No Lion Remains in Israel: another one bites the dust

[_stemelbow]

Small population? That's not what the Book of Mormon describes. According to the text, horses were used by the Jaredites and were found by the Nephites when they arrived. 500 years later, Lamoni was using them for transportation. Why would a small group of horses be kept for 500 years and of which no trace can be found? Lamoni was a regional sub-king, so unless he was special, he probably wouldn't have been the only one with horses.

My point is not that there were few horses, but that potentially there might have been only very few horses. the text doesn't mention them often and when they are mentioned it is in reference to Lamoni's horses, or to the horses in Jaredite times. If 20,000 is a considerably small number in the relative short time the Hun were in Europe, then whose to say there weren't far fewer than that in Mesoamerica? Whose to say the number is considerably less than 20,000? I really don't know. thus, i ask.

Even if we stipulate that the mention of horses in the Book of Mormon does not mean any of the equine species, we still have the problem of animals being used for transportation. That does not fit the Mesoamerican model at all, where only turkeys and ducks and dogs were domesticated for food purposes. There aren't any pack animals among the Maya, nor are there chariots. It goes without saying that there is no trace of any horses, either.

I get that. I get that the mention of horse is very problematic. I'm just wondering and thinking about it a little.

[_Kishkumen]

Mike is a really nice guy, and actually quite willing to admit mistakes. The real problem here is that he's mostly a synthesizer of research done by others, and quite often the others haven't haven't done their homework. Mike should probably be more careful, but it's also not entirely fair to pin all the blame on him.

I agree, CK. Mike is a nice guy. My beef is not with Mike. But there is a pattern of sloppy research on these matters that seems to be endemic in Mormon apologetics. How many times will we see apologists recycling outdated, obscure, and apologetic references to stuff like evidence of certain animals, metal-working, and the like? It simply does not add up, and I for one am sick of the sloppiness and games.

The Book of Mormon is not ancient. It simply is not.

[_Kishkumen]

I know. What strikes me is that the Bennett article predates Mike's by 7 years and discusses the same issue and is published in the same place. Surely someone should have noticed the contradiction.

Damn straight.

[_Runtu]

My point is not that there were few horses, but that potentially there might have been only very few horses. the text doesn't mention them often and when they are mentioned it is in reference to Lamoni's horses, or to the horses in Jaredite times. If 20,000 is a considerably small number in the relative short time the Hun were in Europe, then whose to say there weren't far fewer than that in Mesoamerica? Whose to say the number is considerably less than 20,000? I really don't know. thus, i ask.

As Kish mentioned, it really doesn't matter. If horses were part of the culture, even just restricted to royalty, over 500 years, there would be some evidence (corrals, bones, saddles, and cultural/artistic representations). That is true for the Huns, despite the claims of the apologists, but it is not true for Mesoamerica.

I get that. I get that the mention of horse is very problematic. I'm just wondering and thinking about it a little.

It doesn't matter to me whether anyone believes that Lamanites existed and had horses. But this is just a bad apologetic argument that Mike is making, hence my response to it. The idea of a "loan-shift" for deer or tapir works only if those animals were used in a manner similar to horses. They weren't. This is very problematic, indeed.

[_stemelbow]

The simple and correct answer to these problems is that the Book of Mormon is not ancient.

I agree with ya there, in the academic sense. But what fun would it be if we always had to rely on stiff logical conclusions on everything? We'd have no Mormons, no Christians of any brand, and no non-religionists. We'd all be the same.

Thus, I must maintain, for diversity if for nothing else, the best answer to the fact that there is no horse evidence in the Book of Mormon time frame is that there must have been horses.

[_Kishkumen]

I get that. I get that the mention of horse is very problematic. I'm just wondering and thinking about it a little.

Well, have fun with that. And give some consideration to Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, elves, and the Lost Continent of Mu while you're at it. It is all very entertaining.

And if you think I am disrespecting you, remember that there are lots of people who do believe in the existence of little folk.

[_Kishkumen]

I agree with ya there, in the academic sense.

I can't believe my eyes. My respect for stem just went up into the stratosphere.

[_stemelbow]

As Kish mentioned, it really doesn't matter. If horses were part of the culture, even just restricted to royalty, over 500 years, there would be some evidence (corrals, bones, saddles, and cultural/artistic representations). That is true for the Huns, despite the claims of the apologists, but it is not true for Mesoamerica.

But there's no comparing between the huns and Mesoamerica. I don't' know, and ignorantly so, that there would have to be something found. But, I can guess that there are those who would maintain we must have something in order to accept the notion. As it is my faith isn't in horse stories. So why must I have to accept that its a fact that there were no horses in mesoamerica at the time? I don't know.

It doesn't matter to me whether anyone believes that Lamanites existed and had horses. But this is just a bad apologetic argument that Mike is making, hence my response to it. The idea of a "loan-shift" for deer or tapir works only if those animals were used in a manner similar to horses. They weren't. This is very problematic, indeed.

Indeed. Problematic. And I appreciate, truly, any efforts to expose shoddy arguments, even if it paints my faith in a poor light. I simply enjoy asking more questions just in case.

[_ShadowFax]

My point is not that there were few horses, but that potentially there might have been only very few horses. the text doesn't mention them often and when they are mentioned it is in reference to Lamoni's horses, or to the horses in Jaredite times. If 20,000 is a considerably small number in the relative short time the Hun were in Europe, then whose to say there weren't far fewer than that in Mesoamerica? Whose to say the number is considerably less than 20,000? I really don't know. thus, i ask.

?huh?
By your reasoning that ""20,000 is a considerably small number in the relative short time the Hun were in Europe"", wouldn't it suggest that the ratio of horses in the Americas should be much greater based on on the high population of Lehi's descendents vs the long period of time they allegedly inhabited the Americas?

What if it's all fabricated stem?
Are you able to look at that as a possibility?
Are you able to allow your questions to formulate from a place that it could be false? When you formulate your questions from a place to defend that it could likely be true you start to make little sense and it becomes difficult to follow because the rational mind has to twist itself in a very strange way to understand how you are trying to make sense of it.

Now you say "you really don't know", but is that really what you mean?
All the comments you make sound like you really DO know and defend and support what you think you really DO know.
Now you say you really don't know.
Which is it??
Can you understand the readers confusion? It's no wonder readers are confused by your writing as you are equally confused it appears.

cheers!

[_Runtu]

But there's no comparing between the huns and Mesoamerica.

Why do you say that?

I don't' know, and ignorantly so, that there would have to be something found. But, I can guess that there are those who would maintain we must have something in order to accept the notion. As it is my faith isn't in horse stories. So why must I have to accept that its a fact that there were no horses in mesoamerica at the time? I don't know.

As I said, I really don't care if you think there were horses in Mesoamerica at the time of the Nephites. At this point in time, there is no evidence that there were horses then, and there is likewise no evidence of the use of domesticated animals for transportation at that time. Is it remotely possible that some evidence will turn up? Sure, but in the meantime, these absurd arguments don't help the cause.

Indeed. Problematic. And I appreciate, truly, any efforts to expose shoddy arguments, even if it paints my faith in a poor light. I simply enjoy asking more questions just in case.

I don't think the shoddy arguments of apologists necessarily put your faith in a bad light. I guess they would if your faith depended on those arguments, but I'm guessing it does not.