Also, Paradise Lost is so deeply ingrained in the culture that many people make the mistake of superimposing Milton's mythos on the Biblical narrative. It's good literature but it isn't canon.
As well as Dante's triptych.
EDIT: ninja'ed
Good luck with that.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I've had enough Latin, Spanish, and French that I can read a passage of Italian and get about 60% of it. I figure Dante's good enough that it's probably worth the investment of time to learn Italian. I learned from reading (among other things) the New Testament in Greek that reading it in translation you miss an awful lot of nuance, and nearly all of the poetry of it.
I've had enough Latin, Spanish, and French that I can read a passage of Italian and get about 60% of it. I figure Dante's good enough that it's probably worth the investment of time to learn Italian. I learned from reading (among other things) the New Testament in Greek that reading it in translation you miss an awful lot of nuance, and nearly all of the poetry of it.
Old Testament is even worse. When you get a Jewish translator to do it directly from the Hebrew source, you pick up a lot more on the 'punnings' which makes you appreciate certain writers' wit. Especially 'J' (who I still subscribe to as being a woman before a redactor got to it).
P.S. I'm no fan of Ezra. Sourpuss.
|
I've had enough Latin, Spanish, and French that I can read a passage of Italian and get about 60% of it. I figure Dante's good enough that it's probably worth the investment of time to learn Italian. I learned from reading (among other things) the New Testament in Greek that reading it in translation you miss an awful lot of nuance, and nearly all of the poetry of it.Old Testament is even worse. When you get a Jewish translator to do it directly from the Hebrew source, you pick up a lot more on the 'punnings' which makes you appreciate certain writers' wit. Especially 'J' (who I still subscribe to as being a woman before a redactor got to it).
P.S. I'm no fan of Ezra. Sourpuss.
You know a friend of mine has suggested J being a woman as well.
You know a friend of mine has suggested J being a woman as well.
Your friend probably read this. I enjoy reading Bloom and this is no different. I strongly recommend this.
You know a friend of mine has suggested J being a woman as well.Your friend probably read this. I enjoy reading Bloom and this is no different. I strongly recommend this.
Richard Elliott Friedman isn't a fan. He seems to be where Bloom got the idea. Or thinks he was, anyway. Friedman doesn't quite agree (He thinks the matter unsettled.) and took an amusing swipe at Bloom:
Ironically, in light of what I am now saying about this writer's full work, Bloom spoke of the author of the Court History as her male rival! One will understand my lack of trust in Bloom's confidence in his sense that the author of J was a woman, given that he sensed that another part of the same author's work to be by a man.
Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?, by the way is a great, if rather conservative, introduction to how the Torah was constructed. That's conservative in the academic sense, not in the GOP & Tory sense. More radical scholarship tends to take the whole thing, shove it in a blender, and push it all up into the postexilic.
I have Friedman's book as well, but it's been awhile since I last read it. Whether or not 'J' was a woman, it is Rosenberg's (controversial) re-translation from Hebrew sources that make those sections a much more enjoyable read given his way with its prose.
I may have to dig through the catacombs in the basement to see if I can relocate it and throw it back upon my never ending pile of books I need to get around to (re?)reading. Thanks for the reminder.
Insanity knows no bounds. It was bad enough that it's somehow "understandable" that offended Muslims declare jihad over things like a few Danish cartoons or an episode of South Park. Now, we have legal precedent for offended Christians and Muslims to press charges against anyone daring to give them pamphlets (instead of meekly remaining on the receiving end, where all good atheists are evidently expected to stay). Double standard much?
Insanity knows no bounds.
If they traced the droids here, that would lead them back…home!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Yikes. While I certainly consider the content of the pamphlets offensive (if no less funny), whoever was distributing them was exercising a right to free speech that should be universal. It sets a bad precedent. It's the kind of thing you would see in China, where you can get arrested for proselytizing, or in some Islamic countries where Christian missionaries are expelled, imprisoned, or even executed if they are discovered. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: both religious people and anti-religious people should be free to practice and preach their respective creeds.
Insanity knows no bounds. It was bad enough that it's somehow "understandable" that offended Muslims declare jihad over things like a few Danish cartoons or an episode of South Park. Now, we have legal precedent for offended Christians and Muslims to press charges against anyone daring to give them pamphlets (instead of meekly remaining on the receiving end, where all good atheists are evidently expected to stay). Double standard much?
Anti Social Behavorial Order? That's new to me.
But nevertheless ... agreed, Kirth.
EDIT: I better not be wearing any Cradle of Filth shirts in UK ... even though they do originate from there. Heh.
Anti Social Behavorial Order?
That the dude lacked good taste is beyond argument: of course he's annoying. But annoying shouldn't be illegal! -- or if it is, it needs to be spelled out what level of annoyingness qualifies, and the standards should be the same for everyone.
I'd like to complain about someone leaving anti-atheist pamphlets where I go to meditate (AKA the men's toilets).
Now, we have legal precedent for offended Christians and Muslims to press charges against anyone daring to give them pamphlets (instead of meekly remaining on the receiving end, where all good atheists are evidently expected to stay). Double standard much?
In the UK, yeah. If I lived there and had the spare change, I'd be inclined to file a suit under the same law against God Save the Queen.
But annoying shouldn't be illegal! -- or if it is, it needs to be spelled out what level of annoyingness qualifies, and the standards should be the same for everyone.
Mormon missionaries knocking at my door during dinner?
|
|
Insanity knows no bounds. It was bad enough that it's somehow "understandable" that offended Muslims declare jihad over things like a few Danish cartoons or an episode of South Park. Now, we have legal precedent for offended Christians and Muslims to press charges against anyone daring to give them pamphlets (instead of meekly remaining on the receiving end, where all good atheists are evidently expected to stay). Double standard much?
poor taste and poor judgment. They may in fact have a strict interpretation of ABSO.
Nail-less glue...at least it's funny. I have seen much worse.
Mormon missionaries knocking at my door during dinner?Horses. Shuts em up quick.
Do you launch the horses at them with a catapult or trebuchet? Just want to make sure I understand the correct deployment of said horses.
|
|
High court rules cross doesn't violate separation of church and state
that is such a fine line upon with which to walk. I hope they like the highwire act.
|
|
Do you launch the horses at them with a catapult or trebuchet? Just want to make sure I understand the correct deployment of said horses.Mormon missionaries knocking at my door during dinner?Horses. Shuts em up quick.
no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
High court rules cross doesn't violate separation of church and statethat is such a fine line upon with which to walk. I hope they like the highwire act.
I think it's nice that there's a memorial to fallen veterans; I'm all in favor of it being allowed on Federal land.
But then I get to this part, which REALLY bothers me:"Officials had rejected a proposal to erect a nearby Buddhist stupa, or shrine."
So I should correct myself. I would have no problem at all with a cross as a memorial... but not if other faiths are summarily barred from their own displays. Nor am I saying -- before someone attacks that straw man -- that all other faiths in the world should suddenly be required to get displays of their own every time a cross is erected.
What I'm saying is that, if the courts rule in favor of a group asking to erect a Christian symbol, the same logic should compel them to approve a request from another faith for a similar display. To approve the cross and reject the stupa smacks of a blatant double standard, and says to me that these "officials" are intent on establishing a preference of one religion over another, in direct and blatant contravention of the 1st Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in ruling that Christian displays should be allowed on federal land by means of simply transferring that parcel of land to private ownership -- but that this tactic is evidently not acceptable for other faiths -- is likewise in flagrant violation of the Constitution they're supposedly interpreting.
no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?
|
|
High court rules cross doesn't violate separation of church and statethat is such a fine line upon with which to walk. I hope they like the highwire act.I think it's nice that there's a memorial to fallen veterans; I'm all in favor of it being allowed on Federal land.
But then I get to this part, which REALLY bothers me:"Officials had rejected a proposal to erect a nearby Buddhist stupa, or shrine."
So I should correct myself. I would have no problem at all with a cross as a memorial... but not if other faiths are summarily barred from their own displays. Nor am I saying -- before someone attacks that straw man -- that all other faiths in the world should suddenly be required to get displays of their own every time a cross is erected.
What I'm saying is that, if the courts rule in favor of a group asking to erect a Christian symbol, the same logic should compel them to approve a request from another faith for a similar display. To approve the cross and reject the stupa smacks of a blatant double standard, and says to me that these "officials" are intent on establishing a preference of one religion over another, in direct and blatant contravention of the 1st Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in ruling that Christian displays should be allowed on federal land by means of simply transferring that parcel of land to private ownership -- but that this tactic is evidently not acceptable for other faiths -- is likewise in flagrant violation of the Constitution they're supposedly interpreting.
I can see where you are coming from. I think it is a little more complex that that.
I feel that the sensible solution would have been to just sell the land to the VFW. However that was also, for similar reasons dejected. There should be a sensible way to handle things that does not disrespect any parties since this display is all about respect.
|
|
What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
Archaeology. Geology.
I can see where you are coming from. I think it is a little more complex that that.
My solution would be somewhat more simple: "Religious displays on public land are fine, as long as (a) they are privately funded and maintained, and (b) there is no discrimination in terms of which faiths are permitted displays."
|
Archaeology. Geology.What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
Aren't there similar (albeit relatively less glaring) inconsistencies in the Old Testament? Rabbits chewing cud and all that (which have been debated to death on this thread).
Horses. Shuts em up quick.But annoying shouldn't be illegal! -- or if it is, it needs to be spelled out what level of annoyingness qualifies, and the standards should be the same for everyone.Mormon missionaries knocking at my door during dinner?
Actually the quickest exit from my home by a missionary (I'm uncertain of the brand) was the day I opened the door wearing nothing and holding a cleaver. They knocked on the door at 8:30am on a Saturday when I hadn't gotten around to getting dressed yet, and I was unloading the dishwasher-- there was really nothing nefarious about it, but oddly, they didn't stick around to talk.
|
|
Actually the quickest exit from my home by a missionary (I'm uncertain of the brand) was the day I opened the door wearing nothing and holding a cleaver. They knocked on the door at 8:30am on a Saturday when I hadn't gotten around to getting dressed yet, and I was unloading the dishwasher-- there was really nothing nefarious about it, but oddly, they didn't stick around to talk.Horses. Shuts em up quick.But annoying shouldn't be illegal! -- or if it is, it needs to be spelled out what level of annoyingness qualifies, and the standards should be the same for everyone.Mormon missionaries knocking at my door during dinner?
I almost pee'd a little when I read this from laughing so hard!
|
|
Actually the quickest exit from my home by a missionary (I'm uncertain of the brand) was the day I opened the door wearing nothing and holding a cleaver. They knocked on the door at 8:30am on a Saturday when I hadn't gotten around to getting dressed yet, and I was unloading the dishwasher-- there was really nothing nefarious about it, but oddly, they didn't stick around to talk.Horses. Shuts em up quick.But annoying shouldn't be illegal! -- or if it is, it needs to be spelled out what level of annoyingness qualifies, and the standards should be the same for everyone.Mormon missionaries knocking at my door during dinner?
I'm always reminded of the Simpsons episode where Marge is getting stir-crazy because she stays home all day and has nothing to do. She invites the missionaries in and tries to make them stay as long as possible just so that she has company, until hours later they sneak out while she was getting more lemonade.
Salazar v. Buono - More on the cross in the desert on ScotusWiki.
|
|
Aren't there similar (albeit relatively less glaring) inconsistencies in the Old Testament? Rabbits chewing cud and all that (which have been debated to death on this thread).Archaeology. Geology.What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
Yes and No. I can go to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. There is not one location listed in the 'Book of Mormon' that I can go to and say without a shadow of a doubt that this is x location.
Do I know that the location in Bethlehem cited from tradition is in fact the birth place of the historical Jesus. No. But I can go to Bethlehem and Nazareth and tons of other places.
|
|
Actually the quickest exit from my home by a missionary (I'm uncertain of the brand) was the day I opened the door wearing nothing and holding a cleaver. They knocked on the door at 8:30am on a Saturday when I hadn't gotten around to getting dressed yet, and I was unloading the dishwasher-- there was really nothing nefarious about it, but oddly, they didn't stick around to talk.Horses. Shuts em up quick.But annoying shouldn't be illegal! -- or if it is, it needs to be spelled out what level of annoyingness qualifies, and the standards should be the same for everyone.Mormon missionaries knocking at my door during dinner?
That is full of Win.
|
I don't mind the missionaries at the door, sure they're annoying but I think they have good intentions. But seriously when they show up 3 times a month to evangelize it gets a bit much. Everytime I tell them I'm a homosexual atheist and it's just not gonna happen (politely of course) and they keep coming back. Persitent little buggers.
Archaeology. Geology.What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
If I am not mistaken, there is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus either. And I have certainly heard no evidence to support any resurrection despite claims on this forum.
Yes and No. I can go to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. There is not one location listed in the 'Book of Mormon' that I can go to and say without a shadow of a doubt that this is x location.
Do I know that the location in Bethlehem cited from tradition is in fact the birth place of the historical Jesus. No. But I can go to Bethlehem and Nazareth and tons of other places.
Rather convenient, isn't it? Sort of like we are to take the resurrection as fact despite not being able to see it with our own eyes.
|
|
If I am not mistaken, there is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus either. And I have certainly heard no evidence to support any resurrection despite claims on this forum.Archaeology. Geology.What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
Well, semitic names are found on certain objects that date back to the time of the 2nd intermediate period of egypt found in the upper nile delta... and there are lots of small sites in the sinai that were centers of worship for semitic peoples. They're hard to connect, however.
|
|
If I am not mistaken, there is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus either. And I have certainly heard no evidence to support any resurrection despite claims on this forum.Archaeology. Geology.What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
Why did I know you would go there?
Exodus, well some people think we have just been looking in the wrong area. Or like other stories in the Bible it could just be part of the Mythology to teach us. Sort of like the story of Jonah; I mean that one has always been a bit fishy to me.
All we know for sure with the resurrection are the words of those who were there. These are a little different depending on whom they were speaking to and why. We have the Shroud that despite many attempts refuses to let us know if it is genuine or not, despite claims one way or the other.
So like many things you have to take some on faith and other you have to use the common sense the good Lord gave you.
|
|
Well, Semitic names are found on certain objects that date back to the time of the 2nd intermediate period of Egypt found in the upper Nile delta... and there are lots of small sites in the Sinai that were centers of worship for Semitic peoples. They're hard to connect, however.If I am not mistaken, there is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus either. And I have certainly heard no evidence to support any resurrection despite claims on this forum.Archaeology. Geology.What evidence do you have to support the assertion there were no horses?no it is just the simple fact that there were no horses in the Americas during the time of the "Book of Mormon" (echo echo echo) and yet it talks about chariots being used and fighting from horse back ect..
Same with oats and barley and beer.
There are also Stella that depicts the proto-Hebrew nation along with interesting linguistic "evidence" that may tentatively show connections.
|
If I am not mistaken, there is no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus either. And I have certainly heard no evidence to support any resurrection despite claims on this forum.
The problem with the Book of Mormon is that we aren't even talking about specific events. When the book was (documented fairly clearly) supposed to have been written, was well before the invention of steel and MUCH earlier than the invention of brass. When the Bible talks about horses or similar things like weapons being used, it's generally much closer to what was around or how things happened at the time.
And you're confusing "faith" with "facts". Just out of curiosity, what "evidence" would there be that someone was resurrected and then taken directly to heaven? What "evidence" is there that Buddha (which ever one we are talking about) reached "enlightenment"?
With regard to the Exodus, no one is actually "sure" what time frame we are talking about. There is more than likely some (or maybe a lot) of propaganda involved in some of the specifics (like number of people). But outside of that, was there an Egypt of the time? Yes. Did they have a pharoah? Yes. Did the Egyptians have (at least some) slaves? Yes. Were there "Canaanites" in Egypt? Yes. Did the Egyptians have chariots? Yes. None of this is reason to believe that the Bible is the "Word of God", but already it's holding up better than the Book of Mormon.
Now, whether or not there was a band of Canaanites who were descended from Isaac who banded together with one guy and trekked across the Sinai only to wander in the desert before "conquering" Canaan -- that's more a matter of faith.
So when Kirth points out that geological evidence does not support literal translation of Genesis, you say Genesis is more of a mythology. Yet, the Book of Mormon is expected to live up to the same science the Bible gets a free pass from.