Whos got the english/language PHD?

[Eric]

If you think that logic will win an argument with anyone that acquires their facts from faith, you are deluding yourself. If that is playing the superiority card, so be it. Gin! I win.

You can't win an argument with anyone who thinks they are unquestionably right, regardless of what their opinions or ideas are based on.

(I actually cut the other 3 paragraphs because they were needless exposition on that statement.)

[Elliot]

Ah, the old "A wise man does not argue with a fool, for then their friends cannot tell which is which."

Now.... How about we all play nice again?

[Elderberry]

Ah, the old "A wise man does not argue with a fool, for then their friends cannot tell which is which."

Now.... How about we all play nice again?

Never heard that saying before. I like it.

[Elliot]

No idea where it is from, but I learned it decades ago. Living by it is not always easy, but....

[tummler]

Elliot said: "I wrote, 'The 1% understand that they can..." but the computer wants 'understands' - singular."

The 1% is a collective noun, like "team" or "Congress." Collective nouns take singular verbs and pronouns, like so: "The 1% understands that it can...." But "Individuals who have been classified as in the 1% understand that they can..."

With a collective noun, if the members of the group are not of a singular, unified viewpoint, then the singular verb does not work well. So, "The organization makes changes to its policy" (collective noun + single verb and pronoun," but "Individual members or departments of the organization disagree with its changes" (plural nouns + plural verb + singular possessive adjective standing in for the collective noun "organization").

Collective nouns can lend themselves to sweeping generalizations, stereotypes, and profiling if used carelessly, I think.

Oh, grammar, you harsh mistress!

[Eric]

Now.... How about we all play nice again?

I wasn't singling out JK, I was pointing out that you don't need to be a religious person to have views that aren't susceptible to reason. Hell, just look at Lysenko and the damage he did to Soviet science for years - facts didn't change his ideas one iota. You can also look at continental drift, first presented in 1912, but not completely accepted until the 60s, as the theory of plate tectonics came about.

Things we know as facts today were theories in an earlier time, some things we accept as 'facts' now will be discredited in time (for example, see bloodletting, which had a 2,000 year history as a valid medical proceedure; or see the use of maggots & leeches in modern medicine, they were both discredited as barbaric medicine at one time but now are making a comeback for specific uses that can't be equaled by other methods - like cleaning burns & reattaching limbs).

What does any of this have to do with the Bible, you ask. Simple - the Bible is a fact of life in modern society, regardless of who wrote it. To dismiss it because you don't believe it, while you're surrounded by laws based on it, to me shows an insular world view. You don't have to accept something as correct or even 'true' to acknowledge that it effects you in a very real way. I think "Marxist-Leninism" is bullshit, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a huge effect on the life of the majority of the people on the planet for 70 years - either by being under it's thumb, or by being in opposition to it.

Lord, you can tell I'm in the "blurb-writing" period of my month. I can't do anything in short phrases.

[Elliot]

Oh, grammar, you harsh mistress!

Not at all. It's great fun!

[Elliot]

...

What does any of this have to do with the Bible, you ask. Simple - the Bible is a fact of life in modern society, regardless of who wrote it. To dismiss it because you don't believe it, while you're surrounded by laws based on it, to me shows an insular world view. You don't have to accept something as correct or even 'true' to acknowledge that it effects you in a very real way. I think "Marxist-Leninism" is bullshit, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a huge effect on the life of the majority of the people on the planet for 70 years - either by being under it's thumb, or by being in opposition to it.

I agree wholeheartedly. We must be realistic about what is actually going on, no matter its origin.

[gyre]

Holy crap!

I have looked into this area and did find that many parts of the bible are mistranslated.
Most things don't translate directly from other languages, in some cases not at all, and can only be generalized at great length.
I often look at some of the greek writings and must look at many versions to gain a true grasp of the original, which is usually much more interesting.

I've read a number of the heretical texts too.
Puts some perspective on the current version of the bible.

[gyre]

There was something on 60 minutes or some docko on the really outrageous things that are said in the bible and have been "glossed over".

Scholars are often well familiar with these things that are not brought to the rather inconvenient attention of the public.

[Elliot]

I'm not well read, but I have long had the feeling that Dan Brown had it pretty much right in The daVinci Code -- about manipulation of translations, selective publication of chapters, and such. Remember, one of the oldest truths in so-called civilization is that... he makes the rules who controls the printing presses.

Now about more concise writing and the resulting improved reading-comprehension.... (Notice that I tied "reading" and "comprehension" together with a hyphen to make the sentence clearer? Not in any rule, I suspect -- not that I would know.) ...

[FIGJAM]

[Eric]

about manipulation of translations, selective publication of chapters, and such. Remember, one of the oldest truths in so-called civilization is that... he makes the rules who controls the printing presses.

This part is completely true. The Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible - the "Torah" everyone is familiar with is just the Five Books of Moses, the first part of the Tanakh) varies from the Christian "Old Testament" in some areas, and even some basic things that you would think would be universal vary from tradition to tradition. Take the 10 Commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is the 5th Commandment for Catholics & Lutherans, and the 6th Commandment for other Protestant churches, the Orthodox churches and Judaism. Seems minor, but you'd think that god would keep the order straight for something as basic as the foundation for the moral code...

Books that were included or left out were based on who was in power & what they thought was the correct message & form of the religion - look at the long wars against heresy in the Christian church (against the Arians, the Albigensians, the rift between Catholicism & Orthodoxy, or the multiple rifts between the various Protestant churches & Catholicism), or the rifts between different branches of Judaism (notable now for the Ultra-Orthodox, the Orthodox, the Conservatives & Reform) and the divisions between the different branches of Islam (Sunni, Shi'a, Sufi, Ba'hai). Wheee!