timber wrote-
Quote:spendi, while little of what you offer merits serious response, forwarding that ludicrous "Shakespeare in the Bible" meme is a new low even for you.
You might think that a satisfactory answer but it is bluster and bombast as far as I'm concerned.
There is some quite respectable support for the idea of a Shakespeare fingerprint in Psalm 46 and for the obvious conclusion which could be reasonably inferred.
I do realise, of course, that rejecting the idea helps you to retain your more atavistic conception and, actually, your whole position. So you would reject it wouldn't you as you might have to make a fresh start on your Biblical scholarship otherwise. With a clean slate and that would never do. It would imply you had been had on all these years of diligent and comprehensive study.
But three assertions in one sentence is going a bit far. You seem to place an inordinate amount of trust in your own opinions.
Does anybody know how to estimate the number of people in London in 1610 literate enough to be qualified to assist in producing the KJ Bible.
Your miss-matched plaid outfit, floppy shoes, big bow tie, and stuck-on red nose are showing, spendi - try
THIS on for size.
spendius wrote:Does anybody know how to estimate the number of people in London in 1610 literate enough to be qualified to assist in producing the KJ Bible.
Of the several thousand to one extent or another qualified, some 70 or so having the requisite politico-social and theologic credentials were so employed.
megamanXplosion wrote: What makes you believe the Genesis account is correct? The only thing that is accurate about the story is that there was a landmass where it sayed it would be found. (It is now covered over by water--one would expect the Bible, if the authors were indeed inspired and could foretell the future, to make a reference to such an event due to the value of such information but it doesn't.) The theory of evolution makes it blatantly clear that humanity did not begin by two people of which one was made of dirt and the other a dirty rib. One would have to be fairly unknowledgable of the archaeological and paleontological record and radiocarbon dating to not accept the the basic truth of the theory of evolution. We are clearly the descendents of the Cro Magnons--another example of where the Bible possibly could have authenticated itself just by a mere mentioning. The completely inaccurate order of appearance of certain animals--we know reptiles and insects appeared before birds and whales--is another indicator that the writers were not inspired and had absolutely no idea what they were writing about. The mere idea of snakes with legs talking to people should ring the alarm that is firmly placed on every BS-meter.
Much has been written in these fora about the order of creation/arrival of species/kinds. I am not qualified to pitch in that ball game, though I have opinions
Also I had not intended to debate the origin of the first human pair. But I will say in passing that humans represent a significant bump in mammalian biology in terms of longevity vs. body mass and galactically larger than expected brain capacity.
That being said, the Edenic references I made were of the moral and theological implications of Satan's claims measured against the promises and warnings given by Jehovah. Satan's words clearly insinuate that man would be better off independent of God and that God is a liar not having man's best interests in mind. The rest of the Genesis account indicates a period of time for Satan to prove his allegations and contains the prophetic warning of Satan's death and God's vindication. The entire Bible from that point on is an account of how that purpose is being carried out.
As far as talking serpents are concerned, I'm surprised one of your erudition would bring it up. Obviously, an individual with Satan's powers would be capable of such deception, whether by ventriloquism or some other method.
I've seen that link before timber.
In the two Bibles I have the 46th word of Psalm 46 is "shake" and the 46th from the end is "speare" if the salutation is ignored. In that year, the 10th (4+6) of the century Shakespeare was 46 and it is Psalm 46 under scrutiny.
As Shakespeare would have known personally some of the "70 or so" and perhaps, not unlikely with actresses being in play, on friendly terms with some of them it isn't that wild a suggestion that he, and other Jacobean poets swimming in this small pond, were asked to "polish" the work of what might easily have been a few of the coarser elements who had charge of the various sections.
The play on 46 does seem a remakable coincidence if one assumes it is a coincidence rather than a smoking gun for the future. It seems to have passed the notice of the scholar who wrote the link you gave which, incidentally, and suspiciously, is not free of assertions.
One might easily imagine individual pages of the text being circulated all around the members of the literate set which, as you no doubt know, used their literacy as a power play. And with the King being a notorious believer in witchcraft and such like, and in smiting procedures, and favours being granted to those whose "polishing" pleased him it is fairly easy to conclude that the Bible represents a propaganda blitz which those well versed in Greek, Latin and Hebrew today have a vested interest in denying.
Once we have the composition of the Bible being a creation of the court of 1610, or thereabouts, a whole new approach becomes necessary to the study of it.
Perhaps it is a natural resistance to a new approach which motivates those who seek to say that there is no play on 46 and that it is a mere coincidence.
Kipling has a short story, Proofs of Holy Writ, in which the idea of this polishing process is central.
I have an open mind on the matter.
Quote:miss-matched plaid outfit, floppy shoes, big bow tie, and stuck-on red nose
And now we know the sources of your word selections.
Just to humor you, spendi (well, actually more like to set light to the match stuck without your notice between the toes protruding from the upper and sole flopping loose from one another on one of your shoes), how does your proposition square with the facts that
- In order to bring the word "shakes" into the 46th position, one must ignore the 46th Psalm's opening words, "To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth"
- In order to bring the word "spear" (and note - the word is "spear", without a final "E" - but that's trivial) 46th next in order from the word "shakes", one must ignore the word "Selah"
- The exact same words, in the exact same order, are to be found in EVERY English translation of the Bible, dating all the way back to John Wycliffe's hand-written 14th Century translation derived from Jerome's early 5th Century Latin Vulgate
- The translational equivalents of those words - in Hebrew "ra'ash"; to shake, tremble, or quiver, and "xanith"; spear or javelin - are to be found, in the same relationship to one another so far as is consistent with the particular grammar, in every Bible, including Jerome's, and the 3rd Century BCE Septuagint of Jewish canon, from which canon derives the Christian Old Testament
- The Qumran Texts agree, word for word, with the others already in this particular cited?
I s'pose ol' Willy S. musta had a time machine, and was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Koine Greek, eh?
Oh, and actresses and Shakespeare? Not bloody likely; the first English public stage performance by a female occurred in the latter half of the 17th Century (around 1660 -1665 or so, if I recall correctly - too lazy right now to look it up, sorry) - though it was in one of Shakespeare's plays (
Othello to be exact) and the role was that of Desdemona, with the other female parts played by, as was then-current and at the time long-standing, inviolable convention, suitably costumed male actors (who typically rendered their lines in falsetto, though castratti sometimes - rarely, apparently - also were thus employed). There was quite a stir surrounding the occasion.
The first thing I thought timber when I read that was "he doesn't have all that bullshit at his fingertips." Then I got bathed and I still think that.
Meditating, as one does in the bath, it struck me you are an ace player on this kit. I once asked a technical question and you came back with this fantastic spiel which I in my "Just Hatched" innocence thought you had just reeled off the top of your head.
You know where everything is to stick up for something.I wouldn't be surprised if you had tossed up whether to be an IDer or an anti-IDer. And went with it.
I bet there's somebody arguing that Jane Austen was a lesbian and knows where all the proofs are and can Google them up quicktime.
Now that would be scientific wouldn't it.
I'm in the coffee houses in London in 1610 and I'm thinking what it was like.
How many people see some of the draughts of the State of the Union. Polish wanted. Bellow maybe. Or parts of it. That "addiction to oil" phrase must have long argued over.
Translations are re-writes. I've never read Flaubert at all. Not with science books. There's no jokes in science books.Hence the morose expressions. Everybody knows in all languages what the far infra-red is. Well-what I mean to say is that they have agreed what it is which isn't necessarily what it actually is.Assuming it's not an illusion of course.
I was having a joke about actresses. An actress would know what you have explained and would get a bit mad. Don't you like getting uppity women a bit shirty?
Anyway, your description of a performance might just have "funny" night.
For the trannies to strut their stuff.
Well, I'll tell ya spendi - your surmise that "... he doesn't have all that bullshit at his fingertips ... " is off-the-mark by a mile; while I am quite familiar with many itterations of the various Bibles, I can't really, however, point to that exclusively in this instance. You see, the "Shakespeare in the Bible" meme has been around a long, long while - possibly even since before Dawkins coined the word "meme" (in 1976, incidentally) - exposing it for what it is amounts to little more than child's play for anyone with even modest competence in the art and practice of the debunking of dupes and frauds eagerly embraced by the ignorant and gullible. I don't know, haven't looked, but I should be unsurprised were it to be the case Snopes.Com and/or UrbanLegends.Com have shredded that particular bit of silliness. At any rate, I've encountered, and countered, that meme on so many boards, forums, and groups across my years on the 'net I can (in fact did) rattle off by rote the rebuttal I presented to you. You may be assured that by usual practice, when and where I've taken the time to source something from the 'net or from printed material, I'll all but invariably provide a link or a publication cite.
You may find also of interest that when I do go hunting, I rarely settle for one find; I'm big on cross-reference, corroboration, and verification - saves lotsa arguing.
Perhaps, spendi, the reason it seems to you I appear to be an "ace player" who "know(s) where everything is ... " could be just that I mostly confine my exposition to stuff about which I actually know something (which, BTW, happens to include a fair bit of Literary, Theatric, and English History - I'm a real history fan, and ol' Willy S. has been a freind from around the time I figured out what to do with all the brimming bookshelves and over-stuffed magazine racks with which I grew up - by age 10, I'd been pretty much cover-to-cover, volume-by-volume, through the Great Books series, a couple different multi-volume encyclopaedia, and, without my folks knowledge or consent, Rabelais, Boccacio, Burton, Harris, and Miller, along with, prolly not as likely to have been quite so much to the dismay of my folks had they known about it, all of Joyce, some Behan, a bit of Proust, some Sartré, a touch of Camus, and a smattering of Nietzsche, among myriad others).
Unlike some, I generally recognize and most typically accommodate my limitations; you'll rarely find me in gardening threads, or discussing fashion or video games, for instance - way too easy for me to get outta my depth in topics such as those. I tend to hang mostly in the technical, political, and intellectual heavy-lifting topics ... I just find 'em more comfortable.
I would be proud of a post like that.
Apart from the "bit of Proust" of course. Look at his eyes in that most famous photograph. In fact always look at the eyes. I was drunk on Proust for a whole hot summer. I started determined to read this monster so I could say I had done and by the time I got to about 30 pages I started hallucinating. So I went to see the doctor and he couldn't find anything wrong with me although he did ask my advice about a personal matter and I started again. I just loved the idea that you could write fifty pages about turning over in bed. It fitted my general philosophy. I'm not necessarily all that objective.
I think he's prophesying what is known now as compassion fatigue.
How did you miss Sir Henry Rider Haggard?
But with Rabelais, Boccacio, Burton, Harris, and Miller, you must be nearly as daft as I am. When they took those bints out of the church up to the country mansion because the plague was coming.
Innit great? But that Harris eh?
Bob said "The key is Frank."
But the 46th word in the 46th Psalm and the 46th word from the end, give or take a title and a salute, to celebrate W's 46th birthday in the 10th (4+6) of the century does seem a bit like a monkey typing next Sunday's edition of the New York Times unless you see a cute wit.
I'm inclined to the latter explanation.
Didn't miss Haggard - Allan, Horace, Ayesha, Ignosi, all the rest, and I are old freinds ... I had some pretty strong feelings for (and a few memorable dreams about) Ayesha ... never could understand what she saw in Vincey; he sure didn't strike me as a Kallikrates, but ... sigh ... women - whatchya gonna do.
And of course Burroughs, Verne, Wells, Yerby, Howard ... many days of wonder back when I was a kid, wonder an adult never can regain. Revisit perhaps, as a tourist, but never regain - you really can't "go home agsain".
When it comes to Proust, I waded in a bit, several times, never could get up any enthusiasm, and eventually filed him away under "Somedy. Maybe." Someday yet may arrive.
timberlandko wrote:real life wrote: So evolution would have to postulate that AT EACH STEP along the way, each new species of all organisms counts all of it's subsequent descendants from one original, right?
Wrong. Mitochondrial DNA archaoesequencing provides only a mathematical model demarcating a hypothetical proto-ancestor possessed of mitochondrial DNA fully consistent with that found in contemporary populations, irrespective other other genetic markers which may or may not have proceeded to express intact downline. That hypothetical proto-ancestor would have been not an actual individual but rather would indicate the point from which subsequent generations deriving from the subject population uniformly bore the same traits as had been bred into the hypothetical proto-ancestor, without regard to other traits which may or may not have been passed down or may have been subsequently developed.
I fully expect its useless to expect you might grasp the meaning of
This
Your response has nothing to do with what I said.
When a 'new species' emerges (according to evolution) , it starts with 1 member , then the number of the 'new species' increases in the new member's(singular) descendants(plural) , correct? (This is Evo 101, folks. And I'm not even a believer.)
Though it has been explained to you several times you persist in proceeding from a false premise ("1 member"). Whether you choose to refuse to acknowledge what you've been shown, or are for some reason incapable of undertanding what you've been shown, is a moot point; your responses do not incorporate understanding of what you have been shown. I really don't know how to make it any clearer for you - I'm beginning to feel as though I'm standing behind a horse, trying to explain the workings of a steam engine to the critter.
timber wrote-
Quote:you really can't "go home again".
I think you can.
You are a great chooser though--that's for sure. I used a bit of narc to get Proust. But you really do have to have nothing to do. And a good 3 vol hardback.
They can't write today like those guys. Too self important today. I suppose they've been on creative writing courses which are death to creativity. Just take a look at the first few lines of Da Vinci Code. It's babyish. Still-the money's good so you have to admire it. But as for reading it- forget it.
Ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz?
Wolf_ODonnell wrote: . . . I know which woman you're talking about, and may I remind you that even then, real, that woman would not have been alone. There would have been countless others of her kind. To suggest otherwise would be foolish.
Why?
Why don't I seal you off with one woman and see how well your lineage does if you can only reproduce with your own offspring? We'll come back in say, a thousand years time and see how you go.
Whether true or not, the Bible postulates Genesis with two perfect humans, still capable of incredible longevity even after the rebellion. Were this to be true, the harmful effects of intermarriage would have been lessened.
You could, of course, reject the premise of perfect humans. But, as far as the Bible is concerned, there is no contradiction here.
spendius wrote:Ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz?
Yup ... of course. I think Miller dealt with the religion concept in a very honest, forthright, and for Science Fiction, very positive manner. Much there to ponder. Did you know the story first appeared as a trilogy of novellettes published across a couple years in one of the SF pulps (don't remember for sure which one
Fantasy & Science Fiction I think, coulda been
Analog, too, but I'm reasonably sure I've got 'em all; I have boxes full of the things dating back to the late '40s and forward into the early '60s - treasures for their cover art as much for their contents).
In the late 50s - '58, '59, mebbe, don't remember for sure, too lazy to look it up - he gathered them together, did some revise and rewrite, and produced the unified novel. He was working on a sequel when he offed himself. It was finished years later - by Terry Bisson - and published, sometime around 10 years ago, as
Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman - should be generally available through the usual purveyors.
timber-
How about the idea that the A2K archive is discovered in 2000 years in a manner like the tool box was.
Was there a reason given why he killed himself?
timberlandko wrote:Any are welcome to hold and espouse such opinion as they find fit. It is not opinion but clear fact that those participating on the affirmative side in this and related discussions on these boards so far have failed to satisfy the requirement of proving the case for the proposition they forward. It is my opinion those participating on the affirmative side in this and related discussions on these boards are unable to satisfy that requirement.
You know Timber I've been thinking about what you said here. You are right. It hasn't been satisfied. Nor will it ever be to some people. So it seems rather pointless to continue discussing things that are going nowhere. Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know that I will be continuing this study on my own rather than posting it here. Thanks for your participation and input though.
Oh darn. I missed it. This looks like it would be interesting.
