• Quoting the Quoran on recognizing Israel is the homeland of the Jew

    From mm@21:1/5 to ey.markov@MUNGiname.com on Thu Feb 25 20:21:34 2016
    On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:34:55 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:13:29 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
    <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> said:

    On 2/24/2016 9:24 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
    Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    This I found, to help you on your way with a definition:

    "Ratio - That faculty of the mind
    which forms the basis of computation and calculation,
    and hence of mental action in general,
    i. e. judgment, understanding, reason"

    ...and, again, what dictionary is that in? It is not in Merriam
    Webster's dictionary.

    Are you just wanting to win, or have a rational discussion?

    I do not limit my queen's English by an American dictionary,
    and do not discuss just by "approved" words.

    Anyway [not anyways], I answered what I ment by it, that should be enough. >>
    OK in which [ENGLISH LANGUAGE] dictionary did you find that definition. >>ASAIK, there is not such definition in the English language. Maybe it is
    a Britishism with which I am not familiar.

    It's a Latinism, if you will. I don't understand your problem, Shelly.
    Aside from Hebrew, I've used expressions like "raison d'etre" and
    "QED" on this English-language NG, and you have used "vive la
    differance," with no problems.

    FTR, and FWIW, the first two are loan words, brought into English
    without being changed.

    Ratio is an English word but the meaning given is Latin only, not an
    English meaning. I'm curious if it would be in a Dutch dictionary.

    As given it includes the probable development of the word, not just
    the meaning, perhaps because Tertullian used it that way in his
    writing about Xianity.

    But it's good to see the kids playing together without tearing their
    clothes.



    There are such which I know
    such as "lorry", "boot (for a trunk of a car" and others which are well >>enough known by other than the British as to be acceptable in
    conversations which are not restricted to the region. Ratio is not one
    of these when used in other that the comparison of two numbers.

    I don't know Latin, but... Maybe it's hard to figure out that "ratio,"
    in that context, was the root of the word "rational", but that's not >necessarily the writer's problem.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Herman Rubin@21:1/5 to ruben safir on Thu Feb 25 23:28:04 2016
    On 2016-02-25, ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
    On 02/21/2016 07:50 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    I suggest you read _Who Wrote the Bible?_ by Freedman. I find him even
    too simplistic, which should give you pause. Also, Emanuel Tov, in his
    _Literary Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ points out the uncertainties
    due to poor transmission, including scribes "correcting" what they read
    to what they remembered.

    those text truly suck

    On what basis, other than that you are a believer in the Torah, at least,
    as the direct word of God, can you make such a statement? Tov is the
    editor in chief of the Qumran Scrolls, and clearly a scholar.

    And I have done some scholarly study myself, not of the original
    materials, but of the published commentaries on ancient history and
    ancient influences on Hebrew. I have seen none which give an explanation
    of the errors in Hebraic works consistent with these ancient references
    in Hebrew and in other ancient languages.

    I suggest you apologize to the scholars whose texts you have denigrated.

    --
    This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
    are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
    Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Shelly@21:1/5 to Evertjan. on Fri Feb 26 02:07:50 2016
    On 2/25/2016 9:27 AM, Evertjan. wrote:
    Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote on 25 Feb 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    On 2/24/2016 6:12 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
    Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    On 2/24/2016 9:30 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
    On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:33:15 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
    <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> said:

    On 2/23/2016 8:26 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
    What do you mean by "ratio"?
    The result of logical reasoning.

    Where did you find that definition? It isn't in Merriam
    Webster's.

    It's Latin for "reason."


    But in English?

    Silly Q.

    In English: It's Latin for "reason."

    How is that a silly question on an Enghlish language newsgroup?

    How is it not?

    What nonsense,
    what is it you cannot understand in 'It's Latin for "reason."' ?

    What nonsense. What is it that cannot understand that to communicate on
    an English language NG it is imperative to use English words and if you
    use a foreign word, such as Latin (a dead language, BTW), that is
    incumbent upon you to provide a definition WHEN you use it.


    How many
    people whose native language is English know Latin?

    What nonsense, why think that an "Enghlish language newsgroup"
    should be for "people whose native language is English"?

    What nonsense. Obviously you are confusing "using English on an English language NG with restricting that newsgroup to people whose native
    language is English - something never stated


    Since the purpose of language is communication, well, you failed.

    What nonsense, why would I fail, if
    I use a hammer to scratch my back,
    use a book to stabilize a table,
    use this NG to discuss Jewish culture, thereby
    using words that are not understood by English monoglots?

    What nonsense. What is it that is beyond your comprehension that using non-English words on an English language NG is a failure to communicate?

    I'm done with you. I can no longer tolerate that overly inflated
    attitude of sense of self-importance and pompous air or superiority that permeates every sentence you write.

    --
    Shelly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Shelly@21:1/5 to Yisroel Markov on Fri Feb 26 02:15:28 2016
    On 2/25/2016 12:34 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
    On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:13:29 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
    <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> said:

    On 2/24/2016 9:24 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
    Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    This I found, to help you on your way with a definition:

    "Ratio - That faculty of the mind
    which forms the basis of computation and calculation,
    and hence of mental action in general,
    i. e. judgment, understanding, reason"

    ...and, again, what dictionary is that in? It is not in Merriam
    Webster's dictionary.

    Are you just wanting to win, or have a rational discussion?

    I do not limit my queen's English by an American dictionary,
    and do not discuss just by "approved" words.

    Anyway [not anyways], I answered what I ment by it, that should be enough. >>
    OK in which [ENGLISH LANGUAGE] dictionary did you find that definition.
    ASAIK, there is not such definition in the English language. Maybe it is
    a Britishism with which I am not familiar.

    It's a Latinism, if you will. I don't understand your problem, Shelly.
    Aside from Hebrew, I've used expressions like "raison d'etre" and
    "QED" on this English-language NG, and you have used "vive la
    differance," with no problems.

    Correct. English has twice the vocabulary as any other language because
    we absorb foreign words into our language. When used often enough, these foreign words become part of our language regardless of their origin.
    Tsouris, for example, has made its way into English. The examples you
    gave have done the same and QED is familiar to anyone who has had a high
    school education that includes geometry. By contrast the word "ratio"
    means one and only one thing in English -- the comparison of two
    numbers. It is not a part of English in the sense he used it (twice).


    There are such which I know
    such as "lorry", "boot (for a trunk of a car" and others which are well
    enough known by other than the British as to be acceptable in
    conversations which are not restricted to the region. Ratio is not one
    of these when used in other that the comparison of two numbers.

    I don't know Latin, but... Maybe it's hard to figure out that "ratio,"
    in that context, was the root of the word "rational", but that's not necessarily the writer's problem.

    Yes, it is if he is trying to use a non-English word to communicate on
    an English language newsgroup while not simultaneously providing a
    definition -- unless he is not trying to communicate an idea, but then
    why bother writing anything.

    --
    Shelly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Fri Feb 26 05:24:33 2016
    On 02/25/2016 02:03 PM, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
    Josephus claims in the 1st century that the text had remained intact,

    Is not a reliable source for ANYTHING and anyone who quotes him shows
    extreme ignorance of Jewish history. He was a Roman apologists writing
    overt Roman propaganda

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Fri Feb 26 05:24:58 2016
    On 02/25/2016 06:28 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    The Qumran scrolls are roughly a millennium OLDER than the oldest Codex.


    Their purpose was to break off to a new Heretic Religion for which they
    were engaged with a violent war with, hence why they were hiding. That
    leaves you with NOTHING in terms of understanding the Torah's text and
    origins.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to Shelly on Fri Feb 26 05:25:34 2016
    On 02/22/2016 01:50 PM, Shelly wrote:
    We _KNOW_ that the literal reading of Genesis to explain those things
    is, well, ridiculous.


    YOU know that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Fri Feb 26 07:37:28 2016
    On 02/25/2016 06:28 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    The scrolls have versions of variations of the standard text,


    Like where they crossed out section and replaced it with the name of
    their favorite Messiah.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Shelly@21:1/5 to ruben safir on Fri Feb 26 12:55:03 2016
    On 2/26/2016 12:25 AM, ruben safir wrote:
    On 02/22/2016 01:50 PM, Shelly wrote:
    We _KNOW_ that the literal reading of Genesis to explain those things
    is, well, ridiculous.


    YOU know that.

    Only a fool would refute all science and take the words of genesis
    literally. I choose not to be a fool.

    --
    Shelly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Yisroel Markov@21:1/5 to ruben@mrbrklyn.com on Fri Feb 26 14:34:40 2016
    On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 05:24:11 +0000 (UTC), ruben safir
    <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> said:

    On 02/25/2016 02:03 PM, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
    They differ from the Masoretic text, but that doesn't mean that they
    necessarily diverged from the Masoretic text.


    No the scrolls are intentionally heriotic and edited for the purposes of >their own private war with the mainstream Jewish nation.

    I think you may be talking about two different sets of texts. There
    were non-canonical texts at Qumran, such as the Sons of Light scrolls.
    There were also versions of TaNa"KH texts, and AIUI, those do not
    differ greatly from the Masoretic version. Of course, "greatly" is a
    judgment, but as per the Biblical Archeological Society (which is not
    an Orthodox Jewish organization):

    "The Dead Sea Scrolls did not, as some early dreamers speculated,
    answer the age-old question: Where is the original Bible? Not, as it
    turns out, in the caves of Qumran. Nor do the scrolls include long
    lost books of the Bible. Furthermore, the scrolls did not utterly
    transform our image of the original Hebrew Bible text. Indeed, one of
    the most important contributions of the scrolls is that they have
    demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.

    "Nevertheless, there are differences (some quite significant) between
    the scrolls and the Masoretic text."

    Full article at http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/the-masoretic-text-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/
    --
    Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC --------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Herman Rubin@21:1/5 to ruben safir on Fri Feb 26 23:39:47 2016
    On 2016-02-26, ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
    On 02/25/2016 06:28 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    The scrolls have versions of variations of the standard text,


    Like where they crossed out section and replaced it with the name of
    their favorite Messiah.

    At that time, there were many who were acclaimed as the Messiah, who
    would overthrow Rome and bring about the the promised results.

    --
    This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
    are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
    Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to ruben safir on Fri Feb 26 14:34:00 2016
    On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 5:17:09 AM UTC, ruben safir wrote:
    On 02/25/2016 02:03 PM, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
    They differ from the Masoretic text, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily diverged from the Masoretic text.

    No the scrolls are intentionally heriotic and edited for the purposes of their own private war with the mainstream Jewish nation.

    We don't know. The best bet is that the Qumran sect went off in a huff
    and established their own little religious community in the desert, because
    the priesthood in Jerusalem wouldn't let them conduct ceremonies the
    way they wanted, or accept their candidate for high priest. But we can't
    be absolutely sure of that.
    For example you sometimes see the variant "elokhim" or "God" in modern
    Jewish texts. However it's not a heretical, rival deity. The reasons for the variant spelling are different.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Herman Rubin@21:1/5 to Yisroel Markov on Sat Feb 27 19:42:15 2016
    On 2016-02-26, Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 05:24:11 +0000 (UTC), ruben safir
    <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> said:

    On 02/25/2016 02:03 PM, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
    They differ from the Masoretic text, but that doesn't mean that they
    necessarily diverged from the Masoretic text.


    No the scrolls are intentionally heriotic and edited for the purposes of >>their own private war with the mainstream Jewish nation.

    I think you may be talking about two different sets of texts. There
    were non-canonical texts at Qumran, such as the Sons of Light scrolls.
    There were also versions of TaNa"KH texts, and AIUI, those do not
    differ greatly from the Masoretic version. Of course, "greatly" is a judgment, but as per the Biblical Archeological Society (which is not
    an Orthodox Jewish organization):

    "The Dead Sea Scrolls did not, as some early dreamers speculated,
    answer the age-old question: Where is the original Bible? Not, as it
    turns out, in the caves of Qumran. Nor do the scrolls include long
    lost books of the Bible. Furthermore, the scrolls did not utterly
    transform our image of the original Hebrew Bible text. Indeed, one of
    the most important contributions of the scrolls is that they have demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.

    Some of the scrolls are similar to the Masoretic text. However,
    some of the scrolls are more similar to the present Samaritan Hexateuch,
    and some are more similar to the Septuagint. Copying of everything
    seems to have run into scribes remembering rather than copying.

    "Nevertheless, there are differences (some quite significant) between
    the scrolls and the Masoretic text."

    Full article at

    http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/the-masoretic-text-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/


    --
    This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
    are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
    Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Sat Feb 27 22:06:58 2016
    On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:

    Some of the scrolls are similar to the Masoretic text. However,
    some of the scrolls are more similar to the present Samaritan Hexateuch,
    and some are more similar to the Septuagint. Copying of everything
    seems to have run into scribes remembering rather than copying.

    The fact a variant is found tells us that some scribe somewhere thought it worth writing down, and someone thought the manuscript worth preserving.
    But it doesn't tell us much else about the attitude to the text. The logical default position is that it was an alternative text, and a rival to the version which became accepted. But we don't know enough to be sure of that. It
    could have been considered heretical but kept for scholarly purposes,
    or it could have been a simple mistake as you suggest, or it could have
    been an accepted but not rival reading. (For example if you go into a
    Dominican church, you won't hear the famous "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
    maxima culpa", the Dominicans aren't in dispute with the rest of the Catholic church over the true text, they've got their own liturgy which is slightly different).

    There are lots of possibilities. But the "rival version" one seems the most likely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Beach Runner@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Sun Feb 28 04:16:43 2016
    On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:32:43 PM UTC-8, Herman Rubin wrote:
    On 2016-02-26, ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
    On 02/25/2016 06:28 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    The scrolls have versions of variations of the standard text,


    Like where they crossed out section and replaced it with the name of
    their favorite Messiah.

    At that time, there were many who were acclaimed as the Messiah, who
    would overthrow Rome and bring about the the promised results.

    --
    This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
    are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
    Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

    Christians don't realize that Christ was but one of thousands of
    Jews the Roman's didn't like for whatever reason. They lined
    the streets leading to Jerusalem with Jews being crucified.

    Jesus was in no way more special to the Romans than any of the other
    thousands of Jews being slowly murdered.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Goldstein@21:1/5 to Evertjan. on Sun Feb 28 04:17:16 2016
    On 2/24/2016 9:24 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
    Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:33:15 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
    <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> said:

    On 2/23/2016 8:26 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
    What do you mean by "ratio"?
    The result of logical reasoning.

    Where did you find that definition? It isn't in Merriam
    Webster's.

    It's Latin for "reason."

    Yes, but only the noun, not the verb.

    That's because in English, unlike Latin, you can verb any noun.

    I was not familiar with the term, but recognize the etymology, and would
    not be surprised if the latin noun were used in philosophers' jargon
    English. A lot of words have obscure semantics that only apply in narrow contexts. The OED typically lists them, but the free online
    dictionaries, including Oxford's, don't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Goldstein@21:1/5 to ruben safir on Sun Feb 28 07:14:52 2016
    On 2/25/2016 10:28 AM, ruben safir wrote:
    ...
    How would one define a document being "factual scientific",
    without researching it, or even at all?


    It doesn't matter. The Torah is the Nation Myth of the Jewish people
    and the Jewish people are exiled by violent force from their homeland.
    This is a historical fact.


    Yes, it is a historical fact that it is our myth. But myth is not
    literally true; myth is a tale we tell that is part of our heritage but
    not safe to be treated as actual fact, since it's not. Yes, we
    originated there, and were forcibly removed 2000+ years ago. Lots of
    migrations have happened over the millenia. The Celts moved from middle
    Europe to the British Isles. The Turkics spread from what is now
    Xinjiang to Anatolia. Jews in diaspora moved all over the place,
    sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Rom%2C_Titusbogen%2C_Triumphzug_3.jpg/1024px-Rom%2C_Titusbogen%2C_Triumphzug_3.jpg


    the only people who deny it are racist bigots, most of the current ones living in the Judean Hills and at the UN. The time has come to free
    Israel from its foreign, Islamic occupation.

    Where I live, there were no Jews 2000 years ago. Nor any Europeans or
    Asians or Africans. The Massachusett probably lived here, the
    Naragansett and Wampanoag nearby. But others moved in. The people now
    living in the Judean hills are probably descended from the fallen
    Northern Kingdom via the Samaritans. But even if they weren't, they've
    lived there for years, and thus have a right to remain peacefully in
    their homes. And have more right to it than say Peruvians who converted
    to Judaism.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Herman Rubin@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Mon Feb 29 00:23:33 2016
    On 2016-02-27, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:

    Some of the scrolls are similar to the Masoretic text. However,
    some of the scrolls are more similar to the present Samaritan Hexateuch,
    and some are more similar to the Septuagint. Copying of everything
    seems to have run into scribes remembering rather than copying.

    The fact a variant is found tells us that some scribe somewhere thought it worth writing down, and someone thought the manuscript worth preserving.
    But it doesn't tell us much else about the attitude to the text. The logical default position is that it was an alternative text, and a rival to the version
    which became accepted. But we don't know enough to be sure of that. It
    could have been considered heretical but kept for scholarly purposes,
    or it could have been a simple mistake as you suggest, or it could have
    been an accepted but not rival reading. (For example if you go into a Dominican church, you won't hear the famous "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
    maxima culpa", the Dominicans aren't in dispute with the rest of the Catholic church over the true text, they've got their own liturgy which is slightly different).

    There are lots of possibilities. But the "rival version" one seems the most likely.

    The Septuagint was the translation used by the Jews of A;exandria,
    and presumably more of Egypt, and was the version used by Christians
    for their translation to Greek or Latin; it was definitely used. There
    are many Qumran scrolls which correspond to a Hebrew original of this
    Greek translation. It was still used, together with the Hebrew original, several centuries later.

    Also, the Samaritan version was, and possibly still is, used by the Samaritans.

    --
    This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
    are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
    Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mm@21:1/5 to lowhertz@gmail.com on Sun Feb 28 06:38:38 2016
    On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 04:16:43 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
    <lowhertz@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:32:43 PM UTC-8, Herman Rubin wrote:
    On 2016-02-26, ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
    On 02/25/2016 06:28 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    The scrolls have versions of variations of the standard text,


    Like where they crossed out section and replaced it with the name of
    their favorite Messiah.

    At that time, there were many who were acclaimed as the Messiah, who
    would overthrow Rome and bring about the the promised results.

    Christians don't realize that Christ was but one of thousands of

    I don't understand why you call him "Christ". That's a title, and he
    didn't have it. I don't understand why any Jew would ever refer to
    him that way.

    Jews the Roman's didn't like for whatever reason. They lined
    the streets leading to Jerusalem with Jews being crucified.

    Jesus was in no way more special to the Romans than any of the other >thousands of Jews being slowly murdered.

    And no more deserving of a title than any of them.

    There is one Biblical movie of the 60's or so that pretty much showed
    what you say. It was not Jewish-plot- inspired, that is, maybe about
    Jesus, like iirc Quo Vadis (although probably not it, since I wasn't
    interested in seeing that. And wasn't Ben Hur set in Rome?), a
    so-called Spectacular or Spectacle, but I saw it on TV, that shows a
    line of crucified men along a road. Maybe 10 showed, maybe every 200
    feet, so that the last one was 2000 feet away, half a mile, and it
    appeared that there were more in the distance. It was clear from the
    movie which city (Jerusalem?), and may have been clear that they were
    all Jews. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone watches that movie anymore.
    It's been 30 or 40 years.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Mon Feb 29 14:18:37 2016
    On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:16:27 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
    On 2016-02-27, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com
    The Septuagint was the translation used by the Jews of A;exandria,
    and presumably more of Egypt, and was the version used by Christians
    for their translation to Greek or Latin; it was definitely used. There
    are many Qumran scrolls which correspond to a Hebrew original of this
    Greek translation. It was still used, together with the Hebrew original, several centuries later.

    Also, the Samaritan version was, and possibly still is, used by the Samaritans.

    The Vulgate was the main Latin version of the Bible, made by St Jerome
    working directly from the Hebrew, but with access to the Septuagint.
    Where the scrolls agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretic
    text, then pretty obviously they represent a Hebrew version from
    which the Septuagint was made, it's unlikely that a translation
    error in the Septuagint would have been back-transcribed into the
    Hebrew.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mm@21:1/5 to fg_es@removeQRM.ionary.com on Mon Feb 29 01:28:14 2016
    On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:14:52 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein <fg_es@removeQRM.ionary.com> wrote:

    On 2/25/2016 10:28 AM, ruben safir wrote:
    ...
    How would one define a document being "factual scientific",
    without researching it, or even at all?


    It doesn't matter. The Torah is the Nation Myth of the Jewish people
    and the Jewish people are exiled by violent force from their homeland.
    This is a historical fact.


    Yes, it is a historical fact that it is our myth. But myth is not
    literally true;

    That's one meaning of the word myth, but the more academic meaning
    includes stories that are true.

    It's likely you've read things calling it a myth and because you're
    used to the popular meaning of the word, and maybe because of your predilection, you thought that was intended when it wasn't.

    Or you read stuff which did not rely on the word myth but was written
    by heretics with an axe to grind who were wrong. You can see this
    very year how people who don't like what is happening try to rewrite
    history. Just listen to any political call-in show. A couple days
    ago someone claimed there were sanctuary cities where prisoners from
    Guantanamo would be released to, when in fact sanctuary cities are
    cities where illegal immigrants are not turned in by city government
    to the immigration authorities and it has nothing to do with
    Guantanamo. Or any of the lies Trump has told, which are probably all
    believed already by 5% of the population and more will hear and
    believe them in the future. Like he lied, the administration, which
    has plans to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees and has in fact admitted
    2000, according to Trump's lie plans to admit 100,000

    Myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being
    or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
    natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or
    demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2016.


    myth is a tale we tell that is part of our heritage but
    not safe to be treated as actual fact, since it's not. Yes, we
    originated there, and were forcibly removed 2000+ years ago. Lots of >migrations have happened over the millenia. The Celts moved from middle >Europe to the British Isles. The Turkics spread from what is now
    Xinjiang to Anatolia. Jews in diaspora moved all over the place,
    sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Rom%2C_Titusbogen%2C_Triumphzug_3.jpg/1024px-Rom%2C_Titusbogen%2C_Triumphzug_3.jpg


    the only people who deny it are racist bigots, most of the current ones
    living in the Judean Hills and at the UN. The time has come to free
    Israel from its foreign, Islamic occupation.

    Where I live, there were no Jews 2000 years ago. Nor any Europeans or
    Asians or Africans. The Massachusett probably lived here, the
    Naragansett and Wampanoag nearby. But others moved in. The people now
    living in the Judean hills are probably descended from the fallen
    Northern Kingdom via the Samaritans. But even if they weren't, they've
    lived there for years, and thus have a right to remain peacefully in
    their homes. And have more right to it than say Peruvians who converted
    to Judaism.

    If they want Israel out of that area, they should have made peace with
    Israel. Had they done that in 1967, or even 68 or 69, Israel would
    have withdrawn from all of that line except for a buffer zone around
    Jerusalem. Japan, Germany, and Italy surrendered unconditionally
    after they lost the war, and the Allies occupied them for a few years
    to make sure they didn't try to make trouble again, and then withdrew
    entirely. Israel would have done that if the Arabs had surrendered
    and made peace. The Arabs have never missed an oppotunity to miss an opportunity. And they will again in the future.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Yisroel Markov@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Mon Feb 29 17:09:31 2016
    On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 22:06:58 +0000 (UTC),
    malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com said:

    On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:

    Some of the scrolls are similar to the Masoretic text. However,
    some of the scrolls are more similar to the present Samaritan Hexateuch,
    and some are more similar to the Septuagint. Copying of everything
    seems to have run into scribes remembering rather than copying.

    The fact a variant is found tells us that some scribe somewhere thought it >worth writing down, and someone thought the manuscript worth preserving.
    But it doesn't tell us much else about the attitude to the text. The logical >default position is that it was an alternative text, and a rival to the version
    which became accepted. But we don't know enough to be sure of that. It

    Good points.

    could have been considered heretical but kept for scholarly purposes,
    or it could have been a simple mistake as you suggest, or it could have
    been an accepted but not rival reading. (For example if you go into a >Dominican church, you won't hear the famous "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
    maxima culpa", the Dominicans aren't in dispute with the rest of the Catholic >church over the true text, they've got their own liturgy which is slightly >different).

    There are lots of possibilities. But the "rival version" one seems the most >likely.

    The Jewish tradition, IIRC, is that both the Septuagint and the
    Samaritan Tora were consciously altered, albeit for different
    purposes.
    --
    Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC --------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Herman Rubin@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Mon Feb 29 18:10:21 2016
    On 2016-02-29, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
    On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:16:27 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
    On 2016-02-27, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com
    The Septuagint was the translation used by the Jews of A;exandria,
    and presumably more of Egypt, and was the version used by Christians
    for their translation to Greek or Latin; it was definitely used. There
    are many Qumran scrolls which correspond to a Hebrew original of this
    Greek translation. It was still used, together with the Hebrew original,
    several centuries later.

    Also, the Samaritan version was, and possibly still is, used by the
    Samaritans.

    The Vulgate was the main Latin version of the Bible, made by St Jerome working directly from the Hebrew, but with access to the Septuagint.
    Where the scrolls agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretic
    text, then pretty obviously they represent a Hebrew version from
    which the Septuagint was made, it's unlikely that a translation
    error in the Septuagint would have been back-transcribed into the
    Hebrew.

    This corresponds to what I said. The "Septuagunt variety" scrolls
    were the Hebrew scrolls which correspond to the Septuagint. We do
    not have any originals of the Septuagint.

    Jerome did communicate with some Jews; he claimed that they had no
    hard g sound, and the hard g in transliterations mostly comes from
    the ayin, which was a pronounced guttural.

    As for the Septuagint and its originals, Origen' _Hexapla_ consisted
    of six columns, the outside two beeing Hebrew versions and the middle
    four being Greek versions. This is further proof of the quality of
    scribal copying.

    --
    This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
    are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
    Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Herman Rubin@21:1/5 to Yisroel Markov on Mon Feb 29 18:27:15 2016
    On 2016-02-29, Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
    On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 22:06:58 +0000 (UTC),
    malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com said:

    On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:

    Some of the scrolls are similar to the Masoretic text. However,
    some of the scrolls are more similar to the present Samaritan Hexateuch, >>> and some are more similar to the Septuagint. Copying of everything
    seems to have run into scribes remembering rather than copying.

    The fact a variant is found tells us that some scribe somewhere thought it >>worth writing down, and someone thought the manuscript worth preserving. >>But it doesn't tell us much else about the attitude to the text. The logical >>default position is that it was an alternative text, and a rival to the version
    which became accepted. But we don't know enough to be sure of that. It

    Good points.

    could have been considered heretical but kept for scholarly purposes,
    or it could have been a simple mistake as you suggest, or it could have >>been an accepted but not rival reading. (For example if you go into a >>Dominican church, you won't hear the famous "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea >>maxima culpa", the Dominicans aren't in dispute with the rest of the Catholic >>church over the true text, they've got their own liturgy which is slightly >>different).

    There are lots of possibilities. But the "rival version" one seems the most >>likely.

    The Jewish tradition, IIRC, is that both the Septuagint and the
    Samaritan Tora were consciously altered, albeit for different
    purposes.

    What evidence did they have for such a claim? This claim was invented,
    as the Academy insisted that they had the true version, carefully
    copied by the scribes from the original onward, and was calling those
    who disagreed with them as heretics. The Samaritans were considered
    heretics long before this.

    The position they had on the Greek Septuagint is that the 72 scholars
    who translated Tanakh were all caused to make the same errors by God.
    Orthodox tradition is loaded with such.

    It is not that unusual back then to invent an explanation if the true one cannot be found. Midrash is loaded with them.



    --
    This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
    are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
    Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred Goldstein@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 29 23:43:17 2016
    On 2/28/2016 8:28 PM, mm wrote:
    On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:14:52 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein <fg_es@removeQRM.ionary.com> wrote:
    ...
    Yes, it is a historical fact that it is our myth. But myth is not
    literally true;

    That's one meaning of the word myth, but the more academic meaning
    includes stories that are true.

    I don't see it that way' it may include stories based upon truth, but if
    it's simply true, it's history, not myth.
    ...
    Myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being
    or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
    natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2016.

    That dictionary distinguishes myth from history in two ways. One is in
    the word "story", which, while not necessarily meaning not true, in
    context implies something told without being "history". The other is in
    its use of deities, which again falls outside of history, and thus is
    treated contextually based upon one's religious beliefs. I for one don't
    treat stories about acts of deities as being literal corporeal truth,
    but I can appreciate the value of good myth. Of course the Orthodox can disagree.

    ...
    Where I live, there were no Jews 2000 years ago. Nor any Europeans or
    Asians or Africans. The Massachusett probably lived here, the
    Naragansett and Wampanoag nearby. But others moved in. The people now
    living in the Judean hills are probably descended from the fallen
    Northern Kingdom via the Samaritans. But even if they weren't, they've
    lived there for years, and thus have a right to remain peacefully in
    their homes. And have more right to it than say Peruvians who converted
    to Judaism.

    If they want Israel out of that area, they should have made peace with Israel. Had they done that in 1967, or even 68 or 69, Israel would
    have withdrawn from all of that line except for a buffer zone around Jerusalem. Japan, Germany, and Italy surrendered unconditionally
    after they lost the war, and the Allies occupied them for a few years
    to make sure they didn't try to make trouble again, and then withdrew entirely. Israel would have done that if the Arabs had surrendered
    and made peace. The Arabs have never missed an oppotunity to miss an opportunity. And they will again in the future.

    That paragraph refers to somebodies called "Arabs" as if that were a
    unified state. Japan and Germany were unified, recognized states during
    WW II. They had governments that could surrender, recognized (if in
    Germany's case shifted) borders, and the remnants of long-functioning
    state apparatuses. The term "Arab" does not refer to a state; it's an ethnicity, or perhaps meta-ethnicity. The areas populated by people who
    today call themselves Palestinian Arabs were part of the Ottoman Empire,
    later Mandatory Palestine, and post-1948 the Gaza Strip was administered
    by Egypt while the West Bank was claimed by the HKJ, then after 1967
    Egypt and the HKJ gave up their claims in support of a separate
    Palestinian entity. And while there is a Palestinian Authority today,
    they are not terribly powerful nor united. In few instances were the
    people themselves consulted or treated as more than pawns.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Tue Mar 1 19:34:49 2016
    On 02/29/2016 01:27 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    could have been considered heretical but kept for scholarly purposes,
    or it could have been a simple mistake as you suggest, or it could have >>> >>been an accepted but not rival reading. (For example if you go into a
    Dominican church, you won't hear the famous "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea >>> >>maxima culpa", the Dominicans aren't in dispute with the rest of the Catholic
    church over the true text, they've got their own liturgy which is slightly
    different).
    There are lots of possibilities. But the "rival version" one seems the most
    likely.
    The Jewish tradition, IIRC, is that both the Septuagint and the
    Samaritan Tora were consciously altered, albeit for different
    purposes.
    What evidence did they have for such a claim? This claim was invented,
    as the Academy insisted that they had the true version, carefully
    copied by the scribes from the original onward, and was calling those
    who disagreed with them as heretics. The Samaritans were considered
    heretics long before this.

    The position they had on the Greek Septuagint is that the 72 scholars
    who translated Tanakh were all caused to make the same errors by God. Orthodox tradition is loaded with such.

    It is not that unusual back then to invent an explanation if the true one cannot be found. Midrash is loaded with them.


    blah blah blah blah...

    So the Christians have an original text aside from their overt desire to
    create a break off religion, but those Jews have no proof. The text
    itself was nearly a 1000 years old by the time of the 1st century AD.
    There is NO reason to believe that groups of heretic faiths had any
    reason or motivation to maintain a faithful, let alone when the text is translated to Greek, or even Aramaic.

    this is just part of the expected typical bias of a certain breed of
    academic researchers biased against Jewish tradition.

    Do the Indians go through such a similar problem with the Verdick?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to ruben safir on Tue Mar 1 22:30:16 2016
    On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:27:41 PM UTC, ruben safir wrote:
    On 02/29/2016 01:27 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:

    blah blah blah blah...

    So the Christians have an original text aside from their overt
    desire to create a break off religion, but those Jews have no
    proof. The text itself was nearly a 1000 years old by the time
    of the 1st century AD.

    Early Christians used the Septuagint, simply because they were
    mainly Greek-speaking. There's no hint of any discussion or
    debate about which version was canonical until Origen got
    interested in the question in the 3rd century.

    There is NO reason to believe that groups of heretic faiths
    had any reason or motivation to maintain a faithful, let alone
    when the text is translated to Greek, or even Aramaic.

    The manuscript record is very rich. The early Christians were
    bookish people, and manuscripts are always turning up. So we've
    got a pretty good understanding of how the Christian scriptures
    developed, except for the earliest few years in the 1st century.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 7 06:54:58 2016
    On 02/28/2016 08:28 PM, mm wrote:
    If they want Israel out of that area, they should have made peace with Israel. Had they done that in 1967, or even 68 or 69, Israel would
    have withdrawn from all of that line except for a buffer zone around Jerusalem. Japan, Germany, and Italy surrendered unconditionally
    after they lost the war, and the Allies occupied them for a few years
    to make sure they didn't try to make trouble again, and then withdrew entirely. Israel would have done that if the Arabs had surrendered
    and made peace. The Arabs have never missed an oppotunity to miss an opportunity. And they will again in the future.


    that is nothing. You should see what is happening on wikipedea right
    now in the Hebron section. A bunch of palestinian activists have taken
    over the section and refuse to allow any jewish potings, while they add
    more and more biased sources, claiming that NPOV is not a goal of
    wikipedea. They are organized and vicious.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Mon Mar 7 17:09:11 2016
    On 02/26/2016 06:39 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    I suggest you read Tov's book for yourself. I read it some time ago,
    and my memory is far from perfect.


    I probably will if I can find the time. thanks for the kind tone, more
    than even the tip ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to Shelly on Mon Mar 7 17:09:25 2016
    On 02/26/2016 07:55 AM, Shelly wrote:
    On 2/26/2016 12:25 AM, ruben safir wrote:
    On 02/22/2016 01:50 PM, Shelly wrote:
    We _KNOW_ that the literal reading of Genesis to explain those things
    is, well, ridiculous.


    YOU know that.

    Only a fool would refute all science and take the words of genesis
    literally. I choose not to be a fool.

    I don't think you really understand the theological basis for the
    beginning of the world according the Bereshiets, and I don't have the
    energy to explain it...

    Science and Religion, however, doesn't necessarily conflict like it does
    in your mind.

    Reuvain

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ruben safir@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Mon Mar 7 17:14:24 2016
    On 02/25/2016 06:28 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
    On what basis, other than that you are a believer in the Torah, at least,
    as the direct word of God, can you make such a statement? Tov is the
    editor in chief of the Qumran Scrolls, and clearly a scholar.

    And I have done some scholarly study myself, not of the original
    materials, but of the published commentaries on ancient history and
    ancient influences on Hebrew. I have seen none which give an explanation
    of the errors in Hebraic works consistent with these ancient references
    in Hebrew and in other ancient languages.

    I suggest you apologize to the scholars whose texts you have denigrated.


    Sorry, he couldn't lift a finger to more than a dozen scholars I know on
    the topic of the history of tanach and other Jewish literagy. Maybe
    you think people learning in Yeshivas are just burning their time
    memorizing Gemora, but it is not true.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Shelly@21:1/5 to ruben safir on Tue Mar 8 04:45:23 2016
    On 3/7/2016 12:09 PM, ruben safir wrote:
    On 02/26/2016 07:55 AM, Shelly wrote:
    On 2/26/2016 12:25 AM, ruben safir wrote:
    On 02/22/2016 01:50 PM, Shelly wrote:
    We _KNOW_ that the literal reading of Genesis to explain those things
    is, well, ridiculous.


    YOU know that.

    Only a fool would refute all science and take the words of genesis
    literally. I choose not to be a fool.

    I don't think you really understand the theological basis for the
    beginning of the world according the Bereshiets, and I don't have the
    energy to explain it...

    Science and Religion, however, doesn't necessarily conflict like it does
    in your mind.

    Reuvain


    The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
    basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
    to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to
    explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to
    inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
    is not.

    Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
    waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
    want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
    inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as
    literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.

    --
    Shelly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to shel...@thevillages.net on Tue Mar 8 12:01:42 2016
    On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:38:09 AM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:

    The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
    basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
    to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
    is not.

    Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
    waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
    want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
    inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.

    It wasn't written by uneducated people. They seem to have known the latest theories about the nature of the world - that water was a primodorial
    element, for example, and that creation was a split or hole in the chaos.
    But it's de-mythologised. In the Enuma Elish, Marduk kills the chaos
    dragon Tiamat, and splits her body in two, which become sky and
    sea, creating a space in between for humans to live. In Genesis, the dragon
    and the battle are gone, God just says "let it be" and the events unfold.

    Whilst we can't really reconstruct the authors' thought processes, it's likely that they accepted what we today would call the "scientific" part of the Babylonians' theories, whilst rejecting what we today would call the "mythological" part. That's a very modern concept, however, and I hesitate
    to say that priest writing 2,700 year ago had essentially our modern ideas.

    It's likely that God just says "let there be" because they understood that God is all powerful. They didn't know exactly how He had created the world and wouldn't presume to tell Him to to go about the process. So God just says
    and it is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Shelly@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Tue Mar 8 13:01:03 2016
    On 3/8/2016 7:01 AM, malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:38:09 AM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:

    The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
    basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
    to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to
    explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to
    inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
    is not.

    Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
    waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
    want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
    inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as
    literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.

    It wasn't written by uneducated people. They seem to have known the latest theories about the nature of the world - that water was a primodorial element, for example, and that creation was a split or hole in the chaos.
    But it's de-mythologised. In the Enuma Elish, Marduk kills the chaos
    dragon Tiamat, and splits her body in two, which become sky and
    sea, creating a space in between for humans to live. In Genesis, the dragon and the battle are gone, God just says "let it be" and the events unfold.

    Whilst we can't really reconstruct the authors' thought processes, it's likely
    that they accepted what we today would call the "scientific" part of the Babylonians' theories, whilst rejecting what we today would call the "mythological" part. That's a very modern concept, however, and I hesitate
    to say that priest writing 2,700 year ago had essentially our modern ideas.

    It's likely that God just says "let there be" because they understood that God
    is all powerful. They didn't know exactly how He had created the world and wouldn't presume to tell Him to to go about the process. So God just says
    and it is.


    Uneducated means scientifically uneducated -- and they were. Also,
    water is not a "primordeal element" as much as "earth", "wind" and
    "fire" are not "primordeal elements". Furhtermore, "splitting it in two"
    is just a myth, pure and simple, whether you have a dragon splitting or
    God saying "let it be".

    The order is all wrong and any *LITERAL* reading of the Genesis story is
    just plain nonsense and is in no way in the least "scientific". Notice
    my emphasis on the word "literal".

    --
    Shelly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Evertjan.@21:1/5 to Shelly on Tue Mar 8 14:17:22 2016
    Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
    basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
    to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
    is not.

    Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
    waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
    want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
    inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.

    I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [= "bereishies"] literally, but considering the place and time it was written makes it a nice story.

    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Shelly@21:1/5 to Evertjan. on Tue Mar 8 16:42:16 2016
    On 3/8/2016 9:17 AM, Evertjan. wrote:
    Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
    basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
    to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to
    explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to
    inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
    is not.

    Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
    waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
    want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
    inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as
    literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.

    I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [= "bereishies"] literally, but considering the place and time it was written makes it a nice story.

    Amazing, truly amazing. For once we agree on something.

    --
    Shelly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Yisroel Markov@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Tue Mar 8 17:11:54 2016
    On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:01:42 +0000 (UTC),
    malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com said:

    On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:38:09 AM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:

    The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
    basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
    to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to
    explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to
    inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
    is not.

    Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
    waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
    want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
    inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as
    literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.

    It wasn't written by uneducated people. They seem to have known the latest >theories about the nature of the world - that water was a primodorial >element, for example, and that creation was a split or hole in the chaos.
    But it's de-mythologised. In the Enuma Elish, Marduk kills the chaos
    dragon Tiamat, and splits her body in two, which become sky and
    sea, creating a space in between for humans to live. In Genesis, the dragon >and the battle are gone, God just says "let it be" and the events unfold.

    [nod] Like I've said before: Tora doesn't work as myth. That doesn't
    make it scientific, of course, at least not in the way we understand
    science today.

    Whilst we can't really reconstruct the authors' thought processes, it's likely >that they accepted what we today would call the "scientific" part of the >Babylonians' theories, whilst rejecting what we today would call the >"mythological" part. That's a very modern concept, however, and I hesitate
    to say that priest writing 2,700 year ago had essentially our modern ideas.

    When you consider the likely motivation for de-mythologization, which
    you bring below, it doesn't have to be "modern."

    It's likely that God just says "let there be" because they understood that God >is all powerful. They didn't know exactly how He had created the world and >wouldn't presume to tell Him to to go about the process. So God just says
    and it is.

    Yes. I don't think anyone has yet beat Rashi's comment thereof, which
    I paraphrase as follows: "Why did the Tora begin with creation, rather
    than with the first commandment? To tell you who's boss."
    --
    Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC --------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mm@21:1/5 to exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net on Tue Mar 8 20:01:17 2016
    On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:17:22 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

    Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in >soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
    basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
    to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to
    explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to
    inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
    is not.

    Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
    waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
    want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
    inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as
    literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.

    I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [= "bereishies"]

    I know you're not a native English speaker and you make some mistakes,
    and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
    ones, even when intending to discuss Judaism, even though it's been
    pointed out that they have mistakes, but do you think it is honest to
    imply that B'reishis begins "Once upon a time"? Unless you can show
    me a translation that you relied on, I think it is dishonest.

    literally,

    And then to add "literally"! Do you not know what that word means?
    Either you don't know or you are careless or dishonest in your use of
    the word.




    but considering the place and time it was written makes it a nice
    story.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Evertjan.@21:1/5 to mm2005@bigfoot.com on Tue Mar 8 22:37:49 2016
    mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [= >>"bereishies"]

    I know you're not a native English speaker and you make some mistakes,

    You do not know, you cannot know and you are wrong.

    and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
    ones,

    I do not use a translation of the Torah, and when I would usw a Dutch translation I would use Dasberg, and would disagree with his interpretation.

    I am interpreting "reshies" as coming from "rosh" and stating it as the ordinal[!] number "once", do be-reshies I interpret as "ones upon a time".

    even when intending to discuss Judaism,

    I am not discussing Judaism, I am interpreting the first word of the Torah.

    even though it's been pointed out

    What is that for nonsense, I should not interprete something because "it has been pointed out"? What ultimate strange way of argument by anonimous authority!

    that they have mistakes, but do you think it is honest to
    imply that B'reishis begins "Once upon a time"?

    You are losing it, my friend, what is dishonest about an intepretation,
    other than that you disagree?

    Unless you can show me a translation that you relied on,

    Interpretation is NOT relying on a translation, translation as a source of honesty is bullshit.

    I think it is dishonest.

    You have something toe learn about interpretation and even discuddion, my friend.

    You are discussing on the level of firest grade schoolboys, thinking, I imagine, that I would be put of by things like "dishonest" and "you're not a native English speaker", instead of discussing the matter at hand, iqq my interpertation of "bereishies".




    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mm@21:1/5 to exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net on Wed Mar 9 05:27:15 2016
    On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:37:49 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

    mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [= >>>"bereishies"]

    I know you're not a native English speaker and you make some mistakes,

    You do not know, you cannot know and you are wrong.

    Well you live in the Netherlands and seem to have a Dutch name, but if
    you say your parents spoke English to you when you were less than a
    year old, then I was wrong. But you still make some mistakes in
    your English that no native speaker makes. For example in another
    post today you got halachic right but just a few words from it, you
    came up with the word haloge, which is not English nor when pronounced
    in English is it Hebrew.

    and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
    ones,

    I do not use a translation of the Torah, and when I would usw a Dutch >translation I would use Dasberg, and would disagree with his interpretation.

    I am interpreting "reshies" as coming from "rosh" and stating it as the >ordinal[!] number "once", do be-reshies I interpret as "ones upon a time".

    You're not competent to translate Hebrew, and if you're going to use
    you're own interpretation, nonsense or not, you should mark it as your
    own and explain to readers in that paragraph that you only know a few
    words of Hebrew, and maybe some other disclaimers too (I'll have to
    think about it and hear what others say.). Otherwise, you're giving a dishonest impression of what the word means.

    even when intending to discuss Judaism,

    I am not discussing Judaism, I am interpreting the first word of the Torah.

    You cannot understand the first word of the Tanach without considering
    it in the light of Judaism. You can't understand to the point of
    rewriting the meaning of any word in the Tanach without considering it
    in the light of Judaism. Would you claim to understand the first
    sentence of _A Tale of Two Cities_ without considering the rest of the
    book?

    even though it's been pointed out

    What is that for nonsense, I should not interprete something because "it has >been pointed out"? What ultimate strange way of argument by anonimous >authority!

    I pointed it out, as you and regular readers well know, but it takes
    no authority to point out that Xian translations have mistakes. It's
    well known to every educated Jew and some Xians. And it should be
    known to you by now.

    that they have mistakes, but do you think it is honest to
    imply that B'reishis begins "Once upon a time"?

    You are losing it, my friend, what is dishonest about an intepretation,
    other than that you disagree?

    You know very well the answer, but I will play along. Because those
    are first four words of many fairy tales, and by mistranslating the
    word, which says nothing about "once", nothing about "upon" and
    nothing about "time", you are basically lying about what the word
    means and trying to cast it as a fairy tale. If you want to slander
    the Tanach, do that, but why humiliate yourself further by putting
    forth a non-translation as if it were a translation.

    Unless you can show me a translation that you relied on,

    Interpretation is NOT relying on a translation,

    You didn't say it was your interpretation. You referred to the story
    starting with those words, not "With words I interpret as..."

    translation as a source of
    honesty is bullshit.

    I feel sorry for you.

    I think it is dishonest.

    You have something toe learn about interpretation and even discuddion, my >friend.

    I'm not your friend. You have major things to learn about honesty.

    You are discussing on the level of firest grade schoolboys, thinking, I >imagine, that I would be put of by things like "dishonest" and "you're not a >native English speaker", instead of discussing the matter at hand, iqq my >interpertation of "bereishies".

    That's not worth discussing. Your interpretation is nonsense, like
    much of what you write. But if you had labeled it your
    interpretation and specified that you only know a few words of Hebrew,
    I wouldn't have posted a reply at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Evertjan.@21:1/5 to mm2005@bigfoot.com on Wed Mar 9 14:26:20 2016
    mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote on 09 Mar 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    Well you live in the Netherlands and seem to have a Dutch name, but if
    you say your parents spoke English to you when you were less than a
    year old, then I was wrong. But you still make some mistakes in
    your English that no native speaker makes.

    You seem not well versed in the mistakes natives make, you are such a
    typical naive monoglot in this sense. Even the definition of mistake
    probably escapes you.

    For example in another
    post today you got halachic right but just a few words from it, you
    came up with the word haloge, which is not English

    I speak, write and spell as I want,
    "haloge"/"halochah" is a common Ashkenazic Hebrew word.

    I do not claim or try to write English to convince someone that I am a
    native, do you have that urge?

    I write English in this NG to communicate.

    nor when pronounced in English is it Hebrew.

    What nonsense is that, why should foreign words be "pronounced in English"?

    and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
    ones,

    I do not use a translation of the Torah, and when I would usw a Dutch >>translation I would use Dasberg, and would disagree with his >>interpretation.

    I am interpreting "reshies" as coming from "rosh" and stating it as the >>ordinal[!] number "once", do be-reshies I interpret as "ones upon a
    time".

    You're not competent to translate Hebrew,

    Nonsense, you are not my judge. My interpretation is mine. My competence is mine to judge.

    I even think interpretation of text should be the duty of every Jew,
    as 'literal' texts don't mean anything without interpretation. Taking the
    word of someone else, like a learned rabbi, without listening to his/her arguments and interpreting that for yourself should be discouraged,
    especially by such a rabbi.

    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Herman Rubin@21:1/5 to Evertjan. on Wed Mar 9 19:34:58 2016
    On 2016-03-08, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
    mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    I normally do not comment on linguistic errors, but I feel it is
    needed here.

    I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [= >>>"bereishies"]

    I know you're not a native English speaker and you make some mistakes,

    You do not know, you cannot know and you are wrong.

    I am a native speaker, and also well versed in logic. You definitely
    make mistakes.

    and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
    ones,

    I do not use a translation of the Torah, and when I would usw a Dutch translation I would use Dasberg, and would disagree with his interpretation.

    I am interpreting "reshies" as coming from "rosh" and stating it as the ordinal[!] number "once", do be-reshies I interpret as "ones upon a time".

    Your use of Hebres grammar here is correct, but the rest is wrong.
    The Hebrew "rosh" means "head" or "beginning". It is in no way an
    ordinal number, but neither is "once". That word refers to a cardinal
    number of times, coming from the cardinal number "one". The corresponding ordinal number is "first".

    How would you say "In the beginning" in Hebrew?

    even when intending to discuss Judaism,

    I am not discussing Judaism, I am interpreting the first word of the Torah.

    Possibyly "At the beginning" might be a better translation than
    "In the beginning", but I believe the latter is the more usual
    English idiom.

    However, the English idiom "Once upon a time" does not even have the
    meaning that the eveent is unique, just that the event occurred.
    But even that need not be the case in a work of fiction.

    even though it's been pointed out

    What is that for nonsense, I should not interprete something because "it has been pointed out"? What ultimate strange way of argument by anonimous authority!

    that they have mistakes, but do you think it is honest to
    imply that B'reishis begins "Once upon a time"?

    You are losing it, my friend, what is dishonest about an intepretation,
    other than that you disagree?

    Unless you can show me a translation that you relied on,

    Interpretation is NOT relying on a translation, translation as a source of honesty is bullshit.

    I think it is dishonest.

    You have something toe learn about interpretation and even discuddion, my friend.

    You are discussing on the level of firest grade schoolboys, thinking, I imagine, that I would be put of by things like "dishonest" and "you're not a native English speaker", instead of discussing the matter at hand, iqq my interpertation of "bereishies".

    Your English is good, but has its errors. Do not be ashamed of them,
    but recognize that it is what it is.




    --
    This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
    are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
    Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to Evertjan. on Wed Mar 9 19:36:22 2016
    On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 2:19:03 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:

    You seem not well versed in the mistakes natives make, you are such a
    typical naive monoglot in this sense. Even the definition of mistake
    probably escapes you.

    Native adult speakers don't make grammatical errors, almost by
    definition.

    I even think interpretation of text should be the duty of every
    Jew, as 'literal' texts don't mean anything without interpretation.
    Taking the word of someone else, like a learned rabbi, without
    listening to his/her arguments and interpreting that for yourself
    should be discouraged, especially by such a rabbi.

    I don't see how "Once upon a time" can be defended as a translation
    of the word "bereshit". There's similarity, both introduce a narrative.
    But "once upon a time" indicates that the historical context, if
    it ever existed, has been lost. Genesis, on the other hand, starts
    "in the beginning". You have to start a history somewhere, and it's
    always an issue, because of course your records become less and
    less reliable as you go back. Traditionally we start British school
    history from 1066, and that's the period from which documentation
    is essentially complete. But that's only one possible choice, we
    know quite a bit about Stonehenge now, for example.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Evertjan.@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Wed Mar 9 23:12:52 2016
    malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote on 09 Mar 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    Native adult speakers don't make grammatical errors, almost by
    definition.

    That is only so because by definition the same definition is always right.

    I have met native speakers that have lost 90% or more of their native
    language.


    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Evertjan.@21:1/5 to Herman Rubin on Wed Mar 9 23:12:24 2016
    Herman Rubin <hrubin@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote on 09 Mar 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    On 2016-03-08, Evertjan. <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:
    mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    I normally do not comment on linguistic errors, but I feel it is
    needed here.

    I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [= >>>>"bereishies"]

    I know you're not a native English speaker and you make some mistakes,

    You do not know, you cannot know and you are wrong.

    I am a native speaker, and also well versed in logic. You definitely
    make mistakes.

    I never said I do notmake mistakes, we all do.

    If you mean you can see I am not a native speaker by my mistakes,
    I think you are wrong, you cannot.


    and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
    ones,

    I do not use a translation of the Torah, and when I would usw a Dutch
    translation I would use Dasberg, and would disagree with his
    interpretation.

    I am interpreting "reshies" as coming from "rosh" and stating it as the
    ordinal[!] number "once", do be-reshies I interpret as "ones upon a
    time".

    Your use of Hebres grammar here is correct, but the rest is wrong.
    The Hebrew "rosh" means "head" or "beginning".

    I did not say otherwise,

    It is in no way an ordinal number, but neither is "once".

    "once" is "one time" so in that sense ordinal, perhaps not in the contricted gramatical use, nut in the once, twice, .. idea.

    That word refers to a cardinal
    number of times, coming from the cardinal number "one". The
    corresponding ordinal number is "first".

    Ok.

    How would you say "In the beginning" in Hebrew?

    I would not say it, I think "speaking Bibilical Hebrew" does not add
    anything, but I could imagine "barishies" being that.

    But there is more: if "b-rishies" is something like "in"-"once" the "be"
    feels nicely like "on a time".

    I can imagine ancient people telling eachother stories about long ago and
    how the present came to be, saying "once upon a time", NOT meaning it was
    one of many times, but also NOT meaning "and now I will tell you how it all began".

    The problem of bara "create" with the double object [ee ..., v'es ...] is
    then also not so important. I would think they were not peraccupied with "something from nothing" but they were trying to explain the order of
    things, how that came to be from total disorder by bara "devide" the heavens [the air and the blue sky] and the earth [the floor they walked on.

    even when intending to discuss Judaism,

    I am not discussing Judaism, I am interpreting the first word of the
    Torah.

    Possibyly "At the beginning" might be a better translation than
    "In the beginning", but I believe the latter is the more usual
    English idiom.

    I am not discussing the pecularities of English, I am trying to do an interpretation of Breishies 1:1.

    Interpretation is trying to make sense of what a writer ment by a text, a
    "best translation" does not come near to that.

    English idiom was here the result of the translation, not the source. The
    same translation is used in Dutch, German, French.

    Latin [the vulgate] has "in principio" which can mean "in a beginning" or
    "in the beginning".

    Greek [septuagint] has "En archei" specifically without the definite
    article.

    However, the English idiom "Once upon a time" does not even have the
    meaning that the eveent is unique, just that the event occurred.

    That is just what I see in that text, the uniqueness of the occasion was not
    as stressed as modern translations try to make it, but that does NOT mean I think "breishies" means "more than once".

    When telling "Red riding hood" to my [grand]children, I do not stress the
    story only happend "only once", the story is just about the one time I am telling about, it's uniqueness is not part of the story.

    I read in breishies the same night at the camp-fire mood, not a primordal explanation of big-bang-like start-of-the-world explanation.

    But even that need not be the case in a work of fiction.

    The concept of a division between fiction and non-fiction does not come in
    the the view I aahve is this marvelous camp-fire story.

    [.......]

    Your English is good, but has its errors. Do not be ashamed of them,
    but recognize that it is what it is.

    I am not ashamed, why should I?

    I resent monoglots saying they can see that a polyglot is not a native
    BECAUSE [s]he makes mistakes. [Which is a mistake in my case, btw]

    The whole idea, that natives are the measure of things in languages is nonsense, but that is another matter.

    I resent that discussing the interpretation of bereishies 1:1 should be
    debated by measuring my knowledge of error-free English. I can discuss and
    hold the same ideas in Dutch, German and Indonesian, and make mistakes in
    all those languages too.

    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to Evertjan. on Thu Mar 10 12:45:59 2016
    On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:05:07 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:

    When telling "Red riding hood" to my [grand]children, I do not stress the story only happend "only once", the story is just about the one time I am telling about, it's uniqueness is not part of the story.

    A girl cannot be consumed by a wolf, the wolf cut open, and emerge unharmed. But it's a common childish fantasy.
    The story of Red Riding Hood might have some sort of historical core, there might have been some real girl. But the core has been lost, and the storyteller doesn't claim to recover it. (We can see the process with Robin Hood - Robin Hood is still attached to its historical context, the events take place in the reign of King Richard I, during the regency / usurpation of John, and in
    the forests around the city of Nottingham. But only just.)
    So Red Riding Hood is introduced with "once upon a time". "Once" does
    mean the events happened "only one time", but only in the sense that
    "an apple" means "one apple".

    A Robin Hood excerpt picked out from the web is introduced like this

    "One day Robin and his men had been out shooting game in the King's forest. It was
    this habit that had made them outlaws in the first place - for the King's brother, John,
    had declared that all the forests belonged to him - and anyone who hunted there without
    his permission would face severe punishment. King Richard himself would not have deprived
    the foresters of food, but he was away fighting wars overseas. While he was away, his
    brother John ruled England with cruelty and injustice."

    It's fantasy, but it bears some connection to historical reality. Notice that whilst the
    general time is specific, the actual incident is just "one day".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Evertjan.@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Thu Mar 10 14:26:02 2016
    malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote on 10 Mar 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:05:07 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:

    When telling "Red riding hood" to my [grand]children, I do not stress
    the story only happend "only once", the story is just about the one
    time I am telling about, it's uniqueness is not part of the story.

    A girl cannot be consumed by a wolf, the wolf cut open, and emerge
    unharmed. But it's a common childish fantasy.

    Well, the world cannot, by the same measure, be created from nothing by a scentient being in that same nothing, producing our ridiculous chatting.

    What if we all are just an animation in a far advanced computer-system?

    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to Evertjan. on Thu Mar 10 15:58:50 2016
    On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:18:43 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
    malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote on 10 Mar 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:05:07 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:

    When telling "Red riding hood" to my [grand]children, I do not stress
    the story only happend "only once", the story is just about the one
    time I am telling about, it's uniqueness is not part of the story.

    A girl cannot be consumed by a wolf, the wolf cut open, and emerge unharmed. But it's a common childish fantasy.

    Well, the world cannot, by the same measure, be created from nothing by a scentient being in that same nothing, producing our ridiculous chatting.

    What if we all are just an animation in a far advanced computer-system?

    Exactly.
    There's a game called "Asteroids" where little rock-shaped graphics float about the
    screen. When they bump into each other, they bounce off at an angle. When you shoot them, they fission.
    Anyone looking at it could derive something similar to the Newtonian laws of motion. But that's not how the system works, at all.

    We could be living in a game of Asteroids, and only the fundamental physicists would have a hint of it. Sadly, it's beyond my competence, but from what I understand, something like that may well be true.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Evertjan.@21:1/5 to malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com on Thu Mar 10 16:28:24 2016
    malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote on 10 Mar 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:18:43 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
    malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote on 10 Mar 2016 in
    soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

    On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:05:07 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:

    When telling "Red riding hood" to my [grand]children, I do not
    stress the story only happend "only once", the story is just about
    the one time I am telling about, it's uniqueness is not part of the
    story.

    A girl cannot be consumed by a wolf, the wolf cut open, and emerge
    unharmed. But it's a common childish fantasy.

    Well, the world cannot, by the same measure, be created from nothing by
    a scentient being in that same nothing, producing our ridiculous
    chatting.

    What if we all are just an animation in a far advanced computer-system?

    Exactly.
    There's a game called "Asteroids" where little rock-shaped graphics
    float about the screen. When they bump into each other, they bounce off
    at an angle. When you shoot them, they fission.
    Anyone looking at it could derive something similar to the Newtonian
    laws of motion. But that's not how the system works, at all.

    We could be living in a game of Asteroids, and only the fundamental physicists would have a hint of it. Sadly, it's beyond my competence,
    but from what I understand, something like that may well be true.

    But if that is the case, the definition of "true" would also be part of the animation and could be whatever was programmed.

    Just as Newtonian laws are only an approximation of that we after Einstein consider real, true could be only 60% of the absolute we imagine. Your true blood-mother could be switched every other day.



    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)