Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,425 Year: 3,682/9,624 Month: 553/974 Week: 166/276 Day: 6/34 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Tall Tales
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 256 of 302 (275585)
01-04-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Iblis
01-03-2006 11:11 PM


Re: there were Giants in those days?
Is acromegaly hereditary?
Goliath's two brothers were also giants. One of them was polydactic as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Iblis, posted 01-03-2006 11:11 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Iblis, posted 01-04-2006 1:20 AM Nuggin has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 257 of 302 (275594)
01-04-2006 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Iblis
01-03-2006 11:11 PM


Re: there were Giants in those days?
both the septuagint and the dead sea scrolls say "4 cubits and a span" instead of the masoretic's "6 cubits and a span."
i think we're looking at a different kind of change here.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Iblis, posted 01-03-2006 11:11 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Iblis, posted 01-04-2006 1:26 AM arachnophilia has replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 258 of 302 (275597)
01-04-2006 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Nuggin
01-04-2006 12:54 AM


Re: there were Giants in those days?
NCBI/eutils102 - WWW Error 404 Diagnostic
Koch and Tiwisina (1959) reviewed 8 examples of affected persons in 2 successive generations, including 4 instances of father and 1 or more sons affected. Some reported instances of familial acromegaly may in fact be pachydermoperiostosis (167100), acromegaloid-cutis verticis gyrata-leukoma syndrome (102100), or cerebral gigantism (117550). Furthermore, familial acromegaly can be a partial expression of the multiple endocrine adenomatosis syndrome, specifically multiple endocrine neoplasia type I (MEN1; 131100). Pituitary growth hormone-secreting tumors occur also as part of McCune-Albright syndrome (174800) due to mutations in the GNAS1 gene. Levin et al. (1974) reported the cases of 2 brothers with acromegaly confirmed by elevated GH levels. Both had acanthosis nigricans and pituitary tumors. Pestell et al. (1989) described a family in which 5 members over 3 generations had isolated functional pituitary adenomas. In 4 cases this was associated with acromegaly, and in the fifth galactorrhea from prolactin excess was the presenting feature. The tumors were histologically of either atypical mixed cell or undifferentiated cell type. No parent-child transmission was observed. The 5 individuals were related as uncle and nephew or uncle and niece or as second cousins. There were no consanguineous marriages in the family. Autosomal dominant inheritance with reduced penetrance was proposed. Pestell et al. (1989) considered the disorder in this family to be distinct from MEN1. Jones et al. (1984), Abbassioun et al. (1986), and McCarthy et al. (1990) also reported cases of familial acromegaly. 30 MEDLINE Neighbors
Nothing about polydactyls though, isn't that supposed to signify a vestigial twin?
This message has been edited by Iblis, 01-04-2006 01:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Nuggin, posted 01-04-2006 12:54 AM Nuggin has not replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 259 of 302 (275598)
01-04-2006 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by arachnophilia
01-04-2006 1:13 AM


Re: there were Giants in those days?
a different kind of change
I think you're right! (and I really admire your jedp response on a different thread.)
I think Origen couldn't believe 9 foot 6 himself and as usual searched for a "wild text" that would suit his ideas. The scroll from Qumran is a sample of that text, but doesn't match the "LXX" (Origen's 5th Column) in many other ways.
But I could be wrong? Doesn't matter a lot really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2006 1:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2006 2:06 AM Iblis has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 260 of 302 (275602)
01-04-2006 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Iblis
01-04-2006 1:26 AM


Re: there were Giants in those days?
i'm sorry, i'm not following this thread too closely. what source are you looking at? i'm reasonably certain the lxx says "four cubits and a span." i see some stuff about some changes/omission to the story. is that what you mean?
(and I really admire your jedp response on a different thread.)
thanks.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Iblis, posted 01-04-2006 1:26 AM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Iblis, posted 01-04-2006 2:39 AM arachnophilia has replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 261 of 302 (275606)
01-04-2006 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by arachnophilia
01-04-2006 2:06 AM


there were Giants in these days too
You've got it right, the LXX favors 4 cubits, one of the dead sea scrolls favors 4 cubits, the other texts say 6.
I believe that the disagreement can better be explained by the fact that the "LXX" by the 4th century consisted specifically of those readings that disagreed with the targums Onkelos (Aquila) and Jonathan (Theodotian) and the further Judaizers like Symmachus.
I also suspect that the anecdotes relating to Goliath and the Gath family indicate acromegaly or a related pituitary disease that could produce heights greater than 7 feet and various other afflictions; and that the cubit like its descendant the yard has increased by about 20% due to the increase in the average length of the arms used to set the standard.
But if you want you can have your 4 cubits, let's make them babylonian 20 inch cubits though

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2006 2:06 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2006 3:16 AM Iblis has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 262 of 302 (275613)
01-04-2006 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Iblis
01-04-2006 2:39 AM


Re: there were Giants in these days too
You've got it right, the LXX favors 4 cubits, one of the dead sea scrolls favors 4 cubits, the other texts say 6.
oh ok, i see. i'm not sure i follow the rest about disagreements with the targums.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Iblis, posted 01-04-2006 2:39 AM Iblis has not replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5085 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 263 of 302 (275615)
01-04-2006 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by idontlikeforms
01-02-2006 11:31 PM


Re: need
I think someone attempted to point out that the original preserved meaning is entirely different then what is currently present. Something to note about translating between languages is that the translation has an entirely different cultural meaning to another group. (someone brought up the idea of giant among men earlier in the thread)
Well another example would be some Americans tendency for food analogies. I.e.
Now we are cooking with grease.
in spanish.
Ahora estamos cocinando con la grasa.
I mean it just means we are cooking with grease. The difference is that the spanish culture doesn't have the similiar euphemisms as american culture so where the american context indicates hey this job is going fast, or the idea is great... In spain its just oh..we are cooking with grease.
So i feel that arguing for the preservation of meaning of the bible is not necessairly possible with a literal translation of the bible. Someone floating around this forum inidcated an excellent translation of the bible, not necessairly word for word, but one that placed comprable cultural euphemisms. (i think the version was the recent Jewish society am not sure it was discussed in some prior threads on this forum)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by idontlikeforms, posted 01-02-2006 11:31 PM idontlikeforms has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2006 5:01 AM Discreet Label has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 264 of 302 (275624)
01-04-2006 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Discreet Label
01-04-2006 3:33 AM


biblical idioms
So i feel that arguing for the preservation of meaning of the bible is not necessairly possible with a literal translation of the bible.
well, yes and no. the difference here is that a somewhat literal translation of the bible has been part of our cultural reading list for about 400 years. and so some hebrew euphemisms, translated literally, have worked their way into our language: seed (children/sperm), fat of the land, hardening one's heart, stiff-necked, scapegoat, to gird one's loins, skin of my teeth, double-edged sword, set teeth on edge, etc.
there's a ton of other english idioms that derive from stories in the bible, too. adam's apple, fly in the ointment, reaping whirlwinds, feet of clay, writing on the wall. the problem is that there's a bunch of ones that don't quite work in english: stones (testicles), feet (penis), covering one's feet (urination or oral sex depending who's doing it and to whom), uncovering one's feet (getting naked), son of man (mortal)
there's a bunch of questionable ones, and ones that are really only used in religious circles, too: lift up one's head, fruit of ____, milk and honey, slept (died), one's cup, numbered days, evil eyes, etc.
it's really kind of subjective how literal a translation can or needs to be. and it changes from time to time what works in english and what doesn't.
Someone floating around this forum inidcated an excellent translation of the bible, not necessairly word for word, but one that placed comprable cultural euphemisms. (i think the version was the recent Jewish society am not sure it was discussed in some prior threads on this forum)
it might have been me. i find the newer jps version to be quite easily understandable in modern english, and retains the idea of the text quite well.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-04-2006 05:02 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Discreet Label, posted 01-04-2006 3:33 AM Discreet Label has not replied

DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6102 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 265 of 302 (275677)
01-04-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by ramoss
01-03-2006 9:25 PM


Re: Now where did I leave that Holy Book?
quote:
Expand on the concept, and be a bit more exact.
You don't need me to be, you have your own ideas and mine won't matter a farthing.
I avoid the horror I call quibbling. From observation I note that it is often misstated as debate. Nor am I interested in making converts or indulging in the possibility of obtaining agreement. It is for that reason my posts are always short, and my preference is an occasional comment. Lurking becomes the DorfMan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by ramoss, posted 01-03-2006 9:25 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by ramoss, posted 01-04-2006 11:26 AM DorfMan has not replied
 Message 269 by ReverendDG, posted 01-17-2006 4:38 AM DorfMan has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 266 of 302 (275731)
01-04-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by DorfMan
01-04-2006 9:32 AM


Re: Now where did I leave that Holy Book?
I have a horror of vague references to things being called a discussion, much less a debate. I don't think unsupported claims, or vague references show what you are actually trying to say and support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by DorfMan, posted 01-04-2006 9:32 AM DorfMan has not replied

chuckiliwakels
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 302 (279339)
01-15-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
12-30-2005 11:14 AM


Re: Giants?
This does raise an all important question of how accurate everything in the bible is. It is difficult to tell, just because everything was passed through the word of mouth, and of course people may exaggerate and make stories out to be better than they actually are. Did Moses part the red sea? Did Jesus perform miracles? Did Jesus walk on water? There are so many different examples of larger than life stories, but who really knows if they are accurate or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 12-30-2005 11:14 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by AdminJar, posted 01-15-2006 11:30 PM chuckiliwakels has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 302 (279344)
01-15-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by chuckiliwakels
01-15-2006 11:18 PM


Re: Giants?
Welcom to EvC. We hope to learn much from you during your stay.
At the bottom of this message you'll find links to several threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by chuckiliwakels, posted 01-15-2006 11:18 PM chuckiliwakels has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4132 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 269 of 302 (279604)
01-17-2006 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by DorfMan
01-04-2006 9:32 AM


Re: Now where did I leave that Holy Book?
You don't need me to be, you have your own ideas and mine won't matter a farthing.
I avoid the horror I call quibbling. From observation I note that it is often misstated as debate. Nor am I interested in making converts or indulging in the possibility of obtaining agreement. It is for that reason my posts are always short, and my preference is an occasional comment. Lurking becomes the DorfMan.
yes because somehow anything people want to debate you on is quibbling, why come to a debate site like this if all you want to do is state things without question? if you would like to do that get a blog then you can say what you want, I mean we could perchance agree with you on something
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-17-2006 04:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by DorfMan, posted 01-04-2006 9:32 AM DorfMan has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 270 of 302 (279611)
01-17-2006 6:15 AM


30 Posts to EOT
Just a reminder that threads close at 300 posts.
Carry on Purple

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024