Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2019, 08:23 PM Mar 2019

What is the role of inspiration in the Bible?


Nahmanides was a Spanish Talmudist, Kabbalist and biblical commentator (1194-1270), known, after the initial letters of his name, as Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman).


Nahmanides said, speaking of creation:

At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was so thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.


Metaphoric language, but remarkably like the 20th century Big Bang hypothesis from a 12th century Rabbi.


According to Stephen Hawking, this original, primordial speck is called a singularity, with infinite energy pulling in upon itself, not allowing any energy to escape. This was the ultimate “black hole.” This was considered a monumental discovery, but something that we have known, although not totally understood, from Torah literature for thousands of years!
One thing Hawking does not explain is how the Big Bang was possible. If there is an infinite amount of energy holding the singularity together, from whence is the even greater energy to pull it apart?!
He indeed does say that until after the point of the Big Bang, all science and mathematics breaks down, and time and science have their beginnings only after the Big Bang. Our answer to all this is that the Creator, who was the architect of the very concept of infinity, had the energy beyond infinity to bring about the Big Bang.
As science progresses, we see much more clearly how the physical world and the spiritual world of Torah are one.


https://www.aish.com/atr/Creation-and-The-Big-Bang.html

So was Nahmanides' idea the product of insight, or inspiration?

In the creation story of Genesis, we are told that Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans. And read literally, it is inconsistent with science.

But if the names Adam and Eve translate into earth and life. we have life coming from the earth.

We are told that God took 1 rib from Adam and created Eve, thus Adam was missing a rib. Clearly men and women have the same number of ribs, and even Bronze Age humans knew that, so what is the underlying meaning?

One possibility:

Men are XY, and women are XX. The Y has one less "rib", or leg, than does the X.

So is this insight, or inspiration?



82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What is the role of inspiration in the Bible? (Original Post) guillaumeb Mar 2019 OP
Whatever an individual chooses to assign it. Thomas Hurt Mar 2019 #1
An interesting answer. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #9
Its role is to be suppressed hurl Mar 2019 #2
In the 12th century, Nahmanides provided an explanation that is remarkably guillaumeb Mar 2019 #10
It's making connections where there are none. marylandblue Mar 2019 #3
The role of metaphoric language in the Bible. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #11
Now you are avoiding connections where they exist marylandblue Mar 2019 #16
There was no field of physics. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #17
No field of physics? What's this? marylandblue Mar 2019 #33
Get out of here with your facts! trotsky Mar 2019 #22
I swear, I only meant them as metaphors for other facts. marylandblue Mar 2019 #34
That's better! n/t trotsky Mar 2019 #36
Neither Lordquinton Mar 2019 #4
What's additionally upsetting is by doing this, guillaumeb is reinforcing sexist stereotypes... trotsky Mar 2019 #7
A very weak attempt at framing. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #15
The truth hurts, I understand. trotsky Mar 2019 #20
Yep Lordquinton Mar 2019 #21
XX/XY guillaumeb Mar 2019 #12
Wrong then and wrong now Lordquinton Mar 2019 #18
Argue with science. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #23
I don't have to argue with science Lordquinton Mar 2019 #40
Oh man you're still on that XY thing? trotsky Mar 2019 #5
"Nahmanides said, speaking of creation:" MineralMan Mar 2019 #6
Interestring that his speculation was so accurate. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #14
How is that interesting? MineralMan Mar 2019 #39
Metaphor. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #44
Your understanding of biology and sex chromosomes is laughably weak. trotsky Mar 2019 #8
Read: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #13
Sexist transphobic bullshit is not welcome here, g. trotsky Mar 2019 #19
Refute it. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #24
Refute what? trotsky Mar 2019 #25
Refute this actual science: guillaumeb Mar 2019 #26
The actual science is what refutes YOU. trotsky Mar 2019 #27
Unfortunately for your attempted point, guillaumeb Mar 2019 #29
Only you could argue with yourself and call it a victory. trotsky Mar 2019 #32
You seem to be ignoring intersex and androgen insensitivity. marylandblue Mar 2019 #35
So you artgue for a puppet master type god. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #43
No, that is the God presented in the Bible. marylandblue Mar 2019 #45
Adam and Eve were free to eat the apple. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #46
Speaking of a cruel and capricious universe marylandblue Mar 2019 #49
Do you argue for a sentient universe? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #51
No, I argue that God is a metaphor. marylandblue Mar 2019 #52
Interesting. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #54
I have faith that it is also your view. marylandblue Mar 2019 #61
I respect your faith based observation. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #66
No creator is required at all. MineralMan Mar 2019 #57
What constitutes evidence in the absence of knowledge of the Creator's nature? guillaumeb Mar 2019 #58
I don't know, Monsieur B. MineralMan Mar 2019 #59
But Trotsky Lordquinton Mar 2019 #42
If God we're said to have created Eve from Adam's little finger... FBaggins Mar 2019 #28
That also would argue for a metaphoric reading of the story. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #30
No it wouldn't FBaggins Mar 2019 #31
Metaphor is not a license to make interpretations wildly at variance marylandblue Mar 2019 #37
And not only is your science atrocious bullshit, your metaphor is as well. trotsky Mar 2019 #38
Genesis is arguably the worst part of the bible Lordquinton Mar 2019 #41
Misframing, part 2. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #48
QED Lordquinton Mar 2019 #62
Misframing, part 1 guillaumeb Mar 2019 #47
It's not a misframe. The story actually justifies patriarchical oppression marylandblue Mar 2019 #50
Or, it explains the family dynamic of Bronze Age humans. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #53
Yes, another one of nature's cruel ironies. marylandblue Mar 2019 #55
Very astute observation. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #56
Non-response, part 1593 from you. trotsky Mar 2019 #63
The ancient Indians spoke of the Unity of Creation thousands of years before. Their teachings c-rational Mar 2019 #60
I would never say that the Creator can only be found in the wrods of the Bible. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #68
G., I never mentioned a Creator, only Unity and Creation. c-rational Mar 2019 #81
True. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #82
God writes in English? edhopper Mar 2019 #64
But of course. English IS the language of the gods. MineralMan Mar 2019 #65
Well, we know edhopper Mar 2019 #67
Of course they did! MineralMan Mar 2019 #70
I write in English. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #69
But the story of Adam and Eve edhopper Mar 2019 #71
An interesting question. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #73
That is such a stretch edhopper Mar 2019 #75
No doubt. You are bilingual. MineralMan Mar 2019 #72
Google translate is an incredible resource. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #74
It is. However, poorly written original MineralMan Mar 2019 #76
As you well know, english speakers generally use very few verb forms when speaking. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #77
Yes. I'm always conscious of that when I write for translation MineralMan Mar 2019 #78
Here's a sentence in English I tested in a Google translation to French: MineralMan Mar 2019 #79
Excellent example. guillaumeb Mar 2019 #80

hurl

(976 posts)
2. Its role is to be suppressed
Tue Mar 26, 2019, 09:48 PM
Mar 2019

Seems to me the Bible suppresses inspiration by claiming to already have answers. A case in point comes from the quoted material: "Our answer to all this is that the Creator, who was the architect of the very concept of infinity, had the energy beyond infinity to bring about the Big Bang."

Unfortunately, that answer is no more explanatory than, "Magic happened."

"We don't know" would have been a perfectly fine and more accurate answer. Indeed, that answer would inspire us to seek more knowledge. Therein lies true inspiration, as I see it. Inspiration compels us to want to learn more rather than rely on an unfalsifiable answer.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
10. In the 12th century, Nahmanides provided an explanation that is remarkably
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 09:52 AM
Mar 2019

like the Big Bang theory. And he did so far earlier than scientists.

The point is that the Bible can be read, and is read, in multiple levels, and a focus on the literal reading misses the rest.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
3. It's making connections where there are none.
Tue Mar 26, 2019, 10:49 PM
Mar 2019

Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2019, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)

The y chromosome is not an X without one little piece like a rib or a leg. It's a tiny little nothing compared to an X. It's about 1/10 the size. And it started out as an X, so if we are going to be scientifically accurate, Adam would have been made from Eve's rib.

Nahmanides said something that sounds sort of like the Big Bang. He said lots of things. He speculated. He was a smart guy. Maybe if he were born in the 20th Century, he would have been a great physicist. But he was a 12th Century Rabbi so all he could do was speculate.

Now if he had said there was no real Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden was a metaphor for the dawn of civilization, that would have been something. But then nobody would have believed him and they probably would have burned all his books. As a Jew in the 12th century, he's lucky they didn't burn him anyway for not believing that Christ literally rose from the dead.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
11. The role of metaphoric language in the Bible.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 09:55 AM
Mar 2019

Nahmanides had no education in physics. What prompted him to speculate about something, and describe it so accurately, 800 years before scientists arrived at the same theory?

Yes, he was undoubtedly intelligent, but what, or who, was the inspiration for this?

And he did speak for a metaphoric reading of the Bible, and for that he had to leave his home country.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
16. Now you are avoiding connections where they exist
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 10:30 AM
Mar 2019

He studied medicine, philosophy, and Kabbalah. This would have included physics. Kabbalah is based in neo-Platonic thought. He may or may not have known this.

Fifteen hundred years before Nahmanides, the philosopher Democritus proposed the existence of atoms. He made no claim to divine inspiration, just rational thought. He had no way to test his theory, nonetheless, he gets credit for the idea. Does this require we assume some sort of external "inspiration" like nobody in ancient times could ever speculate accurately?

He was not forced into exile for metaphorical thinking. He was forced into a disputation about the Bible with a Christian monk. He argued well, so he was brought up on charges and forced to leave.

And he never said the creation story was NOT literal. As all Jews and Christians of his day said, the Bible has BOTH literal and metaphorical meaning. But to my knowledge, none of them said there was never a literal Adam and Eve, or that any historical narrative in the Bible didn't actually happen.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
17. There was no field of physics.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 10:49 AM
Mar 2019

As to inspiration versus insight, I make no claim for either possibility.

And Nahmanides argued that the Bible must be read literally and figuratively. Some parts are strictly literal, others are not.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
33. No field of physics? What's this?
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 12:26 PM
Mar 2019

[link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_(Aristotle)

You are mischaracterizing Nachmanides' view. He believed that every word of the Bible was literal. All the historical stories were accurate. Jonah was really eaten by a big fish, not that it was a made up story or that he dreamed about giant guppies. He also believed that the story had metaphorical meaning, that is, the fish represented something. But it was a real fish.

And though you say you make no claim about insight vs. inspiration, your question and answers seems to imply that it could have been inspiration. Once again, you are making unclear claims so you can plausibly deny saying anything at all.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
4. Neither
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 12:16 AM
Mar 2019

The whole chromosome thing was discarded ages ago.

There is no clear line between men and women, gender is weird and complex and we have religion to thank for making it a million times harder than it should be.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
7. What's additionally upsetting is by doing this, guillaumeb is reinforcing sexist stereotypes...
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 08:44 AM
Mar 2019

and the antiquated binary notion of gender. He doesn't seem to care though, as long as he can promote his religious beliefs.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
20. The truth hurts, I understand.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 11:37 AM
Mar 2019

You, like the RCC, apparently have a difficult time accepting that people are more complicated than a pair of chromosomes.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
21. Yep
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 11:38 AM
Mar 2019

The whole chromosome bit is used to reinforce sexism. It's now known (and probably always was, tbh) to not be the case, they come in all manner of combinations, and gender is a very complex thing. And there's no difference between sex and gender either, but we let that stay cause too much at once is confusing for people and they already get violent at the suggestion that the binary is wrong.

Amazing the all the things that have nothing to do with religion have been fundimentaly shaped by it.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
18. Wrong then and wrong now
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 11:34 AM
Mar 2019

Maybe update your genetics? (Learning, not personal, I would never force transhumanism on anyone)

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
40. I don't have to argue with science
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 03:21 PM
Mar 2019

I'm telling you your whole basis about the chromosome thing is wrong. It is not science.

And once you get to bringing science into it, you don't get to hide behind metaphors anymore.

MineralMan

(147,445 posts)
6. "Nahmanides said, speaking of creation:"
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 08:27 AM
Mar 2019

Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2019, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

That would be more accurate if "said" were replaced with "speculated." At the time he wrote that, nobody knew anything about black holes or cosmological theories. People have been speculating about cosmic origins since humans first looked at the night sky. Almost any concept you can imagine has been thought of to explain it. It's not inspiration; it's just imaginative thinking. Cherry-picking uninformed speculations retroactively is not a logical process.

Your chromosome thing, though, is way off the mark.


guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
14. Interestring that his speculation was so accurate.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 10:01 AM
Mar 2019

Almost as if he were inspired by something.

And the XX/XY explanation, rendered metaphorically, is accurate.

MineralMan

(147,445 posts)
39. How is that interesting?
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 01:54 PM
Mar 2019

Let's take a look at Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 1. For nostalgia's sake, i'll quote from the KJV

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water.

So everything was formless, empty, and dark. God couldn't see, so he made some light.

Now, try to envision such a situation from a 11th or 12th century perspective. Where was everything? It's not a stretch to imagine that it was all packed into a tiny space, waiting to expand into the actual unverse instead of a black dot in the void.

That's one of the possibilities. Maybe the most likely one.

So, God figuratively poked the little dot with his stick and it ended the equilibrium and everything happened, expanding so fast you can't even imagine it. A flash of light, too, might have been part of such an event, since enormous energy would have been released in the explosion.

Your ancient Jewish philosopher might have seen it that way as a possible explanation for Genesis 1: 1-3. Maybe God took his stick and stirred up the mess to try to sort it out. I have no freaking idea.

Or, maybe there wasn't any God, and the thing just spontaneously expanded into the universe. That seems even more likely, since where did this God come from and where did he get that stick?

Imagination, trying to fill in the gaps in the story in some way. The old guy's sitting around, scratching a flea bite on his arse, and it comes to him.

Once again, the initial premise is that God exists. Ignore that, and it doesn't matter. The Universe is. It seems to have expanded from a point source. The trouble is that the Genesis account doesn't stop there. It immediately has God stirring things around with his stick, making stuff and critters. There's much more to creation that the initial moment. Maimonides just imagined one possible scenario

Really, it's all just part of a lot of Jewish philosophers over the centuries trying to interpret Genesis in one way or another. There are many stories.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
44. Metaphor.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 03:56 PM
Mar 2019

I understand that there are many literalists here, and in this group, most seem to be atheists.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
8. Your understanding of biology and sex chromosomes is laughably weak.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 08:47 AM
Mar 2019

"Men are XY, and women are XX."

Not only is that transphobic and sexist, but...

https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm


guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
13. Read:
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 09:59 AM
Mar 2019

The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila), some snakes, and some plants (Ginkgo). In this system, the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes. Females typically have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males typically have two different kinds of sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

And that is the general understanding. No one said that they were the only possible combinations, but they are the most likely.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
19. Sexist transphobic bullshit is not welcome here, g.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 11:37 AM
Mar 2019

XX and XY doesn't tell the story of human sexuality and gender. It does no one any good for you to push antiquated binary bigotry.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
26. Refute this actual science:
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 11:59 AM
Mar 2019
How sex is determined
Humans have an additional pair of sex chromosomes for a total of 46 chromosomes. The sex chromosomes are referred to as X and Y, and their combination determines a person's sex. Typically, human females have two X chromosomes while males possess an XY pairing. This XY sex-determination system is found in most mammals as well as some reptiles and plants....

It is important to remember that sex and gender have two separate definitions and many cultures include more labels than simply "male" and "female" to identify others.


https://www.livescience.com/27248-chromosomes.html

You might be confused as to the terms.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
27. The actual science is what refutes YOU.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 12:02 PM
Mar 2019

From the link:

Typically, human females have two X chromosomes while males possess an XY pairing.


Your claim in the OP:
Men are XY, and women are XX.


Your thinking is binary, and refuted by the actual science.

Another trainwreck for you. I'm loving it, as usual.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
29. Unfortunately for your attempted point,
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 12:07 PM
Mar 2019

I said this earlier:

And that is the general understanding. No one said that they were the only possible combinations, but they are the most likely.

You seem honestly confused by the terms sex and gender identity.


Biological Theories of Gender

People often get confused between the terms sex and gender. Sex refers to biological differences between males and females. For example, chromosomes (female XX, male XY), reproductive organs (ovaries, testes), hormones (oestrogen, testosterone).

Gender refers to the cultural differences expected (by society / culture) of men and women according to their sex. A person’s sex does not change from birth, but their gender can.
In the past people tend to have very clear ideas about what was appropriate to each sex and anyone behaving differently was regarded as deviant.
Today we accept a lot more diversity and see gender as a continuum (i.e. scale) rather than two categories. So men are free to show their “feminine side” and women are free to show their “masculine traits”.


https://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
32. Only you could argue with yourself and call it a victory.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 12:15 PM
Mar 2019

I will simply remind everyone again that these are YOUR WORDS from the OP:

Men are XY, and women are XX.


You made ZERO room for exceptions. The rest of this thread has been your desperate, pathetic attempts to try and claim you didn't actually say what you said, rather than simply apologizing and retracting your bullshit claim.

I'm done now. Have your precious last word and throw in another insult to my intelligence if it makes you feel better.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
35. You seem to be ignoring intersex and androgen insensitivity.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 12:53 PM
Mar 2019

If God was going to give us the science on this, he really should have advised us that there were people who didn't fit neatly into either category, in both physical and mental capacities. It would have prevented a lot of harm over the last three thousand years. Instead, he told us the opposite and caused those people harm.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
45. No, that is the God presented in the Bible.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 04:04 PM
Mar 2019

Of course, if it's all just a metaphor, I'd argue that the God of the Bible is a metaphor for a cruel capricious universe that demands we placate it with the blood of others. We can see that circumcision, animal sacrifice, genocide, and the crucifixion are all metaphors for the price of life being in blood, for that which is dead cannot grow, but only disintegrate.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
46. Adam and Eve were free to eat the apple.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 04:09 PM
Mar 2019

A puppet master would have prevented that.

Speaking, of course, of the metaphoric story.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
49. Speaking of a cruel and capricious universe
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 04:15 PM
Mar 2019

Such a universe would present innocent creatures with harmful choices that they do not understand. How could they know that dying was a bad thing in a world that had no death? Likewise, in the real world, we make choices we don't understand and can pay a dreadful price in unexpected consequences.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
51. Do you argue for a sentient universe?
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 04:17 PM
Mar 2019

You might be straying into theism.

Can the Creator truly be separate from the creation?

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
66. I respect your faith based observation.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:06 AM
Mar 2019

Again, you are walking close to that theist/atheist line.

But if you are an agnostic, that makes sense.

MineralMan

(147,445 posts)
57. No creator is required at all.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 07:09 PM
Mar 2019

There is no evidence for one, either. No need, no evidence, no Creator. Sorry. So, show me the need, show me the evidence, and I'll entertain the idea.

I'll wait here...

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
58. What constitutes evidence in the absence of knowledge of the Creator's nature?
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 07:13 PM
Mar 2019

But in the absence of evidence, or in the absence of what constitutes evidence, people rely on faith.

You have no need. You have said this before. Understood.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
42. But Trotsky
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 03:25 PM
Mar 2019

His wikipedia clapback to your .edu article collapsed your entire argument!

Why don't you submit to his outdated pseudoscience in regards to gender!

FBaggins

(27,599 posts)
28. If God we're said to have created Eve from Adam's little finger...
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 12:05 PM
Mar 2019

... would you try to figure out why men don’t have one fewer finger?

FBaggins

(27,599 posts)
31. No it wouldn't
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 12:14 PM
Mar 2019

In an entirely literal reading of the story, Adam would have one fewer finger...

... but there's no reason to believe that this would change his DNA so that all male offspring after that point had only nine fingers.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
37. Metaphor is not a license to make interpretations wildly at variance
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 01:04 PM
Mar 2019

from the text and cultural context. If it were, I could argue the Bible says just about anything. Do you think there is something I could not make the Bible say just by claiming its a metaphor? Try me. Pick an idea, any idea, no matter how far fetched or abhorrent, and I'll find it in the Bible and call it a metaphor.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
38. And not only is your science atrocious bullshit, your metaphor is as well.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 01:06 PM
Mar 2019

Why push the patriarchal notion that women came from men? Why perpetuate the primacy of men?

The rib story was used to support the notion that MEN were god's creation, and women were an afterthought.

Sexist antiquated bigoted rubbish. Throw it on the trash heap of bad ideas.

You should be ashamed.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
41. Genesis is arguably the worst part of the bible
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 03:24 PM
Mar 2019

Why someone would want to defend it I have no idea.

I could go more into it, but I respect my time, and I know he'd hyper-fixate on a spelling error, or some literal interpretation of something I typed and ignore the content.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
50. It's not a misframe. The story actually justifies patriarchical oppression
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 04:17 PM
Mar 2019

Eve's curse was that her husband would be her lord but she will desire his love.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
55. Yes, another one of nature's cruel ironies.
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 04:23 PM
Mar 2019

Not only will her husband lord over her, he will write a book that says it's her own fault.

c-rational

(2,863 posts)
60. The ancient Indians spoke of the Unity of Creation thousands of years before. Their teachings
Wed Mar 27, 2019, 07:59 PM
Mar 2019

also speak in harmony with the physicists of this century predicting the Big Bang. I tend to believe they simply have greater insight to Truth.

edhopper

(34,724 posts)
71. But the story of Adam and Eve
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:31 AM
Mar 2019

premeditated that one day, thousands of years from then, English speaking people would use Y and X (which look nothing like that in Aramaic) to describe chromosomes?
So this Bronze Age writer used the metaphor of the rib to describe it to the future English speakers.

edhopper

(34,724 posts)
75. That is such a stretch
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:55 AM
Mar 2019

This is a Yod


A short squiggle looks like many things, but not really like this.

Looking for patterns, even farfetched ones like this, is a human trait.

This Bible Code bullshit is unsubstantiated hooey.

MineralMan

(147,445 posts)
72. No doubt. You are bilingual.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:37 AM
Mar 2019

Currently, I do not participate in any non-English sites. When I was in the mineral specimen business, however, I sometimes had to correspond in email with international customers whose English was not sufficient for the task. That was always interesting. Eventually, I learned how to use Google Translate well enough to communicate seamlessly in several languages. A lot of it had to do with how carefully I wrote in English and using back-translation to find and correct inadvertent errors. Some emails required several passes before I felt they were OK to send.

Before long, I developed a specifically limited vocabulary and clean business writing style in English which translated accurately using Google Translate. These days, those online translations have improved considerably, but proper preparation and use of English with translation in mind remains crucial. Also, learning the conventions of polite correspondence in each language was very important. The Internet is very helpful with such things.

Of course, I always disclosed that I was using Google translate, and that I was not fluent in whatever language I was using.

MineralMan

(147,445 posts)
76. It is. However, poorly written original
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 11:56 AM
Mar 2019

communications end up being translated poorly by Google Translate. The output in the target language depends on the source language's structure.

To achieve accurate results, one must forgo using colloquialisms and complex grammatical structures in English. And no matter what you write as the original, it's essential to back-translate the result. If it is not a perfect match for the original, then editing the original content is essential.

Using complex sentences, conditional phrases, and language-specific shortcuts are a mistake. Even common contractions often do not translate properly. Simple declarative sentences and questions, using unambiguous words, translate best. English is full of words with multiple meanings. Google Translate tries, but is often unable to use context to determine which meaning is intended. Wherever possible, word choices that are unambiguous and specific to your meaning are best.

Still, Google Translate continues to improve its capabilities. In the several years I have been using it, it has made giant strides, at least in translating to most European languages. The most comical errors I saw in corresponding with mineral collectors were with collectors in Japan. I do not know Japanese at all. Many times my original in English had to go through multiple back-translations before returning to me unchanged. Still, I heard compliments on my Japanese from several customers, despite my knowing no Japanese at all.

Often, translating to English from other languages is a challenge, because the writer doesn't understand Google Translate's limitations. However, creative interpretation usually can figure out what was meant.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
77. As you well know, english speakers generally use very few verb forms when speaking.
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 12:00 PM
Mar 2019

In French, we have many forms that are rarely seen in English, but these forms convey specific information c that can be lost in translation.

At the University level, I would se it constantly among Anglophone students in French literature classes. They would use the incorrect tense but in a conversational setting, intent can be determined.

AMHO.

MineralMan

(147,445 posts)
78. Yes. I'm always conscious of that when I write for translation
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 12:04 PM
Mar 2019

into French. Russian has similar issues. I do know how to write in English to generate the verb forms I want.

I learned far more about grammar by studying French and Russian than I ever did in English.

MineralMan

(147,445 posts)
79. Here's a sentence in English I tested in a Google translation to French:
Thu Mar 28, 2019, 12:48 PM
Mar 2019

"I might have flown to Paris next week if my wife had not been hired by a new company."

Here's what Google came up with, which back-translated perfectly to my original:

J'aurais peut-être pris l'avion pour Paris la semaine prochaine si ma femme n'avait pas été embauchée par une nouvelle société.

This sort of illustrates the issue you mentioned about verb forms. Now, if I saw that sentence in French, I would understand it just fine. However, I could not possibly speak it in French directly from my own thoughts. Four years of high school French is simply not adequate preparation for that.

On the other hand, I was able to write an English sentence that would translate properly and back-translate to the identical English. But, would a French speaker with four years of taking English classes have been able to speak the English sentence directly? I doubt it. English is just as complex in its grammar, but uses different methods to deal with those conditional and tense complexities. English is also a bit more efficient in expressing the same thought and uses fewer words.

The languages are quite different, but can both express the same sentence.

I would not write such a sentence, however, in a business correspondence. I would write much more simply to ensure a good translation. I would probably write:

I planned to fly to Paris next week. However, my wife was hired for a new job.

That also translated correctly in Google Translate:

Je prévoyais de voler à Paris la semaine prochaine. Cependant, ma femme a été embauchée pour un nouvel emploi.

In that case, I could say those sentences in French after thinking for a moment. They are within my active speaking abilities. So, I would be more comfortable using the English in composing a business letter. In that case, as well, I might still have used Google Translate and back-translated to make certain, as well as to avoid typing the French with its diacritical markings.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»What is the role of inspi...