WordWolf

Disagree. I'm only speaking for myself here, but I think the real problems with understanding stem from 2 things. The smaller problem is expecting the Bible to be a textbook written for a modern audience. We, here and now, would prefer that, but it would have been impenetrable for centuries. (Different styles benefit different people and work better for different times and different mindsets.) The larger problem really is having preconceived notions about what it is SUPPOSED to say, and cherry-picking to try to support that rather than read the whole thing to find out what it actually says. That's actual work, and requires one to double-check one's denomination. (Then again, I was already starting to do that while in twi before the splits happened, and I wasn't in terribly long.) If you're taught, say, there's Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo, then if you even open your Bible, you're likely to just look for something that might look like it supports precisely that position, rather than making the effort to get the whole picture from the Bible. A tertiary problem is awful translations- but a lot of those stem from a translator with the larger problem. I've found that reading an interlinear often corrects those pretty easily and painlessly.

Um, how about that "Lost in Space" movie, with one of the Matt's from "Friends" in the cast?

"You might have misunderstood me. I was only speaking of Hampson ignoring the problem - not you." Right, but since he's not here, and we're the ones discussing, and I brought it up, I thought it was incumbent upon me to address whatever your concern was. "The "elephant in the room" is that the word "dog" is in the Greek text for Matthew 15:26-27, and Hampson's solution to ignore them or have translations delete them from the bible seems to be promoting willful ignorance (IOW - burying one's head in the sand)." OK, I can address that. "...Hampson's solution to ignore them or have translations delete them from the bible seems to be promoting willful ignorance (IOW - burying one's head in the sand). Do you think this is a good enough way to deal with these scriptures?" The first thing I agree with is that rushing to an answer doesn't do this justice. So, a flat "yes" or "no" here is no good. (Have I stopped beating my wife?) In general, and as a guiding principle, I tend to think the primary goal of translation is to correctly translate, which sounds redundant, but actually is not, since that's what we're discussing. I tend to think a translator should not leave things untranslated. I'm also well aware that incorrect translations are problems. If you read any English version I'm aware of, you'll find the word "wolves" used in a negative way, as something feared. I object to the incorrect translations. The animal in question was the JACKAL, which was native to Palestine and the Middle East (the wolf was not.) It's as unfair to render it "wolf" as it is to render it "jaguar"- knowing that they're native to the Americas and nowhere else. What does it matter? It mattered to the real wolves. People in Europe hunted them down, partly because they were falsely correlated with evil workings. (Partly for other reasons also.) I'm also aware that sometimes a problematic word is best left untranslated- if you want to understand what was going on. We previously discussed once the usage of the word that is, in the Greek, "anothen." Jesus told Nicodemus that unless a man be born anothen, he couldn't see the kingdom of God. Much wrangling has been made of what the Aramaic did or didn't say, of what this word means here, but ultimately, this word was not critical to understanding Nicodemus' reaction to Jesus. Nicodemus heard Jesus, and asked how a man could be born when he's old? Nicodemus didn't pay any attention to the word "anothen" there, just on the (adult) man being born despite already being an adult. In that case, a lot of arguing about something that didn't matter could be skipped by not translating "anothen" there because it was non-critical to understanding the account. Do I prefer leaving anything untranslated? No, but I'm aware that sometimes, we have limited options, and I'd prefer to pick the least-objectionable option out of those available, if I must pick at all. So, do I think that leaving a word untranslated is allowable at all, and an option at least some of the time? Yes, because I've seen it work before. The example I just gave is sufficient for me. The next question would be- do I think this particular situation can only be served by leaving a word untranslated? That's a much more specific question, and one that can be addressed more specifically. Hampson made his case that there was no clear English word or phrase that could translate this word, retaining the original meaning while not injecting an additional meaning into it due to connotations in English. I think he made a sufficient case. As in the example I gave, the account is fully coherent without it, and makes sense. If it's included, the only "benefits" are to add something problematic that wasn't there to begin with, and the additional "benefit" of 100% completion of translating everything. I find that a goal more worth achieving in video games than in translations, where the answers are not always so clear. Was there an incident? Yes. But keeping in a poorly-translated word means we lose what happened while everyone fixates on the meaning that was never there to begin with. --------------------------------------- I'm aware of a different incident where a translation COULD be corrected, but the wrong word means people fixate on something that doesn't exist. "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." I wish I had a dollar for every time someone taught about the IMAGINARY gate entering Jerusalem called "the eye of the needle". When passing through this IMAGINARY gate, imaginary merchants would need to remove the imaginary trading goods from their imaginary camels, then get the camels to scoot through this tiny gate, then reload them. No city would put up with such a restriction for one moment longer than it needed to. ("We've been clearing the rubble from that earthquake. The only way to get in now is very narrow. We won't have that widened for another day or so.") Residents of Jerusalem weren't idiots. Any entrance like that would discourage trade and slow down trade. (Find me one Jew in any country in any century who is in favor of hindering business deals.) So, people fixate on this thing about a camel passing through the eye of a needle. But it's an incorrect translation. In Aramaic, the word for "camel" and the word for "rope" are effectively homonyms. (I examined the words side by side, and could not see any difference in their spellings.) So, passing a ROPE through the eye of a needle. The entire sentence was about something physically impossible, and is much easier to picture with rope. If it was a single thread, it could pass. As a rope, it was the right shape, but far too large to pass. Mind you, if we had no way of knowing this, if one were actually vague about what was passing through the eye of a needle, one would still get the same meaning- something clearly impossible. There are people who say that it meant "camel" but the meaning of the sentence was something literally impossible. So, despite an incorrect translation, they get to the point anyway. ----------------------------------------------- I disagree with the characterization of Hampson as either "promoting willful ignorance" or "burying one's head in the sand." He's heading off a manufactured controversy that wasn't in the original, and staying focused on what the passage was actually about. I find that the opposite of "willful ignorance". I suppose, if my whole reason for caring about this passage was in using the incorrect translation to make a point the original never made, all to make it look like the original had a problem it never had, then this approach might indeed look like "burying one's head in the sand." It certainly would take all the fun out of complaining about and criticizing the passage over what it never said in the original. Myself, I blame the translators more than anyone else.

CORRECT.

I feel your pain. I get that sometimes.

I can only name #2. He went upstairs, and the actor was never seen again. (The character was later said to have joined the army, so we heard OF him, just not FROM him.)

CORRECT, of course.

"You could have a steam train, if you'd just lay down your tracks."

"Close your eyes, girl. Look inside, girl. Let the sound take you away."

So, since George was CORRECT, it is GEORGE'S turn.

Forgot to reply. (Got busy around November 27.) This, of course, is Meat Loaf's (and Jim Steinman's) classic "PARADISE BY THE DASHBOARD LIGHT."

"However, I don't think ignoring "the elephant in the room" strengthens anyone's conviction to know and understand "the truth." " Not trying to be difficult here, trying to discuss. I'm not sure what you're referring to as "the elephant in the room" here. If you'll tell me what it is, I'll try to address it rather than ignore it. (Not that I'm that writer, but I am here to discuss.)

It's always sad to see someone this good go. I had a neighbor pass away the other year. She'd alienated all of her neighbors, and all of her family. I commented afterwards that it was a terrible thing to be the kind of person about whom NOBODY would say "I'm sorry she's gone." Kit was obviously the reverse- we're all sorry she's gone.

BTW, that would have worked better for the Trivia thread.

Last to go was Bill himself. Before Bill, Daryl Hannah's character with the eye patch was blinded- but allowed to live. Before that, Bill's brother Bud was killed- but not by The Bride. (He actually had gotten the drop on her and buried her alive.) In Volume One, the African-American chick who had WANTED to be Black Mamba was first, IIRC. Second was Lucy Liu's character in the final scene. (After the big fight scenes with the Crazy 88 and so on, music by The 5678's.) So, after her was The Bride almost dying, Bud dying, the eye patch chick as good as dying, and finally Bill himself.

Hey, now, hey now, "DON'T DREAM IT'S OVER." (Crowded House.)

Dustin Hoffman, not Robin Williams. Rain Man was the excellent driver, and Mrs Robinson was trying to seduce The Graduate. "I'm walking here!" was an ad lib as the actor stepped off a curb and a car got close. They kept it in because it worked so well. Edit- Oh, you knew it was Hoffman. Never mind.

The decades determined what an average-sized class was. Apparently, you took it in the 60s or 70s. By the mid-80s. the classes were on videotape or nothing, although I've heard of grads taking audio-only classes. For us, they didn't run until at least 6 were signed up. IIRC, when I took it, there were 8 of us signed up, 7 of us showed up for Session 1. Three of us showed up for Session 12- myself, a coordinator's wife, and a different coordinator's son. (Plus a bunch of grads who showed up suddenly for Session 12. No pressure, right?) Later, we started to have recommendations, like "if you're going to retake it, please show up for the whole thing so you don't startle the new students" and so on. One clever fellow set up adjoining rooms, one behind the other, with a doorway looking into the front room. Both rooms had a television feed from the VCR. The front room was where the new students sat, and the back room was where all the grads sat. It was a lot smoother for the students. Naturally, that was also good when we actually had enough new students to make a front room feasible.

*peeks into the thread cautiously* I'm not in favor of discussion by video link or otherwise, and prefer we discuss directly, but I know I'm in the minority there. As for oldiesman's link, it led to a page I, on the whole, didn't find particularly useful.....however, I followed a number of the links and found a single link that I found useful. https://viamedia.news/2023/09/20/jesus-did-not-call-a-woman-a-dog/ He takes a while to get there- it's a bit like reading one of my expository posts- but I thought the answer was good enough that it was work a link. I won't do the writer the injustice of quoting a relevant snippet because the journey was as much a part of the answer as the direct explanation. So, even I can make exceptions.

I could partly name which characters went in which order, but I can't match any of them to their code-names, except for the Bride whom you already named. I remember one objecting because SHE wanted to be "Black Mamba" instead. Let me know if you want me to try to name them- but I'd have to be flexible in HOW I named them, since I don't remember all their names.

"He hates but one man: the man who stole his shoes." "That's because there is no air in the windmills of your mind." "He swallowed a live hand grenade. He has no internal organs." "What's your favorite ice cream flavor?" "Buffalo Ripple."

Erland van Lidth The Running Man Arnold Schwarzenegger

The other movies? Well, this was the last, IIRC. The first was "the Wolf Man." LC Jr played Larry Talbot. Larry was attacked by a wolf that was later killed. That was a werewolf, and Larry was infected. Bela Lugosi played "Bela", a gypsy traveling through the area- who turned into a werewolf and attacked Larry. A sort-of sequel to that movie was "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man." LC Jr as Larry Talbot, and Bela Lugosi as Frankenstein's Monster. Between the two movies was "The Ghost of Frankenstein." LC Jr as The Monster, BL as Ygor. There was a sort-of round robin of the actors in a number of roles across a decade or so.

"The same thing happened to me!" The Twilight Zone movie mentioned some troops shooting an officer dead "accidentally" in a "friendly fire" incident. The specifics are identical to the note at the end of "Stripes", where a character with the same name was said to have been killed by his soldiers in a "friendly fire" incident. (BTW, according to "Murphy's Laws of Combat", "Friendly fire- isn't." In "Animal House", John Belushi/Bluto came across a guy playing a guitar badly. He snatched the guitar, smashed it against the wall, then handed back the stick. "Sorry." In an episode of ST TNG, (Q pid), Geordi was trying to play a mandolin- and failing. Worf walked over to him and signaled him to pass over the mandolin. Worf smashed it against a tree, then handed back the stick. "Sorry." In "Brotherhood of the Wolf", very early in the movie, they're investigating a murder. It's believed to have been a wolf attack that killed someone. When the corpse is found, it's a young woman wearing a red cape. I've forgotten so many of these.

In case anyone is confused, I'd like to clarify. oldiesman confirmed there was a lawsuit that was filed. He did not confirm the lawsuit had merit or that it was factually correct. But, as a point of history, he confirmed that people were saying that at the time.