Discussion:
Point of view
Add Reply
Tony Cooper
2021-03-27 17:16:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.

Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Secretary:

Refused to comment
Declined to comment
Did not comment.

As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.

All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
charles
2021-03-27 17:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment
Declined to comment
Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing newspaper)
in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian Ocean stated that it
had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had
no such aircraft."

and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers were
available in our student common room.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Bebercito
2021-03-27 18:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment
Declined to comment
Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing newspaper)
in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian Ocean stated that it
had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had
no such aircraft."
And for good reason: the (imaginary) name just seems to be a portmanteau
of "Breguet" and "Peugeot".
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers were
available in our student common room.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
charles
2021-03-27 18:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment Declined to comment Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing
newspaper) in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian Ocean
stated that it had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot Atlantique. The
RAF alleged they had no such aircraft."
And for good reason: the (imaginary) name just seems to be a portmanteau
of "Breguet" and "Peugeot".
That's a typo (by me) Proably because I've owned various Peugeots.
Post by Bebercito
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers
were available in our student common room.
-- from KT24 in Surrey, England "I'd rather die of exhaustion than
die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-27 19:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Bebercito
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment Declined to comment Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing
newspaper) in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian Ocean
stated that it had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot Atlantique. The
RAF alleged they had no such aircraft."
And for good reason: the (imaginary) name just seems to be a portmanteau
of "Breguet" and "Peugeot".
That's a typo (by me) Proably because I've owned various Peugeots.
So what was it you meant to type? And what's your objection to "buzzed"?
Did the RAF offer a different interpretation of the same incident? "Alleged"
seems odd; can't they be expected to know who made their aircraft?
charles
2021-03-27 20:38:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Bebercito
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took
a major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about
the Secretary: Refused to comment Declined to comment Did not
comment. As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news
agency, the second was from a liberal news agency, and the third
was from a moderate news agency. All three describe the same
reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing
newspaper) in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian
Ocean stated that it had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot
Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had no such aircraft."
And for good reason: the (imaginary) name just seems to be a
portmanteau of "Breguet" and "Peugeot".
That's a typo (by me) Proably because I've owned various Peugeots.
So what was it you meant to type? And what's your objection to "buzzed"?
Did the RAF offer a different interpretation of the same incident?
"Alleged" seems odd; can't they be expected to know who made their
aircraft?
It ws the word alleged - implying inaccuracy. The RAF never had any such
aircraft.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-03-28 18:49:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 20:38:09 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Bebercito
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took
a major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about
the Secretary: Refused to comment Declined to comment Did not
comment. As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news
agency, the second was from a liberal news agency, and the third
was from a moderate news agency. All three describe the same
reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing
newspaper) in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian
Ocean stated that it had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot
Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had no such aircraft."
And for good reason: the (imaginary) name just seems to be a
portmanteau of "Breguet" and "Peugeot".
That's a typo (by me) Proably because I've owned various Peugeots.
So what was it you meant to type? And what's your objection to "buzzed"?
Did the RAF offer a different interpretation of the same incident?
"Alleged" seems odd; can't they be expected to know who made their
aircraft?
It ws the word alleged - implying inaccuracy. The RAF never had any such
aircraft.
Quite.
More information about the aircraft and its users here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%A9guet_1150_Atlantic
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-29 01:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by Bebercito
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took
a major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about
the Secretary: Refused to comment Declined to comment Did not
comment. As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news
agency, the second was from a liberal news agency, and the third
was from a moderate news agency. All three describe the same
reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing
newspaper) in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian
Ocean stated that it had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot
Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had no such aircraft."
And for good reason: the (imaginary) name just seems to be a
portmanteau of "Breguet" and "Peugeot".
That's a typo (by me) Proably because I've owned various Peugeots.
So what was it you meant to type? And what's your objection to "buzzed"?
Did the RAF offer a different interpretation of the same incident?
"Alleged" seems odd; can't they be expected to know who made their
aircraft?
It ws the word alleged - implying inaccuracy. The RAF never had any such
aircraft.
More than inaccuracy, I think it suggests that the RAF's response is a
blatant lie.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Ken Blake
2021-03-27 18:36:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment
Declined to comment
Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing newspaper)
Is (was?) that the same newspaper as the Daily Worker that used to
exist in the US, or was it a separate newspaper with the same name?
Post by charles
in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian Ocean stated that it
had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had
no such aircraft."
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers were
available in our student common room.
--
Ken
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-27 19:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment
Declined to comment
Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing newspaper)
Is (was?) that the same newspaper as the Daily Worker that used to
exist in the US, or was it a separate newspaper with the same name?
The latter. Same political complexion, however.
Post by Ken Blake
Post by charles
in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian Ocean stated that it
had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot Atlantique. The RAF alleged they had
no such aircraft."
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers were
available in our student common room.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Ken Blake
2021-03-27 19:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ken Blake
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment
Declined to comment
Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing newspaper)
Is (was?) that the same newspaper as the Daily Worker that used to
exist in the US, or was it a separate newspaper with the same name?
The latter. Same political complexion, however.
Thanks. I never realized there were two such papers.
--
Ken
musika
2021-03-27 20:27:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ken Blake
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet -
took a major step in reorganizing the department that he now
leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines
Refused to comment Declined to comment Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news
agency, the second was from a liberal news agency, and the
third was from a moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing newspaper)
Is (was?) that the same newspaper as the Daily Worker that used
to exist in the US, or was it a separate newspaper with the same
name?
The latter. Same political complexion, however.
Thanks. I never realized there were two such papers.
Ours is still going under the name it changed to in the mid-sixties: the
/Morning Star/
--
Ray
UK
Chrysi Cat
2021-03-27 20:52:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet -
took a major step in reorganizing the department that he now
leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines
Refused to comment Declined to comment Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news
agency, the second was from a liberal news agency, and the
third was from a moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing
 newspaper)
Is (was?) that the same newspaper as the  Daily Worker that used
to exist in the US, or was it a separate newspaper with the same
name?
The latter. Same political complexion, however.
Thanks. I never realized there were two such papers.
Ours is still going under the name it changed to in the mid-sixties: the
/Morning Star/
Are they INTENTIONALLY trying to run the
otherwise-theoretically-possible Christian socialist off with that name?
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
charles
2021-03-27 19:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment Declined to comment Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing newspaper)
Is (was?) that the same newspaper as the Daily Worker that used to
exist in the US, or was it a separate newspaper with the same name?
I don't know the answe, but possibly not. Things weren't so international
60 years ago.
Post by Ken Blake
Post by charles
in the early 1960s. "A Russian trawler in the Indian Ocean stated that
it had been 'buzzed' by an RAF Breugeot Atlantique. The RAF alleged
they had no such aircraft."
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers
were available in our student common room.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-27 19:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by charles
Post by Ken Blake
Post by charles
Reminds me of an item in the Daily Worker (a UK very left wing newspaper)
Is (was?) that the same newspaper as the Daily Worker that used to
exist in the US, or was it a separate newspaper with the same name?
I don't know the answe, but possibly not. Things weren't so
international
Post by charles
60 years ago.
a) Splitter! </PLFoJ> [from Python's LoB]
b) only the song was.

[]
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-27 23:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers
were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a subscription
to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a seriously deranged
religious group. Many of us read it, for the comic light relief.

Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I read the
interesting theory that the speed of light has changed over time, so
that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old had actually only
taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never had the patience to work
out whether that could be embedded into a coherent theory.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter Moylan
2021-03-28 01:04:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing
me a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I read the
interesting theory that the speed of light has changed over time, so
that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old had actually
only taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never had the patience
to work out whether that could be embedded into a coherent theory.
My gut feeling, by the way, was that if that theory had been true then
Adam and Eve would have had trouble seeing each other if they moved.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter Moylan
2021-03-29 00:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was
doing me a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling
me) to something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I
read the interesting theory that the speed of light has changed
over time, so that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old
had actually only taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never
had the patience to work out whether that could be embedded into a
coherent theory.
My gut feeling, by the way, was that if that theory had been true
then Adam and Eve would have had trouble seeing each other if they
moved.
Sorry, I've just seen what is wrong with my interpretation. Of course
Adam and Eve couldn't have moved faster than light, so they would have
just walked very slowly.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-29 01:27:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was
doing me a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling
me) to something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I
read the interesting theory that the speed of light has changed
over time, so that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old
had actually only taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never
had the patience to work out whether that could be embedded into a
coherent theory.
My gut feeling, by the way, was that if that theory had been true
then Adam and Eve would have had trouble seeing each other if they
moved.
Sorry, I've just seen what is wrong with my interpretation. Of course
Adam and Eve couldn't have moved faster than light, so they would have
just walked very slowly.
Darn, I was imagining Cherenkov radiation.
--
Jerry Friedman
Graham
2021-03-28 17:25:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers
were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a subscription
to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a seriously deranged
religious group. Many of us read it, for the comic light relief.
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I read the
interesting theory that the speed of light has changed over time, so
that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old had actually only
taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never had the patience to work
out whether that could be embedded into a coherent theory.
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Quinn C
2021-03-30 00:08:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
--
There is no freedom for men unless there is freedom for women.
If women mustn't bring their will to the fore, why should men
be allowed to?
-- Hedwig Dohm (1876), my translation
Graham
2021-03-30 00:37:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Graham
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-30 14:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?

If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
Chrysi Cat
2021-03-30 15:02:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye was
perfectly designed."

However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses", [which
if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need, because there
would be no way for the lens to get out of tune/focus].
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-30 16:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye was
perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses", [which
if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need, because there
would be no way for the lens to get out of tune/focus].
Oh, that eye. For some stupid reason I'd tried to figure out why a replica of
Noah's ark would have an eye.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2021-03-31 12:51:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought
he was doing me a favour by giving me a free subscription
(without telling me) to something called "Answers in
Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an
Australian, has built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's
Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so. Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed
by Big G. However, he wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye
was perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses",
[which if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need,
because there would be no way for the lens to get out of
tune/focus].
Oh, that eye. For some stupid reason I'd tried to figure out why a
replica of Noah's ark would have an eye.
Cross-fertilisation along the shore?

http://www.enricophil.it/tales/Europe/Scripts/jason.htm
Quinn C
2021-03-30 17:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye was
perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses", [which
if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need, because there
would be no way for the lens to get out of tune/focus].
PTD's argument that from "the design is perfect" does not follow "every
existing eye is on spec" has some validity. And your suggestion is
assuming.

An easier counter-argument is the existence of the blind spot, because
the nerves are attached on the wrong side of the retina. And God already
got it right once in the cephalopods!
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-30 20:01:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye was
perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses", [which
if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need, because there
would be no way for the lens to get out of tune/focus].
PTD's argument that from "the design is perfect" does not follow "every
existing eye is on spec" has some validity. And your suggestion is
assuming.
If the design was "perfect" then we wouldn't need so many Opticians.
A perfectly designed eye could get damaged, but it would certainly not
fail in such vast numbers in so many predictable ways.
Post by Quinn C
An easier counter-argument is the existence of the blind spot, because
the nerves are attached on the wrong side of the retina. And God already
got it right once in the cephalopods!
They are waiting for the next extinction event before taking over.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-03-31 00:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought
he was doing me a favour by giving me a free
subscription (without telling me) to something called
"Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an
Australian, has built what he thinks is a replica of
Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so. Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed
by Big G. However, he wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye
was perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses",
[which if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need,
because there would be no way for the lens to get out of
tune/focus].
PTD's argument that from "the design is perfect" does not follow
"every existing eye is on spec" has some validity. And your
suggestion is assuming.
An easier counter-argument is the existence of the blind spot,
because the nerves are attached on the wrong side of the retina. And
God already got it right once in the cephalopods!
Clearly the cephalopods were designed after humans. We got the
alpha-test eyes, while He was still trying to figure it out.

The giraffe's laryngeal nerve demonstrates that He was willing to
release failed designs that were close to being marketable.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Graham
2021-03-31 04:14:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Clearly the cephalopods were designed after humans. We got the
alpha-test eyes, while He was still trying to figure it out.
The giraffe's laryngeal nerve demonstrates that He was willing to
release failed designs that were close to being marketable.
Might it have been a She?
Peter Moylan
2021-03-31 05:30:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Peter Moylan
Clearly the cephalopods were designed after humans. We got the
alpha-test eyes, while He was still trying to figure it out.
The giraffe's laryngeal nerve demonstrates that He was willing to
release failed designs that were close to being marketable.
Might it have been a She?
I'm told that godesses are more fussy about that sort of detail.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-31 09:10:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye was
perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses", [which
if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need, because there
would be no way for the lens to get out of tune/focus].
PTD's argument that from "the design is perfect" does not follow "every
existing eye is on spec" has some validity. And your suggestion is
assuming.
But everyone in paradise had perfect eyesight.
All imperfections are the result of the fall,
so our own fault by inheritance.
The chimps suffered collateral damage:
some of them are myopic too,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-30 21:07:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye was
perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses", [which
if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need, because there
would be no way for the lens to get out of tune/focus].
?
Even the most ardent fundamentalist is fully aware of the existence
of imperfection in Creation, and of physical infirmity.
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-31 09:10:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye was
perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses", [which
if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need, because there
would be no way for the lens to get out of tune/focus].
They also claim that the 'wrongly' designed human eye (with blind spot)
is somehow better than the octopus eye, in some engineering sense.

I've forgotten the somewhat contrived arguments,

Jan
Peter Moylan
2021-03-31 09:58:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G. However, he
wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye was
perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses", [which
if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need, because there
would be no way for the lens to get out of tune/focus].
They also claim that the 'wrongly' designed human eye (with blind spot)
is somehow better than the octopus eye, in some engineering sense.
I've forgotten the somewhat contrived arguments,
But the octopuses *need* better sight, because they don't have ears to
hold up their glasses.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-31 21:08:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:58:17 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Graham
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was
doing me a favour by giving me a free subscription (without
telling me) to something called "Answers in Genesis".
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian,
has built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Is that the one that was damaged by heavy rain?
I think so.
Its boss ssays that the eye was perfectly designed by Big G.
However, he wears glasses:-)
What's the one thing got to do with the other?
If he (whoever "he" is) were perfect, he wouldn't be a human.
It makes sense to me. "[The boss at Ark Encounter] claims the eye
was perfectly designed."
However, "[ALSO the boss at Ark Encounter] wears [eye]glasses",
[which if the eye were /perfectly/ designed, he wouldn't need,
because there would be no way for the lens to get out of
tune/focus].
They also claim that the 'wrongly' designed human eye (with blind
spot) is somehow better than the octopus eye, in some engineering
sense.
I've forgotten the somewhat contrived arguments,
But the octopuses *need* better sight, because they don't have ears to
hold up their glasses.
Brilllliant! </Fast Show>
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-30 01:23:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 11:25:21 AM UTC-6, Graham wrote:

[Answers in Genesis]
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Where did he gopher wood?
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-30 11:48:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Answers in Genesis]
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Where did he gopher wood?
Getting some would have been nice,
but the gophers refused to cooperate,
so he didn't get any.

It was built in reinforced concrete instead,
so it is just an ark-shaped building.
All pretence that it could actually float was given up,

Jan

PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-30 14:20:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried putting it on "a steel base."

No steel in the Bible.

Dutchies fail again.
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-30 17:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried putting it on "a steel base."
No steel in the Bible.
What's in the bible is against the laws of physics,
so some compromise is needed no matter what.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Dutchies fail again.
Bible fails again,

Jan
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-30 20:06:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried putting it on "a steel base."
No steel in the Bible.
Good luck getting those fundamentalists to give up on cars and pick up
trucks. It only counts if they say it.
Post by J. J. Lodder
What's in the bible is against the laws of physics,
so some compromise is needed no matter what.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Dutchies fail again.
Bible fails again,
Jan
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-30 21:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried putting it on "a steel base."
No steel in the Bible.
Good luck getting those fundamentalists to give up on cars and pick up
trucks. It only counts if they say it.
I don't think we usually count Amish and Mennonites as "fundamentalists"?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-30 20:24:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried putting it on "a steel base."
No steel in the Bible.
What's in the bible is against the laws of physics,
so some compromise is needed no matter what.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Dutchies fail again.
Bible fails again,
I see that you were right about the ship in the Suez Canal: it took
Dutch know-how to get it floating again.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-31 09:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried putting it on "a steel base."
No steel in the Bible.
What's in the bible is against the laws of physics,
so some compromise is needed no matter what.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Dutchies fail again.
Bible fails again,
I see that you were right about the ship in the Suez Canal: it took
Dutch know-how to get it floating again.
More a matter of power than brains, and having the right tools.

They had an add about it with a verbal joke in it.
[big picture of their tug in the foreground, big green ship behind]
Text; 'We hebben heel wat losgemaakt'
(lit. we loosened up a lot)

The joke is that this expression is always used figuratively only,
here they take it literally,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-30 21:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried putting it on "a steel base."
No steel in the Bible.
What's in the bible is against the laws of physics,
so some compromise is needed no matter what.
Miracles by definition contravene the laws of physics. Only
fundamentalists devote themselves to discovering rational
explanations for biblical miracles.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Dutchies fail again.
Bible fails again,
Peter Moylan
2021-03-31 00:33:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried putting it on "a steel base."
No steel in the Bible.
What's in the bible is against the laws of physics,
so some compromise is needed no matter what.
Yes, but Noah built his boat before the laws of physics were invented.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-30 16:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Answers in Genesis]
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Where did he gopher wood?
Getting some would have been nice,
but the gophers refused to cooperate,
so he didn't get any.
It was built in reinforced concrete instead,
so it is just an ark-shaped building.
All pretence that it could actually float was given up,
Jan
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
If any national significance could be assigned, I'd have expected better
of a Dutch ark.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-30 17:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Answers in Genesis]
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Where did he gopher wood?
Getting some would have been nice,
but the gophers refused to cooperate,
so he didn't get any.
It was built in reinforced concrete instead,
so it is just an ark-shaped building.
All pretence that it could actually float was given up,
Jan
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
If any national significance could be assigned, I'd have expected better
of a Dutch ark.
How better?
It was the only really floating full size ark,

Jan
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-30 19:13:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Answers in Genesis]
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian, has
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Where did he gopher wood?
Getting some would have been nice,
but the gophers refused to cooperate,
so he didn't get any.
It was built in reinforced concrete instead,
so it is just an ark-shaped building.
All pretence that it could actually float was given up,
Jan
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
If any national significance could be assigned, I'd have expected better
of a Dutch ark.
How better?
It was the only really floating full size ark,
Jan
Well to last longer. Possibly until the Next Flood.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-30 21:23:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Lodder)
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Answers in Genesis]
One of the half-wits associated with that cult, an Australian,
has
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
built what he thinks is a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky.
Where did he gopher wood?
Getting some would have been nice,
but the gophers refused to cooperate,
so he didn't get any.
It was built in reinforced concrete instead,
so it is just an ark-shaped building.
All pretence that it could actually float was given up,
Jan
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
If any national significance could be assigned, I'd have expected
better
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
of a Dutch ark.
How better?
It was the only really floating full size ark,
Jan
Well to last longer. Possibly until the Next Flood.
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It hasn't been updated since 2017.

The owner had planned to have the thing towed to London
in time for the 2012 Olympics, but he failed because the thing
lacked adequate sea-worthyness even in the best of weather.

So little hope for a flood,

Jan
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-31 00:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Lodder)
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
(wooden superstructure on a steel base)
is rotting away somewhere unknown. It wasn't a commercial succes.
The Dutch are less susceptible to bible scams than Americans.
If any national significance could be assigned, I'd have expected
better
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
of a Dutch ark.
How better?
It was the only really floating full size ark,
Jan
Well to last longer. Possibly until the Next Flood.
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
...

It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.

Oh. Never mind.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2021-03-31 13:55:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
...
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)

How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
--
"I didn't mind getting old when I was young, either," I said.
"It's the being old now that's getting to me."
-- J. Scalzi, Old Man's War
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-31 15:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."

"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."

Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Bebercito
2021-03-31 16:00:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-31 16:10:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...

That's not even a PSTNSHTSTL.
Bebercito
2021-03-31 17:54:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030

QED.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's not even a PSTNSHTSTL.
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-31 18:51:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
...

The conclusion of that seemed to be that the distinction between the words in
Biblical Hebrew is now unknown.

By the way, the information that BaYiT ('house') and TeYVaH ('ark') contain the
same letters (the B and V are variants of one letter) may be relevant for Orthodox
exegesis but not for a translation for general readers.

Of course "Noah's Chest" and "Crate of the Covenant" sound ridiculous now,
but I wonder how they'd sound if Tyndale and Coverdale had ignored the Latin
and used them. "Case of the Covenant" might not be bad.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2021-03-31 22:02:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Of course "Noah's Chest" and "Crate of the Covenant" sound ridiculous now,
but I wonder how they'd sound if Tyndale and Coverdale had ignored the Latin
and used them. "Case of the Covenant" might not be bad.
The German is "Bundeslade". You can recognize both parts in the English
verbs "to bind" and "to lade". "Lade" for a generic chest is obsolete in
German, too, but we still have "Schublade", drawer. So a translator not
versed in the bible might at first glance think "Bundeslade" would be
"federal drawer".

For Noah's ship, the German bible has the loanword "Arche", which has no
other (surviving) uses, except that metaphorical references to Noah's
ark are common.
--
Perhaps it might be well, while the subject is under discussion,
to attempt the creation of an entirely new gender, for the purpose
of facilitating reference to the growing caste of manly women and
womanly men. -- Baltimore Sun (1910)
Bebercito
2021-03-31 22:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
...
The conclusion of that seemed to be that the distinction between the words in
Biblical Hebrew is now unknown.
Indeed, but as far as translating Biblical Hebrew is concerned, that distinction
can't be rendered with nouns having the same connotations in English.
Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, the information that BaYiT ('house') and TeYVaH ('ark') contain the
same letters (the B and V are variants of one letter) may be relevant for Orthodox
exegesis but not for a translation for general readers.
Of course "Noah's Chest" and "Crate of the Covenant" sound ridiculous now,
but I wonder how they'd sound if Tyndale and Coverdale had ignored the Latin
and used them. "Case of the Covenant" might not be bad.
--
Jerry Friedman
Sam Plusnet
2021-04-01 19:33:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
...
The conclusion of that seemed to be that the distinction between the words in
Biblical Hebrew is now unknown.
By the way, the information that BaYiT ('house') and TeYVaH ('ark') contain the
same letters (the B and V are variants of one letter) may be relevant for Orthodox
exegesis but not for a translation for general readers.
Of course "Noah's Chest" and "Crate of the Covenant" sound ridiculous now,
but I wonder how they'd sound if Tyndale and Coverdale had ignored the Latin
and used them. "Case of the Covenant" might not be bad.
I could imagine one of the translators saying:

"I still prefer 'Casket of the Covenant', but no-one's going to get
excited over this sort of nit-picking."
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-01 20:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The actually floating full size Dutch ark replica
No one seems to know what happened to it.
The web site relating to it says it has departed to elsewhere,
and that it is closed to the public.
It's a lost ark? I saw that movie.
Oh. Never mind.
| Ark of the Covenant
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
The conclusion of that seemed to be that the distinction between the words in
Biblical Hebrew is now unknown.
By the way, the information that BaYiT ('house') and TeYVaH ('ark') contain the
same letters (the B and V are variants of one letter) may be relevant for Orthodox
exegesis but not for a translation for general readers.
Of course "Noah's Chest" and "Crate of the Covenant" sound ridiculous now,
but I wonder how they'd sound if Tyndale and Coverdale had ignored the Latin
and used them. "Case of the Covenant" might not be bad.
The 1611 crew claim to have diligently compared the original tongues,
and I suspect Mr. Stuart wouldn't have looked kindly on their referring to
the Latin.
Post by Sam Plusnet
"I still prefer 'Casket of the Covenant', but no-one's going to get
excited over this sort of nit-picking."
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-31 20:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
Nonsense. It should be clear -- even from that discussion -- that the
first word is known nowhere else in the Hebrew text, so little to nothing
can be determined about its specific semantics.

Here's the discussion of this Egyptian loanword from a book I edited a
couple of years ago:

תֵבָה ‘ark; basket’
HALOT 1677–78; DCH 8:585–86
(Gen 6:14 [2×], passim) κιβωτός ‘box, chest’, arca ‘chest, box’ Gen; in Exodus, θῖβις ‘basket’ (derived from Heb תֵבָה ), fiscella ‘wicker basket’; qbwtʾ, ‘box, ark’; (Aramaic forms)
[D] Eg → Heb
QH תבה ; Eg ḏbꜢ.t (since OK), db.t (MK, NK), tb (NK), tb.t (Ptolm) ÄW 1:1500, 2:2774, 2834; GHwÄ 993, 1046, 1078; 5:261, 434, 561; DLE 2:203, 244, 267^621

The word occurs a total of 28 times, but these instances are limited to two specific uses.

621 JA תיבות , תיבו and Gk θῖβις are clear adaptations of BH תֵבָה (DJPA 580; DJBA 1203; LSJ 801).

Most commonly, the word תֵבָה refers to the ark that Noah builds to escape the flood (Gen 6:14, passim). Elsewhere, תֵבָה appears twice with reference to the basket in which Moses was placed (Exod 2:3, 5). This word also appears as תבה in the Dead Sea Scrolls in contexts alluding to the flood narrative in Genesis (e.g., CD v:1).
In the book of Exodus, the basket denoted by תֵבָה is said to be made of גֹמֶא (a reed or rush plant), an Egyptian loan. This Egyptian association, the general Egyptian context of the passage, and the lack of any known Semitic root on which Hebrew תֵבָה could be based suggest that תֵבָה is an Egyptian loan. The donor term is Egyptian ḏbꜢ.t, db.t, tb , tb.t, attested with the meaning ‘coffin, box’ as well as ‘shrine, room’ (cf. Dem tby.t, tyb.t, tybꜢ.t, tbꜢ.t, tb Ꜣ.t, tb.t and Copt taibe, tēēbe: CDD T 89, 143, 145–47; DG ^622; Crum 397) (EPNL 258). The form of this word is ḏbꜢ.t in Old Kingdom Egyptian texts, but by the Middle and New Kingdoms this word came to be written as db.t, and by the Ptolemaic period it was written as tb.t. This demonstrates that ḏ became d and then t and that the Ꜣ dropped out early on (EPNL 258).
As already noted, the use of an Egyptian loan in Exod 2:3, 5 fits well within the broader Egyptian context. The appearance of תֵבָה in the Flood narrative, however, is somewhat unexpected, since there is no clear Egyptian context and because Egyptian ḏbꜢ.t, db.t, tb never refers to a boat. The usage of תֵבָה in Genesis probably stems from the strong thematic links between the flood narrative and the narrative of Moses’ birth: in both cases, the item denoted by תֵבָה is the means of deliverance of the narrative’s hero.622

622 Hoffmeier 1996, 138; Cassuto 1967, 18–19; contra C. Cohen 1972. Propp (1999, 159–60) notes similarities between the Epic of Atraḫasis and Exod 2:1–10, further strengthening the thematic connections between the narratives of the flood and Moses’ birth.

Elsewhere he mentions in passing that "At least two clues indicate that
this [i.e. אַּרְגַּז ] is not a Hebrew word. First, אֲרוֹן , not אַּרְגַּז , is the common
Hebrew word meaning ‘chest’."

Incidentally, "gopher-wood" is probably cypress.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's not even a PSTNSHTSTL.
Bebercito
2021-03-31 22:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
Nonsense. It should be clear -- even from that discussion -- that the
first word is known nowhere else in the Hebrew text, so little to nothing
can be determined about its specific semantics.
No, it says that either word appears in two contexts in the Bible and that,
precisely, the semantics of either can be derived therefrom.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Here's the discussion of this Egyptian loanword from a book I edited a
תֵבָה ‘ark; basket’
HALOT 1677–78; DCH 8:585–86
(Gen 6:14 [2×], passim) κιβωτός ‘box, chest’, arca ‘chest, box’ Gen; in Exodus, θῖβις ‘basket’ (derived from Heb תֵבָה ), fiscella ‘wicker basket’; qbwtʾ, ‘box, ark’; (Aramaic forms)
[D] Eg → Heb
QH תבה ; Eg ḏbꜢ.t (since OK), db.t (MK, NK), tb (NK), tb.t (Ptolm) ÄW 1:1500, 2:2774, 2834; GHwÄ 993, 1046, 1078; 5:261, 434, 561; DLE 2:203, 244, 267^621
The word occurs a total of 28 times, but these instances are limited to two specific uses.
621 JA תיבות , תיבו and Gk θῖβις are clear adaptations of BH תֵבָה (DJPA 580; DJBA 1203; LSJ 801).
Most commonly, the word תֵבָה refers to the ark that Noah builds to escape the flood (Gen 6:14, passim). Elsewhere, תֵבָה appears twice with reference to the basket in which Moses was placed (Exod 2:3, 5). This word also appears as תבה in the Dead Sea Scrolls in contexts alluding to the flood narrative in Genesis (e.g., CD v:1).
In the book of Exodus, the basket denoted by תֵבָה is said to be made of גֹמֶא (a reed or rush plant), an Egyptian loan. This Egyptian association, the general Egyptian context of the passage, and the lack of any known Semitic root on which Hebrew תֵבָה could be based suggest that תֵבָה is an Egyptian loan. The donor term is Egyptian ḏbꜢ.t, db.t, tb , tb.t, attested with the meaning ‘coffin, box’ as well as ‘shrine, room’ (cf. Dem tby.t, tyb.t, tybꜢ.t, tbꜢ.t, tb Ꜣ.t, tb.t and Copt taibe, tēēbe: CDD T 89, 143, 145–47; DG ^622; Crum 397) (EPNL 258). The form of this word is ḏbꜢ.t in Old Kingdom Egyptian texts, but by the Middle and New Kingdoms this word came to be written as db.t, and by the Ptolemaic period it was written as tb.t. This demonstrates that ḏ became d and then t and that the Ꜣ dropped out early on (EPNL 258).
As already noted, the use of an Egyptian loan in Exod 2:3, 5 fits well within the broader Egyptian context. The appearance of תֵבָה in the Flood narrative, however, is somewhat unexpected, since there is no clear Egyptian context and because Egyptian ḏbꜢ.t, db.t, tb never refers to a boat. The usage of תֵבָה in Genesis probably stems from the strong thematic links between the flood narrative and the narrative of Moses’ birth: in both cases, the item denoted by תֵבָה is the means of deliverance of the narrative’s hero.622
622 Hoffmeier 1996, 138; Cassuto 1967, 18–19; contra C. Cohen 1972. Propp (1999, 159–60) notes similarities between the Epic of Atraḫasis and Exod 2:1–10, further strengthening the thematic connections between the narratives of the flood and Moses’ birth.
Elsewhere he mentions in passing that "At least two clues indicate that
this [i.e. אַּרְגַּז ] is not a Hebrew word. First, אֲרוֹן , not אַּרְגַּז , is the common
Hebrew word meaning ‘chest’."
Incidentally, "gopher-wood" is probably cypress.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That's not even a PSTNSHTSTL.
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-01 00:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
Nonsense. It should be clear -- even from that discussion -- that the
first word is known nowhere else in the Hebrew text, so little to nothing
can be determined about its specific semantics.
No, it says that either word appears in two contexts in the Bible
Yes.
Post by Bebercito
and that,
precisely, the semantics of either can be derived therefrom.
...

No, it says, "The usage of these terms in the Bible *may* help us determine
the differences between them." (Emphasis added.) Then it goes on to say
that the Biblical uses suggest two possible interpretations: a /teivah/ floats
(with Noah or Moses inside) and an /aron/ doesnt, or a /teivah/ is for people
and an /aron/ is for inanimate objects. And then it says that the rabbinical
uses "defeat" and "disprove" both of those possibilities.
--
Jerry Friedman
Bebercito
2021-04-01 00:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
Nonsense. It should be clear -- even from that discussion -- that the
first word is known nowhere else in the Hebrew text, so little to nothing
can be determined about its specific semantics.
No, it says that either word appears in two contexts in the Bible
Yes.
Post by Bebercito
and that,
precisely, the semantics of either can be derived therefrom.
...
No, it says, "The usage of these terms in the Bible *may* help us determine
the differences between them." (Emphasis added.) Then it goes on to say
that the Biblical uses suggest two possible interpretations: a /teivah/ floats
(with Noah or Moses inside) and an /aron/ doesnt, or a /teivah/ is for people
and an /aron/ is for inanimate objects. And then it says that the rabbinical
uses "defeat" and "disprove" both of those possibilities.
Yes, I've read that too, but shouldn't the translators of the Bible stick to the
interpretation of the words suggested by the very Bible, rather than embrace
rabbinical usage, which may have departed therefrom?
Post by Jerry Friedman
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-01 03:25:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
Nonsense. It should be clear -- even from that discussion -- that the
first word is known nowhere else in the Hebrew text, so little to nothing
can be determined about its specific semantics.
No, it says that either word appears in two contexts in the Bible
Yes.
Post by Bebercito
and that,
precisely, the semantics of either can be derived therefrom.
...
No, it says, "The usage of these terms in the Bible *may* help us determine
the differences between them." (Emphasis added.) Then it goes on to say
that the Biblical uses suggest two possible interpretations: a /teivah/ floats
(with Noah or Moses inside) and an /aron/ doesnt, or a /teivah/ is for people
and an /aron/ is for inanimate objects. And then it says that the rabbinical
uses "defeat" and "disprove" both of those possibilities.
Yes, I've read that too, but shouldn't the translators of the Bible stick to the
interpretation of the words suggested by the very Bible, rather than embrace
rabbinical usage, which may have departed therefrom?
I'd say "I read that too" and "the Bible itself" (not "the very Bible").

And I think your question is debatable. For /teivah/ (or /tevah/) the Biblical
evidence is about two unique and presumably non-existent objects. For /aron/
one piece of evidence is about a unique object, though the other may just be a
coffin. That's very little to go on, and as the article you linked to says, you don't
get a single interpretation of either word. In a situation where the Bible doesn't
answer the question, looking at later usage seems reasonable. Of course you
still don't get a definite answer in this case.
--
Jerry Friedman
Madhu
2021-04-02 12:43:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Bebercito
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
No, it says, "The usage of these terms in the Bible *may* help us determine
the differences between them." (Emphasis added.) Then it goes on to say
that the Biblical uses suggest two possible interpretations: a /teivah/ floats
(with Noah or Moses inside) and an /aron/ doesnt, or a /teivah/ is for people
and an /aron/ is for inanimate objects. And then it says that the rabbinical
uses "defeat" and "disprove" both of those possibilities.
isn't that fairly standard rabbinic dialectic?
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-02 14:06:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Bebercito
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
No, it says, "The usage of these terms in the Bible *may* help us determine
the differences between them." (Emphasis added.) Then it goes on to say
that the Biblical uses suggest two possible interpretations: a /teivah/ floats
(with Noah or Moses inside) and an /aron/ doesnt, or a /teivah/ is for people
and an /aron/ is for inanimate objects. And then it says that the rabbinical
uses "defeat" and "disprove" both of those possibilities.
isn't that fairly standard rabbinic dialectic?
Sure, as far as I know, which isn't far. I don't think I implied it wasn't.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-01 11:59:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonsense. It should be clear -- even from that discussion -- that the
first word is known nowhere else in the Hebrew text, so little to nothing
can be determined about its specific semantics.
No, it says that either word appears in two contexts in the Bible and that,
precisely, the semantics of either can be derived therefrom.
Looks like you don't understand how translation works, either.
Bebercito
2021-04-01 15:20:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonsense. It should be clear -- even from that discussion -- that the
first word is known nowhere else in the Hebrew text, so little to nothing
can be determined about its specific semantics.
No, it says that either word appears in two contexts in the Bible and that,
precisely, the semantics of either can be derived therefrom.
Looks like you don't understand how translation works, either.
What does that remark have to do with the above?

Besides, I made a strong case for my point (see elsethread), whereas
you just offered a raw list of potential synonyms, i.e. "box, case, casket,
container, crate, holder,housing, locker, trunk" that just mixes apples
and oranges - which at the very least denotes a poor approach to
translation.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-01 16:32:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonsense. It should be clear -- even from that discussion -- that the
first word is known nowhere else in the Hebrew text, so little to nothing
can be determined about its specific semantics.
No, it says that either word appears in two contexts in the Bible and that,
precisely, the semantics of either can be derived therefrom.
Looks like you don't understand how translation works, either.
What does that remark have to do with the above?
There are two approaches to translation. Translate the words, or
translate the sense. The overwhelming opinion in the field of
missionary linguistics is to render the meaning.

A powerful example -- due to either Nida or Smalley -- is that in some
culture, the emotive associations of "sheep" and "goats" are reversed
from what they were in Biblical Hebrew. When the Lord separates
the sheep from the goats, should the words for 'sheep' and 'goat' be
used, or should the 'goat' word be used for the favored members of
the division?

The Hebrew Scriptures refer to a number of flora and fauna that have
no counterpart in most of the world's biomes. Should they be translated
into names of things that occupy similar niches? or should they simply
be transliterated (as in "gopher-wood"?
Post by Bebercito
Besides, I made a strong case for my point (see elsethread), whereas
you just offered a raw list of potential synonyms, i.e. "box, case, casket,
container, crate, holder,housing, locker, trunk" that just mixes apples
and oranges - which at the very least denotes a poor approach to
translation.
You claimed that English does not have multiple words for things that
contain things.

As Jerry has shown you at least twice now, we CANNOT KNOW what
the nuances of the two Hebrew words are, but that they are two different
words strongly suggests that even in 1611 they should have rendered
them differently.
Quinn C
2021-03-31 22:02:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
So it's not possible to perfectly reproduce the Hebrew meaning/usage
difference in English - as per default in translation. Bummer.

The usual solution is to choose two words that reflect those differences
that are important in the given context.
--
George: You don't know these people. They find emotions disgusting.
They just want to have a good time and make jokes.
Mae: Oh, so they're British?
-- Feel Good
Bebercito
2021-03-31 23:18:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
So it's not possible to perfectly reproduce the Hebrew meaning/usage
difference in English - as per default in translation. Bummer.
The usual solution is to choose two words that reflect those differences
that are important in the given context.
Indeed, two different words could have been chosen arbitrarily to
differentiate the two, but my gut feeling is that "Ark" was deliberately
chosen in "Ark of the Covenant" because the Covenant is said to
be represented by the rainbow, which in turn is shaped like an
arc (previously, an "ark").

As the Ark of the Covenant is mentioned after Noah's Ark
in the Bible (Exodus and Genesis, respectively), it's possible
that some intertextuality was at work here, and the translator,
consciously or not, played on the double meaning of "ark" in
English. (FWIW, French also uses "Arche" for both Hebrew
words.)
Post by Quinn C
--
George: You don't know these people. They find emotions disgusting.
They just want to have a good time and make jokes.
Mae: Oh, so they're British?
-- Feel Good
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-01 00:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Quinn C
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
So it's not possible to perfectly reproduce the Hebrew meaning/usage
difference in English - as per default in translation. Bummer.
The usual solution is to choose two words that reflect those differences
that are important in the given context.
Indeed, two different words could have been chosen arbitrarily to
differentiate the two, but my gut feeling is that "Ark" was deliberately
chosen in "Ark of the Covenant" because the Covenant is said to
be represented by the rainbow, which in turn is shaped like an
arc (previously, an "ark").
Different covenants, not that that invalidates your suggestion. The rainbow
represents God's covenant with humanity through Noah and his family, and
the Ark of the Covenant housed the tablets with the Ten Commandments
(Hebrew /lukhot ha-brit/ 'tables of the covenant'), which were part of God's
covenant with the Jews.

However, as Quinn pointed out, the Vulgate uses "arca" for both. So your
conjecture would apply to Jerome, not Coverdale and Tyndale and King
James's translators.
Post by Bebercito
As the Ark of the Covenant is mentioned after Noah's Ark
in the Bible (Exodus and Genesis, respectively), it's possible
that some intertextuality was at work here, and the translator,
consciously or not, played on the double meaning of "ark" in
English. (FWIW, French also uses "Arche" for both Hebrew
words.)
I'm blaming Jerome for that too.
--
Jerry Friedman was known as Jérôme in French class but disclaims all
responsibility.
Bebercito
2021-04-01 00:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Quinn C
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
| Ark of the Covenant
|
| Not to be confused with Noah's Ark
(Wikipedia)
How did they both get the same name, anyway? It seems Latin is to blame.
German (Luther?) went with a native word for one of them.
"Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in
the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) through which God spares
Noah, his family, and examples of all the world's animals from a world-engulfing
flood."
"Ark of the Covenant, Hebrew Aron Ha-berit, in Judaism and Christianity, the
ornate, gold-plated wooden chest that in biblical times housed the two tablets
of the Law given to Moses by God."
Blame Mr. Stuart. His English apparently didn't have enough words for boxes
to render the different Hebrew words differently.
Nobody's English does.
box, case, casket, container, crate, holder, housing, locker, trunk, ...
No two of those match the distinction inherent in the two Hebrew words.
See e.g. https://ohr.edu/7030
QED.
So it's not possible to perfectly reproduce the Hebrew meaning/usage
difference in English - as per default in translation. Bummer.
The usual solution is to choose two words that reflect those differences
that are important in the given context.
Indeed, two different words could have been chosen arbitrarily to
differentiate the two, but my gut feeling is that "Ark" was deliberately
chosen in "Ark of the Covenant" because the Covenant is said to
be represented by the rainbow, which in turn is shaped like an
arc (previously, an "ark").
Different covenants, not that that invalidates your suggestion. The rainbow
represents God's covenant with humanity through Noah and his family, and
the Ark of the Covenant housed the tablets with the Ten Commandments
(Hebrew /lukhot ha-brit/ 'tables of the covenant'), which were part of God's
covenant with the Jews.
That's right, thanks.
However, as Quinn pointed out, the Vulgate uses "arca" for both. So your
conjecture would apply to Jerome, not Coverdale and Tyndale and King
James's translators.
Post by Bebercito
As the Ark of the Covenant is mentioned after Noah's Ark
in the Bible (Exodus and Genesis, respectively), it's possible
that some intertextuality was at work here, and the translator,
consciously or not, played on the double meaning of "ark" in
English. (FWIW, French also uses "Arche" for both Hebrew
words.)
I'm blaming Jerome for that too.
--
Jerry Friedman was known as Jérôme in French class but disclaims all
responsibility.
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-01 13:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 6:11:10 PM UTC-6, Jerry Friedman wrote:

[arkology]
the Ten Commandments (Hebrew /lukhot ha-brit/ 'tables of the covenant'),
...

I meant /luchot/, or maybe /luhot/, preferably with a dot under the h.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-29 20:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers
were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a subscription
to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a seriously deranged
religious group. Many of us read it, for the comic light relief.
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I read the
interesting theory that the speed of light has changed over time, so
that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old had actually only
taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never had the patience to work
out whether that could be embedded into a coherent theory.
It was originally based on massaging of data points with large errors
from early measurements of the speed of light.
At first some of those seemed to indicate a systematic drift.
Extrapolation of differences in measurements
taken a few years apart to billions of years
produces the enormous effect that is needed.

Of course modern, and far more precise, measurements
show no drift of the speed of light,
or equivalently, of the length of the meter,

Jan
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-29 21:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers
were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a subscription
to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a seriously deranged
religious group. Many of us read it, for the comic light relief.
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I read the
interesting theory that the speed of light has changed over time, so
that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old had actually only
taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never had the patience to work
out whether that could be embedded into a coherent theory.
Did those "Answers in Genesis" include an explanation of the two
different accounts of creation?
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-03-30 01:45:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily
papers were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a
subscription to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a
seriously deranged religious group. Many of us read it, for the
comic light relief.
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was
doing me a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling
me) to something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I
read the interesting theory that the speed of light has changed
over time, so that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old
had actually only taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never
had the patience to work out whether that could be embedded into a
coherent theory.
Did those "Answers in Genesis" include an explanation of the two
different accounts of creation?
No. I don't think I've ever seen fundamentalist writing that even admits
that there are two accounts. I suppose it's one of those embarrassing
details to be quickly glossed over.

It's very easy to read Genesis without even noticing the contradiction.
And that's one of the clearest parts of the Bible. In the later books,
the writing style is so boring that you can skip right past the
potentially awkward parts and not notice.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-30 02:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily
papers were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a
subscription to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a
seriously deranged religious group. Many of us read it, for the
comic light relief.
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was
doing me a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling
me) to something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I
read the interesting theory that the speed of light has changed
over time, so that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old
had actually only taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never
had the patience to work out whether that could be embedded into a
coherent theory.
Did those "Answers in Genesis" include an explanation of the two
different accounts of creation?
No. I don't think I've ever seen fundamentalist writing that even admits
that there are two accounts. I suppose it's one of those embarrassing
details to be quickly glossed over.
...

Actually, Jenn had an answer--the second account isn't told in
chronological order--and I'll bet that's well known among
fundamentalists.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-03-30 03:17:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Did those "Answers in Genesis" include an explanation of the two
different accounts of creation?
No. I don't think I've ever seen fundamentalist writing that even admits
that there are two accounts. I suppose it's one of those embarrassing
details to be quickly glossed over.
...
Actually, Jenn had an answer--the second account isn't told in
chronological order--and I'll bet that's well known among
fundamentalists.
Thanks. I'd forgotten that detail.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-30 20:22:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily
papers were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a
subscription to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a
seriously deranged religious group. Many of us read it, for the
comic light relief.
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was
doing me a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling
me) to something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I
read the interesting theory that the speed of light has changed
over time, so that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old
had actually only taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never
had the patience to work out whether that could be embedded into a
coherent theory.
Did those "Answers in Genesis" include an explanation of the two
different accounts of creation?
No. I don't think I've ever seen fundamentalist writing that even admits
that there are two accounts. I suppose it's one of those embarrassing
details to be quickly glossed over.
...
Actually, Jenn had an answer--the second account isn't told in
chronological order--and I'll bet that's well known among
fundamentalists.
Clumsy bit of writing that really should have been edited out of the
final version.
Got it.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-31 08:41:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily
papers were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a
subscription to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a
seriously deranged religious group. Many of us read it, for the
comic light relief.
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was
doing me a favour by giving me a free subscription (without
telling me) to something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there
that I read the interesting theory that the speed of light has
changed over time, so that light that appeared to be 13 billion
years old had actually only taken 6,000 years to make the journey.
I never had the patience to work out whether that could be
embedded into a coherent theory.
Did those "Answers in Genesis" include an explanation of the two
different accounts of creation?
No. I don't think I've ever seen fundamentalist writing that even
admits that there are two accounts. I suppose it's one of those
embarrassing details to be quickly glossed over.
...
Actually, Jenn had an answer--the second account isn't told in
chronological order--and I'll bet that's well known among
fundamentalists.
Clumsy bit of writing that really should have been edited out of the
final version.
Got it.
God's infallible (see definition), it's the secretaries taking dictation
that get it wrong.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-30 14:19:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Did those "Answers in Genesis" include an explanation of the two
different accounts of creation?
No. I don't think I've ever seen fundamentalist writing that even admits
that there are two accounts. I suppose it's one of those embarrassing
details to be quickly glossed over.
Then clearly you have not seen fundamental fundamentalist writing.
It's the second question you come to (after explaining the "six days"
bit).
Post by Peter Moylan
It's very easy to read Genesis without even noticing the contradiction.
And that's one of the clearest parts of the Bible. In the later books,
the writing style is so boring that you can skip right past the
potentially awkward parts and not notice.
Thus spake the computer engineer.

Actual biblical scholars deal with the slight inconsistencies in the
parallel passages in Samuel/Kings and Chronicles.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-30 14:14:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
and what was I doing reading such a newspaper?: all the daily papers
were available in our student common room.
In my undergraduate college the student common room had a subscription
to "The Plain Truth", a magazine produced by a seriously deranged
religious group. Many of us read it, for the comic light relief.
Many years later, a fundamentalist acquaintance thought he was doing me
a favour by giving me a free subscription (without telling me) to
something called "Answers in Genesis". It was there that I read the
interesting theory that the speed of light has changed over time, so
that light that appeared to be 13 billion years old had actually only
taken 6,000 years to make the journey. I never had the patience to work
out whether that could be embedded into a coherent theory.
Did those "Answers in Genesis" include an explanation of the two
different accounts of creation?
As _any_ conservative commentary will explain, there is no contradiction
or inconsistency between them. Sounds like this magazine deals with
more sophisticated questions!
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-27 19:18:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Recently an American politician - a member of the Cabinet - took a
major step in reorganizing the department that he now leads.
Reporting on this by various news agencies led to headlines about the
Refused to comment
Declined to comment
Did not comment.
As you can guess, the first was from a right-wing news agency, the
second was from a liberal news agency, and the third was from a
moderate news agency.
All three describe the same reaction by the Secretary.
I don't see any need to comment.

You refused to comment.

He is stonewalling.
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...