The DoomYoshi Musings thread

[DoomYoshi]

Sorry, other questions that you asked:

Missionary work tends to be under the shelter of a church. That does tend to mean that there's a specific Bible that has been authorised as the version to be re-re-translated and put forward.

That isn't a fair assessment. Missionary work is usually the vanguard of ecumenical movements. Almost all translations do start from critical editions of the ancient texts, but that's not the same thing as "authorized". Like the critical edition includes the word "me" (in Greek it's the same word - με) in John 14:14 but many translations still don't include it. The scholars brawl and the missionary translators for the most part don't care. Overall I think that they've learned that 99% of the world doesn't care about 2 letters that have about 2000 theses written about them - they just want a bible they can read. It wasn't always that way, and still isn't for some groups, but that seems to be the majority viewpoint.

I know that you made an effort to specifically not mention Protestantism, but it was kind of obvious that you specifically didn't. May I ask why you you specifically didn't mention it?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to be positive. Today, many Catholics are working at translating bibles as well, including in that link I shared.

You are totally wrong about latin though. It was a dead language before Charlemagne.

On Latin, even if I accepted that it was a living language (or zombified, I like the term). I don't understand exactly what your point was. Why did you bring up the renaissance? Or are you just bringing up the killing of latin as the counterpoint to the use of the vernacular languages? I would argue that latin was already dead, which made the switch to local dialects necessary.

[Symmetry]

Sorry, other questions that you asked:

Missionary work tends to be under the shelter of a church. That does tend to mean that there's a specific Bible that has been authorised as the version to be re-re-translated and put forward.

That isn't a fair assessment. Missionary work is usually the vanguard of ecumenical movements. Almost all translations do start from critical editions of the ancient texts, but that's not the same thing as "authorized". Like the critical edition includes the word "me" (in Greek it's the same word - με) in John 14:14 but many translations still don't include it. The scholars brawl and the missionary translators for the most part don't care. Overall I think that they've learned that 99% of the world doesn't care about 2 letters that have about 2000 theses written about them - they just want a bible they can read. It wasn't always that way, and still isn't for some groups, but that seems to be the majority viewpoint.

I know that you made an effort to specifically not mention Protestantism, but it was kind of obvious that you specifically didn't. May I ask why you you specifically didn't mention it?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to be positive. Today, many Catholics are working at translating bibles as well, including in that link I shared.

You are totally wrong about latin though. It was a dead language before Charlemagne.

On Latin, even if I accepted that it was a living language (or zombified, I like the term). I don't understand exactly what your point was. Why did you bring up the renaissance? Or are you just bringing up the killing of latin as the counterpoint to the use of the vernacular languages? I would argue that latin was already dead, which made the switch to local dialects necessary.

Regarding Latin, the best way to answer is to ask a counter question- what do you think Latin is? Do you think Charlemagne in the 8th Century spoke the same kind of Latin as Cicero in the first century BCE? Almost a millennium separates them, and even within their own periods people used different types of Latin. I think it was a bit zombified as it became a language for people who derived authority from knowing it. It was never a stable thing though.

The Renaissance (itself a dodgy term, I admit), was heavily involved in the idea that we should read Latin in the oldest ways. A slightly crappy analogy would be to imagine if we said that all kids had to write like Chaucer. That modern English was bad because that's not how Chaucer wrote. That's kinda what happened in the Renaissance, but substitute Cicero for Chaucer.

I'm over-simplifying, of course, but that's the nature of things.

[Symmetry]

Church wise, I'm not sure where you disagree with me. We both say that missionaries are agents of churches. They're not just winging it with their own Bibles. So they're authorised and have Bibles that are authorised for their work, which is authorised by the church they are performing missionary work for.

[DoomYoshi]

Church wise, I'm not sure where you disagree with me. We both say that missionaries are agents of churches. They're not just winging it with their own Bibles. So they're authorised and have Bibles that are authorised for their work, which is authorised by the church they are performing missionary work for.

Who does the authorization? What is the evidence of the authorization? If I wanted to find out if my bible is authorized, whom would I ask? Should I ask Herb? How about the American Dental Association? Do I need to storm the embassy?

[DoomYoshi]

[DoomYoshi]

Everything I hate about Western culture comes down to clocks. I hate daylight savings time. I hate the time zones period (I prefer local nooning). I hate ISO 8601. But what bugs me most is the cultural attitude towards event timing. It was suggested by Lingenfelter and Mayers that you can measure cultures based on various polarities. The first example they use is Time-Oriented vs Event-Oriented. For example in Germany if there is a meeting at 10 o' clock, everyone is there at 9:50 ready to start the meeting. If you are late, even by a minute, you might as well have not shown up because you are a waste of human existence. In Native American reserves, they are very event-oriented, so it doesn't matter what time you show up, even at the end. The Anglo-American culture is what I really can't stand though. Punctuality is taken as a virtue, but it's still ok to be 5-10 minutes late. Make up your mind culture. Either one is acceptable or the other. They can't both be. Knowing the start time of an event still makes it impossible to know the correct time to arrive and that makes modern life impossible.

The one good thing though is that in any sufficiently large group, you can expect that 5% of people will be late. It is a very reasonable assumption that 5% of people will be failures.

Or is that 5% of people will control 95% of the resources...? It's impossible to tell if showing up late is winning or losing because the cultural assumptions are asunder.

[Dukasaur]

You worry too much.

The dude abides.

[Bernie Sanders]

Everything I hate about Western culture comes down to clocks. I hate daylight savings time. I hate the time zones period (I prefer local nooning). I hate ISO 8601. But what bugs me most is the cultural attitude towards event timing. It was suggested by Lingenfelter and Mayers that you can measure cultures based on various polarities. The first example they use is Time-Oriented vs Event-Oriented. For example in Germany if there is a meeting at 10 o' clock, everyone is there at 9:50 ready to start the meeting. If you are late, even by a minute, you might as well have not shown up because you are a waste of human existence. In Native American reserves, they are very event-oriented, so it doesn't matter what time you show up, even at the end. The Anglo-American culture is what I really can't stand though. Punctuality is taken as a virtue, but it's still ok to be 5-10 minutes late. Make up your mind culture. Either one is acceptable or the other. They can't both be. Knowing the start time of an event still makes it impossible to know the correct time to arrive and that makes modern life impossible.

The one good thing though is that in any sufficiently large group, you can expect that 5% of people will be late. It is a very reasonable assumption that 5% of people will be failures.

Or is that 5% of people will control 95% of the resources...? It's impossible to tell if showing up late is winning or losing because the cultural assumptions are asunder.

It's customary for leaders and/CEOs to be late as a show of power. The lower castes must show up early at any meeting or be shunned and later dismissed.

Power and money runs this world, get used to it.

[DoomYoshi]

[DoomYoshi]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/arts ... emacy.html

[DoomYoshi]

https://christianpersecutionreview.org. ... im-report/

tl'dr: Christian persecution is ramping up all over the world, with more Christians killed for their faith these days than any other religion. For example, in Iraq in 2003 there were 1.2 million Christians. Now there are less than 200 000. The rate of killing is higher than any other genocide that the media is covering (Rwanda, Rohingya, Kurdistan, etc.).

[Symmetry]

Church wise, I'm not sure where you disagree with me. We both say that missionaries are agents of churches. They're not just winging it with their own Bibles. So they're authorised and have Bibles that are authorised for their work, which is authorised by the church they are performing missionary work for.

Who does the authorization? What is the evidence of the authorization? If I wanted to find out if my bible is authorized, whom would I ask? Should I ask Herb? How about the American Dental Association? Do I need to storm the embassy?

Which Bible do you follow? It's kinda easier to answer your questions if you tell me that. As a general answer, look at the name of the Bible, and who published it.

[DoomYoshi]

I use different translations depending upon the task or original language editions for more detailed work. Sometimes the Vulgate when I want to see how Jerome translated some things.

[DoomYoshi]

Meanwhile, in Canada:
https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates ... f-Populism

This is how Steve Bannon introduced himself:

I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today's establishment.

Finally someone who understands what the world needs!

[DoomYoshi]

Ever want to know about Canada?

This site will tell you everything you need to know:
http://www.thecanadaguide.com/

While I was browsing, I found my new favorite picture:

[riskllama]

hahaha, that's pretty funny...

[DoomYoshi]

An interesting essay about why democracy will fail if economic growth continues to be the goal. Governments should aim for a great economic crash.
https://theconversation.com/are-we-witn ... 1558060023

[DoomYoshi]

Sarychev Volcano erupting, as seen from space:

[Symmetry]

I use different translations depending upon the task or original language editions for more detailed work. Sometimes the Vulgate when I want to see how Jerome translated some things.

You did ask about authorisation, so would it be fair to ask if you consider Jerome as an authoritative source? This is no trap, just trying to emphasise that people have different Bibles and different ideas on what they consider to be authoritative.

[DoomYoshi]

I use different translations depending upon the task or original language editions for more detailed work. Sometimes the Vulgate when I want to see how Jerome translated some things.

You did ask about authorisation, so would it be fair to ask if you consider Jerome as an authoritative source? This is no trap, just trying to emphasise that people have different Bibles and different ideas on what they consider to be authoritative.

Jerome is an authoritative source for the text of the Vulgate. People do have different Bibles, and very few of them go through an authorization process, unless the word authorize is taken to mean "written by an author".

[Symmetry]

I use different translations depending upon the task or original language editions for more detailed work. Sometimes the Vulgate when I want to see how Jerome translated some things.

You did ask about authorisation, so would it be fair to ask if you consider Jerome as an authoritative source? This is no trap, just trying to emphasise that people have different Bibles and different ideas on what they consider to be authoritative.

Jerome is an authoritative source for the text of the Vulgate. People do have different Bibles, and very few of them go through an authorization process, unless the word authorize is taken to mean "written by an author".

Hmm, do you see them as different? I'm not sure that it's true that few Bibles go through an authorisation process. The KJV is by far and away the most common version of the Bible as far as I know, and most translations are based on that authorised version.

Perhaps it would be easier if you said what you understood by "authorised", as I think we are arguing without a common defintion.

[DoomYoshi]

How about you define authorization? You are the one who brought it up. KJV is called the "authorized version" but that happened 500 years ago.

[Symmetry]

How about you define authorization? You are the one who brought it up. KJV is called the "authorized version" but that happened 500 years ago.

You haven't really set out your terms, and have treated most steps as suspectful so maybe I should take the first steps.

I would say that their are two different meanings being used here. It's tough to see which you are using as you've been a tad evasive. I'd say that that the authorisation means that it's a Bible that has some sort of claim to be true from a person or organisation in a position of authority.

That's a bit vague, but you haven't been exactly willing to engage so far, so I'll give you the ground if you want to venture out.

[DoomYoshi]

How about you define authorization? You are the one who brought it up. KJV is called the "authorized version" but that happened 500 years ago.

You haven't really set out your terms, and have treated most steps as suspectful so maybe I should take the first steps.

I would say that their are two different meanings being used here. It's tough to see which you are using as you've been a tad evasive. I'd say that that the authorisation means that it's a Bible that has some sort of claim to be true from a person or organisation in a position of authority.

That's a bit vague, but you haven't been exactly willing to engage so far, so I'll give you the ground if you want to venture out.

That definition doesn't work with your example of KJV. The "authorized" in authorized version means that it was an accurate translation permitted and promoted to be used in the Church of England. Only in a tangential and obtuse sense were truth claims addressed.

[Symmetry]

How about you define authorization? You are the one who brought it up. KJV is called the "authorized version" but that happened 500 years ago.

You haven't really set out your terms, and have treated most steps as suspectful so maybe I should take the first steps.

I would say that their are two different meanings being used here. It's tough to see which you are using as you've been a tad evasive. I'd say that that the authorisation means that it's a Bible that has some sort of claim to be true from a person or organisation in a position of authority.

That's a bit vague, but you haven't been exactly willing to engage so far, so I'll give you the ground if you want to venture out.

That definition doesn't work with your example of KJV. The "authorized" in authorized version means that it was an accurate translation permitted and promoted to be used in the Church of England. Only in a tangential and obtuse sense were truth claims addressed.

Hmm, not sure what you mean by that. The KJV was authorised in two major ways- that it was from King James via Divine Right, and that it was prayed on for all of its translations by the translators, picked from the most devout and learned in the nation.

Neither of those are vague or obtuse claims. They were and are very acute claims to authorisation.

Perhaps you can now speak about your own definition of what constitutes authorisation?