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 inOK in which [ENGLISH LANGUAGE] dictionary did you find that definition. >>ASAIK, there is not such definition in the English language. Maybe it is
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
This I found, to help you on your way with a definition:...and, again, what dictionary is that in? It is not in Merriam
"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"
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. >>
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.
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.
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
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?
What nonsense,
what is it you cannot understand in 'It's Latin for "reason."' ?
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"?
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?
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 inOK in which [ENGLISH LANGUAGE] dictionary did you find that definition.
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
This I found, to help you on your way with a definition:...and, again, what dictionary is that in? It is not in Merriam
"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"
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. >>
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.
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.
Josephus claims in the 1st century that the text had remained intact,
The Qumran scrolls are roughly a millennium OLDER than the oldest Codex.
We _KNOW_ that the literal reading of Genesis to explain those things
is, well, ridiculous.
The scrolls have versions of variations of the standard text,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:Christians don't realize that Christ was but one of thousands of
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.
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.
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.
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.
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
The fact a variant is found tells us that some scribe somewhere thought it >worth writing down, and someone thought the manuscript worth preserving.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What evidence did they have for such a claim? This claim was invented,The Jewish tradition, IIRC, is that both the Septuagint and thecould 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.
Samaritan Tora were consciously altered, albeit for different
purposes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I suggest you read Tov's book for yourself. I read it some time ago,
and my memory is far from perfect.
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.
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.
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.
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:38:09 AM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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 <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.
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:38:09 AM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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,
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".
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.
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.
Native adult speakers don't make grammatical errors, almost by
definition.
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.
Your English is good, but has its errors. Do not be ashamed of them,
but recognize that it is what it is.
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.
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:05:07 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
A girl cannot be consumed by a wolf, the wolf cut open, and emerge
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.
unharmed. But it's a common childish fantasy.
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:
A girl cannot be consumed by a wolf, the wolf cut open, and emerge unharmed. But it's a common childish fantasy.
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.
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?
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:18:43 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote on 10 Mar 2016 inExactly.
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:05:07 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
A girl cannot be consumed by a wolf, the wolf cut open, and emerge
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.
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?
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 294 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 244:33:29 |
| Calls: | 6,626 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,175 |
| Messages: | 5,320,390 |
