Whos got the english/language PHD?

[lemur]

some pals and i have been wondering about something.. I wonder if some kind of expert type authoritative figure could resolve it..

is it YOU that went for the english degree? well! nows yer chance to use it..


it has to do with something from a popular book known as "the bible"

now, i dont speak or read greek, so i have to rely on the english translations.. of which there are many

the line in question seems, from the perspective of someone who barely remembers english class, to refer to God having a Brother.. as in, "yer my bro!" ..or the uncle of jesus ...and that we must love him too (what special powers does he have?!)



1 John 4:21 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John )

This commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. (king james version)

He has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother. (new international version)

This commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should also love his brother. (world english bible)




so.. do i just need to take a refresher course?

it seems to me that the line could be read to mean that God has a brother..

if not, why not? what syntax/grammar/form rules make it not so?

i would be delighted to have this troubling problem resolved once and for all.

[171/348]

,

[ygmir]

call and ask this year:

[Elliot]

.
No degree, but I agree. The sentence is ambiguous. No surprise that, in the bible!

If God does not have a brother, I might fix it by inserting the word "own" -- "...should love his own brother also".
If God does have a brother, it would be "...should love God's brother also".

Very clear cut -- "his" is useless when there are two people it could refer to.

That said, I hate to add a word to a sentence, since most sentences are improved by removing words. So, after coffee I'll give it some better thought.

By the way, I already love this thread. There is hope!

[tummler]

My take: "who loves God" is an adjective clause modifying the subject of the sentence, "He." So, "He who loves God" is the complete subject."Also" is an adverb. You could substitute "as well," "similarly," "likewise," or other link-ey type sentence adverbs for the "also." "Loves" is the main verb of the sentence, and "brother" is the object. The simple sentence, then, is "He loves brother." The male subject of the sentence loves God and the male subject of the sentence loves the brother he has. Sort of like "He who wakes early also catches the worm." "He who eats the entire pizza consequently is he who gets heartburn."

If you want to make the arguement that God does have a brother, then you have to see the sentence as having a compound predicate: He loves two individuals: God and God's brother. But since deities usually takes a capital, then the sentence should be "He loves God and His brother." This might have been lost in translation. You need an Aramaic scholar, stat!

[MacGlenver]

Since spaghetti monsters do not technically have a sex, "his" cannot refer to god. I think we can infer, therefore, that the bible is referring to "one's own brother", rather the existence of a second spaghetti monster.

[trilobyte]

It's all about syntax. Back in the day when the king james version (which itself was a bastardization and mish-mash of several different bibles in circulation at the time), the phrase 'love his brother also' meant 'also love his brother' - take a look at other texts from the period, the sentence structure just seems crazy.

Being a monotheistic religion, I haven't yet found any versions of any of their rulebooks that acknowledge or mention any of the god construct's siblings or coworkers.

[Elliot]

But since deities usually takes a capital, then the sentence should be "He loves God and His brother."

Excellent solution.

Since spaghetti monsters do not technically have a sex gender, "his" cannot refer to god. I think we can infer, therefore, that the bible is referring to "one's own brother", rather the existence of a second spaghetti monster.

Fixed.

[Savannah]

There are allusions in the bible to Jesus having siblings.

From Matthew, Chapter 13:

53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

IF I remember correctly, one of his brothers was a 'Shifter . . . but the others were just really, really good dancers.

[MacGlenver]

Since spaghetti monsters do not technically have a sex gender, "his" cannot refer to god. I think we can infer, therefore, that the bible is referring to "one's own brother", rather the existence of a second spaghetti monster.

Fixed.

Thanks . Given that that was the only fix, you obviously agree that it was otherwise perfect reasoning.

[Elliot]

Soitenly.

[mgb327]

Soitenly.

Nyuk...Nyuk...Nyuk.

[tummler]

This reminds me of that joke about the monks in the scriptorium, when the one monk says, "Hey, wait, you guys! It's supposed to say 'celebrate,' not 'celibate.'"

I know an equally funny joke about statisticians.

[Dr. Pyro]

Am I the only one who noticed this should read: Who's got the english/language PHD? Or more accurately, Who has the English/language PHD?

[Eric]

You can't take one sentence out of the Bible and build a thesis out of it (unless you're one of those Biblical Literalists, which mean you literally just believe the parts you want to).

Links include the original Greek, with direct transliteration. Being direct, they make almost no sense (you need to translate the words and word-order in order to make it make sense in other language)
1John 4:20 is: "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." New International Version, other versions here.

Taken in context (what an original thought), it's clear that 1 John 4:21 boils down to "if you love God, you must also love your own brother (or siblings)", not "love God's brother".

Why, yes, I did almost study comparative theology...

[Elliot]

I feel certain we figured that out already, Eric. (And I'm pretty sure it is primarily a language question, not a Bible question.) Next question, please! This is a wonderful thread. What a concept; Reading Comprehension! Concise, unambiguous writing! Rare and precious. Next question, please! (he repeats)

[Eric]

(And I'm pretty sure it is primarily a language question, not a Bible question.)

If we were dealing with the original Greek, I'd agree with you. When the discussion is about which of the translations have it correct (the original question: "it seems to me that the line could be read to mean that God has a brother.. if not, why not? what syntax/grammar/form rules make it not so? i would be delighted to have this troubling problem resolved once and for all.") then you have to look at the context of the quotation to determine which translation is correct - ie: which used the correct language to carry the idea into English.

By that, the grammar that carries the original idea the best is the New International Version ("And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister") or the New Living Translation ("And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love their Christian brothers and sisters"), though the NLT changes it to emphasize "Christian" (and other versions do the same, using either "Christian" or "believer", when I don't pick that up from the original text at all - but I'm reading a chunky Greek transliteration, not a good translation).

It's no different than discussing confusion over a quote from Beowulf without using context from the original to get the meaning. Language without context is just gibberish.

[Elderberry]

What a waste of time. What does it matter how one interprets a fairy tale

[theCryptofishist]

Did you know that there were versions of Cinderella in which the slipper was fur? Which makes it very interesting if Bettelheim is right and the act of her putting her foot into the slipper represents intercourse.

[Eric]

What a waste of time. What does it matter how one interprets a fairy tale

Seriously? A fairy tale doesn't have any impact on your daily life, while the Bible, regardless how you view it's veracity, has an enormous impact on all of us in America due to the large swath of the population that does believe in it (or at least believe in what they want it to say) and vote for politicians who either hold similar beliefs or pander to them.

It matters because people use that "fairy tale" to attack people in their daily life via laws - like, oh, I don't know, marriage equality, women's rights, censorship, education, science, climate change...

Knowing what that "fairy tale" says helps you to educate in a one-on-one situation, and helps to refute the lies that make an egg a human with more rights than the human carrying it, climate change nothing to worry about, and abortion murder but the death penalty okay as "an eye for an eye".

Atheists play the superiority card way too often, and educate and reach out way too little.

[BBadger]

Atheists play the superiority card way too often, and educate and reach out way too little.

+1 to that.

[lemur]

What a waste of time. What does it matter how one interprets a fairy tale

youre looking for the 'atheists are the problem' thread!

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=53245


back on track!!!

I feel certain we figured that out already, Eric. (And I'm pretty sure it is primarily a language question, not a Bible question.) Next question, please! This is a wonderful thread. What a concept; Reading Comprehension! Concise, unambiguous writing! Rare and precious. Next question, please! (he repeats)

ok.. next question..


regarding the thing at the end of this... is 'right' really a word that forms a 'positive' ? is any of this true or is it just kind of funny?


An MIT linguistics professor was lecturing his class the other day. "In English," he said, "a double negative forms a positive. However, in some languages, such as Russian, a double negative remains a negative. But there isn't a single language, not one, in which a double positive can express a negative."

A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right."

[tatonka]

Did you know that there were versions of Cinderella in which the slipper was fur? Which makes it very interesting if Bettelheim is right and the act of her putting her foot into the slipper represents intercourse.

Also amoung some tribes , if a women shows you her mocossin ands it has no hole in it she is still a virgin.

[Elliot]

An MIT linguistics professor was lecturing his class the other day. "In English," he said, "a double negative forms a positive. However, in some languages, such as Russian, a double negative remains a negative. But there isn't a single language, not one, in which a double positive can express a negative."

A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right."

Love it!
I don't know about all the World's languages, but I have a thought on "Yeah, right." Perhaps it depends on whether a slang phrase counts as "real" language. After all, some slang terms graduate to the Dictionary; others fall by the wayside.

-------------------------------------

Here's another:

A couple days ago I attended a meeting of local Occupy Wall Street type folks. Afterward I wrote down a thought, and found myself with a linguistic dilemma. The problem is the term 1%, meaning the elite of the very rich.

I wrote
The 1% understand that they can….
My computer flagged “understand” as incorrect. The computer wants “understands” - singular. I was thinking of the 1% as several people.

Thoughts?

[Elliot]

Language without context is just gibberish.

Good point to keep in mind. I often harp on context myself. Sometimes I call it coherency or some such. Full comprehension!

Yeah, the World is full of quotations out of context. Example: Good fences make good neighbors. But read the poem, and you see that Frost actually means the opposite.

[FIGJAM]

Neighbors make good fences if you plant them close enough together and ancore them properly.

[theCryptofishist]

An MIT linguistics professor was lecturing his class the other day. "In English," he said, "a double negative forms a positive. However, in some languages, such as Russian, a double negative remains a negative. But there isn't a single language, not one, in which a double positive can express a negative."

A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right."

Love it!
I don't know about all the World's languages, but I have a thought on "Yeah, right." Perhaps it depends on whether a slang phrase counts as "real" language. After all, some slang terms graduate to the Dictionary; others fall by the wayside.

What makes language "real" is usage, not some sort of approval by a group of stodgy prescriptive grammarians. What are we, French?

[Elliot]

After all, some slang terms graduate to the Dictionary; others fall by the wayside.

What makes language "real" is usage,...

We seem to be in agreement.

[Eric]

What makes language "real" is usage, not some sort of approval by a group of stodgy prescriptive grammarians. What are we, French?

Even the Académie française can only suggest, their rulings have no legal weight in France. Most languages have become trapped with spellings that no longer match pronunciations, due to the conservative nature of print (physical or electronic). Take this rhyming couplet from Shakespeare (Hamlet):
“Doubt thou the stars are fire;
Doubt that the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
But never doubt I love.”
"Fire" & "Liar" still rhyme, though they have different spellings, yet "move" and "love" don't rhyme, and are spelled the same, other than the first letter. Elizabethan English is great for pronunciations, because the spellings weren't "set" yet, and literate people wrote like they spoke. It looks (mostly) like modern English, but in reading Shakespeare you get a feeling for how they really sounded then.

[media]

[Elderberry]

What a waste of time. What does it matter how one interprets a fairy tale

Seriously? A fairy tale doesn't have any impact on your daily life, while the Bible, regardless how you view it's veracity, has an enormous impact on all of us in America due to the large swath of the population that does believe in it (or at least believe in what they want it to say) and vote for politicians who either hold similar beliefs or pander to them.

It matters because people use that "fairy tale" to attack people in their daily life via laws - like, oh, I don't know, marriage equality, women's rights, censorship, education, science, climate change...

Knowing what that "fairy tale" says helps you to educate in a one-on-one situation, and helps to refute the lies that make an egg a human with more rights than the human carrying it, climate change nothing to worry about, and abortion murder but the death penalty okay as "an eye for an eye".

Atheists play the superiority card way too often, and educate and reach out way too little.

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.