as much weight to the general population as the apologists think it should.

Hey Scottie, I can agree with your approach in principle, but why are you assuming apologists think the general population should put any weight in the horse bones have not been found yet? I think the apologists approach is more along the lines of, "there has been reasons given to think there may have been horses in the americas pre-columbus. We don't have any archaeological reasons to see that, but there are other reasons. There may be bones out there somewhere verifying this. We simply don't' know. So we feel comfortable in the faith, for now."

[_jon]

I think the apologists approach is more along the lines of, "there has been reasons given to think there may have been horses in the americas pre-columbus. We don't have any archaeological reasons to see that, but there are other reasons. There may be bones out there somewhere verifying this. We simply don't' know. So we feel comfortable in the faith, for now."

Stem, can you quote some stuff that's been published that reflects this style of apologetic?

Thanks in advance...

[_Buffalo]

Hey Scottie, I can agree with your approach in principle, but why are you assuming apologists think the general population should put any weight in the horse bones have not been found yet? I think the apologists approach is more along the lines of, "there has been reasons given to think there may have been horses in the americas pre-columbus. We don't have any archaeological reasons to see that, but there are other reasons. There may be bones out there somewhere verifying this. We simply don't' know. So we feel comfortable in the faith, for now."

There is no reason to suppose that there were any pre-Columbian horses in the Americas other than apologetic necessity.

[_Scottie]

Mostly because I haven't seen any other reasons.

The apologetic responses to horses, that I know of, are

1) Joseph was using a loose translation and "horse" was the closest word he knew of that matched "tapir". This, of course, completely ignores the mechanism that he used to translate Cumom and Curelom.
2) The Nephites came to the new world and saw the tapir, but didn't know what it was, so called it a horse. They wrote the reformed Egyptian word for Horse, which is what Joseph Smith translated. Cinepro has a great response to this on MDD if you want to search it.
3) There WERE horses during that time, and we are just waiting for the bones to be discovered. Or, some even say that we HAVE found horse bones, but because of sloppy archeology, they have been discarded because they were not "supposed" to be there. Yeah, because everyone knows archaeologists are all in a massive conspiracy to keep the Book of Mormon from being true. They contaminate sites allllll the time just to keep the evidences hidden.

Unless there are more I've missed?

[_stemelbow]

Stem, can you quote some stuff that's been published that reflects this style of apologetic?

Thanks in advance...

Sure. http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... ts/?id=129

I think that's the main style of apologetic, if ya read it without the hostility prone to those of this place.

[_stemelbow]

There is no reason to suppose that there were any pre-Columbian horses in the Americas other than apologetic necessity.

I'm sure its much easier to see it that way, Buffalo.

[_stemelbow]

Mostly because I haven't seen any other reasons.

The apologetic responses to horses, that I know of, are

1) Joseph was using a loose translation and "horse" was the closest word he knew of that matched "tapir". This, of course, completely ignores the mechanism that he used to translate Cumom and Curelom.

I do not believe I've ever seen this argued before.

2) The Nephites came to the new world and saw the tapir, but didn't know what it was, so called it a horse. They wrote the reformed Egyptian word for Horse, which is what Joseph Smith translated. Cinepro has a great response to this on MDD if you want to search it.

Again I do not believe I've ever seen this argued.

3) There WERE horses during that time, and we are just waiting for the bones to be discovered. Or, some even say that we HAVE found horse bones, but because of sloppy archeology, they have been discarded because they were not "supposed" to be there. Yeah, because everyone knows archaeologists are all in a massive conspiracy to keep the Book of Mormon from being true. They contaminate sites allllll the time just to keep the evidences hidden.

I've never seen it argued this way either.

Unless there are more I've missed?

I tend to think you've missed the arguments altogether and painted some starw men in their place. Seems like the obvious answer to me.

[_Scottie]

I tend to think you've missed the arguments altogether and painted some starw men in their place. Seems like the obvious answer to me.

You haven't been around for very long, so it doesn't surprise me that you haven't seen these.

I have. Quite often.

[_Blixa]

Just curious why you feel this need to post from a private message board where you are not invited?

Just curious why you feel this need to refer to your posts from a private message board where not everyone is invited (and where you are also complaining about this thread):

As I said over there, "we just haven't found the horse bones yet" doesn't hold as much weight to the general population as the apologists think it should.