One group's thoughts
Lost Soul
belong to concerning what Genesis actually says and how it relates to the
origin of man. I have since left this group for various reasons. Anyway,
their take on it goes something like this (parentheses show changes from
King James to a retranslation from the original): Genesis 1:1 Says "In the
beginning God created the heaven(s) and the Earth." The major point for them
comes in verse 2: "And the earth (became) without form and void..." They
claim there was no Aramaic word for "to be" and that the use of the word
"was" was a best guess insertion. I don't know Aramaic, so anyone who knows
differently, please let me know. Also, the original OT was Aramaic, wasn't
it? Anyway, they claim that the earth existed before this time, perhaps for
the billion and a half (right number) years we think it has. But it was at
this point that Lucifer was cast out of heaven and he wreaked havoc upon the
face of the earth. The Earth then remained in chaos for a long period of
time, in a frozen state which would correspond to the last ice age. And then
it was in verse 3 that God began to re-build the earth as it were. Anyway,
are there any other religions that teach this in quite that way? What are
everyone's thoughts on this particular scenario. And please, refrain from
attacking me about this because it is not a position I hold to be true. I'd
just like to discuss it with everyone. Thanks.
LS
fak...@my-deja.com
You can do this research yourself, you know. It took me all of 2
minutes to find this. I don't know if an Aramaic word for "to be"
exists (though I would be surprised if one didn't), but here is the
Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/965241950.html
What a long and detailed fantasy that you posted! Sorry to destroy the
only piece of supporting "evidence." I can't believe that you would
post something like this without even checking easily verifiable facts
(the OT was in Hebrew). And 1.5 billion years is the "right number" for
the age of the Earth? I'm glad I read this forum, I learn something new
here every day...
Faker
> LS
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lost Soul
<fak...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8m98ev$oku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
was mistaken about the language, but come on, I was merely asking for
commentary about what I posted, not derogatory commentary, and there is a
difference. And thanks for that website, it was very useful. One of the
commentaries on there describe how some people have attempted to translate
the "was" in Gen 1:2 as "became," because Isaiah 45:18 says that "he created
it [the world] not in vain (the same Hebrew word as void in Gen 1:2) This
particular author disagreed with that because he said it did not agree with
archealogical evidence of dinosaurs and such, saying that death did not come
before Adam, who was made after this supposed gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. I
cannot completely agree with his reference to Romans 5:12 about this because
that verse says that "death passed unto all men." There is no reference to
animals, so the existence and death of dinosaurs and other "pre-gap" animals
does not seem to be ruled out. Well, I welcome further discussion of this
issue. And please remember, I am in this for discussion, not to advocate
this particular belief to you, so don't treat me like you would a
creationist advocating his/her God to you.
LS
fak...@my-deja.com
[snip]
> LS
Does anyone else think I was too hard on this guy? There is a pattern
in your posts, LS. You put up some half-baked ideas that you have not
researched and you claim to not understand. When people get snippy you
become indignant. You keep protesting that you don’t believe it. Well,
Soulboy, what exactly DO you believe?
In article <8m9agi$mv2$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
"Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> Good lord, you people just can't carry on a civilized conversation,
can you?
> It's been a while since I have actually read it. If you've read any
of my
> posts you would know that I believe the theory of evolution.
Hmmm. Couldn’t tell. But you should, because IIRC, you said you were a
biologist. But then why do you keep bringing up creationist beliefs? It
seems like you just want other people to research the items for you. Go
ahead and outline your views. Maybe you could start with how you
arrived at 1.5 billion years for the Earth’s age.
Faker
Lost Soul
"Steven J." <sjt1957...@ntslink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:19bd5153...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com...
> "Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> >There is one set of beliefs from a Christian Bible study group
> >I used to belong to concerning what Genesis actually says and
> >how it relates to the origin of man. I have since left this
> >group for various reasons. Anyway, their take on it goes
> >something like this (parentheses show changes from King James
> >to a retranslation from the original): Genesis 1:1 Says "In the
> >beginning God created the heaven(s) and the Earth." The major
> >point for them comes in verse 2: "And the earth (became)
> >without form and void..." They claim there was no Aramaic word
> >for "to be" and that the use of the word "was" was a best guess
> >insertion. I don't know Aramaic, so anyone who knows
> >differently, please let me know. Also, the original OT was
> >Aramaic, wasn't it?
> >
> passages, especially in Daniel, are in Aramaic) was apparently
> written in Hebrew. Hebrew is no more Aramaic than English is
> German. Hebrew has a word for "to be" (YHWH, the proper name of
> God, is supposed to be derived from it), though the verb was
> often implied rather than express when used as a copula (i.e. "X
> is Y", as opposed to "X exists"). Translating Genesis 1:2 as
> "The world became without form and void" is, I understand, a
> possible but unlikely reading; nothing in the text implies this
> rare reading.
I was taught that the verse Isaiah 45:18 which says that "he created it [the
world] not in vain (the same Hebrew word as 'void' in Gen 1:2)" would
support such an interpretation. It seems logical because God is usually
taught to be perfect and wouldn't create anything in chaos. But then again,
there's not a lot I've been taught about God that I take at face value.
> >
> >Anyway, they claim that the earth existed before this time,
> >perhaps for the billion and a half (right number) years we
> >think it has.
> >
> Four and a half billion, but I take your point. You are
> describing what is known, among those who try to reconcile the
> Genesis accounts with geology, as the "gap theory." I'm not
> sure that it's an actual theory, since I'm not sure what methods
> have been proposed to test it.
According to a commentary on this verse on the Blue Letter Bible website and
to the reasearch ministry I used to belong to, it is an actual theory,
though which groups other than the one I used to belong to that believe it,
I don't know. (I think that was a run-on sentence :) ) Of course, I haven't
a clue how one would test that. How long ago can we actually track
civilization to, anyway? I've heard ranges from 6,000 to 12,000 years I
think. I forget where from though.
> >
> >But it was at this point that Lucifer was cast out of heaven
> >and he wreaked havoc upon the face of the earth.
> >
> The passage in Isaiah refers to the planet Venus ("shining one,
> son of the morning"), used a figure of speech referring to a
> powerful but hostile ruler -- probably the King of Babylon. The
> name "Lucifer" does not occur in the original text, but came
> from an early Latin translation. It most likely did NOT
> originally refer to Satan, or to his fall from Heaven.
I know Lucifer was not used, I was just using that name for convenience.
Again, I was taught that the passage was a reference to both the hostile
Ruler and Satan. The interpretation I had Isa 14:13 was that "I will ascend
into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God (or, possibly,
"the Star, God")" wasa reference to how Satan himself wanted to overthrow
God. I have read that Isa 14:12-14 is much like Ezekiel 28:12-14 which could
be another reference to Satan's wanting to overthrow God.
> >
> >The Earth then remained in chaos for a long period of time, in
> >a frozen state which would correspond to the last ice age. And
> >then it was in verse 3 that God began to re-build the earth as
> >it were. Anyway, are there any other religions that teach this
> >in quite that way? What are everyone's thoughts on this
> >particular scenario. And please, refrain from attacking me
> >about this because it is not a position I hold to be true. I'd
> >just like to discuss it with everyone. Thanks.
> >
> There are geological evidences of a number of ice ages -- four
> in relatively recent times, and others in past geological eras.
> There is no indication of a massive devastation of the earth and
> a subsequent recreation -- the fossil record of human evolution,
> for example, starts about 4 million years ago, before the recent
> ice ages, and continues through them, although they may have
> affected human evolution in various ways. Most lineages for
> which we have good fossil records show the same thing -- there
> was no radical discontinuity in life's evolution at the time of
> the ice ages. There is no mass extinction or global catastrophe
> (such as occurred at the ends of the Permian and Cretaceous)
> associated with human origins (although the spread of modern
> humans seems to have caused a number of extinctions of species).
> >
> >LS
> >
> >
I don't really have a response to the geological stuff. Sounds like a good
argument against this particular interpretation though. Thanks for
responding.
LS
Lost Soul
Ok, I was merely interested in a discussion of what people here, on this NG,
might think about the contents of the book, or if anyone besides me had ever
read it or heard of it. And I get frustrated with "snippy" responses to my
posts because I have done nothing to warrant the subtle attacks on me. I
make one post with an idea, not mine mind you, that, for all intents and
purposes is outrageous according to current scientific theories. I want to
discuss why they are, not THAT they are. One of the ways I learn is by
examining the opposing arguments. I leanred that in almost every
communication/speech/any other class I have to write papers in and/or
present arguments in. As to what I believe, if you really must know, I
believe that the earth is billions of years old and that humans came into
being by way of evolution. I believe this mainly because of genetic
evidence, the similarity of genes performing similar functions in all manner
of creatures. I rely mostly on this evidence because it is in my field of
study. I also believe that God exists, though I don't understand his place
in the universe.
> In article <8m9agi$mv2$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
> "Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Good lord, you people just can't carry on a civilized conversation,
> can you?
> > It's been a while since I have actually read it. If you've read any
> of my
> > posts you would know that I believe the theory of evolution.
>
> Hmmm. Couldn't tell. But you should, because IIRC, you said you were a
> biologist. But then why do you keep bringing up creationist beliefs? It
> seems like you just want other people to research the items for you. Go
> ahead and outline your views. Maybe you could start with how you
> arrived at 1.5 billion years for the Earth's age.
>
> Faker
>
I don't think I ever said I was a biologist. I said I study biology.
Molecular and Cellular Biology is my major. I bring up creationist beliefs
because I find them fascinating. It is interesting to me to study other
people's views of the world and forums such as this help me to think about
them better. 1.5 billion years was an error of mine. Probably arrived at
because I was confusing it with the age of the universe which I believe is
15 billion years (see the connection? 1.5~15). I admit that error. Now,
anything else you'd like to know?
LS
gg...@my-deja.com
fak...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8m9c4u$np8$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
> "Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> >
<SNIP>
>
> Does anyone else think I was too hard on this guy? There is a pattern
> in your posts, LS. You put up some half-baked ideas that you have not
> researched and you claim to not understand. When people get snippy you
> become indignant. You keep protesting that you don’t believe it. Well,
> Soulboy, what exactly DO you believe?
He was looking for 12A which is the right room for an argument but
ended up in Abuse.
<SNIP>
> Hmmm. Couldn’t tell. But you should, because IIRC, you said you were a
> biologist. But then why do you keep bringing up creationist beliefs?
It
> seems like you just want other people to research the items for you.
Go
> ahead and outline your views. Maybe you could start with how you
> arrived at 1.5 billion years for the Earth’s age.
Sometimes an idea may nag a person slightly for a period of time, but
not enough to make them devote himself to research. A discussion group
might be a good place to air it out to see if anyone has dealt with the
problem before and are itching to share the information. No sense
duplicating the effort. You might get some insights to the problem that
may not have come in solo research. If you don't care to do the
research for him, don't.
OTOH, Lost Soul should not be distressed with negative responses.
Yasu!
Greg
Usenet isn't a right. It's a right, a left, and a swift uppercut to the
jaw. --Button from the Computer Museum, Boston, MA
Lost Soul
<gg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8m9jv9$25b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
You are right, I shouldn't let people's remarks get to me, even more so
since I am sitting in front of a computer and have some time to think before
I respond. And you are also right that some subjects I just don't have the
time to really research to any real degree and coming here helps me to get a
variety of shortened versions and helpful websites. In the future, though,
I'll try to not be so defensive.
> Yasu!
> Greg
>
> Usenet isn't a right. It's a right, a left, and a swift uppercut to the
> jaw. --Button from the Computer Museum, Boston, MA
> >
LS
John Monrad
<8m9fok$ug8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > > In article <8m93mi$jpq$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
> > > "Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
[...]
> >> > And please, refrain from attacking me about this because it is not
> >> > a position I hold to be true. I'd just like to discuss it with .
> >> > everyone. Thanks
> > >
> > > You can do this research yourself, you know. It took me all of 2
> > > minutes to find this. I don't know if an Aramaic word for "to be"
> > > exists (though I would be surprised if one didn't), but here is the
> > > Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2:
> > >
> > > http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/965241950.html
[...]
> > I don't get it, do you take pleasure in talking down to people? I
> admit, I
> > was mistaken about the language, but come on, I was merely asking for
> > commentary about what I posted, not derogatory commentary, and there
> is a
> > difference.
>
> [snip]
>
> > LS
>
> Does anyone else think I was too hard on this guy?
Nope. I've noticed that pettifogging petulance is becoming a
standard tactic. And what makes you think it's a guy?
> There is a pattern
> in your posts, LS. You put up some half-baked ideas that you have not
> researched and you claim to not understand. When people get snippy you
> become indignant. You keep protesting that you don’t believe it. Well,
> Soulboy, what exactly DO you believe?
[...]
> > Good lord, you people just can't carry on a civilized conversation,
> can you?
> > It's been a while since I have actually read it. If you've read any
> of my
> > posts you would know that I believe the theory of evolution.
>
> Hmmm. Couldn’t tell. But you should, because IIRC, you said you were a
> biologist. But then why do you keep bringing up creationist beliefs? It
> seems like you just want other people to research the items for you. Go
> ahead and outline your views. Maybe you could start with how you
> arrived at 1.5 billion years for the Earth’s age.
>
> Faker
Odin help biology.
~~
John Monrad
fak...@my-deja.com
"Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/965241950.html
> > > >
> > > > What a long and detailed fantasy that you posted! Sorry to
destroy
> > the
> > > > only piece of supporting "evidence." I can't believe that you
would
> > > > post something like this without even checking easily verifiable
> > facts
> > > > (the OT was in Hebrew). And 1.5 billion years is the "right
number"
> > for
> > > > the age of the Earth? I'm glad I read this forum, I learn
something
> > new
> > > > here every day...
> > > >
> > > > Faker
> > > >
> > > > > LS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > admit, I
> > > was mistaken about the language, but come on, I was merely asking
for
> > > commentary about what I posted, not derogatory commentary, and
there
> > is a
> > > difference.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > LS
> >
pattern
> > in your posts, LS. You put up some half-baked ideas that you have
not
> > researched and you claim to not understand. When people get snippy
you
> > become indignant. You keep protesting that you don't believe it.
Well,
> > Soulboy, what exactly DO you believe?
> >
>
this NG,
> might think about the contents of the book, or if anyone besides me
had ever
> read it or heard of it. And I get frustrated with "snippy" responses
to my
> posts because I have done nothing to warrant the subtle attacks on
me. I
> make one post with an idea, not mine mind you, that, for all intents
and
> purposes is outrageous according to current scientific theories. I
want to
> discuss why they are, not THAT they are. One of the ways I learn is by
> communication/speech/any other class I have to write papers in and/or
> present arguments in. As to what I believe, if you really must know, I
> believe that the earth is billions of years old and that humans came
into
> being by way of evolution. I believe this mainly because of genetic
> evidence, the similarity of genes performing similar functions in all
manner
> of creatures. I rely mostly on this evidence because it is in my
field of
> study. I also believe that God exists, though I don't understand his
place
>in the universe.
I am going to go out on a limb here. I’m betting that you do believe in
evolution, but you are a fairly recent convert. You used to embrace
creationism, and still aren’t totally convinced of the invalidity of
its arguments. So you want to test them out. Well, fine. I did the same
thing, except I didn’t post in talk.origins. Rather, I asked Niles
Eldridge about the authenticity of the Pauluxy River man tracks. (I
still cringe at the thought.) Since then I have found that it is better
to search for what has already been written about a subject than, to
reveal my ignorance; I try to learn something about a subject before I
speak of it. However, this forum is an appropriate channel to learn.
The fact that you want to learn about these subjects here is not what
irked me. I became slightly irritated by your apparent duplicity in
presenting creationist arguments while simultaneously protesting
disbelief. But whatever. Like I said, I have done the same.
> > In article <8m9agi$mv2$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
> > "Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Good lord, you people just can't carry on a civilized
conversation,
> > can you?
> > > It's been a while since I have actually read it. If you've read
any
> > of my
> > > posts you would know that I believe the theory of evolution.
> >
> > Hmmm. Couldn't tell. But you should, because IIRC, you said you
were a
> > biologist. But then why do you keep bringing up creationist
beliefs? It
> > seems like you just want other people to research the items for
you. Go
> > ahead and outline your views. Maybe you could start with how you
> > arrived at 1.5 billion years for the Earth's age.
> >
> > Faker
> >
[snip]
> 1.5 billion years was an error of mine. Probably arrived at
> because I was confusing it with the age of the universe which I
believe is
> 15 billion years (see the connection? 1.5~15). I admit that error.
Now,
> anything else you'd like to know?
Actually, this is what you said:
In article <8m93mi$jpq$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
"Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Anyway, they claim that the earth existed before this time, perhaps
for the billion and a >half (right number) years we think it has.
So the “connection” b/t the age of the Earth and the age of Universe is
a good try, but wrong. But that’s ok, you rescinded that claim.
fak...@my-deja.com
jrmo...@worldnet.att.net (John Monrad) wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2000 11:46:35 -0400, fak...@my-deja.com posted in article
> <8m9fok$ug8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > "Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> > > <fak...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8m98ev$oku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > "Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> > And please, refrain from attacking me about this because it is
not
> > >> > a position I hold to be true. I'd just like to discuss it
with .
> > >> > everyone. Thanks
> > > >
> > > > You can do this research yourself, you know. It took me all of 2
> > > > minutes to find this. I don't know if an Aramaic word for "to
be"
> > > > exists (though I would be surprised if one didn't), but here is
the
> > > > Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/965241950.html
>
> [...]
> > admit, I
> > > was mistaken about the language, but come on, I was merely asking
for
> > > commentary about what I posted, not derogatory commentary, and
there
> > is a
> > > difference.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > LS
> >
> > Does anyone else think I was too hard on this guy?
>
> standard tactic. And what makes you think it's a guy?
> John Monrad
I apologize. That was an unwarranted, unconscious assumption.
JohnN
fak...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8m93mi$jpq$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
> "Lost Soul" <hend...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
used
> to
> > belong to concerning what Genesis actually says and how it relates
to
> the
> > origin of man. I have since left this group for various reasons.
> Anyway,
> > their take on it goes something like this (parentheses show changes
> from
> > King James to a retranslation from the original): Genesis 1:1
> Says "In the
> > beginning God created the heaven(s) and the Earth." The major point
> for them
> > comes in verse 2: "And the earth (became) without form and void..."
> They
> word
> > "was" was a best guess insertion. I don't know Aramaic, so anyone
who
> knows
> > differently, please let me know. Also, the original OT was Aramaic,
> wasn't
> perhaps for
> > the billion and a half (right number) years we think it has. But it
> was at
> > this point that Lucifer was cast out of heaven and he wreaked havoc
> upon the
period
> of
> > time, in a frozen state which would correspond to the last ice age.
> And then
> > it was in verse 3 that God began to re-build the earth as it were.
> Anyway,
> > are there any other religions that teach this in quite that way?
What
> are
> from
> > attacking me about this because it is not a position I hold to be
> true. I'd
>
> You can do this research yourself, you know. It took me all of 2
> minutes to find this. I don't know if an Aramaic word for "to be"
> exists (though I would be surprised if one didn't), but here is the
> Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2:
>
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/965241950.html
>
> only piece of supporting "evidence." I can't believe that you would
> post something like this without even checking easily verifiable facts
> (the OT was in Hebrew). And 1.5 billion years is the "right number"
for
> the age of the Earth? I'm glad I read this forum, I learn something
new
> here every day...
>
> Faker
>
Thank you for the URL. I am glad to have this site. I did learn
something today.
JohnN
John Monrad
<8m9trq$air$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> > Nope. I've noticed that pettifogging petulance is becoming a
> > standard tactic. And what makes you think it's a guy?
>
> > John Monrad
>
> I apologize. That was an unwarranted, unconscious assumption.
>
> Faker
(Apologies if this is a repost)
I was just trying to find out if you'd seen something that I'd
missed. It is, unfortunately, an all-to-common assumption -- sort
of like assuming that all posters here are 'merkins. Perhaps it's
best to assume that all posters are vertebrates (I was going to type
primates, but one of my neutered cats sent a post awhile back).
~~
John Monrad
Steven J.
>There is one set of beliefs from a Christian Bible study group
>I used to belong to concerning what Genesis actually says and
>how it relates to the origin of man. I have since left this
>group for various reasons. Anyway, their take on it goes
>something like this (parentheses show changes from King James
>to a retranslation from the original): Genesis 1:1 Says "In the
>beginning God created the heaven(s) and the Earth." The major
>point for them comes in verse 2: "And the earth (became)
>without form and void..." They claim there was no Aramaic word
>for "to be" and that the use of the word "was" was a best guess
>insertion. I don't know Aramaic, so anyone who knows
>differently, please let me know. Also, the original OT was
>Aramaic, wasn't it?
>
passages, especially in Daniel, are in Aramaic) was apparently
written in Hebrew. Hebrew is no more Aramaic than English is
German. Hebrew has a word for "to be" (YHWH, the proper name of
God, is supposed to be derived from it), though the verb was
often implied rather than express when used as a copula (i.e. "X
is Y", as opposed to "X exists"). Translating Genesis 1:2 as
"The world became without form and void" is, I understand, a
possible but unlikely reading; nothing in the text implies this
rare reading.
>
>perhaps for the billion and a half (right number) years we
>think it has.
>
describing what is known, among those who try to reconcile the
Genesis accounts with geology, as the "gap theory." I'm not
sure that it's an actual theory, since I'm not sure what methods
have been proposed to test it.
>
>and he wreaked havoc upon the face of the earth.
>
son of the morning"), used a figure of speech referring to a
powerful but hostile ruler -- probably the King of Babylon. The
name "Lucifer" does not occur in the original text, but came
from an early Latin translation. It most likely did NOT
originally refer to Satan, or to his fall from Heaven.
>
>a frozen state which would correspond to the last ice age. And
>then it was in verse 3 that God began to re-build the earth as
>it were. Anyway, are there any other religions that teach this
>in quite that way? What are everyone's thoughts on this
>particular scenario. And please, refrain from attacking me
>about this because it is not a position I hold to be true. I'd
>just like to discuss it with everyone. Thanks.
>
in relatively recent times, and others in past geological eras.
There is no indication of a massive devastation of the earth and
a subsequent recreation -- the fossil record of human evolution,
for example, starts about 4 million years ago, before the recent
ice ages, and continues through them, although they may have
affected human evolution in various ways. Most lineages for
which we have good fossil records show the same thing -- there
was no radical discontinuity in life's evolution at the time of
the ice ages. There is no mass extinction or global catastrophe
(such as occurred at the ends of the Permian and Cretaceous)
associated with human origins (although the spread of modern
humans seems to have caused a number of extinctions of species).
>
>LS
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Craig Pennington
> ... Also, the original OT was Aramaic, wasn't it? ...
Some of it was, but the Torah, the first five books, was originally
written in Hebrew. Aramaic, IIRC, was the common language in the area
around Palestine at the time of Jesus, and was the language of the
later books of the Tanach (Roughly equivalent to the Christian Old
Testament.)
I do not know enough Hebrew to answer your other questions, but I
doubt very seriously that one could construct a useful language
without some way to clearly communicate what is meant by the
English 'to be.'
Cheers,
Craig
Lost Soul
<fak...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8m9s97$982$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
typo in my original post. It should have read "billion and a half (right
number?)"
LS
Adam Noel Harris
:On 2 Aug 2000 15:47:21 -0400, fak...@my-deja.com posted in article
:<8m9trq$air$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
[about assuming a poster is male]
:> I apologize. That was an unwarranted, unconscious assumption.
:(Apologies if this is a repost)
:
:I was just trying to find out if you'd seen something that I'd
:missed. It is, unfortunately, an all-to-common assumption -- sort
:of like assuming that all posters here are 'merkins.
Or assuming they are Creationists.
:Perhaps it's
:best to assume that all posters are vertebrates (I was going to type
:primates, but one of my neutered cats sent a post awhile back).
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
fak...@my-deja.com
On 2 Aug 2000 15:47:21 -0400, fak...@my-deja.com posted in article
> :I was just trying to find out if you'd seen something that I'd
> :missed. It is, unfortunately, an all-to-common assumption -- sort
> :of like assuming that all posters here are 'merkins.
Can you (or anyone who cares to) share the definition of a "'merkin"?
Many thanks.
Faker
acker james
: On 2 Aug 2000 15:47:21 -0400, fak...@my-deja.com posted in article
:> > > Does anyone else think I was too hard on this guy?
:> >
:> > Nope. I've noticed that pettifogging petulance is becoming a
:> > standard tactic. And what makes you think it's a guy?
:>
:> > John Monrad
:>
: (Apologies if this is a repost)
: I was just trying to find out if you'd seen something that I'd
: missed. It is, unfortunately, an all-to-common assumption -- sort
: of like assuming that all posters here are 'merkins. Perhaps it's
: best to assume that all posters are vertebrates (I was going to type
: primates, but one of my neutered cats sent a post awhile back).
OK, I set the keyboard on ultrasensitive and invited a
jumping spider to say something. Your turn, Spidey:
6yujmko090987uy6543edsw21`
(then jumped off the keyboard and scurried under my box of New
Scientist back issues)
Thank you, however, to post this he'd have to hold down the
control key and type xc, which is beyond his capability (and he's
also under the box), so I'll do it for him.
Jim Acker
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Jim Acker
jac...@gl.umbc.edu
A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere,
Or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair.
But no, you sent us Congress! Good God, sir, was that fair?
--- John Adams, "Piddle, Twiddle, and Resolve", from the
musical "1776"
ZeldaG
>From: fak...@my-deja.com
>Date: 8/3/2000 7:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>Can you (or anyone who cares to) share the definition of a "'merkin"?
>Many thanks.
>
>Faker
Merkin=hairpiece for the female pubic region.
John Monrad
article <8mc3ko$lau$1...@news.umbc.edu>...
> John Monrad <jrmo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> :
> : I was just trying to find out if you'd seen something that I'd
> : missed. It is, unfortunately, an all-to-common assumption -- sort
> : of like assuming that all posters here are 'merkins. Perhaps it's
> : best to assume that all posters are vertebrates (I was going to type
> : primates, but one of my neutered cats sent a post awhile back).
>
> OK, I set the keyboard on ultrasensitive and invited a
> jumping spider to say something. Your turn, Spidey:
>
> 6yujmko090987uy6543edsw21`
>
> (then jumped off the keyboard and scurried under my box of New
> Scientist back issues)
>
> Thank you, however, to post this he'd have to hold down the
> control key and type xc, which is beyond his capability (and he's
> also under the box), so I'll do it for him.
See, invertebrates *can't* post.
Hey, my cat didn't write it, he only posted it. Once I click on the
"send" icon and after a spell check, my news reader offers a final
choice of "yes" or "no" for sending, with the default being "yes".
Hit "enter" once more and the post is outta here. Wingnut is
fascinated with the middle of the keyboard ever since I dropped part
of a tuna sandwich between the "enter", "K", "Alt" and "Ctrl" keys.
He posted with his nose. Here, I'll ask him to do it again.
~~
John Monrad
John Monrad
<8mbvf8$q5q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Can you (or anyone who cares to) share the definition of a "'merkin"?
> Many thanks.
>
'merkin or 'Merkin = American (USA)
merkin (without the '), from Webster's Third International = "1.
the hair of the female genitalia" (also offers "2. false hair for
the female genitalia")
HTH.
~~
John Monrad
fak...@my-deja.com
zel...@aol.com (ZeldaG) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: One group's thoughts
> >From: fak...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 8/3/2000 7:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id:
>>It is, unfortunately, an all-to-common assumption -- sort of like
>>assuming that all posters here are 'merkins. Perhaps it's best to
>>assume that all posters are vertebrates (I was going to type
>>primates, but one of my neutered cats sent a post awhile back).
> >Can you (or anyone who cares to) share the definition of a "'merkin"?
> >Many thanks.
> >
> >Faker
> Merkin=hairpiece for the female pubic region.
Ahh, of course. I wasn't even aware that these existed until I saw
Scary Movie. Though the movie was intentionally non-frightening, those
foot-long braided pube extensions gave me nightmares for weeks.
John Monrad
article <slrn8oiso8...@elaine36.Stanford.EDU>...
> :On 2 Aug 2000 15:47:21 -0400, fak...@my-deja.com posted in article
> :<8m9trq$air$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> [about assuming a poster is male]
>
>
> :
> :I was just trying to find out if you'd seen something that I'd
> :missed. It is, unfortunately, an all-to-common assumption -- sort
>
Noted. Can you see where that's been assumed with respect to LS?
It's one of a few working hypotheses, including troll, that remain
valid.
I'm already on record as suspecting LS to be a troll. I'll assume
you're aware of that. Are you assuming troll == Creationist?
[...]
~~
John Monrad
Lost Soul
"John Monrad" <jrmo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.13f3713bf...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
deliberately false ideas just to see how many people will respond. Is this
correct? If so, fine, believe that. I'm not posting stuff I've made up, just
stuff that I encountered during a period in which I belonged to a biblical
research and teaching ministry. These are ideas and trains of thought I
found interesting. They are also ideas I haven't really discussed with
anyone outside the ministry as of yet. For the record, I am no longer a part
of this ministry since, despite how well they taught the Bible, their
attempt to reconcilliate it with the creation of the world seen from a
scientific standpoint was a throwback to beliefs that were held by people
before and at the time of Moses, who, many believe, wrote the first 5 books
of the Bible. In reference to the interpretation of the first couple of
verses in Genesis 1 I posted, I wasn't necessarily looking for only a
scientific view. I would think this would be ok since the NG isn't
talk.origins.only-from-a-science-point-of-view. So, am I still a troll? (not
expecting a "no")
LS
acker james
: On 3 Aug 2000 11:38:02 -0400, jac...@jabba.gl.umbc.edu posted in
: article <8mc3ko$lau$1...@news.umbc.edu>...
:> John Monrad <jrmo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:> :
:> : I was just trying to find out if you'd seen something that I'd
:> : primates, but one of my neutered cats sent a post awhile back).
:> OK, I set the keyboard on ultrasensitive and invited a
:>
:> 6yujmko090987uy6543edsw21`
:>
:> (then jumped off the keyboard and scurried under my box of New
:> Scientist back issues)
:>
:> Thank you, however, to post this he'd have to hold down the
:> control key and type xc, which is beyond his capability (and he's
:> also under the box), so I'll do it for him.
: See, invertebrates *can't* post.
Is there an underwater keyboard around? I'd like to try
this with an octopus.
John Monrad
article <8mccds$5ms$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
> "John Monrad" <jrmo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > On 3 Aug 2000 09:26:35 -0400, ad...@stanford.edu.XX posted
> > > :On 2 Aug 2000 15:47:21 -0400, fak...@my-deja.com posted
> > >
> > >
> > > :> I apologize. That was an unwarranted, unconscious assumption.
> > >
> > > :(Apologies if this is a repost)
> > > :
> > > :missed. It is, unfortunately, an all-to-common assumption -- sort
> > > :of like assuming that all posters here are 'merkins.
> > >
> >
> > Noted. Can you see where that's been assumed with respect to LS?
> > It's one of a few working hypotheses, including troll, that remain
> > valid.
> >
> > I'm already on record as suspecting LS to be a troll. I'll assume
> > you're aware of that. Are you assuming troll == Creationist?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > ~~
> > John Monrad
> >
> Ok, I am of the understanding that troll means I post messages with
> deliberately false ideas just to see how many people will respond. Is this
> correct? If so, fine, believe that. I'm not posting stuff I've made up, just
> stuff that I encountered during a period in which I belonged to a biblical
> research and teaching ministry. These are ideas and trains of thought I
> found interesting. They are also ideas I haven't really discussed with
> anyone outside the ministry as of yet. For the record, I am no longer a part
> of this ministry since, despite how well they taught the Bible, their
> attempt to reconcilliate it with the creation of the world seen from a
> scientific standpoint was a throwback to beliefs that were held by people
> before and at the time of Moses, who, many believe, wrote the first 5 books
> of the Bible. In reference to the interpretation of the first couple of
> verses in Genesis 1 I posted, I wasn't necessarily looking for only a
> scientific view. I would think this would be ok since the NG isn't
> talk.origins.only-from-a-science-point-of-view.
Thank you for that explanation.
> So, am I still a troll? (not expecting a "no")
"No." ;)
Let me qualify that. Your explanation above provides evidence that
is inconsistent with previous observations upon which your trollness
was suspected. Additional data from other threads and future posts
needs to be evaluated before the hypothesis regarding your
trollicity can be eliminated.
(How's that for weaseling?)
However, your post doesn't eliminate another working hypothesis,
that you may be an ingenious sock puppet of the evil entity who
generally posts to t.o. as "Richard Harter."
~~
John Monrad
Lost Soul
that name. Back to the drawing board. :)
LS
John Monrad
article <8mcfpn$boq$2...@news.umbc.edu>...
> : On 3 Aug 2000 11:38:02 -0400, jac...@jabba.gl.umbc.edu posted in
> :> John Monrad <jrmo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> :> :
> :> : I was just trying to find out if you'd seen something that I'd
> :> : best to assume that all posters are vertebrates (I was going to type
> :> : primates, but one of my neutered cats sent a post awhile back).
> :>
> :> OK, I set the keyboard on ultrasensitive and invited a
> :> jumping spider to say something. Your turn, Spidey:
> :>
> :> 6yujmko090987uy6543edsw21`
> :>
> :> (then jumped off the keyboard and scurried under my box of New
> :> Scientist back issues)
> :>
> :> Thank you, however, to post this he'd have to hold down the
> :> control key and type xc, which is beyond his capability (and he's
> :> also under the box), so I'll do it for him.
>
> : See, invertebrates *can't* post.
>
> Is there an underwater keyboard around? I'd like to try
> this with an octopus.
Not that I'm aware of, but who knows what Steve Jobs will come up
with neXt? Or maybe Ron "Ronco" Popiel.
You could turn the problem around and bring ozzie octopus to your
keyboard in a mini-habitat. Maybe make a little space suit by
plastic-welding little appendages to a big Zip-lock bag, open arm,
er, tentacle holes in the bag, fill it with seawater, and slurp him
in it. I think I know what you could use for the sleeves. Suitably
attired, ozzie might even survive in your office for awhile, at
least until someone mistook him for a thawed bag of frozen calamary
starter (you wouldn't believe how many people confuse squid and
octopus).
I can see two major hurdles. You'd probably want to tread very
lightly around ozzie-in-a-bag lest he invoke his flight response.
Even with great eyesight, I doubt if he could see very far through
inky seawater. Great justification for upgrading your system's
monitor to at least 21 inches, as long as you set the resolution
down to 640x480 with maximum brightness and contrast. The other
problem is finding an ergonomic chair to fit; some might
consider holding a bag of octopus over your keyboard while he
composes a post to be eccentric. Without the chair, I envision
ozzie oozing into your lap, since he'd be lacking his normal suction
capabilities to hang on to the keyboard. A bag of octopus in your
lap also might draw stares.
I have another idea, but I'll let you chew on this one for awhile.
~~
John Monrad
sarah clark
John Monrad wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2000 10:27:31 -0400, fak...@my-deja.com posted in article
> <8mbvf8$q5q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> > Can you (or anyone who cares to) share the definition of a "'merkin"?
> > Many thanks.
> >
>
> 'merkin or 'Merkin = American (USA)
the irony being that "american" used in this manner is
not exactly fair to the canadians, latin americans, and
south americans. after discussion about it on the
international language list i get, we all have determined
to say "us-americans, when we are posting in english,
anyway.
>
>
> merkin (without the '), from Webster's Third International = "1.
> the hair of the female genitalia" (also offers "2. false hair for
> the female genitalia")
>
> HTH.
>
> ~~
> John Monrad
--
sarah clark
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work
will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he
who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more
irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
species by descent from some lower form, through the
laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain
the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary
reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
Laurence A. Moran
>John Monrad wrote:
>> 'merkin or 'Merkin = American (USA)
>
>the irony being that "american" used in this manner is
>not exactly fair to the canadians, latin americans, and
>south americans. after discussion about it on the
>international language list i get, we all have determined
>to say "us-americans, when we are posting in english,
>anyway.
I prefer "Merikan" (with an i). The word was made up in order to
distinguish between citizens of the United States of America and
other Americans.
Larry Moran
sarah clark
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
> In article <398B4E36...@hal-pc.org>, sarah clark <sec@hal-
pc.org> wrote:
> >John Monrad wrote:
>
> >> 'merkin or 'Merkin = American (USA)
> >
> >the irony being that "american" used in this manner is
> >not exactly fair to the canadians, latin americans, and
> >south americans. after discussion about it on the
> >international language list i get, we all have determined
> >to say "us-americans, when we are posting in english,
> >anyway.
>
> I prefer "Merikan" (with an i). The word was made up in order to
> distinguish between citizens of the United States of America and
> other Americans.
ah, the latin and south americans on my list must not have been let
in on it.... thanks for the clarification!
>
> Larry Moran
>
>
--
sarah clark
thewilkins
<sec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
"Merkin" as a colloquialism for American (USAian) is, IIANM, a coinage
of alt.fan.pratchett, who are primary Cambridge students with too much
time on their hands, and therefore time to read Terry Pratchett novels
and bag Merkins, sorry Merikans. And Australians (XXXXians). No Canadian
jokes I know of yet...
John Monrad
<8mho4h$u04$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
> > In article <398B4E36...@hal-pc.org>, sarah clark <sec@hal-
> pc.org> wrote:
> > >John Monrad wrote:
> >
> > >> 'merkin or 'Merkin = American (USA)
> > >
> > >the irony being that "american" used in this manner is
> > >not exactly fair to the canadians, latin americans, and
> > >south americans. after discussion about it on the
> > >international language list i get, we all have determined
> > >to say "us-americans, when we are posting in english,
> > >anyway.
Perhaps it is unfair for the general case. In this and other NGs
where I've seen the term 'merkin used, it's in the context of "the
<<insert societal behavior or characteristic>> displayed or exported
by citizens of the political entity known as the United States of
America aka USA excluding affiliates in the Caribbean and western
Pacific." For virtues or valued commodities that are shared by all
residents of the Western Hemisphere, sure, it's unfair and arrogant
to apply the term solely to USAns. Note that 'merkin is rarely used
in that context. By contrast, for those items generally held in
contempt (for example, USAn commercial "beer"), why should others
share the blame? Were I a Paraguayan, I'd be offended by the
association of the decline of civilization with the export of
'merkin (Paraguayan) rock music.
Of course, I'm still recovering from last night's Pearl Jam concert
and probably missed your point.
> >
> > I prefer "Merikan" (with an i). The word was made up in order to
> > distinguish between citizens of the United States of America and
> > other Americans.
>
> ah, the latin and south americans on my list must not have been let
> in on it.... thanks for the clarification!
>
Apologies in advance -- do you mean Merikan == USAn or non-USAn?
I'll assume it's the former; if the assumption is incorrect, you
can flame me for what follows, and I'll construct some other
rebuttal.
As a USAn, I consider the term "Merikan" to be amusing and (mildly)
derogatory. That assessment centers on the substitution of "k" for
"c." It is amusing because the substitution is a common device used
in "Mission Impossible" and similar cheesy propaganda series, or on
placards ("Down With Amerika") carried by protestors (hi, Mom!) in
the 1960's and 70's. It's derogatory because it implies a favorable
comparison between (US of) Amerikans' morals and political behavior
since the 1950's with the dominant political faction in Germany
through the mid-1940s. It's mild because it's so transparent.
Also from the POV of a USAn, the additional letter in 'Merikan that
causes a third syllable is superfluous and does not reflect how the
term actually is used by Real Americans (those residing in the
southeastern region of the USA). The law of conservation of
syllables is as sacred in these here parts as the words to "Dixie"
<pause for moment of reflection>. The word "here" contains two
syllables. In the sentence "Go to hell," the last word does not
mean frozen precipitation. For conservation, syllables *must* be
sacrificed elsewhere. Y'all are forners; we're Murk'ns. Don't
invoke John Wayne's drawling uh-Mairrricans as rebuttal. John Wayne
was a wuss whose original name was Marion.
Despite evidence to the contrary, Real Americans do appreciate self-
deprecating humor. This characteristic is better reflected in the
term " 'merkins" than the pansy-ass " 'Merikans." Some of them/us
enjoy being confused with an object worn by William Shatner and,
perhaps, Celine Dion.
I think that the Founding Fathers blew it in the 1700s. To avoid
the confused terminology, they should have copyrighted "America" and
negotiated strict licensing agreements for usage of the term beyond
the current (at the time) and future borders of the republic.
Either that or adopted the name Vespucciland.
~~
John Monrad
Michael L. Siemon
<thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
+ "Merkin" as a colloquialism for American (USAian) is, IIANM, a coinage
+ of alt.fan.pratchett, who are primary Cambridge students with too much
+ time on their hands, and therefore time to read Terry Pratchett novels
+ and bag Merkins, sorry Merikans. And Australians (XXXXians). No Canadian
+ jokes I know of yet...
I doubt that they can claim credit. The term is much _too_ obvious, and
has been used all over the place (I've used it myself, and I don't recall
that my first usage was derivative -- could be wrong on that, of course.
Insofar as I was thinking of anything, it was of the Merkin Concert Hall
here in NYC, whose name had always amused me... The point was clearly
generalizable!)
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
m...@panix.com love the truth we know, and we must act
according to the measure of our love.
-- Thomas Merton
Pat James
(in message <thewilkins-DBD77...@news.bigpond.com>):
> "Merkin" as a colloquialism for American (USAian) is, IIANM, a coinage of
> alt.fan.pratchett, who are primary Cambridge students with too much time on
> their hands, and therefore time to read Terry Pratchett novels and bag
> Merkins, sorry Merikans.
I've seen it in many places, and from people who don't read Pterry, and for
over a decade. I thought it was courtesy of _Dr. Strangelove_.
> And Australians (XXXXians). No Canadian jokes I
> know of yet...
Canaduhians...
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Jonathan Stone
>"Merkin" as a colloquialism for American (USAian) is, IIANM, a coinage
>of alt.fan.pratchett, who are primary Cambridge students with too much
>time on their hands, and therefore time to read Terry Pratchett novels
>and bag Merkins, sorry Merikans. And Australians (XXXXians). No Canadian
>jokes I know of yet...
I recall hearing it (and seeing it, as Murkin) in the late 80s.
Hm. Now you mention it, I beleive you will find Cordwainer Smith used
"Murkin" in _Drunkboat_. where Lord Crudelta describes the rocket
he had the Instrumentailty built for Artyr Rambo;
it was lettered up the sides with I and O and M [for the
Instrumenality of Mankind], just as the Russkies and the Murkins
did when they were racing each other to the Moon and already
thinking they were eagles.
Close paraphrase; its been at least 10 years, more like 20.
(it may have been "into orbit" rather than "to the moon")
[further from-memory misquote exicsed]
Brian M. Scott
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
Not bad, but you've combined two passages. The one that
mentions the Murkins actually comes quite late, during the
trial:
We copied everything right down to the correct models
of fifteen thousand years ago, when the Paroskii and
Murkins were racing each other into space. The rocket
was white, with a red and white gantry beside it. The
letters IOM were on the rocket, not that the words
mattered.
Early in the story the Lord Crudelta says, 'We even had the
name of our Organization -- I and O and M, for "the Instrumentality
of Mankind" -- written on it good and sharp'.
> [further from-memory misquote exicsed]
'Chwinkle, chwinkle, little cheeble,
I am feeling very feeble!'
Brian M. Scott
Jonathan Stone
Brian M. Scott <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
>In article <8mo4cc$4gs$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>
>Not bad, but you've combined two passages. The one that
>mentions the Murkins actually comes quite late, during the
>trial:
Oops, so I did. Thanks! I recalled the I and O and M, and the
Murkins, and juxtaposed them. (I wrote "into space" the first time, too).
I dont pretend to have Linebargers' sharpness. (ooh, another Paul!)
Ken Cox
> The major point for them
> comes in verse 2: "And the earth (became) without form and void..." They
> claim there was no Aramaic word for "to be" and that the use of the word
> "was" was a best guess insertion. I don't know Aramaic, so anyone who knows
> differently, please let me know. Also, the original OT was Aramaic, wasn't
> it?
No. Genesis was written in Hebrew. And Hebrew has a word
for "to be", he-yod-he, a form of which appears in v.2; "and
the earth was formless and empty" is a reasonable rendering
of VHARc HYTH THV VBHV (transliterated Tanach, "c" is a final
tsade). By the way, Aramaic also has a word for "to be".
Given that, I suggest taking everything else you were told
by that group with a spoonful of salt -- somehow a grain
doesn't seem like enough.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> It seems logical because God is usually
> taught to be perfect and wouldn't create anything in chaos.
Not in, from. The chaos, and water, predate the creative acts
described in Genesis 1.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com