I've never seen a live mammoth, but some have been found on islands and the Alaska area dating significantly past their previously assumed dates of extinction. Alaskan soil DNA apparently confirms their existence past their disappearance from the fossil record as well. Show
2 Link to comment sunstonedPosted July 3, 2017 sunstoned
Posted July 3, 2017 According to the text, cureloms and cumoms were useful animals, which taken in context with the text gives the impression that they were domesticated or at the very least, were used for food. That narrows things down a bit. I don't believe they were Mastodons, Mammoths or Gomphothers as the timing is off by about 9K years. I also doubt they were something brought over in the sealed dish-boats of the Jeredites as there would be some providence and they would have old world names. As far as I know there is no archaeology evidence that could shed light on this, so until something is new is found, I'm going to place them in the mythical creatures category. 2 Link to commentRevTestamentPosted July 3, 2017 RevTestament
Posted July 3, 2017
Big, hairy mammoths were apparently very useful - which is apparently why they were hunted to extinction. Domesticated, they would also be very useful as plow animals or dirt movers. A gomphothere creature has been dated to about 5000 BC in S. America. I believe some of the mammoth finds have been dated fairly late.
4000 years ago puts mammoths in the Americas in 2000 BC which is the time of the Jaredites... Link to commentHonorentheosPosted July 3, 2017 Honorentheos
Posted July 3, 2017 (edited)
Not live, but here's a photo. So, done.
So, regarding cureloms? Edited July 3, 2017 by HonorentheosLink to commentRevTestamentPosted July 3, 2017 RevTestament
Posted July 3, 2017
I personally believe cureloms were the American mastadon. I believe their existence is confirmed in art. I won't explain all my reasoning for this right now, but the mastadon was certainly plentiful. I don't know about mammoths. For some reason the first time I tried to understand cumoms, gramphtheres came to mind, but as yet, I am unable to confirm much to substantiate this personal attribution. Link to commentmnn727Posted July 3, 2017 mnn727
Posted July 3, 2017
Isn't photoshop amazing? 1 Link to commentRobert F. SmithPosted July 3, 2017 Robert F. Smith
Posted July 3, 2017
How would we know? If a curelom cannot be defined, then how could we know anything about it? 1 Link to commentCV75Posted July 3, 2017 CV75
Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) You Google it. I present to you, culottes made of the fnest curelom wool.
Edited July 3, 2017 by CV75 1 Link to commentRobert F. SmithPosted July 3, 2017 Robert F. Smith
Posted July 3, 2017
The only animal referred to by Sumerian kur is "dragon," which might possibly indicate the iguana, which is excellent for eating. It is true that Sumerian eli, e3-li, e3-li-um is descriptive of "ewes or lambs," but anyone translating the BofM into English would presumably already know about sheep, including mountain sheep and mountain goats -- present in both Old and New Worlds. The Reynolds & Sjodahl suggestion that cumoms are bears is unlikely simply because Joseph Smith certainly knew the English word for the animal.[1] Aside from the extraordinary megafauna in America, which rapidly became extinct after the last ice age ended, useful animals in the New World included the alpaca, vicuña, chinchilla, guinea pig, llama (domesticated guanaco), tapir, agouti, capybara, etc. [1] George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, ed. P. C. Reynolds (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1955), 6:145, citing Hebrew qum “rise up, stand up.” 2 Link to commentfilovirusPosted July 3, 2017 filovirus
Posted July 3, 2017 I never really pictured them as an elephant type of animal. I've always leaned more to them being llama type creatures. 2 Link to commentPhysics GuyPosted July 3, 2017 Physics Guy
Posted July 3, 2017 I find it odd that cureloms and cumoms are mentioned only in the specific phrase "elephants and cureloms and cumoms", which appears twice in one sentence in the Book of Ether, and nowhere else. If cureloms and cumoms were different kinds of trunk-bearing animals (proboscidae), then listing elephants AND mastodons AND gomphotheres, all in a breath and yet by three quite different names, instead of just letting "elephants" stand for all three, would be like saying "Fords, Hondas, and Mercedes" instead of just "cars". It would imply that all three superficially similar species were in such routine use that they were perceived as being as different as horses and asses. And indeed the Ether verse seems to state explicitly that elephants, cureloms and cumoms were significantly more useful than horses and asses. The assessment that "elephants and cureloms and cumoms" were "useful" is moreover made in association with the usefulness of horses and asses. It seems to be a rather stretchy interpretation, therefore, to say that cureloms and cumoms might have been useful as prey animals that were hunted for food, being rare but prized. The obvious and natural reading of the verse would seem to be that elephants, cureloms, and cumoms—and horses and asses—were domesticated on a large scale by the Jaredites as beasts of burden. As far as I know, that's hard to square with the archaeological record. (Apparent depictions of elephants in stone carvings seem actually to have been representations of macaws, which in at least some cases were made to look much more elephant-like in hand-drawn copies than the stone originals really were.) Whatever cureloms and cumons were supposed to be, the Book of Mormon seems to say that elephants, horses, and asses were widely domesticated by the Jaredites. The cureloms and cumoms could be tapirs and guinea pigs; the elephants alone are a problem enough. 1 Link to commenthagoth7Posted July 3, 2017 hagoth7
Posted July 3, 2017 (edited)
Could be. I once thought of matches more along the lines of buffalo or the famous Thanksgiving turkey, etc. , but later reconsidered that Joseph would have been sufficiently similar with at least one of those to simply translate into plain English. So I'd venture that it references animals that are either extinct, or that otherwise weren't generally known to New Englanders. Did llamas exist north of what you deem to be Nephite central?
(In jest for a moment, considering the verse in question, I'll posit that curelom and cumom/cumim were simply spices to make elephant steak more tasty.) Edited July 3, 2017 by hagoth71 Link to commentRajah ManchouPosted July 3, 2017 Rajah Manchou
Posted July 3, 2017 (edited)
One observation, the ancient Kurung people found in Chinese and Arabic histories were said to be able to "tame and cow ferocious beasts, rhinoceroses, elephants and the like." Their name comes either from the title Kurung Bhnam "king of the mountain" or "ancient dragon". This is interesting because as Robert points out, kur in Sumerian means 'dragon' and I believe it can also refer to “lord of the mountain” or “He who dwells on the pure mountain” kur-za-gin ti-[la] “The most common Chinese rendering of Kurung, though some others were more faithful to the Khmer original…especially ku-lung, “ancient dragon,” described by the Chinese as the family name of the kings of Bnam…Another has related k’un-lun rather to indigenous forms like Prum and Krom, reflected in Arabic Komr and Kamrun.” (source) Remember the Komr people are those we introduced before as the Biblical clan of Amur (Amorite?) in Arabic histories who sailed east in boats resembling Noah's Ark around the time of the tower. If we compare the Jaredites to the Kurung/Komr, then we have a historical group sailing east around the 3rd millennium BC capable of taming elephants and other beasts. They would have been worshippers of Amurru or El Shaddai, "He who dwells on the pure mountain”. 2 Link to commentlongviewPosted July 3, 2017 longview
Posted July 3, 2017
Cumoms and Cureloms are similar sounding terms. I consider Llamas and Alpacas to be similar kinds of animals though different sizes (Llamas are roughly twice the size of Alpacas). Wonder what the local natives names are for the two animals? Do they vary by regions? Link to commentRevTestamentPosted July 3, 2017 RevTestament
Posted July 3, 2017
I missed how you got "pure mountain" out of Shaddai. El is an ancient attribution to God in the area of the Levant - not just among the Hebrews, and seems to refer to "the power." I in fact believe Jesus Himself makes reference to this when He says He will return on the right hand of Power. Thanks for your other thoughts. Link to commentRajah ManchouPosted July 3, 2017 Rajah Manchou
Posted July 3, 2017 (edited)
Oops, I added the link to that source after you commented. Shaddai related to wilderness or mountainsAnother theory is that Shaddai is a derivation of a Semitic stem that appears in the Akkadian shadû ("mountain") and shaddā`û or shaddû`a ("mountain-dweller"), one of the names of Amurru. This theory was popularized by W. F. Albright but was somewhat weakened when it was noticed that the doubling of the medial ‘d ’ is first documented only in the Neo-Assyrian period. However, the doubling in Hebrew might possibly be secondary. According to this theory, God is seen as inhabiting a holy mountain, a concept not unknown in ancient West Asian mythology, and also evident in the Syriac Christian writings of Ephrem the Syrian, who places Eden on an inaccessible mountain-top. The term "El Shaddai" may mean "god of the mountains," referring to the Mesopotamian divine mountain. This could also refer to the Israelite camp's stay at Mount Sinai where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. According to Stephen L. Harris, the term was "one of the patriarchal names for the Mesopotamian tribal god", presumably meaning of the tribe of Abram, although there seems to be no evidence for this outside the Bible. In Exodus 6:3, El Shaddai is identified explicitly with the God of Abraham and with Yhwh. The term "El Shaddai" appears chiefly in Genesis. Edited July 3, 2017 by Rajah ManchouLink to commentthesometimesaintPosted July 3, 2017 thesometimesaint
Posted July 3, 2017
I have no idea as to what they were. Link to commentclarkgoblePosted July 3, 2017 clarkgoble
Posted July 3, 2017 (edited)
The Book of Mormon Onamasticon (a great resource btw) says the following:
About the only place I'd quibble is that the author assumes Joseph didn't have an English word. I tend to assume the KJV Bible didn't have an English word. That is I see the KJV language as forming much of the basis of the translation. So a word not in the KJV had to be dealt with in a different way. For names those usually are transliterated Hebrew terms using a slightly different transliteration scheme than the KJV uses. Although elephant is a problem in that sense as it is not in the KJV although the word ivory is. I should also note that I'm skeptical elephants were actually elephants, although I know that's the more popular apologetic take at the moment. Just that they survived longer than though and it's mere accident we haven't found bones dating to around. I rather suspect that much like horse referred to some other creature that elephant probably did as well. Roper and Miller, while favoring actual elephants, do give an example where a tapir is called an elephant in early descriptions. Edited July 3, 2017 by clarkgoble1 Link to commentUSU78Posted July 3, 2017 USU78
Posted July 3, 2017
I'm about to the point of reporting this. Unacceptable! Link to commentpogiPosted July 3, 2017 pogi
Posted July 3, 2017 I guess this settles it: Link to commentRevTestamentPosted July 3, 2017 RevTestament
Posted July 3, 2017
He deleted what he had. I won't tell you what it was, because it was top secret!
Yes, it does. Like I said the curelom is the elephant... I mean the gramphothere or was that the cumom.... Anyway there does seem to be an etymology for the word that makes some sense... mountainous woolly thing. That actually seems to dictate against a really large animal like a mammoth. They seemed to be more of a valley creature although valleys are in mountainous areas. Central America fans obviously don't seem to like the mountain goat/sheep idea. The idea that it wasn't a word that Moroni or his predecessor was familiar with doesn't really wash with me since they translated most of the other Jaredite records, although names do seem to be transliterated. So it seems mountain sheep or goat would be back out as a common name which should have gotten translated. So we're back to mammoths just like I said....er didn't say... Although chinchillas are really cute, and extremely useful, just like tribbles, which ended up being lots of trouble though. Link to commentHonorentheosPosted July 3, 2017 Honorentheos
Posted July 3, 2017 Until it can be proven otherwise, I will continue to envision being trampled by a herd of cureloms like this - And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms. What animals are mentioned in the Book of Mormon?Book of Mormon Animals. Fish. 2 Nephi 7:2.. Lion. 2 Nephi 15:28.. Owl. 2 Nephi 23:21.. Serpent. 1 Nephi 17:41.. Moth. 2 Nephi 7:9.. Cow. 1 Nephi 18:25.. Does the Book of Mormon mention elephants?Elephants are only mentioned once in the Book of Mormon in connection with the Jaredites. They were noted as being among the most useful animals. The Jaredites are estimated to have arrived in the New World between 2600 and 2100 BC.
Where are horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon?Horses are mentioned only on a few occasions in the Book of Mormon (the last mention is around the time of Christ): Horses are mentioned once, in Moroni's retelling of the record of Ether, as one of the animals that were “useful unto man” among Jaredites during the reign of Emer (Ether 9:19)
Where do Mormons come from?The doctrines of Mormonism began with the farmboy Joseph Smith in the 1820s in Western New York during a period of religious excitement which is known as the Second Great Awakening. After praying about which denomination he should join, Smith said he received a vision in the spring of 1820.
|
What kind of animal is a Curelom?
Related Posts
Copyright © 2024 ShotOnMac Inc.
